◆ SpookStack

NEE Po raphe any eR ee San Francisco 44-17 ~ _ 6harge with the NLRS alleging that ' ELSXOFF had failed to bargain «+ *- “ . % 4 did any work on the controversy concerning Mine "B® and that 26 * 7 as a matter of fact by the time he got to Chicago thie controversy had largely been settled, Mr. WAGNER stated, however, that he . @h#! inves * tigate a controversy concerning ifine "A" which mine was purchased by (; CARL EH, ELSHOFF, owner of Mine "5B", in late 194) or perly 1942.05 00"? WAGNER atated that under the previous operator the mine had been °. Ow tinicuiaed by the#Progressive Line Workers, Shortly after FUSHOFF's acquisition, the United Bine Workers held « moeting in the Elkts Hall = *, a at Springfield, Illinois, in which a majority of the employees of the = 4! mine, which also constituted a majority of those present at the Bikts 6 "rr Hall, signed “authorizations” that the United Mine Workers should be © fee" tacir bargeining agent. a ee So Following this the Progressive Mine Workers filed rs - 2 ae with them and had assisted the United Mine Workere in taking over’ OT Mine "A", Mr. WAGNER stated that he conducted a thorough examination ~ 0. of this matter and had been unable to develop any indication of ; ws collusion between ELSHOFF and the United Mine Workers. He did esta- blish that when the Mine "A" re-opened undor ELSHOFF, the United Mine Forkers had a clear majority of the employees working in the mine et ~ 9 00 thet times which majority was represented by validly signed signature — ee “oN aye WAGNER etated further that during his invost ation of this matter rumors wore prevalent in Springfidld that 06 AINETTE cL was in reality an employee of JOHN L, LEWIS. WAGNER was unable to > °° a develop any concrete evidence of this. _ oo are toe vs Od Concerning the e&eoction at Mine "BY held on Deoeuber 16, 3. 1937, WAGNER stated thot he had no personal knowledge of this eleotion eae put that the decision of the FIRB concerning the. validity of the oleae ~~) tion could be found in Volume € of the "Decisions and Orders of HERBY, Pago $23, and that this docision indiocatos that in the opinion of the |.” Board there was no foundation for the United Mino Workers elicgations °° *°?y. of fraud, WAGNER stated that a aopy of tho Rogional Dirgotorts report.-°y te the NLRB upon which this dooision was based can be obtained from: ” the Wetional Labor Relations Board at Washington, DB, Cy oo) wa. os woe While WAGHER was vory cooporative throughout the inter | view ho advised that he did nat care to cxprcas an opinion as to, first the purpose of tho payments by the United Mins Workers to ELSHOFF; and second, on the rorits of the controveray, inasmuch as his knowledge ©”. thereof was almost entirely second hand, In conclusion he stated ._-. ' ~ #. : cos t we / 8 Ata Hee, aay ad fe eee ae