(3) engaged in acts which, while falling short of actual violence, amount to coercion, intimidation or unlawful restraint against those who did not wish either to join the union or to participate in the strike;

(4) engaged in deception of others, causing them to withdraw from or remain out of employment, by misrepresenting the Government's relief policy, and falsely representing that the Government would provide relief funds to all strikers without inquiring into their necessities;

(5) in connection with the strike, violated any local law or ordinance, or any injunction or restraining order duly issued by any court of competent jurisdiction; or

(6) in connection with the strike, committed any acts which, had they been committed in the regular course of employment, would have been just grounds for discharge.

(C) Finally, and I think this is one of the most fundamental of all propositions, there is no obligation to reemploy any man who has voluntarily severed his employment relation if to reemploy him necessitates the discharge of a person who has been employed to take his place. Whatever may be the equity of the striker, the equity of the other is greater and clearer. This was never more obvious than in a time of national emergency due to widespread unemployment. As Mr. Justice Brandeis has so well pointed out, there is no such thing as an absolute right to strike. This right, like all others, is a qualified one, and where people voluntarily sever their employment relationships, they cannot well be heard to complain if others supplant them.

I have discussed this whole matter at some length, not only because of its immediate application in the cotton textile industry, but because the phrase, "without discrimination", has been used many times in recent months by the National and regional labor boards, and has been incorporated in many agreements negotiated under their auspices. It seems, therefore, that a complete discussion is not only warranted, but is essential in order that employers generally may be able to make it clear when entering into such undertakings, that there are definite limitations implied by them in the use of the term.

If there are other situations which occur to you as likely to arise, and as to which you and your associates may wish further suggestion, please let me know and I shall be glad to submit such comments as seem appropriate. With kindest personal regards, I am

President, Federal Mill, Inc., Lockport, New York. DEAR MR. LINGHAM: With respect to your letter to Mr. Gall concerning the circulation of the "Re-employment of Strikers" letter to members of the milling industry, naturally we want to supply you with the necessary copies to do this. We have it mimeographed and we also have it in a Labor Relations bulletin, copy of which is enclosed. You may have extra copies of either one of these by requesting it, or we will mail them to the Federation office. This letter has received the widest possible reception of industry, it is therefore being widely distributed.

I appreciate your good words about it, and your cooperation in giving it further distribution.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures-2.

Executive Vice President.

The body of this letter was reproduced in N. A. M. Labor Relations Bulletin, Volume 1. Number 1. October 1934.

89562-39-pt. 35-18

For Immediate Release

EXHIBIT 5405

[Copy]

TEXTILE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Tuesday, November 6, 1934

It has been six weeks since the Textile Strike of September 1934 was officially terminated. In the majority of mills those who went out on strike have been taken back without question, but the Textile Labor Relations Board is still receiving numerous complaints that strikes are not being rehired and that many are being evicted from company houses.

The strike cannot be satisfactorily ended and peace restored to the textile industry until all workers who left the plant during the strike, and who did not engage in lawless violence, are returned to their former positions. This is a fundamental issue which must be met.

The Board expects the industry to reemploy those who were in the mills before the strike without further delay, and without discrimination. Other important matters concerning the industry demand the attention of the Board and should receive it.

DEAR Mr. ROBBINS: I am writing you at the request of our associate counsel. Mr. Gall, and have before me your letter to him of October 5 and his reply of the following day.

Of course, you will realize that there is always a chance that the National Labor Relations Board will refuse to recognize as valid any election not conducted under its auspices, either directly or through a regional labor board or through an industrial labor board. On the other hand, I do not believe that the employer should refrain from permitting an election of any workers in this plant until the labor board steps in, because if it is at all possible the labor board should be kept out.

It goes without saying that if an election is held in the plant there should be sufficient evidence that the employees requested and desired the election, and also sufficient evidence as to the fairness of all aspects of the election, including the ballots, secrecy of voting, and counting of ballots.

When an employees' election is held it may be for the plant as a whole, either as a complete unit or with each department voting separately. On the other hand, it is quite possible that only one or few departments of the plant may participate in an election. The National Labor Relations Board in the Houde case recognized the possible desirability of separate departmental elections, although this particular issue was not directly involved in that case. The question as to whether you wish to have employees in only a minority of your departments vote for employee representatives is one which must be

determined entirely in the light of local conditions. Whether the election is held for the entire plant (either as a unit or by separate departments) or by one or more departments, you should decide if possible before the election is held whether it will be only for the purpose of selecting temporary representatives to deal with management, or whether you desire to establish a permanent system of employees representation involving regular elections once or twice a year. It may be pointed out in this connection that it is not impossible but that it is somewhat more difficult to establish a plan of employee representation covering only part of a plant than to establish one for a plant as a whole. Since you might be interested in the establishment of a plan of employee representation, I enclose a copy of our employee representation manual, which was prepared by a group of prominent industrialists. If there are further specific points in which you are interested, I shall be glad to answer them to the best of my ability.

(1) Immediate study of extent of employee representation throughout country, to

(a) Secure accurate knowledge of number of plans and workers;

(b) Permit cooperative, protective effort among companies having such plans.

(2) Publicity to country and city papers, business publications, etc.-covering: (a) Advantages of employee representation

(x) Per se

(y) As compared with other forms of collective dealing

(b) Successful examples

(c) Right of employers and employees to deal on a basis materially satisfactory to them

(d) Answers to both specific and general attacks upon such plans (3) Cleaning house on employee representation

(a) To disseminate facts about such plans to employers in all parts of the country;

(b) To advise employers wishing to install such plans;

(c) To disseminate among employers having such plans information as to how to meet problems;

(d) To compile and disseminate arguments as to special merits of employee representation, such as:

(x) Superiority of local dealing;

(y) Removal of outside dictation;

(z) Greater participation by employees.

1 See pt. 17, p. 7419 and pp. 7428 ff.

National Association of Manufacturers,

11 West 42nd Street, New York City.

DEAR MR. SARGENT: In accordance with your request this morning, I have had tabulated the data assembled in connection with our most recent study of employee representation plans, on the basis of industrial groups. The results are given on the attached sheet.

Mr. Erik Sjöstrand appreciates very much your courtesy in granting him an interview and will be glad to be at your office at 11 o'clock on Thursday morning.

Secretary, National Association of Manufacturers of U. S. A., 11 West 42 Street, New York City. DEAR MR. SARGENT: We have carefully considered the problem of making the survey of the extent of employee representation plans in industry which you discussed with me last Wednesday, and have reached the following conclusions. It would be inadvisable to attempt this survey by depending upon trade associations or their code committees, or state manufacturers' associations. It would take a great deal of time to enlist their real cooperation. The trade associations alone would not give an adequate coverage of all industries, and information from them would have to be supplemented from other sources. The trade associations and their code committees are preoccupied with other matters and would be likely to put off the mailing and follow-up of a questionnaire.

We believe it would be quicker and much more effective to send out an inquiry direct to a list of manufacturers covering all concerns in which there is any likelihood of there being anything in the nature of a real employee representation plan. If the questionnaire is properly prepared, and quite short, we believe that returns would be adequate to give practically complete coverage of employees working under plans of employee representation.

This method would have the added and very important advantage of providing the basis for effective follow-up and for securing more complete information regarding the employee representation plans later.

A tentative. draft of our suggested form of inquiry is inclosed.,

We estimate that the complete cost of making this inquiry, including preparation of the initial list, printing and mailing the questionnaire, and tabulating the returns, would not exceed $1,000.

It seems to me that this survey is well worth making at this time, and that it could be made very promptly and accurately by the method suggested. If it is undertaken it should be started soon, and I hope you will let me know as soon as your committee have discussed the matter and come to some conclusion.

247 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. DEAR MR. JORDAN: Our committee has given careful consideration to your letter of October 16. I am authorized to advise that we shall be glad to have you make the survey along the lines indicated with the following understanding: (1) That the total cost will not exceed $1,000, and that if it appears the cost will go above $1,000, we will be consulted before commitments involving an extra amount are made.

(2) That our committee will be promptly furnished from the replies received a list of those companies having plans of employee representation, together with the total of the compilations which may be made.

(3) That either our committee or the Conference Board will be at liberty to use the information received in such manner as they may deem proper with the understanding, however, that neither will make public or general use of definite information received from specific companies.

GENTLEMEN: When I called on you about two weeks ago you were good enough to say that you would be willing to make available to us any releases that you prepared for the National Association of Manufacturers. I regret very much that I was so occupied with other matters that I was unable to call back for the material as I said I would.

We would appreciate it very much if you would mail to us the releases that you were able to find in your files. For your convenience I enclose some franked labels that you can attach to the package. We shall, of course, return to you anything you send us.

Yours very truly,

WILLIAM STIX,

Investigator, Subcommittee of Committee on Education and Labor

under S. R. 266.