Evening star., 1940-01-19
Reinstatement Asked
For Dishonest Men,
n. |. R. B. Quiz Told
Examiner Expressed View
Union Activities Did Not
Cause Discharge
BACKGROUND


Cause Discharge
BACKGROUND
Special House Committee head
ed by Representative Smith OF
Virginia has uncoDered evidence
OF dissension on National Labor
Relations Board and of alleged
pdrtiality OF certain employees
toUdrd c. I. o. since hearings
tDere started in December on hoD
Wagner Act has operated. Com
mittee iDas empowered to inDesti-
gate board and recommend any
necessary amendments to act.
, BY CARTER BROOKE JONES.
Letters from the files of the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board dis
closed today to the House Commit
tee investigating the Labor Board
that a trial examiner conducting
a hearing wrote he was convinced
at least four of five discharged en-
ployes had been cheating in their
work, but after hearing from his
Washington Office he recommended
that three of these workers be re-
instated.
The trial examiner, Joseph F..
Herman, hearing case at Madison,
Wis, wrote when inclosing his re-
port to Chief Trial Examiner George
o. Pratt expressing hope it would
meet with approval and adding:
II feel that I have gone as strong
as I can for the union"
In another letter Trial Examiner
Herman said that, while he was "at
heart in favor of the employees" he
did not think they or some en-
thusiastic attorney for the board
should put the board in the nine
hole"
Edmund M. Toland, committee
counsel, produced and had George
o. Pratt, chief triaf examiner for
the board, identify letter from Mr..
Herman concerning the Burgess
Battery Co. of Madison. In the let
ter, addressed to the chief trial ex-
aminer, Mr.. Herman said:
In Favor of Employees.
II do not want to appear to be too
finicky in matters of this kind, and
I am at heart in favor of the en-
ployes, but do not believe that the
employees or some enthusiastic at
torney for the board should put the
board in the nine-hole."
Thu frio1 vvoiy,or vryI,n r,oc haor-
ing the case had written Mr.. Pratt
expressing belief that several men,
bers of the United Automobile
Workers &C. I. o. had been dis
missed for dishonesty and not for
union activities.
Later, Mr.. Toland brought out,
Mr.. Herman wrote Mr.. Pratt:
After receiving your letter, I re-
wrote my entire report.
Trust that it will meet with your
approval, and I feel that I have gone
as strong as I can for the union"
The trial examiner recommended
that three out of five employees who
had brought complaints be REIN
stated.
Mr.. Herman had written pre-
viously:
From my examination of the en-
tire record, and I have gone over
the record extremely carefully and
made a complete digest of all the
testimony in the case, it is my hon.
est opinion that at least four of
these men were cheating the tai
lies. From what decisions I have
read, the board will not stand for
cheating upon the part ct the en-
ployes."
Reason for Discharge.
In reply, the chief trial examiner
wrote:
"It seems to me that the question
in this case, as in all other cases of
discrimination, is the reason for the
discharge of the men involved. If
you find that the men were not dis
charged because of their union
membership or activity, that answers
the question. If you find that they
were discharged because of their
union membership or activity, the
fact that they had committed acts
which would have justified their dis
charge is not controlling. I do not
mean by this that the board. in any
way, condones dishonest practices.
I do mean, however, that the re-
spondent may not rely on the fact
that an employe has committed
some dishonest act as defense to a
charge that the employe was dis
missed because of his union aff1lia-
tion or activity when the evidence
shows that it was the employee S
union af1liation or activity and not
the dishonest practices which
caused his discharge"
In another letter Mr.. Kiernan
expressed grave doubts" whether
his work at Madison was any good
or not"
The trial examiner complained
that during the hearing he was
taken to task privately by board
attorney for the way the proceed
6 was conducted. One objection
was that the trial examiners
facial expressions" would lead the
strikers to think he was mot SYM
pathetic with them"
Mr.. Herman also wrote his chief
concerning w. G.. Stuart Sherman,
board attorney prosecuting the COM
plant brought by C. 1. o. union
against the Burgess Battery Co.:
II gave him the edge all the time.
Imade at least two very questionable
rulings on evidence, both in his be-
half"
The attorney, the presiding exam
liner said, had complained of the way
the hearing was conducted.
Mr.. Pratt was on the committee
witness stand while the Madison
case discussed and identified the
correspondence.
Cost Fixed at Million.
Earlier, officials of the Eagle
Picher Mining g. Smelling Co. OF
Joplin, Mo-, sent word to the COM
mittee that it will cost the corpora
ton more than $l,OO0,000 If the