Mr. SHAW. We gave radio talks and had meetings and presented our side of the question. Mr. HINKEL. And what was the purpose of these meetings and radio talks in presenting your side of the question? Was that to get the members of your club to work nights in these elections? Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir. I might add, too, that we had quite a group of people that were never in favor of either organization, but requested that we have this meeting, these meetings. Mr. HINKEL. Could you tell me the names of the unions that were ordered to be on the ballot by the Board? Mr. SHAW. The C. I. O. and A. F. of L. Mr. HINKEL. What were the names of the unions? Is that the United Automobile Workers of the C. I. O. and A. F. of L.? Mr. SHAW. The Automobile Workers; yes, sir. Mr. HINKEL. Could you tell me the results of that election that was held in the Delco-Remy plant? Mr. SHAW. I can. Neither, 2,774 votes; C. I. O., 2,454; A. F. of L., 688; challenged votes, not counted, 185. Mr. HINKEL. Mr. Shaw, in connection with the statement you have made, the results of that election, I will ask you if you have ever seen this document I place before you. Mr. SHAW. I have. Mr. HINKEL. The document just identified by the witness is entitled "United States of America, Before the National Labor Relations Board, Seventh Region, Elections Report," and it is signed by Frank H. Bowen, regional director of the seventh region. I offer this in evidence. (The elections report entitled "United States of America, Before the National Labor Relations Board, Seventh Region, Elections Report" was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1296," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. HINKEL. This is a very lengthy document, and I will just read the parts of it connected with the Delco-Remy plant, because all of the General Motors plants are involved in this particular Detroit area. The result as given by Mr. Bowen of the election as it appears on page 39 of this exhibit is as follows: Total valid votes cast-- Total number of votes for A. F. of L.-International Union, United Total number of votes for C. I. O.-International Union, United Auto- 5, 916 688 2, 454 2,774 Now, Mr. Shaw, subsequent to the results of this election, did you in any way become acquainted with the statement made by Chairman Madden of the Labor Board either to the press or over the radio, concerning this election? Mr. SHAW. I did. Mr. HINKEL. In what manner? Mr. SHAW. He made a statement released by the United Press over radio station WIRE in Indianapolis that in regard to the election held in the Delco-Remy Corporation, Anderson, Ind., in his opinion there would be no run-off election because the Neither vote had a plurality vote, and I don't remember the rest of that broadcast. 218054-40-vol. 22-6 Mr. HINKEL. That was the essence, as far as you were concerned? Mr. SHAW. Yes. Mr. HINKEL. In connection with that, I will ask Mr. Emerson if he could procure either the press statement by Mr. Madden, or Mr. Madden's speech, if such is available. Mr. EMERSON. As far as I know, Mr. Madden never made any such statement as that. I am quite certain he didn't. Mr. HINKEL. You are quite certain he made no such statement? Did you actually hear Chairman Madden on the radio make the statement yourself? Mr. SHAW. No, sir. Mr. HINKEL. Did you contact members of your organization who heard such a statement? Mr. SHAW. Our attorney and a man by the name of Bob Beck both heard this broadcast over WIRE. Mr. HINKEL. In connection with that, would you procure statements from those men, and file them with the committee, so that we can place them in the record at this point? Mr. SHAW. I immediately sent a wire to Mr. Madden, and I received a letter acknowledging my wire, but no controversy on the matter. Mr. HINKEL. Do you have copies of that correspondence with you? Mr. SHAW. No. Mr. HINKEL. Will you procure copies of that so that we can place the wire that you sent and the answer of Chairman Madden in the record at this point? Mr. SHAW. I will. Mr. HINKEL. In further connection with this General Motors election at the Delco-Remy plant, the exhibit previously offered, Exhibit 1296, I would like to read just the parts that deal with the Delco-Remy division. Reading from page 42, section 7: That neither International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the A. F. L., nor International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. O., received a majority of the votes cast in the elections among the production and maintenance employees and mechanical employees in engineering department shops (eligible as defined in the Board's said Direction of Election) at the following plants, although the total vote cast in each said election for both the said unions was a majority of the total votes cast in each said election, the said plants being, to wit: Chevrolet Motor Division, Baltimore, Md. Fisher Body Division (Plant #40), Detroit, Mich. The Indiana plant is the one you were associated with? Mr. HINKEL. Reading now on page 43: On April 23, 1940, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the A. F. L., and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. O. duly filed with the undersigned requests in writing that a run-off election be conducted among the eligible production and maintenance employees and mechanical employees in engineering department shops in each of the three plants mentioned in paragraph 7 above by ballots affording a choice only between the said two labor organizations and without affording an opportunity to vote for neither union. Now, reading on page 46, paragraph 6 of the recommendations of Mr. Bowen: That run-off elections be conducted among the production and maintenance employees and mechanical employees in engineering department shops of the following plants of General Motors Corporation by ballots affording a choice only between International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the A. F. L. and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. O., the said plants being: Chevrolet Motor Division, Baltimore, Md. Fisher Body Division (Plant 40), Detroit, Mich. Delco-Remy Division, Anderson, Ind. Unless objections to this election report are filed with the undersigned within five (5) days after receipt thereof, the undersigned will destroy all the marked and challenged ballots cast in the elections herein reported. Now, Mr. Shaw, after the receipt of this election report that you identified as having seen before, what steps did you take? Mr. SHAW. I filed a protest, sent it to the regional director, and one to the Washington Board. Mr. HINKEL. Is this a copy of the protest that you filed? (Mr. Shaw examines document.) Mr. HINKEL. I offer it in evidence, Mr. Chairman. (Copy of protest on cases Nos. R-1721; R-1722, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, and 1731; also R-1724 and R-1730 was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1297," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. HINKEL. Unless the chairman desires, I shall not read this. protest. It is merely a protest by this group which Mr. Shaw, on behalf of the group of persons casting the ballots for "Neither," protesting against Mr. Bowen's recommendation that the "Neither" be left off the ballot in the run-off election, filed. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get for my own information the facts straightened out a little bit. I would like to ask a few questions. Now, your union was what, Mr. Shaw? Mr. SHAW. We are the "Neither" group. We wanted neither the A. F. L. or the C. I. O. The CHAIRMAN. You mean, you voted against both? Mr. SHAW. Yes. That was the group that were opposed to the unions. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Now, you did not belong to any union? Mr. SHAW. Yes, we had an organization, the D. R. E. A., the Delco-Remy Employees' Association, but they dropped us from the ballot because we had this case pending in the circuit court of appeals. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean they would not let you on the ballot at all? Mr. SHAW. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, because you could not go on the ballot with your union, you and your fellow members voted for neither union? Mr. SHAW. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And the only thing on the ballot, then, was the A. F. L. and the C. I. O.? Mr. SHAW. And the said "Neither." The CHAIRMAN. I know but only the two unions? Mr. SHAW. Yes. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And the union was not permitted the opportunity to vote? Mr. SHAW. Thas is right. The CHAIRMAN. And the result of the balloting was what? Mr. SHAW. The "Neither," 2,774. The CHAIRMAN. That was your people, no union at all? Mr. SHAW. Yes; 2,774. The CHAIRMAN. All right. And then? Mr. SHAW. 688. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what happened after that? Has anything happened after that? Mr. HINKEL. Yes; the regional director issued this report on elections in which he recommended that the "Neither" vote be dropped in the run-off election, and the C. I. O. and A. F. L. be kept. The CHAIRMAN. And that they be compelled to vote either for the C.I. O. or the A. F. L.? Mr. HINKEL. Yes. The Board as yet has not taken steps. This is just a recommendation. Mr. EMERSON. The Board has not ruled on this question as yet. The CHAIRMAN. What question? Mr. EMERSON. In the run-off election in this situation. The matter is still pending before the Board. What was read was the regional director's recommendation, but the Board has not passed on it. I would like to say, also, that the reason the Delco-Remy Employees' Association did not appear on the ballot was because the Board in matter of General Motors Corporation, 14 N. L. R. B. No. 8, found that association was a company-dominated labor organization. Therefore, it did not appear on the ballot. Mr. HINKEL. At present, Mr. Emerson, has that case not been brought before the circuit court of appeals? Mr. EMERSON. I understand that it has. Mr. HINKEL. By petition by the Board? Mr. EMERSON. I think so; yes. No decision has yet been made. Mr. HINKEL. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Now, where a situation such as that exists-and I will ask Mr. Emerson this-where there is a plurality on behalf of an independent union and the company holds it to be a companydominated union, and the matter then goes into court, would you hold an election until that question was determined by the courts? Mr. EMERSON. The Board's practice has been to hold elections. The CHAIRMAN. Then what remedy does the fellow have who wants to belong to an independent union? Mr. EMERSON. The remedy that these people apparently took; they can vote "No" on the ballot, or "Neither." The CHAIRMAN. But after they have voted "No," or "Neither," you propose to hold a run-off election in which they cannot vote at all. Mr. EMERSON. The Board has not decided what they are going to do. The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the director deciding? Mr. EMERSON. He had no power to decide the question. This was merely a recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. And if the rest of the Board feel like he does about it, then these boys have no remedy at all, have they? Mr. EMERSON. In the event that the Board dropped the "Neither" vote from the ballot, I assume there would be no way for them to express themselves against the other two unions. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they are dealt out. Mr. EMERSON. Well, that is Mr. TOLAND (interposing). That was the purpose for which this witness has been called, to show the state of affairs with respect to this case. Mr. HINKEL. In connection with that, I would like to introduce the decision of the Board In the Matter of R. K. LeBlond Machine Tool Co., Cincinnati Electrical Tool Co., and Independent Employees Organization, Case No. R-1655. Mr. TOLAND. The date? Mr. HINKEL. The date of the decision is the 1940. It does not appear exactly. The CHAIRMAN. That is another case? Mr. HINKEL. Yes; it bears on this in that I will read excerpts from this decision to show the position of the Chairman of the Board and the position of Board Member Smith in regard to a very similar situation. I would like to offer it as an exhibit. (Decision in the Matter of the R. K. Le Blond Machine Tool Co., Case No. R-1655, March 1940, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1298," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) The CHAIRMAN. This is not the same case, but a similar case? Mr. HINKEL. The situation presented in the LeBlond Machine Tool Co. case is a hypothetical situation that bears directly on the one being presented now. The CHAIRMAN. It is a parallel case? Mr. HINKEL. Yes, sir. I would like to have this printed as an exhibit. In the LeBlond Machine Tool Co. case there were three decisions rendered or three opinions rendered. Board Member Smith believed the Board had the power to order a run-off election, and believed in this case that the "Neither" ballot should be dropped, because the results of the election showed that the Association of Iron and Steel and Tin Workers had 266 votes, the Independent Employees Organization had 236, and the unchallenged ballots of "Neither" was 44, and Board Member Smith believed the "Neither" ballot should be dropped. This is in the LeBlond Machine Tool Co. The CHAIRMAN. But that was where the "no-union people" had the least number of votes. Mr. HINKEL. Yes. I want to explain the position of each board member, and The CHAIRMAN (interposing). But in this case we are talking about, the independent union had the greatest number of votes, instead of lesser. Mr. HINKEL. Yes. But included in decision is this hypothetical situation: Now, Board Member Leiserson adhered to his former view that there was no power in the act to order a run-off election, but he said, since the majority says it has such power, he would agree with Board Member Smith that the "Neither" should be dropped. Chairman Madden agreed with Board Member Smith that the Board had the power to order a run-off election but believed in this situation that the lower of the two unions, the independent organization, |