◆ SpookStack

CV. FO. 44-13 had resorted to unfair methods in bringing about a majority. This motion was filed after the hearing of the National Labor Relations Board at Wash- ington had started action, The investigator working out of the National Labor Relations Board, Chicago office, that investigated the controversy, was called into Washington to testify before the Board there. — Mr. PATTERSON further stated that ELSHOFF had been in his office as well as EDMUNISON, and that perhaps the two had been in the office at some time. Most of the meetings were attended by representatives of the United Mine Workers, the Progressive Mine Workers, and officials of the "RB" Mine at the request of the National Labor Relations Board. He advised that nothing ever developed in thése meetings to indicate that there was collusion between EILSHOFF and EDMUNDISON, nor anything to in- dicate that the United Mine Workers and the *B" Mine operators were conspir-= ing against the Progressive Mine Workers. Neither of these men have asked for information or opinions that could in any way be interpreted to mean that they were soliciting this information with a view in mind that they were anti- cipating engaging in some questionable activity that would permit them to keep within the law. He further stated that the attorneys for EDMUNISON and ELSHOFF ap-— peared to be fine young men, clean cut, and very business like. EDMUNDSON and ELSHOFF also impressed him as being respectable, conscientious, and hard working. He advised that on one of his visits to Springfield, a ANE, attorney for the Progressive Mine Workers, contacted him and advised that the United Mine Workers had paid ELSHOFF a sizeable sum of money to influence his decision in favor of the United Mine Workers, This satter was investi= gated by one of the field men with negative results. The interviewing agent questioned Mr. PATTERSON as to a possible explanation why EISHOFF awarded the United Mine Workers a Closed Shop Con- tract in 1941 eight days after the National 4abor Relations Board certified the United Mine Workers as the collective bargaining agent, whereas the Progressive Mine Workers had been negotiating since the summer of 1937 for the same type of contract. Mr. PATTERSON explained that it was his opinion that ELSHCFF wae a member of the State Coal Operators Organization and in all likelihood their contracts with the union are for a closed shop agreement, and that ELSHOFF felt that he could not get by without offering the closed contract to the United Mine Workers. . In addition to this he stated that perhaps ELSHOFF was rather dis- gusted with all the bickering that had taken place between the unions, and that throughout this period, the mine had not operated as profitably as it -3-