The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-18

plete record of what happened
 Another case was that of the National Electric Products Cor poration of Pittsburgh. The inde- pendent union of its employees after the passage of the Wagner Act, had gone over to the Amer ican Federation of Labor. It had gone into Federal Court and ob- tained an order requiring Nation- al Electric to observe the contract signed with 1t.
 Board Orders
 The c. I. O. insisted that col- lective bargaining should be with its representatives, despite the contract and United States Court order. There followed a violent strike. Then came appeal to the Labor Board, which ordered the company to deal with the c. I. O. Thus the company had contradic- tory orders, one from the court and one from the Labor Board. The Board was experimentally flouting the Federal Court.
 When the company failed to carry out it's orders, the Labor Board called hearing and in- stituted an inquisition. So intol- erable was the attitude of the Ex- aminer that representatives of the company refused to go further and left the hearing.
 The hearing was not resumed. Belatedly the Labor Board or- dered an election to determine which union was in the majority, and the American Federation of Labor won.
 The Fansteel Metallurgical Cor poration of Chicago had sit-down troubles. The sheriff arrested and the courts convicted the trouble makers. The c. I. O. asked their reinstatement and the payment of $70,000 back wages to them. Til- ford E. Dudley, a youngster out of law school in 1881 who had worked for the Resettlemens Ad- ministration in Washington, sat in Judgment as the Trial Exam iner. Fansteel attorneys were re- fused subpoenas for witnesses, and evidence submitted in behalf of the c. I. O. vsls admitted, while similar evidence on the company's side was barred. Attempts to re- quire the c. I. O. to show the number of employees it had in the plant, majority being required before the company, under the law, must deal with it exclusively, were blocked. The c. I. O. never revealed its membership.
 Evidence Ruled Out
 In the case against Inland Steel of Chicago, brought as usual by the c. I. O., the Examiner ar. bitrarily instructed the official reporter to strike one bit of evil dence after another from the rec ord, when to transcribe and when not, what to substitute for lan- guage actually used.
 This being an open meeting which anybody had a right to re- cord, Inland brought it's own re- porter. The Examiner immediate ly attempted to assume the same authority over him.
 T instruct you specifically" he said in open court, that when the Trial Examiner says of the record you are not to transcribe."
 'The reporter is under instruc- tions from us," ventured the h. land attorney, Ito transcribe everything. and he will not desist nor withdraw until he is com- pelled to-"
 MT Reporter" storned the Trial Examiner, do you intend to take these instructions or miner"
 "Inasmuch as this is a public hearing" the reporter replied, T intend to take what IS said."
 MT. Reporter, may I request you to leave this place."
 T am not going to leave, your Honor"
 You will leave. Officer, do your duty" the Examiner ordered, and the bailiff led the reporter, fol- lowed by the company attorneys, from the chamber.
 The cases have cited appear to be typical. feel sure that I have no prejudice in this matter. My record gives plenty of evidence of my friendliness toward labor. It was while I was Governor of New Hampshire and before the Fed eral Social Secruity Act was passed that we enacted an unem-