Evening star., 1940-02-06
Bulletin.
BY CARTER BROOKE JONES.

BY CARTER BROOKE JONES.
Nathan Witt, secretary of the
National Labor Relations Board,
testifying today before the House
committee investigating the board,
called simply fantastic" some of
the charges made against him by
William M. Leiserson, board
member.
The husky one-time Brooklyn
taxi driver used the expression in
discussing DR.. Leiserson's testimony
that the secretary inspired" a tele-
gram from the c. I. o. Screen
Writer'S Guild in Hollywood pro-
testing against delay In case
which 1t had brought against Uni
versal Pictures.
II get enough Of these communi-
cations as secretary Of the board
without inspiring them," Mr.. Witt
snapped.
The witness said he had nothing
to do with the inception of the
case.
The committee previously was
shown by board minutes that DR..
Leiserson had sought to get rid
OF Mr.. Witt, charging him with
being unfit for the position.
Mr.. Witt also denied testimony
by a former regional director that
he had suggested petitions by in
dependent unions be placed in the
Ice box"
Favoritism Charges Denied.
As Charles Fahy, general counsel
OF the board, continued to present
Its defense, he called Robert N.
Cowdrill, regional director at In
dianapolis. Mr.. Cowdrill declared
there was no truth in the charge
that he had favored the c. I. O..
and Disseminated against the A.
F.. L.
This charge was made by Theo-
dore M. Freter, then, an attorney
in the Indianapolis Office. now a
guard at the District Work House
at Occoquan, Va.
Mr.. Cowdrill admitted he might
have criticised Mr.. Freter for his
investigations in, two cases, but de-
MED he ever told him, as Mr.. Freter
testified that, failure to sustain
the charges is your fault-the union
would not have brought them unless
they had merit"
Earlier, Board Chairman ]. War
rem Madden was questioned further
by Committee Chairman Smith re-
garding the boards view that an
employer could be required to pay
back wages to a worker he had re-
fused to hire solely because Of union
Affiliations. =.
Declared "shocked."
Chairman Smith, who described
himself as shocked" at this con-
struction of the law when Mr.. Mad
den described 1t yesterday, asked If 1t
would not be equally true that If an
employer refused to take on q man
because he did not belong to a
union that also would be q violation
Of the law.
ut would" said Mr.. Madden, "un-
less there was a closed shop contract
at the plant"
Representative Smith asked if 1t
were not true the board had failed
until last summer, when it amended
Its rules, to allow an employer to
petition for an employe election to
determine the appropriate bargain
ing unit. Mr.. Madden said it was.
"Since then, in how many cases
has the board granted a petition of
an employer for an election?" asked
the committee chairman.
Mr.. Madden said the board ma
chinery had reached the stage of an
election in only one case.
Executive Session Today.
With the committee planning to
60 into executive session some time
late today to determine whether 1t
will give the board more time, Mr..
Fahy called Mr.. Madden back to
the stand briefly, then placed Mr..
Witt on the stand.
Mr.. Witt denied he or the board
had recommended dismissal of q
petition by an American Federation
Of Labor union, as asserted in the
testimony of James P. Miller, former
regional director of the board at
Cleveland.
Mr.. Miller himself suggested this,
the secretary said.