Transcript of Record — Washington Coach Co. v. National Labor Bd.
Supreme Court brief1937
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1936
No. 469
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND COACH
COMPANY, PETITIONER,
US.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 17, 1936.
CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 26, 1936.
INDEX
al . _ Page
- Petition for Enforcement of Order of National Labor
NN gs sccccctccsbcocsdwbdecees
Memo. of Clerk...........:.. ‘eeib eww Keueeae ce
Transcript of Record................ SS cadde ial ewes ,
.. Order Designating Trial Examiner................
- Order Transferring Proceeding to National Labor Re-
lations Board. .
‘Objection to J uriediction of Washington, Viuegiais an
Maryland Coach Company......................
Answer of eer Scot and sions Coach
Company. . Ss PS iF 5 GA a TR Gor Le pn
Notice of Hearing. .
Stenographic Report Fe Hearing before debe M. ‘Cer
mody, Trial Examiner, on March 23, 24, 25 and
8 Serre ahh
Testimony of:
Leon Arnold—Direct.. ay
Hammond H. Raslend—Disect..
Leon Arnold (Resumed) .
Cross. .
John W. Storer—Direct . “4
Semmend H. English (Recalled) —Direct. eae
Leon Arnold (Regalled)............-.........
Joseph R. SNE A as ks Seas so oo dk cca ees
Theodore William Frederick—Direct.......... 180
Preston Mason—Direct...................... 214
er es tc eda teen bau bad 219
Charges Magaha—Direct.................... 220
De ea tine 2 ban ee or eee 224
George W. Beall—Direct. . reer ery es
Philmore William Frederick—Direct ee woadace 240
Joseph Harry McDonough—Direct........... 247
‘Lawrence J. Chase, Jr.—Direct............. . 262 -
eh ete ae ee aie 254
Ne ee re a, Oi 255
William A. Crissman—Direct 255
all crea cig are a ans a po aw oe OS 257
oe ee Sas a ae ee ao ck ae 260
Willfaim H. West—Direct.................... 261
rs fo ose anah Kn aes cee Chote 264
Robert T. Smith—Direct.................... 264
RAD OSE: Fo” UN gro gear r aP e 266
George Louis Birch——Direct Gre ey yer Ie 267
James L. Atwell—Direct.................0.... 269
Dae tee le eae ae wae cae 271
John Henry Dove—Direet Hrccwebeedeaatens 275
A Safa AT Ae ey a a nae ee 276
Joseph A. Garrison—Direct.................. 278
RN ae tO ccs eu eer ae ie 279
Everett Moore—Direct.......°...5........55. 280
NR ede ents a ae ha ee a 281
Clyde J. McCaulley—Direct................. 284
ie Gat a hihi on CMowaa aa cgeee 284
Hammond H. England—Direct............... 290
Uo aut lol sess niece deans 312
CS sauna. c g's Si pa tks amedd eee 351
i. a nsciteshieds bekaedsanekieets 361
EE er ET eT RP Pony 366
*
INDEX. mm
Page
Joseph Arnold—Direét.........-+ eee dacs ee
enc akex aes asneenuees wire. 376
aan ctan ev aen es 4n0000e ee 387
William M. Leiserson—Direct......-. Perry Ts 387
(SR PPP POSTE TO VETTE CELT 7 TT | 389 -
ask eeoeseennaa es eeee ae 397
ESP PEPE UTE E TEC LCE 398
Champ C. Joy—Direct... -..--- CET TTT TT ey. 399
OE A AAS CTE Tee Cee ee OS. 40)
OE SERIE PP PEO CE CET CETTE SS. 408
George F. Wilsey—Direct. . . ....----seeeeeees 409
Crease. ...:.++ ite a aap aa kmbe ocgeak @ WIA 414
peck gutesaceenentseeeen's ... 436
ESE SRT EE POO TET TTR EC OL 436
Peer reer Jyo, Per eeye TTS
Hammond H. England (Recalled)—Redirect. . . 456
ES TI EP IPO TCO T TOT IE ETE TT. 459
Leon Arnold (Recalled)—Direct .. .....-++++++- 461
Coys cakawnea beans ere errr es 462
EN Se Se Poe Tye Peer Tyee ee. -, 468
William A. Crissman—Direct. . ......--+-+- 473
Cross re er ee ge ee oe 475
Theodore William Frederick—Direct. .......-- .476
Se er rey Pree Freee re Tere er, 477
Notice of Hearing. ... .....-- cece eee eect ereceee 480
Notice Changing Hearing Date. . .......---++-00++> 481
Order Designating Trial Examiner... ........+--->: :482
Stenographic Report of Hearing before J. Warren
Madden, Trial Examiner, on May S Seeecises 483
Testimony of :
Roy Raymend Miller—Direct. . .....-----+++> 486
| a er rer rrr oer kre eee 489
Hammond H. England—Direct. .. ....-----+++> 493
George Wilsey—Direct. . . 2... 022s cere er eeees 506
eee re UU PESOP ORT Ee TERE SS. 512
MES POCO TET CTE LL, cee 514
ES ae FORTEC TCE eS 515
Joseph R. Harmon—Direct. . .......--. Pe 519
Ce Lee ea een eas sae eawemas §21
Exhibits (Printing of Exhibits Omitted by Stipula-
tion of Counsel). .. ....5----ceeteccccseccees 525
Se te Peo EET PTE TET Cee eee 525
* Mtatement of the Case... ....--20sccecsscecvees 525
Page
Findings of Fact. Pe er epee .. 028
Conclusions Respecting the Unfair Labor Prac.
ap ata ar ieee pe eae ote (6es cusenesae
Conclusions of Law... .............-.. eentaaaee
RNS aa eS Beep ar Wee ey peer O48
DCI 4s Stedbesenadhaseneeechesdenase 49
Affidavit of Service and Return Recei pts.. .. 559
Motion for Reconsideration and Rehearing. . sos ae
Order Denying Motion... .................... _
Certificate of National Labor Relations Boards... 556
Stipulation to Omit Exhibits from Printed Record. . .559
Testimony of:
Dr. William S. Leiserson—Direct. .. ...561
PROCEEDINGS IN U. S. CIRCUIT COURT OF
i rcet. <iicto sch cc alhecahaes eaeeenal 585
Appearance for petitioner... .............. BMS
Petition of petitioner for hearing of case during June
term, 1936. . Leuaeeees se enauee
Receipt of copy of notice and petition, eicoubeas 587
Order assigning case for argument. ................588
Appearance for oe eR ey Ee Pee OSS
te ee oe aso cn ead gobenseadn ON
Dé i 6 d¢ekee@acesscéccos (sabksedensasauneuee
9 EEE Ny a Ee he aR Pe a 59s
Stipulation as to exhibits Dat Ua ak nal ol adeaia arate ae 599
CPM. -cccaccccscebcescescssezen 600
a a la aah cae dace ae bone eeeul 601 PI
Order allowing certiorari 601
>
4
is
PETITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF
' ”s THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
Filed June 9, 1936.
Ix tee Unsrrep Srates Cracuir Cover or Appeals FOR THE
Fovrra Crraourr, Jtxe Team, 1936.
National Labor Relations Board, Peti-
tioner,
vs. No. 4075.
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company, Respondents. ;
To the Honorable, the Judges of the United States Cir-
cuit Caurt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit:
“is
The National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Board), pursuant to the authority con-
ferréd upon it by the provisions of an Act of Congress
approved July 5, 1935 (Public No. 198, 74th Congress,
49 Stat. 10, 29 U.S. C. A., Section 151, et seq.), known as
the National Labor Relations Act, respectfully petitions
this Honorable Court for the enforcement of a vertain
order issued by said Board in’a proceeding instituted
by it ggainst respondent, Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Company. Said.proceeding is known
upon the records of the Board as Case No. C-48, the
title thereof beimg ‘‘In the Matter of Washington, Vir-
ginia and Maryland Coach Company, a Corporation, and
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway
and Motor Coach Employees of America, ‘Local Division
No. 1079, et al.”
In support of this petition, the Board respectfully
shows:
(1) Respondent is and at all times hereinafter men-
tioned wat a corporation organized and existing by vir-
(2) tue of the laws of the State of Virginia and has
and maintains ite main office and transacts business in
2 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
the City of Clarendon, Virginia, and further maintains
an office and transacts business in the District of Co-
lumbia.
(2) Respondent operates buses within the District
of Columbia, and also between points within the District
of Columbia to points within the State of Virginia for
the transportation for hire of persons, United States
mail, newspapers and occasional express shipments un-
der an interstate permit granted it by the District of
Columbia and an intrastate permit granted it by the
State of Virginia. Respondent has applied for and re-
ceived from the Federal Bureau of Motor Carriers, In-
terstate Commerce Commission, a certificate of con-
venience and necessity in accordance with the Motor Car-
riers’ Act, 1935 (49 Stat. 543, 49 U. 8. C. A., Chapter
8) to engage in interstate commerce.
(3) By reason of the matters alleged in paragraphs
(1) and (2) hereof, this Court has jurisdiction of this
petition by virtue of Section 10 (e) of the said Nakonal
‘Labor Relations Act.
(4) On the 11th day of March, 1936, a charge and a
supplemental charge both having been theretofore duly
filed with the Board by the Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees
of America, Local Division No. 1079, the Board issued
its complaint in said proceeding No. C-63 charging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, which
said complaint, together with a notice of hearing thereon
for March 23, 1936, was duly served upon respondent.
Thereafter, by order dated March 17,1 1936, said hearing
was transferred to and continued before the National
Laber Relations Board and John M. Carmody was desig-
nated Trial Examiner to conduct the hearing in said mat-
ter. Thereafter the respondent duly filed its answer.
(3) (5) Thereafter on March 23, 24, 25 and 26, 1936,
the Board by a Trial Examiner held hearings upon the
allegations of the complaint. Testimony and Ps senor:
dence with respect to the allegations of said pees oF .
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH 00., RESPQNDEF.. 3
were adduced. The respondent appeared at the hear-
ing, by counsel, participated therein and offered evi-
dence in its behalf. Respondent’s objection to the juris-
diction of the Board was overruled by the Trial Exam-
iner. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint at
the conclusion of the Board’s case was denied by the
Trial Examiner.
On April 25, 1936, a notice of further hearing to be
held on May 1, 1936, was duly served upon the respond-
ent. On April 27, 1936, the Board issued and duly served
notice of the postponement of hearing to May 2, 1936.
Ehereafter on May 2, 1936, the Board by J. Warren Mad-
den, Triat E iner, designated as such by the Board
on April 28, 18 6, in place and stead of John M. Carmody,
duly held a further hearing _— the gforesaid charges.
The respondent appeared at the hearing by counsel and
participated therein and offered evidence in its behalf.
A motion made by counsel for the Board to dismiss the
complaint as to the allegations of discriminatory dis-
charge of Stanley F. Smith, R. C. Stanton and Harry F.
Gildart was granted by the Trial Examiner. _ Respond-
ent’s objection to the tdiie of a further hearing and
the introduction of further testimony was overruled by
the Trial Examiner. .
(6) Thereafter on the 21st day of May, 1936 the
Board having first considered the matter and being suf-
ficiently advised in the premises, and being of the opin-
ion upon all the testimony in evidence that the respond-
ent had been and then was engaged in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of said
National Labor Relations Act, duly stated its ndings
of Fact and issued and entered the following order di-
rected to the respondent:
(4) , “ORDER.
‘‘On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusiens
of law, and pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that respondent, Wash-
ington, Virginia, and Maryland Coach Company:
a NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
‘*], Cease and desist from discouraging member-
ship un Local No. 1079 or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment;
‘*2. Cease and desist from in any other manner in-
terfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to en.
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act;
‘3. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds wiil effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act:
(a) Offer to William H. West, Herbert M. Hall,
Charles O. Magaha, W. A. Crissman, Joseph R. Harmon,
Joseph A. Garrison, Everett Moore, John Henry Dove,
Robert I. Smith, Clyde J. McCaulley, James L. Atwell,
Roy Miller, Theodore W. Frederick, George Beall, Law-
rence J. Chase, Jr., George Louis Birch, Philmore W.
Frederick and Joseph McDonough, employment in the
respective positions formerly held by them with all rights
and privileges previously enjoyed; and
(b) Make Sthole said William H. West, Herbert M.
Hall, Charles O. Magaha, W. A. Crissman, Joseph R.
Harmon, Joseph A. Garrison, Everett Moore, John
Henry Dove, Robert I. Smith, Clyde J. MeCaulley, James
L. Atwell, Roy Miller, Theodore W. Frederick, George
Beall, Lawrence J. Chase, Jr., George Lonis Birch, Phil-
more W. Frederick and Joseph McDonough, for any
losses of pay they have suffered by reason of their dis-
charge, by payment to each of them. respectively, of a
sum equal to that which each would normally have earned
as wages, at the rate set out in the Appendix I (attached
hereto and made a part hereof), during the period from
the date of his discharge to the date of offer of employ-
ment as ordered hereunder, less amounts earned by each
during such period.’’
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 5
(7) The said order is, and at all times since said is-
suance has been, in full force and effect.
(8) Thereafter on the. 21st of May, 1936, the said
order was served upon the said respondent by mailing
a copy thereof postpaid by registered mail to attorneys
for respondent in Washington, D. C.
(3) (9) Since the issuance of said order, conferences
have been held between representatives of the Board
and representatives of the respondent at which confer-
ences the cue of whether or not the respondent
WHEREFORE, the Board petitions this Honorable
Court for the enforcement of its order of May 21, 1936,
a transcript of the entire record in the proceedings be-
fore the Board including the pleadings, testimony and
evidence, findings of fact and said order of the Board.
The Board prays this Honorable Court that it cause
notice of the filing of this petition and transcript to be
served upon respondent and that this Court take juris-
in such transcript, and upon the order made and there-
J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman.
JOHN M. CARMODY, Member.
National Labor Relations Board.
CHARLES FAHRY,
General Counsel, National Labor
Relations Board, Washington.
6 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
(6) District OF CoLUMBIA, 88.
J. WARREN MADDEN and JOHN M. CARMODY
being duly sworn, depose and say that they are Chair-
man and Member, respectively, of the National Labor
Relations Board and make this affidavit on behalf of said
Board; that they have read the foregoing petition and
have knowledge of the facts stated therein; and that the
statements made in the foregoing are true to their best
knowledge and belief.
J. WARREN MADDEN,
JOHN M. CARMODY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of
June, 1936.
JOHN FE. LAWYER,
(Seal) Notary Public, District of Columbia.
My commission expires September 8, 1939.
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT.
(7) Filed June 10, 1936.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SS:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
To the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Com-
pany:
GREETING:
YOU ARE HERBBY NOTIFIED that the National
Labor Relations Board on June 9, 1936, filed in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH GO., RESPONDENT. 7
Circuit, at Asheville, North Carolina, a petition for the
Enforcement of a certain Order issued by it on May
21, 1936, against you, in a proceeding pending before
said Board, and entitled upon its records, ‘‘In the Matter
of, Washington; Virginia and Maryland Coach Company,
and the Loeal Division No. 1079, Amalgamated Associa.
tion of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em.
ployees of America, et al., together with a transcript
of the entire record in ffie proceeding, including the plead-
ings and testimony upon which such order was entered
and the findings and order of the Board, and prayed that
said Circuit Court of Appeals take jurisdiction-of the
proceedings and of the questions determined therein,
and make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony and .
evidence, and the proceedings set forth in such tran-
script, and upon the order made, a Decree enforcing in
Whole said Order of the Board and requiring respondent,
its officers, agents and representatives to comply there
with. A copy of the petition is attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, you are hereby directed to show,
within 10 days from the date hereof, why the prayer of
the petition of the said National Labor Relations Board
for the Enforcement of its Order issued by it on May
21, 1936, should not be granted.
WITNESS the Honorable John J. Parker, Judge
of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, this 10th day of June, in the year of our
Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six.
JOHN J. PARKER,
Judge of the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
(Memo. of Clerk: Certified copy of notice, together
with certified copy of petition, transmitted to Benedict
Wolf, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Wash-
ington, D. C., on June 10, 1936, for service on respond-
ent.)
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
(8) CHARGE.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, FIFTH REGION.
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.
and
Local Bjvision No. 1079, Amalgamated Association of
Streef, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes
of America, and William H. West, H. M. Hall, Charles
O. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C. Stanton, and W.
A. Crissman.
Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec- :
tric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America.
Local Division No. 1079, comprising employes of the
Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co., and
William H. West, H. M. Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stan-
ley F. Smith, R. C. Stanton’and W. A. Crissman, em-
ployes, hereby charge that this employer has engaged
m and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of’ Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) of the
said Act, as is shown by the following allegations of
fact:
(1) Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach (Co.
(hereinafter sometimes for convenience called the ‘*Com-
pany’’ or ‘‘employer’’) is a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Virginia, with its main offices at 2601 Wilson Boule.
vard, Clarendon, Virginia, and 412 Twelfth Street, South-
west, Washington, D. C. Said Company transports for
hire passengers and express from its terminal at 619
10 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
Twelfth Street, Northwest, and other points within the
District of Columbia to points and places outside of
the said District and particularly into points within the
neighboring States of Virginia and Maryland; and from
points and places in the States of Virginia and Mary-
land to points and places within the District of Colum-
bia; all of which aforesaid operations occur in the course
and current of commerce among the States, are an in-
tegral part of the operations of instrumentalities of such
(9) commerce and constitute commerce among the sev-
eral States.
(2¥ Loca] Division No. 1079, Amalgamated Associa- -
tion of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployes of America, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, is an unincorporated association and
a lawful labor organization existing for the purpose,
in part, of dealing with the employer of its members con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and conditions of work; said Lo-
cal Division No. 1079 includes in its membership per-
songs employed by said Company, said persons being en-
gaged in operation and maintenance. Said Local Di-
vision No. 1079 has as members 53 of the approximately
75 employes of the Company.
(3) Petitioners William H. West, H. M. Hall, Charles
O. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C. Stanton and W. A.
Crissman are employes of the Company as aforesaid,
and are members of Local Division No. 1079. All of
said individual petitioners were, prior to the acts com-
lained of below, employed as bus drivers by the said
mame at approximately 40 cents an hour.
(4) Respondent, said Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Co., is guilty of a violation of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, Section 8, subsections (1)
and (3). for the lay-off or discharge of William H. West,
an officer of the said union and an employe of said Com-
pany for approximately three years, and discharged or
laid off on, to-wit, March 4, 1936, at 2:00 P. M., because
he was a member of said union and because of his activi-
ties as a member of said union in attempting to negotiate
a
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., BESPONDERT, if
in behalf of other union members with the said Com-
pany. :
(5) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8 subsections (1) and (3) thereof, for
the lay-off or discharge of H. M. Hall, its employe, em-
ployet for approximately two and one-half years and
discharged or laid off on, to-wit, March 4, 1936, at 2:55
P. M., because he was a member of said union and because
of his activities as a member thereof.
(10) . (6) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3), for the lay-
off or discharge of Charles O. Magaha, an employe of
the said Company for two years and discharged or laid
. off on, to-wit, March 4, 1936, at 2:20 P. M., because he
was a member of — union and because of his activities
a8 a member of said ynion.
(7) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3), for the lay-
off or discharge of Stanley F. Smith, an em sloye of the
said Company for four and one-half nicer 9 j
P. M., because he was a member of said union an: be-
cause of his activities as a member of said union.
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1)-and (3), for the lay-
off or discharge of R. C. Stanton, an employe of the
(9) Said respondent igs guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3), for the lay-
off or discharge of W. A. Crissman, an employe of the
said Company for over five years and 2 ra Soaked laid
off on, to-wit, March 4, 1936, at 3:20 P. M.,
was a member of said union and because of his activities
&s a member of said union.
12 WATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
(10) By reason of the unlawful acts of the respond-
ent alleged in this charge, said respondent has aroused
and fostered a feeling of rivalry and bitterness among
their employes and as a result thereof there is a great
spirit of orest among ¥ the employes, which is con-
stantly be.ng stimulated BY the mm defaults of said re-
spondent which tends to create and is creating con-
ditions leading to industrial strife and unregt, which
has the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing
and affécting commerce. Complainants further charge
that said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of said Act.
(11) WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that this Hon-
orable Board issue and cause to be served upon the par-
ties its complaint naming the Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Co as a party hereto, said complaint
stating the charges herein; that a hearing thereon at
an early date and at a convenient place be ordered at
which petitioners, Local Division No. 1079, Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employes of America, and William H. West, H.
M. Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C.
Stanton and W. A. Crissman may be allowed to intervene
and to present testimony; that ‘after such hearing the
Board state its findings of fact and cause to be issued
and served upon said Company an order requiring it to
cease and desist from violating Section 8, subsections
{1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
rther requiring it to take such affirmative action, in-
cluding reinstatement of the said William H. West, H.
M. Hall, Charles 0. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C.
Stanton and W. A. Crissman, with back pay, as will fur-
ther effectuate the policies of the said Act; and further
requiring said respondent to make reports from time
to time to this Board showing the extent to which it
has complied with said order, and for such other and
further relief as the exigencies of the case may require.
LOCAL NO. 1079, AMALGAMATED AS-
SOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC
RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM-
- PLOYES OF AMERICA.
W4SH., VA. 4%) MABYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 13
(s) WILLIAM BH. WEST,
WILLIAM H. WEST,
. Individually and as Financial
Secretary-Treasurer.
(s) H. M: HALL,
_ H. M HALL,
(s) CHARLES 0. MAGAHA,
CHARLES O. M GAHA,
(s) STANLEY F. SMITH,
STANLEY F. SMITH,
(s} R. C. STANTON,
kK. C. STANTON, 7
(s) W. A. CRISSMAN,
W. A CRISSMAN.
CHARLTON OGBURN,
ARTHUR E. REYMAN,
Attorneys for Petitioners,
Union Trust Building,
Washington, D. C.
(12) Wasxtncron,
District of Columbia, ss.:
WILLIAM H. WEST, being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he is Financial Secretary-Treasurer of Local
Division No. 1079, Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America,
sarge in the above entitled matter; and that the
acts alleged in said petition are true.
(s) WILLLAM H. WEST.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of
March, 1936.
(Seal) (s)-MARY G. KITE, .
Notary Public, D.C.
My Commission expires August 10, 1939.
14 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
SUPPLEMENTAL CHARGE.
(13) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, FIFTH REGION.
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.
and
Local Division No. 1079, Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes
of America, et al.
Heretofore on March 5, 1936, the Amalgamated As-
sociation of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employes of America, Local Division No. 1079, com-
prising employes of the Washington, Virginia and Mary-
land Coach Co., and certain individual members of said
Local Division No. 1079, employes of said Company, filed
their charge against said Company pursuant to Section
10 (b) of the Nationa] Labor Relations Act, charging that
the said Company, employer, has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) of the said Act,
as shown by the facts alleged in that charge.
Joseph R. Harmon, George Bell, Theodore W. Fred-
erick, Joseph A. Garrison, Lawrence Chase, Robert T.
Smith, Edward Moore, George Birch, C. McCauly, Joseph
McDonald, Harry F. Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller
and Philmore Frederick, members of said Local Division
No. 1079 and employes of said Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Co., also charge hereby that this Com-
pany has — in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8, subsections
(1) and (3) of the said Act, as is shown by the follow-
ing allegations of fact:
(1) Respondent, said Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Co., is guilty of a violation of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, Section 8, subsections (1)
and (3), for the lay-off or discharge of Joseph R. Har-
. mon, an employe of the said Company for approximately
eight years and six months and discharged or laid off
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 15
on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he was a member of
said union and because of his activities as a member
of sa¥d union.
(14) (2) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of
the said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3), for the
lay-off or discharge of George Bell, an employe of the
said Company for aproximately six weeks and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he
was a member of said union and because of his activities
as a member of said union.
(3) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3), for the lay-
off or discharge of Theodore W. Frederick, an officer
of the said union and an employe of said Company for
approximately seven years and seven months and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1926. because he
was a member of said union and because of his activities
as a member of said union in attempting to negotiate in
behalf of other union members with the said Company.
(4) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Joseph A. Garrison, an employe of
the said Company for approximately two years and
discharged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because
he was a member of said union and because of his ac-
tivities as a member of said union.
(5) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Lawrence Chase, an employe of the
said Company for approximately one year and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he
was a member of said union and because of his activities
as a member of said union.
as a member of said union.
16 NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
(7) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Edward Moore, an employe of the
said Company for approximately one year and two
months and discharged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6,
1936, because he was a member of said union and be-
cause of his activities as a member of said union.
(8) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
(15) said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for
the lay-off or discharge of George Birch, an employe of
the said Company for approximately seven years and
seven months and discharged or laid off on, to-wit, March
6, 1936, because he was a member of said union and ke.
cause of his activities as a member of said union.
(9) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of C. McCauly, an employe of the said
' Company for approximately one month and discharged
or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he was a
member of said union and because of his activities as a
member of said union.
(10) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections’ (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Joseph McDonald, an employe of the
said Company for approximately one year and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he
was a member of said union and because of his activities
as a member of said union.
(11) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Sectien 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Harry F.. Gildart, an employe of the
said Company for approximately nine months and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he
was a member of said union and because of his activities
as a member of said union.
(12) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of James Atwell, an employe of the said
Company for approximately six years and discharged
or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he was a
member of said union and because of his activities as
a member of said union.
WASH., VA: AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 17
(13) Said respondent is guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Philmore Frederick, an employe of
the said Company for approximate five years and dis-
charged or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he
was & member of said union and because of his activitivs
48 a member of said union.
(14) Said respondent js guilty of a violation of the
said Act, Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) for the lay-
off or discharge of Roy Miller, an employe of the said
Company for approximately six months ard discharged
or laid off on, to-wit, March 6, 1936, because he was a
(16) member of said union and because of his activities
4s a member of said union.
* (15) By reason of these additional unlawful acts of
respondent, alleged in this supplemental charge, said re-
spondent has aroused and fostered a feeling of rivalry
and bitterness among its employes and as a result there-
of there is a great spirit of unrest among all the em-
ploves which is constantly being stimulated by said de-
faults of said respondent and which tends to create and
is creating conditions leading to industrial strife and un-
rest, which has the necessary effect of burdening or
obstructing and affecting commerce. Complainants fur-
ther charge that said unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of said Act.
WHEREFORE, these petitioners adopt the prayers
of the charge heretofore filed herein, as aforesaid, on
March 5, 1936, requesting that this Honorable Board
issue and cause to be served upon the parties its com-
plaint naming the Washington, Virginia and Maryland
‘Coach Co. as a party thereto, said complaint stating
the charges therein, and the other relief prayed for in
the prayers of the original charge; and that Joseph R.
Harmon, George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph
A. Garrison, Lawrence Chase, Robert T Smith, Edward
Moore, George Birch. C. McCanly, Joseph McDonald,
Harry F, Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Phil-
more Frederick may be allowed to intervene and to pre-
sent testimony at a hearing before this Board, and that
after sneh hearing the Board state its findings of fact
18 NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VBS.
and cause to be issued and served upon said Company
an order requiring it to cease and desist from violating
Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act and further requiring it to take such af-
firmative action, including +einstatement of the said
Joseph R. Harman, George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick,
Joseph A. Garrison, Lawrence Chase, Robert T. Smith,
Edward Moore, George Birch, C. McCauly, Joseph Mc-
Donald, Harry F. Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and
Philmore Frederick, with back pay, as will further ef-
fectuate the policies of the said Act; and for such other
and further relief as the exigencies of the case may re-
quire.
LOCAL NO. 1079, AMALGAMATED AS-
SOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC
RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM-
PLOYES OF AMERICA.
(s) CHARLTON OGBURN,
CHARLTON OGBURN,
ARTHUR E. REYMAN,
Attorneys for Petitioners,
Union Trust Building,
Washington, D. C.
(17) WasHrneTor,
District of Columbia, ss:
CHARLTON OGBURN, being duly sworn, deposes
and says that he is attorney for Local Division No. 1079,
Amalgmated Association of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employes of America, et al., petitioners in
the above entitled matter; that to the best of his knowl-
edge and belief the facts therein alleged are true; and
that he makes. this affidavit in the absence of officers of
the said union and the individual petitioners
(s) CHARLTON OGBURN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day
of March, 1936.
(s) MARY G. KITE,
(Seal) Notary Public, D. C.
My commisison expires August 10, 1939.
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 19
COMPLAINT.
(18) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, FIFTH REGION.
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company, a Corporation,
and
Local Division No. 1079, Amalgamated
Association of Strete, Electric Rail-
way and Motor Coach Employees of
America, and William H. West, H. M.
Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stanley F.\.
Smith, R. ©. Stanton, W. A. Criss- /
man, Joseph R. Harmon, George
Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph
A. Garrison, Lawrence Chase, Rob-
ert Smith, Edward Moore, George
Birch, C. McCauly, Joseph McDon-
ald, Harry R. Gildart, James Atwell,
Roy Miller and Philmore Frederick.
Case No. V-C-14
It having been charged by Local Division No. 1079
of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric : a
al 1 es
Moore, George Birch, C. McCauly,: Joseph McDonald,
Harry F. Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Phil.
more Frederick that the Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Company, hereinafter called the re-
spondent, has engaged in and is now engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set
forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act,
approved. July 5, 1935, -the National Labor Relations
n,
as agent of the National Labor Relations Board desig-
nated by National Labor Relations Board Rules and
20 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
Regulations, Series 1 (General Rules and Regulations),
Article IV, Section 1, hereby issues this complaint and
alleges the following:
1. The respondent is a corporation organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Vir-
(19) ginia, having its principal offices at 2601 Wilson
Boulevard, Clarendon, Virginia, and 412 Twelfth Street
Southwest, Washington, District of Columbia.
2. The respondent owns, operates and controls, and
at all the times hereinafter mentioned has owned, op-
erated and controlled motor bus transportation lines for
the transportation of passengers and express for hire
from its terminal at 619 Twelfth Street, Northwest,
Washington, District of Columbia, and other points and
places within the District of Columbia, to points and
places outside of the District of Columbia, and particu-
larly to points and places within the States of Virginia
and Maryland; and from points and places within the
States of Virginia and Maryland to points and places
within the District of Columbia. |
3. The respondent owns, operates and controls, and
at all timres hereinafter mentioned has owned, operated
and controlled, at 2601 Wilson Boulevard, Clarendon,
Virginia, a garage and repair shop at and in which the
motor buses and coaches owned and operated by the re-
spondent over its lines, as described in paragraph two
(2) above, are serviced, repaired and mechanically -‘main-
tained in the course of transportation for hire of pass-.
engers and express from points and places within the
District of Columbia to points and places within the
. States of Virginia and Maryland; and from points and
places within the States of Virginia and Maryland to
points and places within the District of Columbia, and
to make possible and safe their regular, continued and
efficient current use in the course of such transporta-
tion.
4. The aforesaid operations of the respondent occur
in the course and current of commerce within the Dis-
trict of Columbia and among the States and between
the District of Columbia and States of the United States, ~
are an integral part of the operations of an instrumen-
WA4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 21
tality of such commerce, and constitute commerce amon
the States and between the District of Columbia and
States of the United States.
5. The respondent, by its officers and agents, while
engaged in operations as described above, on March 4,
1936, did lay off and discharge William H. West, H. M. ©
Hall, Charles 0. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C. Stan-
ton and W. A. Crissman, drivers employed by the re-
(20) +6, 1936, did lay off and discharge Joseph R.. Har.
mon, George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph A.
Garrison, Lawrence Chase, Robert T. Smith, Edward
Moore, George Birch, (. MecCauly, Joseph McDonald,
Harry F. Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Phil-
more Frederick, al) employed by the respondent at the
chanical maintenance of the respondent’s motor buses
and coaches as described in paragraph three (3) above,
and the respondent has at all times since said datee re-
fused to reinstate said William H. West, H. M. Hall,
; ‘harles QO. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. ¢. Stanton,
V Yri
Robert T. Smith, Edward Moore, George Birch, C. Me.
Cauly, Joseph McDonald, Harry F. Gildart, James At-
well, Roy Miller and Philmore Frederick.
6. The respondent, by its officers and agents, laid
off and discharged, and refuses to reinstate said Wil-
liam H. West, H. M. Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stanley
F. Smith, R. ©. Stanton, W. A. Crissman, Joseph R.
Harmon, George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph
Moore, George Birch, (. McCauly, Joseph McDonald,
Harry F. Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Phil-
more Frederick, and each of them, for the reason that
they, and each of ‘them, joined and assisted a labor or-
ganization known as Local Division No. 1079 of the
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway
spondent for the Purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
a
22 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
7. By laying off and discharging said William H.
West, H. M. Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith,
R. C. Stanton W. A. Crissman, Joseph R. Harmon,
George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph A. Garri-
son, Lawrence Chase, Robert T. Smith, Edward Moore,
George Birch, C. McCauly, Joseph McDonald, Harry F.
Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Philmore Fred-
erick, and each of them, and refusing to reinstate said
persons, and each of them, as above set forth, and by
all of said acts and each of them, the respondent did in-
terfere with, restrain and coerce, and is interfering with,
restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, and by all of said acts and each
(21) of them, did'thereby engage in and is thereby en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivisions (1) of said Act.
8. By laying off and discharging said William H.
West, H. M. Hall, Charles 0. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith,
R. C. Stanton, W. A. Crissman, Joseph R. Harmon,
George Bell, Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph A. Garri-
son, Lawrence Chase, Robert T. Smith, Edward Moore,
George Birch, C. McCauly, Joseph McDonald, Ha F.
Gildart, James Atwell, Roy Miller and Philmore "Fred.
erick, and each of them, and refusing to reinstate said
persons, and each of them, as above set forth, and by
all of said acts and each of them, the respondent did
discrimisiate and is discriminating in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of said William H. West, H.
M. Hall, Charles O. Magaha, Stanley F. Smith, R. C. Stan-
ton, W. A. Crissman, Joseph R. Harmon, George Bell,
Theodore W. Frederick, Joseph A. Garrison, Lawrence
Chase, Robert T. Smith, Edward Moore, George Birch,
C. McCauly, Joseph MeDonald, H F’. Gildart, James
Atwell, Roy Miller and Philmore Frederick, and each
of them, and did thus discourage and is thus discouraging
membership in said Local Division No. 1079 of the Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Mo-
tor Coach Employees of America, and by all of said
acts and each of them, did thereby engage in and is
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of said Act.
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH 00., RESPONDENT. 23
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices of the re-
spondent have occurred and are ing in the course
and current of commerce within the District of Columbia
and among the States and between the District of Co-
lumbia and States of the United States and, on the basis
of experience in the motor bus transportation and other
industries, burden and obstruct such commerce and the
free flow thereof, and have led and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and
the free flow thereof, by impairing the efficiency, ‘safety
and operation of instrumentalities of such commerce.
10. The aforesaid acts of the respondent enumerated
in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning
of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), and Section 2, sub-
divisions (6) and (7) of said Act.
NOTICE OF HEARING.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 23rd day of
March, 1936, at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon, ‘at the
United States Tariff Commission Building, F St. between
7 and 8 Sts. Northwest, Washington, D. C., in the hear-
ing room located on the third floor of said Building, a
hearing will be conducted before the National Labor
Relations Board by a Trial Examiner to be designated
by it in accordance with its Rules and Regulations—Se-
ries 1, Article IV, and Article II, Section 22, on the al-
legations set forth in the Complaint attached hereto, at
which time and place you will have the right to appear,
in person or otherwisé, and give testmony.
You are further notified that you have the right to .
file with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, act-
ing in this matter as the agent of the National Labor
Relations Board, an answer to the Complaint attached
hereto,. within five (5) days from the date of service of
said Complaint. :
24 ##$NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
Enclosed herewith for your information is a copy
of Rules and Regu!«-ions, Series 1, made and published
by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to av-
thority granted in the National Labor Relations Act.
Your attention is particularly directed to Article II of
said Rules and Regulations. '
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the National Labor Re-
lations Board has caused this, its Complaint and Notice
of Hearing to be signed by the Regional Director for
the Fifth aston on the 11th day of March, 1936.
(s) BENNET F. SCHAUFFLER,
Regional Director for the
ORDER DESIGNATING TRIAL EXAMINER.
(23) NLRB-47
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.
At a regular —s of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, held at its office in the City of Washington,
D. C., on the 16th day of March, 1936.
Present: J. Warren Madden, Chairman; John M.
Carmody.
In the Meter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
er Company
Local Division No. 1079, Amalgamated) Case No. V-C-14.
Association of Street, Ejectric Rail-
way and Motor Coach Employees of
America, et al.
A charge having been filed in this matter, and if
having = to the Regional Director of the Fifth
Region that a proceeding in respect thereto should be
instituted, and the Board having considered the matter
and being advised in the premises,
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 25
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that John M. Car-
mody act as Tria] Examiner in the above case and per-
form all the duties and exercise all the powers granted
to trial examiners under the Rules and Regulations—
Series 1 of the Nationa] Labor Relations- Board.
By direction of the Board:
(Seal) BENEDICT WOLF,
BENEDICT WOLF, Secretary.
ORDER TRANSFERRING PROCEEDING TO NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
(24) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE tHE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.
At a regular meeting of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, held at its office in the City of Washing-
ton, D. C., on the 17th day of March, 1936.
Present: J. Warren Madden, Chairman; John M.
Carmody.
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Co.
and
Local Division No. 1079, Amalga- ) Case No.V-C-14,
mated Association of Street, Elec-
tric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, et al.
A hearing having been ordered in the aboye matter,
and it being deemed by the National Labor Relations
Board necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of
the National Labor Relations Act that the above-en-.
titled matter be transferred to and continued before it,
26 NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations
—Series 1, Article 2, Section 35, that the aforesaid mat-
ter be and it is hereby transferred to and continued
ore it, and that John M. Carmody be designated as
e Agent of the National Labor Relations Board to con-
duct the hearing in said matter.
By direction of the Board:
(Seal) BENEDICT WOLF,
BENEDICT WOLF, Seeretary.
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF WASHINGTON, VIR
GINIA AND MARYLAND COACH COMPANY,”
RESPONDENT.
(25) Received Mareh 23, 1936.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR BELATIONS
BOARD.
:* the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company, a corporation,
and
Local Division No. 1079; Amalga- ) Case No.V-C-14.
mated Association of Street, Elec-
tric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees‘of America, et al.
Comes now Robert E. Lynch and William J. Hughes,
Jr., Investment Building, Washington, D. C., attorneys
for respondent, Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company, and appearnig specially for the pur-
ose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the National La-
80 Relations Board and of J. Warren Madden, Chair-
man, John M. Carmody and Edwin S. Smith members
thereof, does object to the jurisdiction of the said Board
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH CO., RESPONDENT, 27
over the said respondent in the proceedings herein on
the following grounds:
1. That the National Labor Relations Act is invalid,
void and in contravention of the rights, privileges and
immunities of said respondent in that:
(a) It delegates legislative power to the said Board
in violation of Section 1, Article 1 of the Constitution
of the United States. |
(b) It delegates judicial power to the said Board in
violation of Section 1 and Section 2, paragraph 1, Article
3 of the Constitution of the United States.
2. That Section 7 as construed and applied herein ig
(26) unconstitutional, void and in contravention of the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States in that the said Board by the issuance of the com-
plaint herein have construed and are construing the
said Section 7 to grant an absolute and unqualified right
of self-organization, ete., to employees, unrestrained by
the necessity of the exercise of such right subject’to the
rights of respondent and the public.
3. In that Section 8, paragraphs 1 and 3 in them-
selves, and as constrned and applied herein by the said
Board, deprive respondent of its liberty and property
without Dne Process of Law in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
4. In that Section 10 of the said Act as constrned
and applied herein denies respondent the right of trial
by jury and the right to have facts so tried examined
fer upon the said Board judicial power in violation of
Sections 1 and 2, Article 3 of the Constitution.
9. That the said act of the said Board in construing
and applying the said Act exercises powers contrary to
the reservations of the Tenth Amendment of the (on-
stitution and ‘respondent’s right thereunder. |
,
28 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
WHEREFORE, respondent moves that the com-
plaint herein be dismissed.
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARY-
LAND COACH COMPANY,
Respondent.
By LEON ARNOLD, Pres.
ROBERT E. LYNCH,
R. E. LYNCH,
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR.,
WM. J. HUGHES, JR.
Investment Building,
Washington, D. C.,
Attorneys for Respondent.
ANSWER OF WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND
COACH COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
(27) Received March 23, 1936.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company, a corporation,
and
Local Division No. 1079, Amalga- \Case No. V-C-14.
mated Association of Street, Elec-
tric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, et al.
Comes now respondent herein and withont waiving
its objection to the jurisdiction herein, but on the con-
trary, asserting the lack of jurisdiction of the said Board
_ and relying upon its objections to the jurisdiction of the
said Board therein set forth and any and all other objec-
tions to the jurisdiction of the said Board for answer to
the said. complaint herein respectfully avers:
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 29
As to the allegations of the Preamble of the Com-
plaint herein respondent has no knowledge.
1. Respondent admits the allegations of this para-
graph but says that its principal place of business is at
“601 Wilson Boulevard, Clarendon, Virginia.
2. Respondent admits the allegations of this para-
graph but denies that it now Operates any motor bus
transportation line in the State of Maryland.
3. Respondent admits the allegations of this para-
graph except in so far'as it refers to the State of Mary-
land as to which it says that it does no business in the
State of Maryland at this time.
4. As to the allegations of this paragraph respondent
is informed and advised that the said allegations are
conclusions which respondent need not admit or deny.
In so far as they are not conclusions respondent denies
(28) them.
2. Respondent admits the allegations of this para-
graph.
6. Respondent denies the altegations of this para-
graph.
7. Respondent is advised that the allegations of this
paragraph are ¢onclusions which respondent need not
admit or deny; in s6 far as they are not conclusions re-
spondent denies them.
8. Respondent denies the allegations of this para-
graph.
9. As to the allegations of this paragraph, respond-
ent is advised that they are conclusions which need not
be admitted or denied, in so far as they are not con-
clusions respondent has no information as fo the ex-
perience of Bernard F. Schauffler, Regional Director for
_
30 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONEB, VS.
the Fifth Region, Labor Relations Board, complainant
herein, in motor bus transportation and other industries.
The remaining allegations of said paragraph respondent
denies.
10. The allegations of these paragraphs being con-
clusions, respondent is advised that it need not admit
or deny them; in so far as they are not conclusions re-
spondent denies them.
11. As and for a further answer to the allegations
of the complaint herein and without waiving its jurisdic-
tional objections -herein made, respondent shows it is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Virginia, having its principal place of business in Clar-
endon, Virginia; that, it is now and has been for many
years past operatng a bus business for transportation
of passengers from points in Virginia to points in the
District of Columbia and return, that the acts of re-
spondent are subject to the regulation of the Public
Service Commission of the State of Virginia, including
among other things a maximum rate of fare to be charged
from point to point. Respondent maintains a garage in
Clarendon, Virginia, wherein busses are serviced and
repaired and in which mechanics, cleaners and washers
are employed. There is also employed by: respondent at
Clarendon, Virginia, office employees who keep and main-
tain books and records of the respondent. Respondent
employs approximately 80 persons, of which approxi-
mately 48 are bus drivers, 25 mechanics and the remain-
ing number censtitute the office force.
(29) 12. Respondent alleges that its President is Leon
Arnold, its Vice-President is Joseph L. Arnold, its Sec-
retary and Treasurer is H. H. England. The said Presi-
dent has been a pioneer in motor bus transportation, and
as far back as 1921 or and managed the Wash-
ington Rapid Transit Company, which was the first mo-
tor bus company giving general passenger service in
Washington, D. C.; thereafter the said Leon Arnold or-
ganized the Washington Motor Coach Company which
Company was the first eompany to operate a metor bus
service Pesca Washington and Baltimore, Maryland,
Washington and Atlantic City, New Jersey, and Wash-
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 31
ington and Annapolis, Maryland; that thereafter the said
Leon Arnold organized the present eorporation, respond:
ent herein, in the year 1926 and has been President and
General Manager of the said company since that time.
That prior to the organization of the present company
the said Leon Arnold had, from his experience in the
operation of other bus companies, adopted a consistent
policy of fairness to his employees and had enjoyed con-
tinuously pleasant relations with his employees as a re-
sult thereof and was unharassed by labor troubles of
any kind; that when the said Leon Arnold became Presi-
dent of the present corporation, respondent herein, he
brought to the management of that corporation his ex-
perience aforesaid and continued the policy of maintain-
ing fair and friendly relations with his employees; that
the respondent corporation has always enjoyed such
friendly relations with its employees, and during its ex-
istence no strike or labor disturbance of any kind has
occurred in the operation of respondent’s business, Re-
spondent avers that at all times prior to the activities
alleged in the complaint herein the wages paid its em-
ployees, their hours of service and working conditions
were satisfactory to the said employees; that at no time
in the history of the company has any complaint, formal
or otherwise, been filed by its employees in any concerted
way or otherwise, with the management of the said com-
pany; that any difference between the company and any
of its employees was merely routine in character and of
an individual nature such as is likely to arise in the con-
duct of any business such as respondent’s; that no ‘‘la-
vor’’ difference or ‘‘labor problem’’ existed in the op-
eration of respondent’s business ; that its employees were
(30) loyal to their employer and voiced from time to
time their satisfaction with their work and wages, all
of which was reflected in the labor turn-over in respond-
ent’s business which evidenced far less change in per-
company and up to September, 1935, and the months
Succeeding, all as hereinafter set forth.
ee
32 NATIONAL LABOR BELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
13. That on or about October first, 1935, the man-
agement of the respondent corporation began to notice a
change for the worse in the work of its shop employees
and equipment repairmen, taken as a whole; that the said
employees seemed to be less efficient and not as willing
as theretofor, that the atmosphere of respondent’s ga-
rage, which was required to be kept open day and night,
seemed to become less friendly and the relations of re-
spondent’s employees with each other seemed. to be less
pleasant; that there was less co-operation between the
employees with each other and with the management;
that this condition was reflected in the fact that more and
more buses were compelled to be taken into the garage
for repairs during business hours; that breakdowns on
the road became more frequent; more time was con-
sumed in making repairs and the repairs became less
permanent in character and in general, from the man-
agement’s experience in the bus business, it became ap-
parent that something out of the ordinary was occurring
which must be located and remedied. |
14. That the management of respondent corpora-
tion thereupon began an investigation and attempted to
locate the cause of the altered conduct of its employees
and their apparent decrease in efficiency; that various
remedial measures were taken by the management but
that no permanent remedy was found, and conditions in
respondent’s Clarendon repair garage continued as
above described until on or about February 1, 1936, at
about which time the said management determined that
various employees were becoming so inefficient that it
would be necessary to replace them in the near future.
Shortly thereafter it undertook to ‘‘break in’’ men to
take the place of six bus drivers which it had already
determined must be discharged. In addition the man-
(31) ent held conferences with a view to weeding
out the less efficient employees in the repair shop.
15. Thereafter the management, on or about Feb-
ruary 28, 1936, learnt for the first time efforts were being
made to form a labor union msg hy piooes Respond-
ent herein s uently learned that a person going un-
der the name of Giffin who makes his living by persuad-
ing employees to form a union for their vwn benefit in
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 33
# company where no onion had before his arrival ex-
-sted, came to respondent on or about September 1, 1935,
and disguised as a workman and pretending to need
work, persuaded respondent to employ him as a work-
jag mechanic. Thereafter the said Giffin, as respond-
ent is informed and believes and.hence avers, pretended
to work in respondent’s repair garage as a workman but,
in reality, his principal occupation therein was to per-
suade several employees of the night and day force in
the garage to form a nucleus of employees which in turn
Efforts to form the said union met with obstacles by
reason of the fact that no union had theretofore been
formed in respondent’s business and its employees were
unaware of the advantage to be derived from a labor
union, and hence it was necessary to explain to the said
employees in what a labor union consisted, in what way
it would operate and what advantages would be derived
therefrom. As a result of: this ignorance on the part
of respondent’s employees many employées were, as
respondent is informed and believes and hence avers, un-
convinced of the advantages of joining such a union,
and a substantial number of them refused to join the said
union. Thereafter, the said Giffin, having completed his
organization work and having voluntarily ‘left respond-
ent’s employ on or about October 1, 1935, finding that
the employees he had won over to the formation of a
union were not meeting with success in so forming a
union himself returned surreptitiously to respondent’s
premises and entering the recreation room to which all
but employees are forbidden entrance, on at least one
occasion actively exhorted respondent’s bus drivers to
form the union, the said Giffin falsely pretending him-
self to be a bus driver in respondent’s employ.
(32) 16. Thereafter the work of organizing the union
still lagging and proving unsuccessful, the said Giffin sent
among respondent’s employees a professional labor or-
ganizer by the name of Clark, who respondent is informed
za
#4 NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
said union whose existence respondent discovered, as
aforesaid, on or about February 28, 1936.
17. Upon being advised that a labor union was being
formed among respondent’s employees, respondent made
no effort to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
with respect to any right of ee or in their
efforts to form or join or assist a labor union. It was,
however, brought to respondent’s attention that there was
a division of opinion among the said respondent’s en-
ployees as to whether they desired to form a labor union.
Certain of the employees informed respondent that they
were — to the formation of a labor union, and cer-
tain other employees’ wives, fathers and other relatives
likewise advised respondent that employees had spoken
to them of the prospective labor union and were opposed
to it. From the information coming to respondent in this
way, respondent concluded that there was a substantial
difference of opinion in respect to the formation of the
said union among its said employees. Respondent was
likewise advised by certain employees that they had, in
- fact, joined the union, but that they had been coerced into
joining it by the argument that they could join at that
time for $2.00 whereas later on it would cost them $15.00
and, wT they would be compelled to join. Re-
spondent is informed and believes and hence avers that at
no time did the number of employees in the said union ex-
ceed 57; of these 30 members of the said union have come
to respondent and stated that they are opposed to the
anion and would like to resign from it. Several of the
said employees have advised respondent that they are
afraid to resign from the said union because they have
been told that the said union will contro] employment in
respondent’s business and if they resign from the said
(33) union they will not continue to be employed. Re-
spondent likewise*has been requested by relatives of vari-
ous members of the said union to have its President ap-
proach the various members aforesaid and speak to them
privately relative to their membership in the said union,
but this the President of respondent te consistently re-
fused to do, though he has discussed it from time to time
with various members of the said union and groups of
his employees who have voluntarily come to him. Re-
spondent avers that at no time has it ever threatened any
WASH., VA, AND MARYLAND COACH CO,, RESPONDENT. 35
of its employees, or. any group thereof, that it will dis-
criminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment by reason of any
employee’s membership or non-membership or any group
of employees’ membership or non-membership in any
labor organization. Respondent likewise avers that it has
never at any time attempted to interfere with, restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join-or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.
18. On or about February 28, 1936, various patrons
telephoned respondent’s offices and appeared at respond-
ent’s terminal in person and stated that they had been in-
formed that respondent’s busses would discontinue serv-
ice on February 29, 1936, that respondent’s employees
were going on a strike on that date. Said patrons also |
stated that they had heard that there was ill feeling be-
tween the employees and respondent, and that the em-
ployces had threatened to wreck one of respondent’s
’ busses. False reports were likewise made to the police,
as respondent is informed and believes, that brakes on
respondent’s busses were ineffectual and defective, and
that there was danger that the drivers would lose control
of such busses. Respondent’s management believed as a
result of the reports above referred to that a concerted
effort was being made by various persons inimical to re-
“spondent’s business to injure respondent in the esteem
of the public and to hurt respondent generally and
harass it in the conduct of its business.
19. Considering the entire situation, bearing in mind
the events which had occurred from September, 1935, on-
(34) ward, respondent’s management decided the drastic
measures must be taken to preserve the good will and effi-
~ ciency of the company and to continue its operation. It
thereupon determined on or about February 28, 1936,
to discharge the six bus drivers hereinbefore referred
to for whom understudies had been in the course of
being broken in. In addition respondent, feeling alarmed
at the reports from members of the public abont the
an
36 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, V8.
brakes on its busses and feeling some concern, lest by
some possibility, some of its employees’ might harbor
a grudge against the company and tamper with the
brakes, determined as a measure of protection to itself,
to the drivers of the busses and to the public to dis-
charge such of the employees of the repair shop as were
least efficient, many of whom appeared to respondent to
be disaffected and who appeared to be idling away their
time in secret huddles and discussions instead of being
engaged in their usual work.
Respondent avers that its precautionary action in
discharging its inefficient employees was well-founded
inasmuch as on the following day one of its discharged
employees, a member of the union herein, was reported
to have been discovered tampering with and loosening
the brakes on one of its busses in an open lot adjoining
the repair shop. Respondent avers that when it dis-
charged the fourteen mechanics herein, it did not know
whether they were union men or nat.
20. Respondent avers that the National Labor Re-
lations Act as construed and applied herein by defend-
ants herein in approving the issuance of the complaint
and more particularly in holding that the discharge of
the employees herein mentioned constitutes an unfair
‘labor practice in that it amounts to interference with,
restraint or coercion of employees and the exercise of
their right to organize, to form, to join or to assist a
labor organization, etc., within the meaning of Section
7 and Section 8 (1) of the Act, or as constituting a
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act,
is a deprivation of respondent’s property without Due
Process of Law in violation of the Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution in that the actions of respondent were
in no way an unfair labor practice, but on the con-
trary, were the normal and reasonable efforts of re-
spondent to protect its business, its employees and the
(35) a and to preserve its property; that its act
in di rging the said employees was in no way for the
urpose of interfering with or restraining or coercing
its employees in their attempts to form a labor union
nor was it a discrimination as to hire or tenure of em-
ployment; that the right of employees to organize and
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 37
to collective bargaining is not a right unqualified, un-
restricted and absolute, but is a right which must be
exercised with due respect and regard to the rights of
others and their property; that the Act of Congress
herein as construed and applied by defendant under-
takes to vest jurisdiction in said Board to enquire into
and supervise activities of respondent innocent in thern-
selves, in no way connected with interstate commerce
and in no way an interference with the right of em-
ployees to organize or to bargain collectively, or other
rights of employees. That the complaint herein fails to
charge that respondent’s action in discharging the em-
ployees was with the object of destroying the said em-
ployees’ right to organize or to bargain collectively or
was with any wrongful or unlawful intent; that, there-
fore, the Act of Congress as construed and applied
herein has been construed by defendants to prohibit
the exercise of a right inherent in respondent ag the
owner of a bnsiness, namely, its right to employ and
discharge at will and for good cause its own employees.
Respondent therefore avers that respondent’s actions
herein being entirely reasonable and proper are not
within the scope of the Act of Congress herein involved.
In the event that it be held that respondent’s actions
are penalized by the said Act and are violations thereof,
respondent avers that the said Act is unconstitutional,
in violation of the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution, and otherwise as averred in respondent’s
objection to the jurisdiction of the Board filed herein.
WHEREFORE, Respondent moves that the Com-
plaint herein be dismissed.
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND
COACH COMPANY,
By LEON ARNOLD, President.
LEON ARNOLD.
R. E. LYNCH,
ROBERT E. LYNCH,
WM. HUGHES, JR.,
WILLIAM HUGHES, Jr,
Investment Building,
Washington, D. C., 4
Attorneys for Respondent.
38 §WATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
(36) NOTICE OF HEARING.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NationaL Laspor Reuations Boarp
In the Matter of
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Co.
. and
Local Divison No. 1079, Amalgamated ) Case No. C-63
Association of Street, Electric Rail- '
way and Motor Coach Employees of
America, et al.
Please take notice that the hearing scheduled to
be conducted by a representative of this Board on Mon-
day, March 23 at 10 A. M. in the Hearing Room, United
States Tariff Commission Building, will take place in the
offices of the National Labor Board, Room 406 Denrike
Building, 1010 Vermont Avenue, N. W., Washington,
D. C., at the same date and hour.
By direction of the Board:
BENEDICT WOLF,
BENEDICT WOLF, Secretary.
Copies sent to:
R. E. Lynch, Esgq.,
Washington, Va. & Md. Coach Co.,
Attention Leon Arnold, President
Charleton Ogburn, Esq.
(Seal of National Labor Relations Board)
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., BESPONDENT. 39
STENOGEAPHIO REPORT OF HEARING BEFORE JOHN
M. CARMODY, TRIAL EXAMINER ON MAROH
23, 24, 25 AND 26, 1936.
Berorg THE Nationa LaBor Retations Boarp
(43) Fivra Reaion
In the Matter of:
Washington, Virginia and Maryland
Coach Company
and .
Amalgamated Assogiation of Street, )Case No. C-63.
Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, Local Divis-
ion 1079 et al.
Room 407, Denrike Building,
National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, D. C.,
Monday, Match 23, 1936.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing at
10:00 o’elock a. m,
Before: John M. Carmody, Member of Board.
Appearances: Jacob Blum, Charlton Ogburn, Ar-
thur Reyman, For the Union; Robert E. Lynch, Wm. J.
Hughes, Jr., For the Company.
PROCEEDINGS
(44) Mr. Canmopy: Are you ready to proceed?
Mr. Bium: Before we start I would like to make
this statement, that Mr. Lynch and I have agreed for
the purpose of not interfering with the work of the com-
pany, that we would hold the hearing from ten o’clock
in the morning until two-thirty ang adjourn at two-thirty,
because if we continued it would require an entire new
force to take over the buses of the company to operate.
ee
40 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
If that-meets with your approval, I think that we can
continue on that basis.
Mr. Carmopy: I brought my lunch, I don’t know
about the rest of you (Laughter).
Mr. Buum: There is ome other question. An an-
swer has been filed by the Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Company, and it was filed after the
time for filing an answer had expired, and I believe that
Mr. Lynch is going to request, that was my impres-
sion, that that answer be received now, am I right on
that? :
Mr. Lyncu: I understood from the Secretary’s
call the other day that it could be filed-at any time be-
fore the hearing.
Mr. Carmopy: It has been accepted.
Mr. Hucnes: We have some objections to juris-
diction, if you would care to hear them, please.
Mr. Hucnes: Shall we proceed with that, Mr.
Examiner?
(45) Mr. Carmopy: Yes.
Mr. Hvoues: These objections to the jurisdic-
tion, I think, have already been considered by the Board
on prior occasions but it is necessary to file them on
behalf of the respondent in this case, in order to pro-
tect his rights in the event of eventualities, in connec-
tion with the present. pending cases, such as the Grey-
hound case, and other cases. 7
We have in addition to the objections heretofore filed,
one supplemental objection which I would like to file
here, with the Examiner’s permission. Shall I read it
to you?
Mr. Carmopy: You may read it.
Mr. Hvucnres: It has not heretofore been filed. We
note in going over these charges that while it is alleged
that there was discrimination against these employecs
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 41
by discharging them, that there is not any claim in the
charges that that was done for the purpose of hindering
or preventing or destroying the right of collective bar-
gaining, and we say that the mere fact that union men
have been discharged is not in aly way a violation of
anyone’s rights, because something additional in the
sense of some wrong, attempted ‘to be perpetrated by
doing so, would have to be brought into the case in or-
der to make the charge within the true meaning, as we
conceive it, of the Act. ~
In other words, we say that the company’s experience
may have been that over a period of time, the union men
(46) that we had employed were not efficient, and’
their work was unsatisfactory, and they may have clas-
sified satisfactory and unsatisfactory men in their own
minds as union or non-union men, depending upon their
own individual experiences. So we say if the manage-
ment chooses to take that as a rough and ready method
of weeding out undesirable employees, we think it has
a perfect right to do so and where the charges have
failed to interject any element of injustice or delib-
erate attempt to destroy the right of collective bargain-
ing, we don’t think that the Act would apply, and we
would like to make that an additional ground of ob-
jection to the jurisdiction, and we submit the objec-
tion to the jurisdiction in this typewrtten form.
Mr. Bum: May I eall the Examiner’s attention
to paragraph 7 of the complaint, in answer to that ob-
jection?
‘*By laying off and discharging’ the men ‘and re-
fusing to reinstate said persons, and each of them, as
above set forth, and by all of said acts and each of
them, the respondent did interfere with, restrain and
coerce, and is interfering with, restraining and coerce.
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, and by all of said acts and each of them, did thereby
engage in and is thereby engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1)
of said Act.’
(47) Now, that same idea is carried out in para-
42 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
graph (A) of the coniplaint, so I feel that that objection
is not at all well-founded.
Mr. Hucues: Replying briefly to that, Mr. Exam-
iner, we say it may réadily be possible that it is interfer-
ing with their right of collective bargaining in a sense
but is not wrongfully interfering with it. That is what
we mean.
_ In other words, it may be restraining them for all
we know, hut we can’t help it. It may be necessary for
the protegtion of the business to get rid of these men,
and we g&y it is just too bad if that is true. In other
words, we think if there is going to be a serious charge
made Jere, that any intentional unfairness was perpe-
trated upon these men, it ought to be in the charges, and
it ought not be left to possibilities which may crop up
two or three days after a hearing starts.
Mr. Carmopy: I wonder if we are not quibbling
words here.
Mr. Hucues: I hope not, Your Honor. We feel
that we ought to bring if to Your Honor’s attention.
Mr. Carmopy: I suspect that one of the benefits of
the hearing wil! be to bring ont all of these questions,
pro and con, and if we were to undertake to match the
answer of the complaint word for word, and meaning
for meaning, as each of us interpreted the meaning of
(48) words, we would never get to the hearing at all. I
am perfectly willing to receive your objection to that,
and overrule the objection, but as a matter of record I
am glad to have it here, but you may proceed with the
business at hand.
Mr. Bium: I want to offer first the exhibit known
as Board’s Exhibit No. 1, which contains rules and regu-
lations, charges filed by William H. West, supplemen-
tary charges filed Charlton Ogburn and and Arthur Rey-
mon, attorneys, and notice of serving, and return of
services by Bennet F. Schauffler, an order designating
John M. Carmody trial examiner, and an order trans-
be proceeding to the National Labor Relations
oar
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH CO., RESPONDENT. 43
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
Mr. Lynouw: I can say that the complaint which rT.)
here, the original complaint apparently filed by Mr.
West, I think, Mr. Blum Says, we haven’t seen a copy of
it and may we have an opportunity to look it over for a
* moment or two? ’
Mr. Carmopy: You may.
Mr. Buum: I understood that Mr. Lynch says ‘‘com-
plaint’’. Do you mean ‘‘complaint’’ or *‘charge’’?
Mr. Lyncn: ‘ Charge.’’
There has also been filed, may it please the Board,
the formal written objections to the jurisdiction, and I
(49) Mr. Carmopy: You may take an exception,
Whereupon MR. LEON ARNOLD, the Respondent,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows: ;
_ Dmecr Examination,
By Mr. Buu:
Q. You are Mr. Leon Arnold? A. That is right.
. Q. What is your connection with the Arnold Bus
Company, or the Washington, Virginia and Maryland
ager.
Q. Did you bring with you certain records that were
requested? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Arnold, how long hag the Washing-
ton, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company been in
business? A. Ten years.
Q. Is it a corporation? A. Yes, sir.
Where is it incorporated? A. State of Virginia.
Q. When was that? A. 1996.
el Q. Where is its principal office? A. Clarendon,
irginia.
Q. Have you any branch offices? A. Yes, sir, 412
12th Street, Sonthwest.
_ Q. Where? A. Southwest. 7
a ee ee _
44 WATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
MR. LEON ABNOLD.
Q. What city? A. Washington, D. C.
Q. Does it have any other branch offices? A. No,
sir.
Q. Now, in what cities or States does the Washing
ton, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company operate?
A. Washington and Virginia.
Q. Any other States? A. No, sir.
Q. Just how are these operations carried on, and
will you describe the manner in which passengers are
picked up and discharged? A. In the State of Virginia
we have intra-state permits, and in the District of Colum-
bia we have interstate permits, and we are not permit-
ted to carry any D. C. passengers.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. Simply that we
could not pick you on this point here, at K Street, and
take you over to 20th and K, and let you off. We would
have to take you into the State of Virginia.
Q. When you pick up a passenger in Virginia, may
(51). he be dropped in the District of Columbia? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. At any point? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you say that in the District of Columbia
you have an interstate permit! A. Yes, sir.
Q. What type of tax do you have on your buses?
A. What type of taxes?
Q. Yes, what State taxes do youcarry? A. We carry
the District of Columbia, and the State of Virginia.
Q. When business first started in 1926, how many
buses did you have? A. Nine.
Q. How many employees? A. To be frank with you,
I just can’t tell you the exact number.
Mr. Carmopy: Approximately?
The Wrrness: I would say that we had in the
neighborhood of twenty.
Mr. Carmopy: That is all right.
By Mr. Buium:
Q. They included bus drivers, mechanics, and office
(52) workers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you call yourself the Washington, Virginia
and Maryland Coach Company? A. That is correct.
Q. Why do you call’ yourself the Maryland Coach
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 45
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
Company? A. For the simple reason that we had an
operation in Maryland, which operated out by Chevy
Chase Circle, and out through Bradley Park Congres-
sional Country Club, which we have since abandoned.
Q. How long has that been abandoned? A. At least
six years.
Q. Six years agot A. Yes.
Q. How many buses do you have now? A. Forty-
eight.
Q. Forty-eight? A. Yes.
Q. And how many employees? A. Somewhere in the
neighborhood of eighty.
Q. Eighty employees? A. Yes.
Q. How many of those are drivers? A. I would
say around about fifty.
Q. How many mechanics and shop workersf A. I
would say in the neighborhood of twenty-five or twenty-
(53) seven.
- And the remaining are employees in the office?
es.
Q. Do you recall how many passengers you carried
during 1926 when you first organized? .A. Not from
memory, but I van give it to you exactly.
Q. Will you let me have that? A. I don’t have that —
with me.
I will tell you, maybe Mr. England could give you
better than I could, if it is al] right for him to give that.
Q. All right, I will ask him that. ‘
Now, who were the officers of the Washington, Vir-
ginia and Maryland Coach Company! A. Why, my-
self president, and Joseph L. Arnold vice president,
and Mr. H. H. England, secretary and treasurer.
Q. You said that you were the general manager?
A. Mr. England is assistant manager.
Q. Who has charge of the shop where the mechanics
are employed? A. Mr. George Wilsey. _
Q. Is he here? A. I think 80, yes, sir,—no, he is
not here, but he will be here a little later.
Q. Who has charge of the hiring and firing of all
(54) employees? A. Mr. Wilsey has full control over
the shop.
Q. Of the shop? A. Yes.
Q. Who has control of the drivers? A. Mr. Eng-
land has control over the drivers.
ee
46 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, YS.
MR. LEON ABNOLD.
Q. A short time prior to the discharge of the men in
this complaint, a notice appeared in the newspapers for
help, put in the paper by your company. Who was re-
sponsible for that advertisement? A. Mr. Wilsey in-
serted that notice.
Q. Did he do it on his own discretion or your re-
quest? A. He did after taking it up with me, yes, sir.
Q. Will you explain exactly why you thought it was
necessary-—or did you have a full personnel at that time?
A. We ‘did, yes, sir.
Q. Was the purpose of the advertisement to replace
men that, you already had in your eniploy? A. y;
I would say, yes.
Q. What was the reason that you felt that your men
ought to be replaced? A. To what length would I be
permitted answering that question? Do you want me to
answer it fully?
Q. Any length until you are stopped. A. Well, to
begin with, I have had about thirteen years experience
in bus transportation, and I retain a good record. My
(55) big asset has been public relationship, good will.
I never had anything else with my employees, and since
around about October—
Q. What vear? A. of 1935.
Q. All right: Go ahead. A. We have had quite a
lot of trouble, inefficiency, in our operations, and on
numerous occasions I have taken this up with Mr. Sil-
sey, and Mr. England, and also Mr. England with Mr.
Wilsev, wanting to know the reasons. Just what I mean
by this inefficiency was the operation of the equipment
and the cleanliness of. the equipment, and the lack of
reason for lots of units that went bad owing to the fail-
ure of greasing. °
Mr. Carnmopy: That is the rolling equipnfent!
Mr. Annotp: Yes, sir.
Mr. Carmopy: Not shop equipment?
Mr. Arnotp: Rolling equipment.
Mr. Canmopy: All right. |
*
WASH., VA. AMD MARYLAND OOAOH 00., RESPONDENT. 47
MB. LEON ARNOLD.
The Wrrness: Mr. Wilsey was more or less in the
ark, and Mr. Wilsey had a group of mechanics, all of
them, which he had learned everything that they knew,
practically, and they had been orendied from washers
and greasers, up to mechanics, and they had always
been paid in proportion to the job.
(56) About the time that this thing that you ask me
about broke, and before that for quite a good while—
By Mr. Buum:
Q. You are referring to the newspaper advertise-
ment? A. Yes. We noticed that the men were in
groups around the garage, talking, and neglecting their
work, and Mr. England and Mr. Wilsey and myself talked
that over, and when either of us walked in, they sim-
ply broke loose, and Mr. Wilsey has told me, and told
them about congregating, and not getting the work out.
About in September of 1935—have you a man in
this room by the name of Griffin?
Mr. Brum: Is Mr. Griffin here?
The Wirness: Would it be possible for me to ask
a question?
Mr. Buum: Of me?
The Wrrxess: Yes.
Mr. Brum: Yon can ask it. I don’t know whether
I can answer it.
The Wirness: I would like to know what affiliation
Mr. Griffin has with the onion organization.
Mr. Buvm: I couldn’t answer that.
The Wrrwesss: Well, I will proceed, then. I would
rather have Mr. Griffin here.
About September, a man—I don’t know whether that
(57) is his correct name, but that is the name he gave
48 NATIONAL LABOR BELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
MB. LEON ABNOLD.
take on a new man there, we have a seniority list ali of
the way through, and our oldest men get the day work
and the new men get the night work, and Mr. Griffin
was given a position on day for the simple reson of
keeping him under the eye of Mr. Wilsey, to see just
how he did his work for a while. That gave him a close
contact with our day foreman, and afterwards he was
put on—
By Mr. Buivum:
Q. Who is that day foreman?t A. Mr. Frederick.
Q. Which Frederick is that? There are two. A.
I really don’t know his fall name.
Q. All right. A. And later he was put on at night,
and that put him on contact with the night foreman,
Joseph Harman.
We found, around about the time that these news-
paper articles that you referred to, broke, that—or maybe
a little before—that Mr. Griffin was the one that sowed
the seeds there first, with the day foreman and night fore-
man, and he left after being there a few days, over a
month, under pretense of going to Cleveland, Ohio,
(58) which he claimed was his home.
Q. You say ‘‘sowed the seeds, Mr. Griffin *‘sowed
the seeds’’. ‘*Sowed the seeds’’ of what? A. Selling
them the idea of the union.
Q. I see. Go ahead. A. Did you get, after he was
there, shortly after a month, he left, and went to Cleve-
land, under the pretense of selling his home. He gave to
Mr. Wilsey, while he was there, a telephone number, and
after checking the telephone number we found that—
when we tried to locate him there—that he was not there,
and there was no—that was in some other lady’s name
that lived at a different place, and if you care to you can
bring that out later through Mr. Wilsey and Mr. Eng-
land; they are more familiar with that than I am.
This condition, more or less, which I am showing to
you, disturbed the organization, and must have been—
_ Q. What condition is that$ A. The condition of
Mr. Griffin being there at that time, after that it was
more. noticeable. }
Q. Go ahead. A. Some checks that we have with .
Mr. England, in his possession, and that will be given
to you, will more or less show the reasons and inefficiency
of men that have been fired.
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 49
. MB. LEON ARNOLD.
In regard to drivers, also, he has some records and
reports. These drivers were on the road before this hap-
(59) pened, and we were breaking in extra men, and
really should—some of them would have been gone be-
fore, but owing to the bad men we had to take and break
in new men, and as our records will show, we were break-
ing in extra drivers before this time.
Q. Before what time is that? A. Before the occa-
sion of this newspapers article that you referred to.
Q. During what month was that?
Mr. Carmopy: Does anyone have a copy of that ad,
or the date, to refresh Mr. Arnold’s mind, and to per-
haps keep my own mind straight on it?
Mr. Bium: I think so. This is a copy of the Wash-
ington Herald, Saturday, February 29,
The Wirness: I just didn’t remember the date.
_ I have seen it.
By Mr. Burm:
Q. How long prior to February 29th were you break-
ing in these new men? A. On that, I would rather for
you to get the definite date from Mr. England, from
the records.
Have I answered everything that you would like
to have me answer?
Q. So far, yes. Is there any more that you can
tell us about that? A. Well, I didn 't want to take up too
much time.
(60) Q. Ge right ahead. We have plenty of time. A.
We had such reports coming in to us that the buses were
not going to be running, and was it Saturday, the 29th?
Mr. Lyncw: Yes.
The Wirress: We had six ladies went into onr
terminal—
By Mr. Burm:
Q. Were you there? A. No, sir.
Q. Did they speak to yout A. The ladies didn’t
SE Oe eee
50 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
MB. LEON ARNOLD.
but if you want the lady that was spoken to, I would be
glad to bring her here.
Q. Don’t give us any conversation that you didn’t
hear and wasn’t spoken to you.
Mr. Lyncu: . Mr. Chairman, I submit that if certain
information was brought to Mr. Arnold, to his attentigp,
he couldn’t be there in every part of the bus del
ment at one time, and if certain information was brought
to his attention and he relied upon that information
and believing the accuracy of the employees or other
persons who gave it to him, he would have a right to
act upon that, and it he acts upon the information, but
the fact that information was brought fo him. and he
_ relied upon. it, I submit to the Board that it would be
proper here. |
) Mr. Canmopy: He is a responsible executive of this
company, and I think he might let us know what he
(61) did, and then have him tell who told him, the in-
formation that he relied upon to act, whether it was as
to handling schedules, or something else.
Mr. Brum: I will agree to that.
The Wirngss: Now, you want the name of the
party?
By Mr. Bium:
: Q. That is not necessary. .A. Now, just what have
you got there? ___. ,
6. That you received reports that buses would not
be running on the next day after Saturday. A. On-the
evening r Saturday, the 29th, that there would not
be Bag buses running, and that they were going to
strike.
Q. All right. A. Also, information that one boy
said he was going to get off the bus at the top of Picket’s
Hill, and let it go. .
Mr. Lyxcu: Do you mean driver?
The Wirness: Yes. Now, those things coming, and
with the inefficiency I have set forth there, and which
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH 0O0., RESPONDENT, Si
MB. LEON ARNOLD.
we will prove by our records, ¥think pretty well covers
it. That is all that I can tell you.
been some employees that had signed up, and I had some
of their wives call me up, and different people that were
interested.
Q. When did it first come to-your attention that
some union. activities were going on in your place? A.
I would say around about Friday or Saturday.
of the company, no.
Q. Any of the officials? . A. Mr. Wilsey is the one
that brought that out, the superintendent of the shops.
A. Do you know whether Mr. Wilsey knew Prior to
(63) the time that unionization activities’ were going
on?
Mr. Hucues: I suggest that Mr. Wilsey be asked
that. me Te ; -
The Wrrness : He is here now.
By Z ms
- Did the unionization activities of your men in-
fluence you in any wa in discharging them? A. They
did not. - We have still some of them there.
- Well, were you in a conference with the regional!
oe of Baltimore after the charge had been filed?
- Yes, sir.
Q. And in that conference did you make a state-
$2 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
- MB. LEON ABNOLD.
ment to him that you would not fire any more pending
the outcome of this proceeding? A. No, I did not tell
him, that, definitely, but what I did tell him was that—
we had that conference, I think, on a Friday, is that cor-
rect? 2
Q. I think so. That is March 6th. A. And we ar-
ranged at that time, a previous conference, on Tuesday,
the following Tuesday, I did tell Mr. Starr’s office that
I would not fire any of them\between that time—
Q. Between what timef A. Between Friday and
Tuesday. e
Q’ And since this complaint or this charge has been
brought, no more men have been fired, have- they? A.
(64) Yes, sir. ;
Q. When? A. I can’t tell you those things. Mr. .
England can tell xou. I don’t know who the men are,
oe there have beeh some. There was one fired yester-
y. 2
Mr. Carmopy: Can you hold that question until
Mr. England is on the stand?
Mr. Buum: Yes,
The Witness: I don’t know just who he was.
Mr. Brum: I think that is all.
During the racetrack season in Maryland, do you
run buses to those tracks? A. Yes. .
Q. Under what sort of permit do you operate buses
then? A. Under a Maryland permit, but that is more
~ or less what we consider ¥pecial business, and we get
a tag in Maryland and pay the mileage for the time
that we run to the race tracks, and the milage that we
use during the operating of the track.
Q. How many days.a year does that occur? A. I
can’t just tell you that. \I think that fluctuates at dif-
ferent times. Mr. England is in a better position to
handle that.
Mr. Canmopr: To what tracks does he operate in
Maryland? .
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 53
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
The Witness: I could tell him that.
7
(65) Mr. Lyncyq: I can get Mr, Hughes to tell you
when they run (Laughter). a
s
The Witness: We operate to Bowie, to Laurel, and
to Havre de Gras, and we haven’t operated to Havre
de Gras -the last couple of years, but we operate to
Pimlico, and those three tracks, those are the only three
that we have been operating to during the last couple
of years. .
Q. Do you operate to Hagerstown? A. No, sir.
Q. Marlboro? A. No.
Q. Who issued your interstate permit to do busi-
ness in the District of Columbia? A. Who gives the
interstate? ;
Q. Yes. -A. The Public Utility Commission of the
District -of Columbia. | ss
Q. Do you get any authority to operate in the Dis-
trict from the Interstate Commerce Commission? A.
Yes, sir, that is a new set-up at the present time which
we have filed, or there are the necessary papers to be
filed in that manner.
Q. There is one other thing, Mr. Arnold. I want
to show you this which says ‘‘a personal message from
Leon Arnold.’ Will you look at that and can you re-
(66) call the date of that being issued to the employees,
and whether it was issued? A. Yes, sir, I remember
that distinctly. ;
Q. What was the date of the issuance of that? A.
Now, the date of issuance—I am bad on dates— but I
think Mr. England can answer that. aay
Q. Approximately; it is signed by you. A. I would
Say approximately about three weeks ago.
ao Three weeks ago? A. Yes; and I might explain
that. :
. Mr. Carmopy: Is it in eviderice?
Mr. Bum: Not yet. I am going to introduce it.
Mr. Canopy: Do you want the explanation first?
~ Mr. Brum: Yes.
_-3A =“ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, Vs.
MR. LBOW ABNOLD,
The Wirwess: These personal messages, we have
been issuing for quite a number of months to our or-
ganization, our complete organization, and they are is-
sued to them in rotation, and it is a regular system
that other people, and other businese concerns that get
up that kind of—those things—and after consulting with
us, they got those up erghteen months in advance, and
I don’t know whether Mr. England can tell you at this
time or not, but we would be glad to furnish you with
the time that we started with this, and these, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, are numbered, or something,
in rotation, or taken out in rotation, and we take which-
ever one that comes, the whole eighteen months.
(67) Q. Then would you say that it is a mere coin-
cidence that this one appeared at the time that you were
having this labor difficulty? A. I would swear to that.
Mr. Brum: When the Examiner finishes with that,
I would like to introduce it in evidence.
I offer this in evidence.
Mr. Lyncu: No objection.
Mr. Carnmopy: It is admitted.
(The documert referred to was marked ‘‘Board’s
Exhibit No. 2”’ and received in evidence.)
Mr. Caamopy: You say that you bay this in a sery-
ice: De yeu get ene cach week?
The Wirwnss: I sign those every Sunday, and those
are given to the employees every Monday.
Mr. Canmopy: Where do you buy them?
The Wirwess: Fo be frank, I just can’t tell you
Mr. England can tell you that. He is glad to show you
the bilis and all of the records, and everything.
Mr. Ganmopr: Mr. England, will yeu be sworn now,
please f
a
P
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOAOH 00., RESPONDENT. 55
HAMMOND H. MNGLAND.
Whereupon HAMMOND H, ENGLAND was called —
as a witness on behalf of the Board, and having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
(68) By Mr. Caamopy: :
Q. I will ask Mr. England, then, about this -par-
ticular thing: Where do you buy that service? A. We
buy that from a firm in Chicago. I just don’t recall the
firm right offtand. It is Warren something, but I can
furnish the proper name.
- Q. Would you do that, please? A. Yes.
Q. Now, do they specialize in transportation? In
other words, are these adapted to people engaged in
tranaportation, more particularlyf A. They specialize
in alh_business, not only transportation, but gTocery
stores, and any place that has any number of employees.
I would like to explain how they are put out.
We have a book, and we would be very glad to. bring
it down, furnished by them, and there is each one of
these messages pasted in that book; and on the second’
page of the book there are the numbers, and those num-
bers are not consecutive, but they are pieked out and
all of the boxes that we have with those in are numbered
to correspond with the numbers on that sheet.
Q. You can buy a certain number? A. Yes.
(69) Q. You don’t have to buy a whole set? A. You
buy a whole set, avd the whole set comes, and it is all
eet uP in this book, and they set it up as to how they
be given ont. Every time we put out one, there
is a check mark put at that number, and we can show,
as we bring that book down to you, and show sinee the
beginning of this, just how we have followed that sys-
tem up. From this e to now; and from the time we
started, up until this date.
Q. How much in advance of the release do you get
the copiés? A. That is all sent to us at one time. We
have that whole supply in our stock room.
Q. So that you may pick out for any one week, any
message that you wishf A. No, we don’t pick out any
one ‘They are all set up in this book, and they are
be taken in rotation, but those numbers,
. " +. and t t) h
“
56 MWATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
MB. LEON ARNOLD.
put down in that book just that way, and we give them
out in the exact way that the book calls for.
Q. Would you mind bringing that? A. I would be
glad to. ,
Mr. Buum: Is it possible for you, Mr. England, to
(70) select any one that you want indiscriminately and
distribute that one that week?
The ‘Wrrnnss: I suppose that we could do that,,but
our records will show, and we lave checked in that book,
and if you would like to send over for that, that would
be seen.
Mr. Carmopy: Perhaps you may send over and get
it, if you want to.
The Wrrness: Suppose I have it brought down im-
mediately.
Mr. Carmopy: All right.
. Whereupon MR. LEON ARNOLD having been pre-
viously duly sworn, resumed the stand, and urther tes-
tified as follows:
- The Wrrnzes: I would like to say this, in the is-
suance of these Mr. Reyman or myself do not - pick
these out. Every Sunday morning when I go over -to
the office, one of the boxes of these forms is on my desk
for me to sign, and that box is taken out by the cashier,
and put there. -
Mr. Hucuas: Mr. Blum, I assume that both sides
of that are in evidence. .
Mr. Buum: The whole thing.
By Mr. Buu:
Q. You say that since October, y you had quite a lot
of trouble and inefficiency i in operation? What brought
(71) that to, your attention in October? -A. Why, de-
lays, and cleanliness of equipment. :
Q. Did you personally notice these things, or was
it brought to -your attention AI have noticed them
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESRONDENT. $7
MR. LEON ARNOLD. | ;
myself, and also heard of complaints that have been com-
ing in from the passengers, from the public, in regard
to the buses. ;
Q. What were the complaints, in regard to cleanli-
ness? A. Yes,
Q. And some— A. And some in regard to delays.
_ | Q. Were all of these complaints caused by the peb-
ple that had been discharged? A. I might say this, that
this came to such a point where I recognized a situation
for protection of our business, and the relationship that
we have had and over the years, which I -have related.
I didn’t feel like I could lose it or corrupt it ip any -way,
and therefore I called Mr. Wilsey in and talked this over
with him, and I said, ‘“We have. got to do something,
and do it before we don’t know where we are, because
our equipment was going bad, and the names—I put it
' up to him, in that way, who was the most efficient, and
so on and so forth, and Mr. Wilséy made the ‘designa-
tion. ; :
Q. Did the complaints come in to you on new buses
(72) or old buses? A. Both. ..
Q. What was the newest bus that you had in Octo-
ber of 19357 A. I-would say the last buses we had six
new ones, and probably been in operation six or seven
months. ; ‘
Q. Yon had complaints on those beues? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, were the drivers of these buses dismissed?
A. How it that?
- Q. Werethe drivers of those new buses dismissed ?
A. I couldn’t telt yon that. They drive different ones.
Q. They—now, of these men that were fired, do you
know whether any of them had been in your employ for
- long period of. time? . A. I would Bay -yes, some of
em.
Q. More than five years in some cases? A. Yes; J
guess some of them have been there five years, maybe a
couple of them.
Q. Any of the men that were retained in your em- -
ploy just a short space of time, that is, men that were
not fired? A. I'would rather not give that from memory.
Mr. England is in a better position to tell you that.
- He can answer that?’ A. Yes,
(78) Q. Now, when you noticed these men around the
garage in groups talking and neglecting their work, that
*
58 ##NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, V8.
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
was in October, wasn’t it? A. Well, I would say from
then on.
. From then on? A. Yes. :
. Now, what steps did you take to remedy that sit-
nation from October to February? A. We just were
. stumped, as I said awhile ago. We had talked it over
with Mr. Wilsey, and I had asked Mr. Wilsey, ‘‘What ~
is the matter out here? We are not getting the proper
work done here,’’ and he said, ‘‘ Well, I just can’t figure
it out. I know that there is something wrong, but I don’t
know what it is.’’ :
Q. Did your revenue decrease? A. Our revenue de-
crease?
Q. Yes. A. I wouldn’t say at that time, no.
Mr. Hvuours: Do you mean net or gross?
Mr. Pivm: Gross.
The Wirwzss: I wouldn’t say that it did particn-
larly in October, but I would say it did decrease later on.
By Mr. Bium: ;
Q. Well— A. Along in the months of January and
February.
(74) Q. Wasn’t that season on account of the cold
weather? A. I wouldn’t say so.
. Was it a great decrease over the year previous?
A. t wouldn’t be natural when we put on 21 buses
in the last year. It would hardly be that comparison.
Q. When was that? A. We put on 21 additional
buses in the past year.
540,000
e @ & one more ion, Mr. Arnold. When was
it, if you know, that Mr. discovered that Mr.
. Griffin had given the wrong one number in Cleve-
land? A. I would rather for Mr. Wilsey to answer that
Q. Do you know whether or not Joe Arnold—is he
your son? A. That is correct.
—attended a meeting of the mion? A. I heard
he yes, sir. ,
Pa
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 59
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
.Q. Did he do that at your direction? A. He did
Q. At his own direction? A. He did; and my under-
oer is that by invitation of two or three of the
men; Mr. Frederick, for one.
(75) Q. Do you know how he was dressed when he
came to that meeting? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you describe that? A. He had ona driver’s
cap when he left out of the office. I saw him gving out
of there with a couple of men.
Q. Does he usually wear a driver’s cap? A. He
does G hua: is liable to ~~ on most h ’
’ in a i is meeting, put on a
driver’s cap? A That — :
Mr. Buum: That is all.
Mr. Leva: ‘The men that he attended the meeting
with were they dri ? :
The Wrrwess: Yes, and they asked him to come
over to the union meeting with them.
I don’t know about men that he went with, but
I know he: was invited by two or three of the men, and
Mr. Frederick was one of the men, and the meeting was
held at his house. |
Mt. Bum: How did you know about that. /
The Wrrwass:. I have heard him say 80, and T have
heard two or three of the other beys who heard that in-
vitation. ;
Mr. Biuum: Any of the boys that were fired*
The Wrrwzss: I couldn’t tell you that.~
Cross Exaurxanion.
(76) By Mr. Buvw:
Mr. Arnold, sthce ha
deen Spersting tea’ penteas met PA. a pacts 4
not
What is t general experience in the bus busi-
S nest in the Distriet of Colenbas ce nthe bus bas
Tell the Board, please sir, when you first commenced bus—
60 =‘WaTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
operations? A. I might say that I was a pioneer in the
bus operation in the District of Columbia, started in
1921, on 16th Street, and inaugurated that company, and
later on, inaugurated the Washington Motor Coach Com-
pany, which was the first operation between Washing-
ton and Baltimore from the Willard Hotel to the South-
ern Hotel in Baltimore, and also to Annapolis from the
Willard Hotel, to Carvell Hall, and that company was
operated under the name of Washington Motor Coach
Company, and also from the Mayflower Hotel to Am-
bassador Hotel at Atlantic City. ©
Q. At the time when you commenced your opera-
’ tions in the District of Columbia, were there any other
bus lines in the operation near? A. Nothing other than
sightseeing.
Q. At the time you commenced your operations in
the State of Virginia, were they any other bug lines in
(77) that section of the country? A. Yes, I pérchased
a couple of operators out there.
Q. At the time when you commenced, you were ‘the
sole operator of buses in that section, that is, the ones
that you purchased, and the new routes that you were
putting in there, is that correct? A. I would say in
that greens | 3
Q. Your principal operations, Mr. Arnold, are the
Arlington and Fairfax County, are they not? A. That
is & Major part.
Q. During the period of time from 1926 to date
what has your salary as president and general manager
been? A. Not one red cent. ~
Q. You mean you haven’t drawn a salary? A. I
haven’t drawn a cent. I haven’t done. anything but put
it in.
Q. During most of those years was it a losing busi-
ness? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Blum asked you with regard to certain ac-
tions which were taken by you, and you have told about
certain conferences that yon had with Mr. Wilsey, and
I will ask whether or not you had conferences from time
to time in the last three or four months with Mr. Wilsey
and Mr. Eyigiand relative to the equipment and the ope-
rations and delays of buses? A. If have. . ;
(78) Q. State whether or not there came a time when
there were certain ial conferences ‘called with re-
gard to clutches on the buses? A. Yes.
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 61
‘. MB. LEON ARNOLD.
Q. Tell about that, Mr. Arnold, please? A. We had
a lot of trouble with these clutches, and it is my under-
standing that the condition occurred from a lack of
grease. | .
Q. Are you able to say whether or not in the latter
part of February, take parti¢ularly the last 15 days of
February, whether there was an exceptionally large
number of what you call road delays, that is, breakdowns
of buses?. A, What months? :
~—_Q. The latter part of the month’ of February. A.
Yes, sir. Th¢ latter part of the month of February and
also the first part of March, we had, I would say, more
delays than I have had in any Operation that I have
ever had. ae ”
* Q. These calls with regard to the cleanliness of the
buses, can you state over what period of time they were
brought to your attention? QY. Well, we had more of it
I will-say, in the past four or five months, si.
. Have you personally noticed, at times when you
(79) go through the Sarage, or in the yard of the place
where the buses are kept, that the men would not be on
their job working, but would bé in groups talking? A.
On numerous occasions. .
_ Q. Have you called that to the attention of Mr.
Wilsey? A. I have.
Q. Have you also called it to the attention of Mr.
England? A. I have. |
-_” Q. Mr. Arnold, on the 28th of February, on Friday,
did there come certain information to. you with regard
_to the possibility of a bus driver leaving the bus and
permitting the. bus to run at its:own accord? A. Yes, °
sir. |
Q. And after that information was brought to yon,
did you callg conference of Mr. England and Mr. Wil-
sey? A. I fi
Q.. And I will ask you whether or not on the next
I might say that that was not ‘only a report from
the terminal, but from quite a few boys operating on the
line that passengers had asked in regard to the service,.
whether it would be operating on the Saturday evening
of the 29th.
62 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VS.
ME. LEON ARNOLD.
(80) Q. As a culmination of these inefficiencies, both
of the shop and drivers, and the cleaners and the
greasters, did you decide to take certain action with re-
gard to your personnel? A. I did.
What was that action that you decided to take?
A. Well, I called Mr. Wilsey in, and Mr. England, and
we went over it and decided that something had to be
done. I asked Mr. Wilsey to give me a report of what he
thought was the best way to handle his men, and his re-
port was that the men that we dismissed ghould be dis-
missed. |
Q. I will ask you whether or not prior to that time
you had been breaking in new.drivers over a period of
time on the buses? A. Yes, sir, we had.
Q. And were any of these persons let go mérely be-
cause they were members or suspected of being mem-
bers or having activity with relation to a union? A. It
was not, because there were quite a few of them still
there. There are several members in there.
Q. There are several members in your organization
right now that you have information are members of
the union? <A. That is correct.
A, I will ask you, Mr. Arnold, if you have ever had
a serious accident in your entire career of business in
(81) bus operations? A. Very few that I would say
~~ ——.
Ha ou ever had a case where a bus was com-
siete and several persons killed, or anything
of that kind? A. We have had them wrecked, but not be-
yond us.
_Q. Have you ever had any the last five years, when
you have been building up your heavy traffic from Vir-
ginia to the District, have you ever had a serious acci-
dent? A. Our’ accidents have been held down to a
minimum, and the largest percentage of the time we have
had decreases in our liability and property damage in-
surance.
Q. That showed a decreasing number of accidents?
A. That was due to the efficiency of the operation, and
we get the reduction on the insurance.
Q. I see. I will ask you whether or not you were
fearful that there might is some catastrophe occur if
drastic acti6n were not taken?
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH’ 00., RESPONDENT. 63
MR. LEON ‘ARNOLD.
Mr. Buom: That is purely conjectural; I object to
that.
Mr. Canmopy: I think that the witness had an op-
portunity to tell the whole story, and it didn’t occur to
-him to volunteer the statement that he discharged these
men because he thought that it was going to cause an
accident, and I think it is hardly a fair quéstion. If
you want to, put it in some other way. It is a leading
(82) question, and calls for a conclusion.
Mr. Huaues: It was in the answer, Your Honor.
Mr. Buum: This is cross examination.
Mr. Lyncx: That is because you can ask such ques-
tions on cross examination. There is a reason why he
caused the advertisement to be inserted there.
: Mr. Canmepy: I don’t think he testified to that, did
ef
Mr. Lyncu: The question was whether or not that
was an additional reason.
By Mr. Lywon:
Q. Did there come a time when there was discussion
as to the brakes of the buses? A. Yes. |
Q. Can you state when that was first? A. I can’t
say particularly as to the specific date. I think it was
somewhere around the 28th or 29th, and I happened to
drive into the garage, and one of the drivers was just
turning in, and he told me that a policeman had stopped
him on M Street, and said that there had been a report
made to the Seventh Precinct that our brakes were all
in very bad shape, and that it was a pretty serious con-
dition, and a little later on, or why, I can’t answer, Mr.
Storey of -¥ — en sae over to make an in-
spection of these brakes, and ‘while inspecting
(83) brakes, to the best of my
& mechanic by the
64 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
‘ MBE. LEON ARNOLD.
tamperiag with the brakes and loosening them up, and
_if you are going to fool with brakes, he couldn’t do much
with them.
Mr. Cagmopy: That is what he said?
The Wirwness: That is what he said, from the Traf-
fic Department, who made his reoprt in the office to me,
and I said, ‘‘ Well, there won’t be anything like that
oceur again’’ and so he went back, and went to testing
the brakes.
By Mr. Lyncu:
Q. I will ask you whether any report had come to
the bus company from their drivers thai there had been
defective brakes before it went to the Police Depart-
ment first? A. No, sir.
Q. The first report you got was from: the Police
Department, coming through one of your bus drivers
that they had reports that the buses were carrying de-
fective brakes? A. I did not get it from the Police De-
partment, but from the bus driver.
Q. Yes. A. But Mr. Storey came over, and I couldn’t
(84) say, just where he got the information.
Q. Now, the No. 7 Police Station is in Georgetown,
and all of your buses travel through that section, don’t
they? A. That is correct.
Q. Mr. Arnold, from the time of your organization
over there, ‘until just a short time ago, have you ever
had any ‘trouble with the personnel of the company? A.
I never had in this company, nor any other company,
which have been quite numerous, that I have operated.
Q. You are also connected with several other com-
panies now, and have been over many years? A. That
is correct. ; |
Q. You have been born and raised in the District of
Columbia, weren’t you? A. That is right.
_ Q. How old are yout A. 58 years old.
. And did this amicable relationship between the
employer and employees continue until fairly recently,
with relation to the bus company? A. That is correct. -
- Q, Did some of the employees of your company come
to yon. relative to this matter, and ask you to advise
them with regard to whether they should go into the
union. or not? A. That is correct.
Ft ied
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH CO., BESPONDENT. 65
MR. LEON ARNOLD. : |
(60). Q. And did you— A. Gne minute; what is that?
Q. Did any of them come to you and ask whether.
they should go into the union ormot? A. No.
Q. I will ask you whether any of the members of
their families called you? A. Yes,. sir, .
Q. Can you state what you told:-them? A. Yes, sir
I had one of the bd¥s’ wives call me and ask me, would
I see her, and I told her yes.
Mr. Buum:' I would like the person identified, if
you mention the name, please. ,
The Wirness: Mrs. Hartngan.
By Mr. Lyncu: ‘
Q. Go ahead. A. And I told her yes, I would be
glad to see her, and made an appointment with her,
and she asked me, would I talk to her husband, and I
told her I would be glad to talk to him, but he would
have to come to me, and I would not go to him, so she
got into a boo-hoo spell, and the if, and and, and why that
he had been out of employment for five months before
that, and that they were destitute, and now they were
getting along better than they ever had gotten along
in their lives, and the only thing that was bothering her
was that she had to go to the ‘hospital, and I more or
(86) less tried to pacify her and told her not to worry
about that, and to go ahead to the hospital, and I. would
see her through, it didn’t make any difference what her
husband did, because I wasn’t doing it for that, and later
on her husband did come to talk to me. ad
Q. Mr. Arnold, I will ask you whether or not many
of your employees have come to you and made state-
ments as to whether or not they wished to withdraw from
the union? A. Quite a number of them, yes.
Q. Could you. state approximately how many, just
roughly? A. I would say maybe fifteen or twenty.
Q. What did you advise’ them? A. They came to:
me, it seemed more or less, on advice through others.
Q. ie had already received advice from other per-
sons? A. I had already talked to others, and some of
them talked to friends, and some of them talked to their
fathers, and different others.:
‘Q. What did you tell them? A. Well, all I said was,
~
66 NATIONAL L4BOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, V8.
ME. LBON ARNOLD.
‘*Well, it is up to you, and you have to use your own
judgment’’,
Q. Did an em tell you as to why they joined
the union, or w Tether th there was any pressure brought on
them:to join.this union? A. The majority of them
(87) didn’t know why. .
Q. Did any of ~ tell you about the fact that
they were told it was for the company’s benefit, ahd if
they didn’t join the union, they would have to let them -
got
Mr. cars I object to that.
By Mr. Lynca:
Q. Can you tell us some of the men that told you
that? If you can’t recall the name, just say so. A. I am
sure: Mr. England can do that. .
Q. Did any of them ever tell you of the fact that
they would only be required to pay $2 upon joining the
union now, and they were told that if they didn’t join
now, it would cost them $15 later on? A. A large per-
“centage of them.
Q. Do you personally know how many of them actu-
ally did join the union? A. No, I couldn’t tell you.
Mr. Lyxcu: I may say, if it may please the Board,
that we have requested Mr. Schanffler, before the com-
plaint was ever filed, to make a check with the men over
there, as a Government representative, to see whether
or not they really wanted to go into the union or not,
and I so told Mr. Schauffler, and we had received ad-
vice from if these men didn’t want to be im the
« union, and if he would check up and see if this was a
(), representative in the union or not, but this was
not done.
Mr. Brum: I object, and move that that be stricken
out. It has no rel in connection with the case,
and has no connection with what this witness stated.
Mr. Canmopy: Sustained. We can get that, per-
haps, at another time,
‘Mr. Lyxon: All right.
W4SH., VA. AND MABYLAND OOACH CO., RESPONDENT. 67
MB. LEON ARNOLD. — |
By ry Lywou: in Virginia. 4;
- During your operations over in irginia, do you
recall a time or the incident when the Government clerks’
salaries were cut? A. Yes. ;
Q. I will ask you whether or not you voluntarily re-
duced the fares to your passengers at this time.
Mr. Bium: . I object to that.
Mr. Lynon: It has a bearing in this way: It shows
the extent that this company was willing to go in order
to please its patrons, and in other words, I am going to
show that most of the patrons are Government employees
and that when they received a 15 per cent salary cut, I
want to show what action was taken by the company,
voluntarily on itg part, in order to keep the geod will of
its @atrons.
Mr. Canmopy: Of course this is a labor case, and
it has to do with an employer’s relationships to the em-
ployees, and there is no question of wages here involved,
(89) and no question of income, so far as I can see.
a right to organize, and. whether oyer,
en
It is totally a question of whether or not these men e
to discourage organization, actuall Ww
he found that they had organized. I think
erally the question.
~ employer and the em
fairness of the em
Mr. Canmopy: I think if we wish
fully, and put into the record the f
all of the employees of the transportati
the United States that carry freight and passengers,
members of the union, recognized by the iers, oper-
—_ under Federal law similar to thi law, I think that
wo d the fair; I mean if we want to go i
question, but merely to put im a piece of it
6B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONEE, VB.
MR. LEON ARNULD.
_to me to be of any advantage to anybody who has to re-
view this record. .
The courts ultimately review these records, and they
are looking for pertinent and material evidence with: re-
spect to the case before the Board. I would say that the
uestion of whether or not he increased or decreased
ares is not before us.
«
(90) Mr. Lynou: All right, sir. I think that is all.
Re-Dmect Examination. | ?
By Mr. Buvum: :
Q. Mr. Arnold, did vou have any other labor disputes -
in any other business besides this business? A. I have
already answered that.
Mr. Carmopy: Yes.
Mr. Lyxcu: Objection.
Mr. Carmopy: Sustained.
By Mr. Buivum:
Q.. Did you tell Mr. Schauffler that you had a disas-
trous experience in a slaughter house with a union or-
ganization? A. No, sir.
- 3 Did you ever have a disastrous experience? A.
Mr. Lyxcu: How long ago was that, Mr. Arnold,
when you worked in a slaughter house! A. Yes. It
wasn’t a slaughter house.
By My. Lyxoz:
Q. How many years ago was that? A. It was
around about 1912 or 1913.
Q: Were you an employee for the ee Company
at that time? A. Yes, sir.
(91) Q. I submit that this irrelevant.
Mr. Canmopy : Sustained.
By Mr. Buum:
Q: You are rather senied of the accident record of
your company,.are you not? A. Yes, sir, I am.
. WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 69
MRE. LEON ARNOLD,
Q. And you have had a reduction in insurance as a
result of it; isn’t that true? A. Yes, sir. :
Q. Wasn’t that record made up by the men whom
you just discharged? A. Some of them, I might say, but
I might say this, when I got and heard of such > aan
as*¥ did, of employees going to leave buses run ‘down
hills, I still wanted to retain that record.
Q. Did you ever hear any of those threats from the
employees themselves? A. No, I did not, but I heard
them, and it is bad enough for it to get out to the public,
and it is worse to get to the public than ta me.
~ Q. You don’t know how it got to the public, whether
these men made the threats themselves? A. But with
all of the things aworking—
Q. All of your precautions were taken as a part of
(92) conjecture on your part, as a result of some things
other people tol@ you? A. No, not by.far. Things I
saw with my own eyes,
Q. What. did you see with your own eyes? Ss
have already related that to you. ,
Q. I have understood that you talked about the
cleanliness of the buses, and how would that contribute
to more accidents, if the buses were unclean? A.
That would not have any reference to the accidents, but
I think that we have reports here to be substantiated,
and Mr. England can tell us that.
Q. Now, when you Say that Mrs. Harman came to
you— A Hartman— .
Q. Hartman? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And subsequently her husband came to. you, and
what was the conversation between her husband and
you, relative toa labor union? A. Relative to the labor
union, to be frank with you, I said he came to me, but
I don’t know whether he reported to me or to Mr. Eng-
land, but anyhow, I know that he said that he wanted
to withdraw from the union.
_Q. He made that state
land? A. I would say to s
Q. Is he still in y? A. There is only
' + (93) three in the o on’t think that Hart-
ploy? A. Yes, sir.
or not he is still a member
t say.
rman come to you, just about.
rd
70 MWATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, Vs.
| ME. LEON ARNOLD.
what time in the year was it? A. I don’t remember that
Q. Was it during the year 1936 or 19357 A..It was
during 1936. 7
Q. Was it in Jéary, or February, or when? A.
It was, I would say, in around the latter part of Feb-
ruary or the first part of March.
Q. The latter part of February or the first part of
March? A. That is right.
Q. These other people relative to this, that came to
you, relative to withdrawing from the union, when did
they come? A. I don’t think I made such a statement,
that 7 ome to me.
Q. t was the imppression I got. A. I said the
(94) employees. They got the information from their
relatives, and check your record there.
Q. You mean your present employees got infor-
mation from relatives of these union men that they
wanted to withdraw from ihe union? A.I said that
some of the employees had talked it over with their fa-
thers, or their wives.” ’
Q. Which employees do you mean, those now em-
ployed or some discharged? A. Some of them talked it
over, before, it is my understanding, before they ever
signed up, and some of them talked it over after they
signed up.
Q. When did it come to your attention first that th
had talked to their relatives, relative to this? A. Well,
I will tell you. It has come to me on-two or three dif-
ferent occasions, and it never comes in bunches.
Q. When was the-first occasion? A. I am right bad
at dates. It ha some time between, I would say,
the latter part of February, and about the 10th of March.
Q. Now, about Merch 3d or 4th, did you receive a let-
ter from the union, asking you to discuss a proposed
aes agreement with them? A. I can’t él von the
tes.
If I show you a copy of a letter, would you recog-
nize it as a letter that you received?
(95) Mr. Lyxcu: Do you have the slip from the Post
Office, whére it was signed, and the date it was received? ‘
Mr. Buy: This wasn’t registered, it Wae-cent by
the union.
~
WaSE., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH 00., RESPONDENT. 71
ME. LEON ARNOLD.
Mr. Lyxcu: It was registered.
Mr. Brum: All right; J will get the receipt.
Mr. Lyncz: Mr. Clark, do you have that receipt?
Tuc Wrrwess: I received such a letter, but I couldn’t
tell you the date it was received on. If it was registered,
the receipt will show that.
By Mr. Brum: .
Q. Was it following this letter that the men were
discharged? A. I would have to more or less’ find out
the date of that.
Q. The letter is dated March 3rd.
Mr. Lynou: Let us get that receipt.
Mr. Buum: The president of the union is stil]
working with the company.
Mr. Canmopy: Where was it mailed f rom and where
was it mailed tof
Mr. Brum: I will put that on at the proper time.
' The Wrrness: Mr. England may have some in-
formation on that, and I don’t know when it was re-
ceived. .
Mr. Bium: I don’t want that in evidence now.
By Mr. Brom:
~~) ¢ When were the first men discharged? A: To
be with you, I can’t tell you that date. .
- Mr. England can tell me that? A. Yes.
By Mr. Canmopy: ,
Q. I want to ask one or two questions: Where is
this garage? A. This garage is on the Wilson Boule-
Q. In the District of Columbia? A. In Clarendon,
Q. Did I understand that-an inspector from the Dis-
72 WATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
MRE. LEON ARNOLD.
trict of Columbia went over there to inspect brakes?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Why did he go over to Virginia to inspect brakes?
A. For the simple reason that we operate in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and that is the customary condition.
Q. Is that so, for an inspector from—was he from
the Police Department? A. Yes, sir, from the Traffic
Department.
Q. From the Traffic Department of the District of
Columbia Police, and he went to Virginia, and went into
a garage, and not only examined brakes, but had con-
versation with you with respect to whether or not people
were tampering with them? A. That is correct, sir.
(97) I might say this: That the Public Utility Com-
mission of Washington, and the Traffic Bureau fre-
quently test our brakes, and they also are tested by the
State of Virginia.
Q. ‘Do the officers from the State of Virginia come
over into the District and test brakes? A. No, sir, not
to my knowledge. . |
By Mr. Buum:
Q. Didn’t your daughter-in-law make the request
that those brakes be examined? A. I couldn’t say that.
Mr. Schauffler brought that up the other day, and if
she did, she did that in line of duty, and I can’t say.
Q. Does she have any connection with the company?
A. With the company—with what company?
Q. With your Wadiaaiee bus company. A. I was -
getting ready to tell you the connection. She is the wife
of my son, Joseph Arnold, and she is an interpreter,
stenographer, trial-board reporter, and connected with
the Police Department, and private secretary to In-
spector. Kelly, and just how, if she reported that, I don’t
know; I haven’t even asked her since, and I don’t know.
Maybe Mr. Storey would be able to enlighten -you on
t
Mr, Burm: - I think that is all, from our viewpoint.
By Mr. ai: .
Neal 23 Do, At Ao rry mail? A. Yes, sir, we
srendon. That is the only poate that we
pac pos a
( Wa8SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 73
MR. LEON ARNOLD.
Q. From where? A. From Clarendon, Virginia, in
the morning, and sometimes from the post office.
Q. To where? A. We carry it yf the morning, from
Clarendon post office, Virginia, to McLean,~Virginia.
Q. Do you carry it at night? A. Then we carry’
it from the District post office in the evening.
Q. To Mclean? A. Yes. | v3
Q. Do the buses do carry mail? A. Yes.
Q. Do you carry newspapers? A. Yes.
Q. From where to where? A. Well, we carry news-
papers from 619 12th Street to different places on the
Lynchburg Road, into Virginia.
Q. Into Virginia? A. Into Virginia, yes.
Q. Do you have other sources of révenue than pas-
(99) sengers and mail and newspapers? Do you carry
any express? A. Very little. I might say that that
source of revenue is very small. —
Q. Yes, it is all very small? A. Yes.
Q. But you do carry some express? A. Yes..
Now, a ‘word about these delays in February:
Was there any relation between this very severe winter
that we had in Washington, and throughout the United
States, and these delays? -A. I would say yes, that some
of them you could attribute to that, but you couldn’t at-
tribute it in the later part, and it was pretty good weather,
and the first part of March we had remarkable weather _
for March, and there wasn’t any reason for it at that
time, and they were more numerous at that time than they
were in the bad weather of February. — ;
Q. I see. I use buses myself, not yours, but these
other buses, and I have been complaining a great deal
about delays, and they told me that it was the severe
weather, and all of the summer-drivers put their cars up,
and got on the buses, and therefore those of us that use
buses all of the time had to wait for these summer-driv-
ers to have their special service. A. That happens, and
{ 100) those are the ones that we get most complaints
-from.
By Mr. Buum:
Q. There is one question that I wonld like to ask you:
'§ your company have a certificate of convenience
‘and necessity? A. All-certificates are issued on those
74 WNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONEE, VB.
ME. LEON ARNOLD.
Q. Isn’t that a new certificate, that has to be granted
to interstate buses, under: your Motor Vehicle Code? A.
Public necessity and convenience?
Q. Yes. A. I don’t know of a Commission that
doésn’t issue a certificate on that ground.
Mr. Carmopy: Mr. Reyman wants to ask a ques-
tion. I thought you knew one another, you lawyers.
He is an attorney for the union.
Will you ask that question again?
. Mr. Buum: Has the Washington, Virginia and
Maryland Coach Company made application for a ¢er-
tificate of convenience and necessity, from the Interstate
Commerce Commission, under the Motor Vehicle Car-
vier Act of 19367 ©
The Wirwness: I just answered that. Yes. We
have filed all necessary papers in the matter.
Mr. Bium: I think that is all.
By Mr. Carmopy:
Q. Just one more question: Have you read the
(101) National Labor Relations Act? A. I have re
cently, yes.
Q. Do you know that it says anything about the right
of employees to organize? A. I do.
Q. I realize that your Counsel has objected to the
jurisdictiomof the Board, but I just ask you whether you
have read it, and those provisions. A. I am not as
familiar on the law points as my Counsel.
- Q. Are you a reader of Bus Transportation? A.
To tell you the truth, my time is so occupied, that I am
not able to find the time, but Mr. Wilsey, and Mr. Eng-
land, I think that. they study it.
Q. It keeps you pretty busy operating buses. A
Not only buses.
I want to ask a uestion on cleanliness. Who keeps
the buses clean? o is responsible to keep the bus
clean? A. We have regular men in the garage, four day
cleaners, and we have regular men, in the night.
Q. And the driver turns the bus over to the garage
and makes his report to the office, and then the cleaners
W48H., VA. AND MABYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 75
JOHN W. STORER.
clean out the bus and Sweep if and wash windows? A.
That goes through a regular process, such as oilerg and
greasers.
(102) Q. Then the complaint was not against these driv-
ers but against the men in the garage, whose duty it was
to clean the bus? A. To be frank with you, we had com-
plaints from the drivers in regard to the cleanliness?
Q. The drivers complained that it wasn’t properly
cleaned? A. Yes, sir, and things of that kind.
Q. Thank you very much.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Canmopy: We will recess for ten minutes.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken, at the conclu-
sion of which the following occurred :)
Mr. Hucues: We have those books here. .
Mr. Buum: I would like to have Mr. England pro-
duce those when we have him on the stand,
I would like to call Mr. Storer, who examined the
brakes.
| Whereupon JOHN W. STORER was called as a
witness on behalf of the Board, and having been first
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: i
Dmect Examrarion.
By Mr. Buum: |
Q. What is your name? A. John W. Storer.
(103) Q. What is your occupation? A. Inspector.
Q. Of what? A. Automobiles, and mechanical in-
spector for the District. :
Q. Employed by whom? A. Bureau of Vehicles
and Traffic.
‘76 NATIONAL LABOR BELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
JOHN W. STORER.
and test them, and I said, ‘‘we would be glad to, that is
our business’’.
Shortly after Mr. Walker brought Mrs. Arnold down
to my office, and explained the situation, and I told her
it was up to her whether. they were inspected or not but
to get in touch with Mr. England or Mr. Arnold first,
and she did, and called Walnut 8882, and I talked to |
Mr. Arnold.
Q. Which Mr. Arnold? A. Her husband, sir—QJoe.
Mr. Lyncu: Mr. Arnold, Jr.?
The Wirvess: And Mr. England.
By Mr. Brum:
(104) Q. In your presence? A. Yes. After she was
through talking to Mr. England Mr. England spoke to
me over the phone.
Q. What was that conversation? A. He said it
wasn’t necessary, that the brakes were O. K., and I told
him I had no doubt about that, but a request. came from
the hack inspector’s office, and the work had to be done.
It was up to him, and he said, ‘‘ All right, I will call
_you back and let you know’’.
Approximately—would you have to have the actual.
time or the approximate—
The Examiner: Approximate.
By Mr. Buium:
Q. What is the date? A. March 5, 1936.
Q. Now go ahead. A. Approximately 12:10, Mr.
England called me back and said, ‘‘I think your advice
is right. Can you come over and inspect them here?’’
and I said, ‘‘If you furnish transportation I will be glad
to’’, and Mr. Joe Arnold came over and got me and I
went over there and checked thirty-four or thirt}-six
buses, I think everything was in.
Mr. Canmopy: What was that last statement?
The Wirness: That was all of the buses that were
in.
(105) Mr. Carmopy: They were the only buses there?
W4SH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., BESPONDENT, 77
JOHN W. STORER.
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Carmopy: I see.
By Mr. Brum:
Q. What did you find after examininy these buses?
A. That all foot brakes were in g00d condition.
Q. Did you find any evidence of tampering? A.
Two hand brakes had been pulled over the pit, repeatedly,
and I was notified two or three times by some person
. that J did not know, that there was tampering that went
on. I saw this party walk away.from Bus No. 107.
Mr. Carnmopy: The party that told you it was tam-
pering? A. That was an entirelydifferent party; and I
went in the office, and told Mr. Arnold that if they were
going to tamper with these brakes, there wasn’t any use
of my inspecting them, and I went out, and a fellow
named Fritz went out and re-tested that. brake, but
the hand brake did not read up. That was the second
test, and the boy pulled it over the pit, and I went down
ahd looked it over, all crevices, and everything, and all
bolts were in good condition and reported to Mr. England
that there wasn’t any tampering but that the hand brake -
was unsatisfactory.
Mr. Canmopy: Because of adjustment or a fhechani.
cal difficulty? ;
; The Wirness: That was easily adjusted, and it was
(106) adjusted before I left’ there. He pulled it over
the pit and put & man right ta it, and
Mr. Carmopy: What time did you get there?
The WIrwNess: Approximately around one. o’clock,
and it is only a twenty-minute run.
By Mr. Brum:
Q. You say this Bus 107, you saw a man walk away
po it. Had you examined it prior to that time? A.
78 #$MATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
JOHN W. STORER. ~
Q. Was it in good condition? A. It was.
Q..When the man went away, did you examine the
bus again? A. I did. -
Q. And were the brakes all-right except for that
hand brake? A. Just the hand brake.
: Q. And did you find any evidence on any of the
buses of any tampering? A. No.
Mr. Brum: That is all.
The Wrirness: Yes.
Cross ExaMInaTION.
(107) By Mr. Lyxcu:
Q. Mr. Storer, the Bus 107 was all right when you
first examined it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in satisfactory condition? A. Yes,
Q. And then when you saw this person leave it you
re-examined it, and it was not in good condition? A.
The hand brake did not come up to expectations.
Q. Could that person have tampered with it? A.
I examined it, and there was no evidence ai ws ring.
Q. What do you mean by ‘‘taping’’? mean
‘*tampering”’
Q. How do you explain the fact that it was all
right just a short time before? A. Well, the chances
are that it—the bus could have been greased, or there
may have been a little grease on the emergency brake,
which is just back of the transmission, and due to the
run that it had before, it is possible that the grease
had gotten on there.
Q. When this person left Bus 107, what did this per-
son say? A. He gave a signal when I hollered. He
put his hand .u
(108) Q. To his nose at you? A. He might have been
saying “6 goodbye’’.
. Lo Tt: Was it-a val r gesture
that he made to you? A. I didn’ pa madi eleution
to it that way, ond 1 caw bien pat bie alt 10 bie fans,
and that was the report I gave to Mr. England.
Q. How was the man dressed that went away? A
He had overalls on, according to my opinion, sir.
Q. Mr. Storer, you frequently examine the buses
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH 00., RESPONDENT. 79
JOHN W. STORER. | =
of this company and other companies? A. I do, and/
check them all. |
Q. You examined the brakes of these buses of this
company for several years? A. Since 1929, when the
regulations went into effect, sir.
Q. And you go to their shop and do that? A. Yes,
If it please the Chairman, I would like to explain
the reason why we go there. Our test station is down
at 485 C Street, northwest. The doors, we only have
an entrance where you have to pull in and back out, and
the situation is becoming more difficult now since that
loop has been put around on 6th and 7th, on C, running
into the Avenue.
(109) In order to keep down the traffic and expedite
things, where there is a fleet of trucks, we go and inspect
them, and not only Arnold Operating Company, but the
Washington, Virginia Coach Company out in Lacy, Va.,
and Washington Railway, and in fact we have gone to
Baltimore, to accommodate the Greyhound, inspecting
buses.
os sir.
Mr. Canmopy: That is the one that operates through
the District? —
The Wirness: Yes. We inspect them, in order to
. get D. C, tags, and they can not get a D. C. plate until
they are inspected by one of the authorized persons.
By Mr. Lyncu:
Q. Did you say that two of these buses were put
over the pit and the brakes adjusted while you were
there? A. Yes, sir. . |
Q. Was that because the brakes were not up toa
satisfactory rate of efficiency? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is all.
By Mr. Hucues:
Q. You spoke of tampering a minute ago. How do
they tamper. with brakes? A. Why, there are several
ways to tamper with a brake.
Q. Is it easy or hard, or how long does it take?
A. It is very simple. . |
(110) Q. Just give us 8 brief description of how that
$0 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
JOHN W. STORER. }
is dome. Have these buses air brakes? A. The ma-
jority have them. |
Q. How would you tamper with one, if you wanted to
release it deliberately? A. He doesn’t have to do any-
thing more than disconnect the line on the dash, or raise
the hood and damage the cylinder.
Q. Any ordinary man could do fhat? A. Yes.
| Mr. Cagmopy: Did you find any of that on these
-busesf ,
The Wrrness: No.
By Mr. Huaues: -
Q. What is the effect of tampering with one brake? —
What effect would that have on the bus? A. They
couldn’t stop. They have an air brake, and a hand
brake, and some have four-wheel brakes, and some have
a two-wheel brake, but the hand brake is mostly a
short brake, which is only a parking brake, and Would
not be capable of stopping: the bus. wa
Q. If the foot brake is tampered and loose, it is in
a dangerous condition? A. Provided it is an air brake.
Q. I assume they are four-wheel brakes? A. There.
are three different makes, a hydraulic, a straight me-
(111) chanical, or an air brake. If they tampered
‘with the diaphragm on. that, it would be dangerous.
_ Q. How long would it take to tamper with these
brakes, in the case of these buses, of these three or
four different brakes? A. You can take a pair of snips
and cnt your airline, practically in a minute:
Q. Is there any way to tamper with a. brake such
. that it could not -be discovered or not be likely to he dis-
covered? .
. |
_ Mr. Carmopy: I think that is a good question. I
can’t see how the bus can get out of the garage without
testing the brakes. If that is the way this bus system
‘is.ran, a driver can take a bus out of a garage, and not
know that his brakes are not right, and there is some-
thing wrong with the organization. :
| Mr. Hucuss: I was wondering about that myself. ‘¢
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH 00., RESPOXDENT, 81
JOHN W. STORER.
Mr. Cagmopy: - How can he get out on the road with-
out knowing that it is wrong?
The Wrrness: If a driver takes that out, without
.90 pounds of air, he is on his own hook, _
By Mr. Hueues: i
Q. Is there any way that brakes could be tampered
with such that it would not be discovered, as the bus .
goes out, and it might turn up later on in the run? A.
(112) If they are tampered with on the air line, the
gauge would not go up. ;
Q. The driver would know it immediately? A. Yes,
- regardless of who it was. ee
Mr. Carnmopy: What are you trying to prove?
Mr. Hucues: All I was.thinking of was this, Mr.
Examiner. Of course, you have got to look at this from
the standpoint of Mr. Arnold. He was the president of
the company, and the other officers of the company.
This business of tampering is a very serious thing to
‘them, and a very serious thing.
Mr. Carmopy: If you have any evidence here that
there was tampering; or that on the road, a.bus on the
road was discovered to have been tampered with, it ought
to be brought forward, but the supposition that some-
thing else might happen is not very clear evidence. © ‘
Mr. Hucues: But it isn’t entirely what could hap-
pen, but it is what reason Mr. Arnold had to believe that
something might happen. In other words, it might have
been that he was unduly disturbed, or that there wasn’t
-& proper basis ‘for his belief that buses might be tam-
pered with, but if in a bona fide way, he acted on that be-
lief, I would assume he was entitled to ‘it.
Mr. Carmopy: He didn’t know anything about this
until after this man went out to the garage, his son’s
with the Police Depart-
@
$2 MWATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
. HAMMOND H. BNGLAND.
Mr. Huoues: I think that is true.
I would like to ask a final question:
' By Mr. Huones:
Q. It is possible, is it not, to tamper with brakes
in such a way that the tampering might not be discov-
ered immediately, is there not? A. There is a way that
can put a slow leak in there, and anything with air
is pretty hard to do-it, on account of the air gauge not
keeping a register of 110, but yet, there is such a way
of —. such an exceptionally slow leak in there that
it oO an goes down.
And I suppose there are other mechanical ways
of ona with it-by removing nuts and bolts? A.
Oh, yes.
Mr. Huocuzs: That is all.
Mr. Buum: None of that was ever done in any of
these buses? '
The Wirness: No.
Mr. Bium: That is all.
(Witness Excused.)
Mr. Buum: I would like to call Mr. England.
(114) Whereupon HAMMOND H. ENGLAND was
called as a witness on behalf of the Board, and having
been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Dmect Examiarior.
ee e Noo is Pavow ] by th
ow, Mr. are you employed e
Washington, Virginia and Ma ot Coach Company?
A. Yes, sir. |
Q. In what capacity? A. As secretary and treas-
urer, and assistant to Mr.. Arnold.
——_———— to which Mr. Arnold! A. Mr. Leon
Q. Now, ; asked Mr. Arnold before, and he said that
Mr. Lyncu: May I ask the relevancy of that, may
it please the Court?
Mr. Canmopy: I would like to know myself.
Mr. Brum: I was attempting to show the _,
of this company from 1926. I am not going to go
all of the years, but just a few to show the growth of the
company and the increase in the passengers during that
period of time. “p
Mr. Hucues: We will admit thart.
(115) Mr. Brom: I would like to have it in the record.
Mr. Canmopy: It won’t hurt to have that, if you
can do it in a very skeleton sort of way, and do it
quickly.
By Mr. Biv: , .
Q. Do you know how many passengers were carried
in 19269 A. Our first operation, when we were first
started over there ten years &g0, we were hauling about
1,800 a day.
§ That is when you first started? A. That is right.
- Now, did that increase from year to year? A.
That has increased from year to year.
Q. Now, could yon estimate approximately how many
passengers you were carrying in 1929 A. T don’t have
that in my head, no, but we have records that show that.
Q. I ask you to bring the records showing what you
did in 1935. Do you have that? A. We have
ment there, and I think tha i
that to you, because that is i
our general records.
Q.
Q ould be able ll us how many
. Q. And you w able to tell us how ‘pas-
(116) sengers yon carried in 19367 A. In that record,
$4 MATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
HAMMOND H, BNGLAND. |
Q. Would you give us that figure? A. It is very
complicated.
Mr. Carmopy: May I ask whether this record is
gotten up for any. official body, or just for your own
information? ;
The Wrrness: For the State Corporation Commis-
sion of Virginia.
Mr. Arnnotp: That record is sworn to before being
sent to the State Corporation Commission of Virginia,
and that is a true copy. , °
Mr. Huoues: We haven’t any objection to your hav-
ing the entire record, if it will save time, Your Honor.
The Witness: They would average 8,000 persons a
day for 1935.
Mr. Lyxcx: This does not show it, Mr. Blum.
. The Wrrness: It does not show it in the form that
you wished.
By Mr. Bium:
Q. How many buses did you start off with ten years
ago? A. Nine buses.
Q. Do you know the number of employees? A. Ap.
proximately twenty.
Q. How many buses did you have during 1935, what
was the most that you had during that year? A. Forty-
(117) eight buses.
Q. And the highest number of employees? A. Ap-
proximately eighty.
Q. What is the average number of passengers that
zon per day, now, in 1936? A. That is a little un-
er 8,
Q. About 7 900? A. Around that, yes.
Q Was that true during January, February, and
up to date in March? A. Yes, sir. ;
Q. How many buses do you operate—did you oper- |
ate during these months! ‘A. We have forty-eight.
Q. And — many employees? A. Approximately
eighty.
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND COACH CO., RESPONDENT. 85
HAMMOND H, ENGLAND.
Q. Now, how many of. these forty-eight buses are
actually in operation? A. How many in actual opera-.
tion?
Q. Yes, A. On our schedule, forty-two, forty-one
or forty-two.
Q. Now, when did yon notice this decrease, from
8,000 per day, in 1935, to 7,900 a day, in 19361 A. Well,
about the middle of January.
(118) Q. Now, during the month of January, approxi- ‘
mately how many passengers did you carry a day? A.
During the month of January?
Q. Yes. A. The average was around 7,800.
Q. 7,800? A. Yes, about 7,800.
Q. During February, what was the average per day?
Mr. Lyncu: May I inquire as to the relevancy of
these, as to the number of passengers carried from
month to month, as to year to year, have to do with the
question at issue here? - 5
Mr. Canmopy: What is that?
Mr. Buum: The purpose of this, if you please, is
that one of the features of the Act under which we are
operating, is that we have jurisdiction when there is
an interference with interstate commerce, and now if
there has been a decrease in revenue, and if there has
been a decrease in passengers, that all goes to show
whether there has been an interference with interstate:
commerce, and I think it is relevant for that purpose.
Mr. Canmopy: It may be admitted. :
Mr. Hucars: I was going to say, Your Honor, that
_ certainly it has been ‘shown that this company operates
in. interstate commerce, and I don’t see why it is neces- .
(119) sary to prove any more that it is in interstate
commerce than it already is. It seems to me that the
jurisdiction of the Board in that respect is plain.
_ Mr. Burum: But in addition to the jurisdiction of
interstate commerce, there must be an interference with
commerce, 4, c .
ne
86: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
. HAMMOND H. ENGLAND.
By Mr. Buum:
Q. Now, during the month of February—
Mr. Canmopy: I am not sure that you are required
to prove definitely interfererice with commerce, if I read
the Act correctly, the threat of interference, or the in-
tent to interfere, may be a factor in the situation.
Mr. Buum: That is true.
Mr. Cagmopy: So that if you wish to prove, and
can prove, in the face of the cross examining of other
counsel, that there is actual-interference, you are per-
mitted to do it, or permitted to attempt to do it. I don’t
know whether you can do it.
Mr. Buium: That is what I am doing,—attempting.
Mr. Lyncx: Do you expect to show that there was
a decrease because of the organization which was going
on in January, and February, over there?
Mr. Buium: I don’t know.
Mr. Lyncu: I think that unless he has some evi-
dence of it, he shouldn’t be permitted to put it in.
(120) Mr. Hugues: The charge was that these men
were fired in March, and I don’t see what any decrease
in January or February has got to do with that. That
is the only charge we are supposed to answer.
Mr. Canmopy: Again reverting to Mr. Arnold’s
testimony, he began to be disturbed last fall, in Septem-
ber and October, by this business, and he may or may
not have worked persistently at straightening the mat-
ter out, and in any event he reached, I don’t.know when
he reached his conclusion, but he took action of .a definite
sort in March of this year.
Now, what:he was doing in the meantime, and what
_ these other men were doing in the meantime, remains to
' be brought out in testimony.
Mr. Buus: May I have the question answered!
Mr. Canmopy: Go ahead. |
WASH., VA. AND MARYLAND OOACH ©O., RESPONDENT. 87 |
HAMMOND H. BNGLAND.
By Mr. Buum:
Q. What was the average number of passengers
carried during the month of February? A. Approxi-
mately the same. ;
Q. 7,800.
Mr. CarmMopy: There may be a great many other
elements in this question of increased _and decreased
traffic, particularly when the variation’ is so little as
that. The dismissgl of a whole department such as N.
(121) R,A. may have a bearing on the number of. pas-
sengers carried on these buses, I don’t know, or the in-
troduction into Government service of a totally new de-
partment, bringing in four or five thousand people, and
the Social Security group will STOW, 80 we are told, and
that may increase traffic, some of which goes to these
buses, 80 you may be required to go into a much wider
range of testimony. :
You see, I am not a lawyer, and I am disturbed by
this business of trying to build a whole case out of evi-
dence, because - isn’t to me very scientific, and we know,
those of us who have done management’ engineering,
that we can determine all the evidence that is neces-
sary in a case, not from witnesses, but from factual ma-
terial that we examine into in a research sort of way,
and I know that we have got to go through the process
of wasting a lot of time because we are tied in with court
procedure, so we go through that process, and I en-
dure it, as an Examiner, but I know that there are many
other elements that will enter into this, and I think we
all know that, so you may have a lot of tall proving to
do, and these men may have some questions to ask.
_ Mr. Lyxcu: Maybe that some housewife over in
Virginia didn’t care to come to the motion picture
theatre for a while.
By Mr. Buum:
(122) Q. What is the average number of pas rs
—— to date, in March? A. I haven’t check to
te.
Q. Do you get detailed daily reports on that? A.
Yes, but I don’t have the ym = I haven’t carried
them. we can furnish it to
We have that record,
you.
_88 WNATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, VB.
HAMMOND H, BNGLAND.
(Whereupon there ensued discussion off the rec-
ord.)
The Wrrness: ._ That is passengers hauled from 1926
to the present date.
Mr. Carmopy: What years do you want?
Mr. Brum: 1926, 1929, and 1935.
By Mr. Buu:
Q. Now, Mr. England, when did you first learn that
labor organization work was going on in your business?
A. Thursday night of February 27th.
Q. How did that come to your attention? A. That
came to my attention by certain drivers that came to
me, certain men.
Q. Who are those drivers? A. The names of the
drivers?
Q. Yes. A. Mr. C. M. Johnson.
. Q. Who else? A. I immediately started to ask—
(123) Q. Who else? A. Nobody.
Q. You said several. A. Well, I asked them. a put
that wrong. I asked others immediately, and they t
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.