Evening star., 1943-05-31
Denies Accuracy
Of AFL Contention
Counsel for NLRB Insists
Kaiser Contracts Are Invalid
And Should Be Set Aside

To the Editor Of The Star:
You already have spiked the uncon-
scionable accusation which John P. Frey,
president of the AFL Metal Trades De-
partment, made in letter appearing in
your issue of May 24-that you had been
victimized and imposed upon to ignore
the facts in the writing of your editorial,
"The Kaiser Case"
Permit me to direct attention to other
statements in Mr.. Frey's letter which
require brief comment in the interest of
accuracy.
First, the assertion is made that the
closed shop provisions of the contracts
now the subject of hearings before the
NLRB were fully known to every phase
Of Washington officialdom having any
concern with them" before execution.
And it is further said that representa-
tive of the Maritime Commission has
just testified before House committee
that "the agreement had the official
blessing Of DR.. Mills, the chairman of
the NLRB." Reference to the record of
the Kaiser hearings, however, discloses
that in some 5000 pages of testimony so
far taken not one word of evidence has
been offered to show that the AFL
closed shop contracts were at any time
ever referred for approval to the NLRB,
its chairman or any member of its staff.
The plain fact Is that no such approval
was ever sought or given. Nor does the
testimony of the Maritime Commission
employe, when read as given instead of
as interpreted by Mr.. Frey, speak to
the contrary. This employe explicitly
testified that ito the establishment of
the zone standards there has never been
single objection raised by the NLRR."
In so doing, he referred to the West
Coast zone stabilization agreement, an
entirely different document dealing only
with such matters as zone standards of
pay. This was the only agreement in
respect to the negotiation of which vari-
Gus Government officials participated,
and, as Mr.. Frey well knows since he
signed it, contains absolutely no refer
ence whatever to the subject of the
closed shop
Second, Mr.. Frey offers ito prove fur
ther the deception that has been prac-
ticed upon you" the fact that not one
of the ZOO aggrieved employees" dis
charged because of the closed-shop pro-
visions in the Kaiser contracts, has been
called as witness in the board hearing
now in progress. The only deception in
this matter is that attempted in Mr..
Freys letter. The reason that these
men were not called is that the sworn
answers of the respondent Kaiser COM
panies on file in the present proceedings
admit the allegation that said employees,
and each of them, were discharged and
have been denied reinstatement or re-
employment because they were not
members of or did not have work per-
unions, or one of them, or because their
discharge was requested by the AFL
unions, or one of them Witnesses are
not called to prove admitted facts.
Despite Mr.. Frey. the issue in the
Kaiser cases remains perfectly simple
as pointed out in your editorial Were
the AFL closed-shop contracts-made
when 66 men were employed in one yard,
1872 in another and none in third, and
yet covering what Mr. Frey states are
10000 workers thereafter employed
valid under existing law? The boards
complaint alleges that these contracts
are invalid, and the relief sought is to
set them aside in order that these 80 900
American workers may be free to choose
for themselves, as the law says they may,
their representatives for purposes of COL
lective bargaining. The AFL unions and
the companies are, on the contrary as
serting that the contracts made by these
handfuls of men can and do vaidly bind
the 10000. A full and open hearing is
now in progress to elicit all the facts.
Upon the record so made, first the board
and then the courts will decide the issue.
ROBERT B. WATTS,
General Counsel, National Labor Re-
lations Board.