Evening star., 1934-02-26

4Le OTO N1OlOE ~ Is OtlQST III
vestigation by N. r. AS National
Compliance Board in a new outbreak
of the feud between the two.
The board said 1t had quite def
mite charges" about violations of
collective bargaining clause at Ford
assembly plants at Edgewater, N. j.,
and Chester, Pa. 1t notified Edsel
Ford that in view of the company's
refusal to send a representative here
1t would investigate.
The Ford company submitted a de-
tailed answer to the complaints, but
it refused to be represented at a secret
hearing here last Friday. William H.
Davis, compliance director, said that
unless there was a change of attitude
he would proceed"
In the detailed answer the Ford
company held lin our opinion. the
answer and exhibits which have been
already sent to you are more than
sufficient to disprove, beyond any pos
sibility of doubt. the complaint that
this company violated section of
the code for the automobile manu-
featuring industry"
Section is the clause forbid
ding employer interference with the
organization of workers and binding
the employer to recognize worker rep
resentatives to negotiate on employe
demands.
Davis Makes Reply.
That letter, signed by B. j. Craig,
secretary of the Ford company. drew
a reply from William H. Davis, the
compliance director, which, addressed
TO the attention Of EdSel Ford, said
In part:
The purpose of the hearing on
Friday was to try to eliminate, by
hearing both sides, any dispute about
what actually occurred. Your decision
not to be represented nor to take any
part in the hearing has made it I'M
possible to pursue the investigation
in that way, or to bring it promptly
to a conclusion.
There are before me quite definite
charges, in addition to the charges
about the Edgewater incident. that
NA4C OAo OllAH4OSNo az SAASSSSA "ClS
locked out with the effect that at
tempts they are said to have been
making to bargain with the company
through their chosen representatives
were defeated.
1T would be helpful if you could
see your way clear to continue to CO.
operate with me i'll the investigation
Of all these charges, but if not, shall
proceed with my investigation OF
them without your cooperation"
Duty to Investigate Charges.
On February Is Davis had acknoWl-
edged receipt of the Ford answer to
complaint of alleged violation of the
code by stating that it was the duty
of the compliance division to inveSti-
gate charges and that the presence of
representatives at the Friday meeting
was requested.
In view of your allegation on page
three Davis went On, that the
Edgewater employees were, by threats,
demonstrations and other methods of
coercion. persuaded or forced to walk
out or strike, We believe it advisable
that you have the superintendent of
IIlC SIlSSJtl pldllI (OlIlC uOWIl.
"On page seven of the reply is
statement that large number of men
at EdgeWater had been re-employed
We would like to know whether
similar procedure was followed at
Chester, and, if not, whether it is
now possible to put it into effect"
The original Ford answer to the
complaints contained a recital OF the
events at Edgewater, prefaced by
declaration that the data submitted
to the company constituted not
formal complaint with speclflc
charges but brief of facts signed
bv ], Glen Anderson, who purports
to be the attorney for and counsel
with the striking employees in ques-
ton
Reply Out Of Courtesy to Board.
"Under these circumstances, said
the Ford letter and with no specific
charges based upon sworn complaint,
this company does not feel under any
obligation to make any reply to an
attorneys brief of facts. but, out OF
respect for your honorable body, 1t IS
the pleasure of my company to submit
for your consideration the facts of the
case. which will be found to be widely
at variance with the miSStatements
and partial statements contained in
the So-called brief of facts.
"In making this reply, out of cour-
tesy to your National Compliance
Board, it must be further understood
that the Ford Motor Co. does not waive
any right that it has in the matter of
this controversy either by reason of the
fact that it has not signed the auto
mobile code or by reason of the pro-
lection given to such company in the
matter of liberty of contract by the
Constitution of the United States
There followed a statement that
no violation of the code or recovery
act had occurred: that the company
had never denied its employees the
right to bargain collectively through
their own representatives, nor had IT
Disseminated against any employees
because of union membership.