# Transcript of Record — Washington Coach Co. v. National Labor Bd. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386010_0168%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1937 - **Citation:** 301 U.S. 142 ## 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. 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? 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 the [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386010_0168%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.