Evening star., 1940-05-01
were included, Mr.. Blankenhorn

were lnCiuQeo, MI. biankennOrn
added.
Evidence that an NJ L. r. B. region
al office tried to discourage an inde-
pendent union at the National Cash
Register Co.'S plant at Dayton, Ohio
hoping its members would afIiliate
with the c. I. O., was given yester-
day.
Several witnesses-officers of the
union and an official of the COM
pany-testified that Philip G.. Phil
lips, regional director at Cincinnati,
refused to have anything to do with
the organiza ton which admittedly
had majority of the $500 employees
at the plant.
Union Attorney Testifies.
Irwin Carl Delscamp, attorney for
the union, testified that Mr.. Phil
lips suggested that he attempted to
sell your union" on the idea of
Withdrawing for three months and
then reorganizing.
Mr.. Delscamp said that when he
threatened to file with the Labor
Board petition to compel the COM
pany to recognize the union, the
regional director retorted:
If you do, I will dismiss it in
stanter."
William Harry Creamer, president,
and W. o. Shiveley. secretary, of
the National Cash Register Inde-
pendent Employees Union. testified
that Mr.. Phillips refused them any
information when they sought board
certification as the valid collective
bargaining agency. He described
their organization, they said, as an
illegitimate union, using more pro-
fame epithet.
Files Disclose Phillips Worried.
Yet Mr.. Phillips, the committee
learned from board files introduced
in evidence by Mr.. Toland, wrote the
board. December 8, 1898:
Il am extremely worried about
this case. A couple of months ago
the company agreed to dis-establish
Its old employe representation plan.
Notices were posted on the bulletin
boards to that effect and letters
written to the officials of the COM
pany union.
Immediately thereafter the same
group who were ofi1cials of the COM
pany union, together with new block.
set out to form a streamlined in
dependent. There is no evidence
whatever Of company interference
in the formation of the new union;
there is no evidence whatever of
any favoritism shown by the COM
pany to the new union; there is no
evidence upon which to predicate a
violation of the act (the Wagner
Act, unless we can argue that be-
cause there are among officials of
the new organization several who
were leaders in the old, that there
has not been sufficient dis-estab-
lishment of the old. The new group
has signed up approximately $500
out of 5000 employees of the plant.
The company refuses to recognize
the new group until they are Ger
titled by the board"
Reciting that the G. I. O., also
in the plant, would oppose q consent
election to determine the bargaining
agency, Mr.. Phillips added: II don't
see how we would help certifying
them If we held a hearing, yet I
query, under the circumstances
aforementioned, whether hearing
should be held. Yet, If we do dismiss
the petition, we would be violently
accused Of partiality."
The company had been charged
with two violations of the Wagner
Act-alleged dismissal Of three
G. I. o. employees because of union
activity and asserted domination Of
an independent union. The latter
charge eventually was settled by
stipulation. One Of the discharged
employees was reinstated with back
pay. The case Of the other two still
Is pendin before the board.