Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T03:32:10.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ford Motor Company and the N.R.A.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Sidney Fine
Sidney Fine
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of History at the University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There was something almost awesome, and perhaps typically American, in Henry Ford's defiance of the N.R.A. Ford staunchly maintained that the company he had founded and still ruled in absolute fashion was adhering to the law and had, in fact, anticipated many of its provisions. Critics focused their attack upon the company's labor practices, which clearly foreshadowed a coming strife, but no case was brought to court and Ford's fiercely individualistic attitude was never successfully constrained. The larger issue is not whether Ford did or did not comply, but rather what, in this period of profound social change, was to be the “fundamental American idea.”

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 1958 , pp. 353 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The preparation of this article was facilitated by grants to the author from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies of the University of Michigan.

2 For the origin, character, and administrative history of the N.I.R.A., see Lyon, Leverett S.et al., The National Recovery Administration (Washington, 1935)Google Scholar; Lyon, et al., Government and Economic Life (2 vols.; Washington, 1939–1940), Vol. II, pp. 1,035–1,061Google Scholar; Roos, Charles F., NRA Economie Planning (Bloomington, Ind., 1937)Google Scholar; Moley, Raymond, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), pp, 184–191Google Scholar; and Bernstein, Irving, The New Deal Collective Bargaining Policy (Berkeley, 1950), pp. 20–39.Google Scholar

3 For the history of the Ford Motor Co. and Henry Ford before 1933, see Nevins, Allan and Hill, Frank Ernest, Ford. The Times, the Man, the Company (New York, 1954)Google Scholar; and Nevins, and Hill, , Ford: Expansion and Challenge, 1915–1933 (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

4 Nevins and Hill, Ford. The Times, the Man, the Company, pp. 237–238; Federal Trade Commission, Report on Motor Vehicle Industry, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., House Doc. No. 468 (Washington, 1939), pp. 649, 657; Word's 1939 Automotive Year Book, p. 36. Although the company was originally capitalized at $150,000, only $100,000 in stock was actually issued. The statistics given for Ford for the 1920's and 1930's include the Lincoln Motor Co. The average number of payroll employees at the Rouge plant dropped from 101,069 in 1929 to 32,514 in 1933, and the average weekly rate of wages of these employees from $36.97 to $23.58. The minimum daily wage paid by Ford was cut from $7.00 to $4.00 during the same years. F.T.C., Report on Motor Vehicle Industry, p. 668; Nevins and Hill, Ford; Expansion and Challenge, p. 588.

5 Nevins and Hill, Ford: Expansion and Challenge, pp. 529–530, 573–575, 598–600.

6 Ford, Henry, in collaboration with Samuel Crowther, My Life and Work (Garden City, New York, 1922), p. 36Google Scholar; Nevins and Hill, Ford: Expansion and Challenge, pp. 105–113, 536.

7 Nevins and Hill, Ford. The Times, the Man, the Company, pp. 522–567; Nevins and Hill, Ford: Expansion and Challenge, pp. 353, 493–494, 535–539. For the change in Ford's labor policies after 1921, see Nevins and Hill, Ford: Expansion and Challenge, pp. 349–354, 508–540, 589–591. Nevins and Hill point out that by 1923 “the Ford factory … became just like any other factory,” but they insist that “working conditions … remained good until the end of the nineteen-thirties.”

8 Pyke Johnson, “An Analysis of the Position of the N.A.C.C, under the National Recovery Act,” May 23, 1933, Roy Chapin Papers, Michigan Historical Collections; P. Johnson to Chapin, June 2, 1933, and attached report of interview with General Hugh S. Johnson, Chapin Papers.

9 Chapin to P. Johnson, May 25, 1933, Alfred Reeves to Sloan et al., June 8, 1933, Chapin Papers; N.A.C.C. General Bulletin No. G–1603, May 27, 1933, O. P. Pearson Papers (in Mr. Pearson's possession).

10 Reeves to E. Ford, June 12, 1933, Reeves to H. Ford, June 15, 1933, E. Ford to Reeves, June 21, 1933, Accession 203, Box 3, Ford Archives; Minutes, Meeting, June 22, Committee on N.I.R.A., N.A.C.C., Acc. 203, Box 6, Ford Archives.

11 There are copies of the minutes of the June 22 meeting in Acc. 203, Box 6, Ford Archives, of the June 29 meeting in Acc. 203, Box 13, Ford Archives, and of the July 11 meeting in the Pearson Papers.

12 Reeves to E. Ford, July 21, 1933, Pearson Papers; “The Reminiscences of Mr. Herman L. Moekle” (Mar., 1955), Vol. II, pp. 148–150, Ford Archives. Actually, as Moekle reported to B. J. Craig after the code committee's first meeting, “There was a strong sentiment in the committee that no code at all should be filed, if such a thing is possible.” Memorandum for B. J. Craig, June 23, 1933, Acc. 203, Box 3, Ford Archives.

13 “Reminiscences of Moekle,” Vol. II, pp. 149–151; “The Reminiscences of E. G. Liebold” (Jan., 1953), p. 1,406, Ford Archives.

14 The Detroit News discovered that Johnson had been in Dearborn, but William J. Cameron persuaded the paper not to publish the fact. Hugh Johnson correspondence folder, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives.

15 Hugh Johnson correspondence folder, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; H. Ford to Charles Edison, Oct. 6, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; drafts of Cameron statements, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; “Reminiscences of Liebold,” p. 1,407, Ford Archives; “Third Interview with Mr. W. J. Cameron by Owen Bombard on June 9, 1952,” p. 149, Ford Archives; Johnson, , The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth (Garden City, New York, 1935), pp. 235–236Google Scholar; Detroit Free Press, July 16, 1933. Cf. the version of the conference in Bennett, Harry, We Never Called Him Henry (New York, 1951), p. 96.Google Scholar

16 Cameron to Daniels, Aug. 21, 1933, Acc. 285, Box 1550, Ford Archives.

17 Campsall to Augustus L. Richards, Aug. 10, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; Cameron drafts in Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; New York Times, Aug. 6, 1933.

18 H. Ford to Edison, Oct. 6, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; “Reminiscences of Moekle,” Vol. II, p. 150, Ford Archives; Detroit News, June 25, 1933.

19 The code of the automobile manufacturing industry is in N.R.A., Codes of Fair Competition, Vol. I (Washington, 1933), pp. 253–266.

20 Special Meeting of N.A.C.C. with General Johnson held in General Motors Building, July 28, 1933, Chapin Papers; Johnson, Blue Eagle, pp. 236–237; Ford to Edison, Oct. 6, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives.

21 Special Meeting of N.A.C.C. with Johnson, July 28, 1933, Chapin Papers. During Sept., 1933, the first month that the code was in effect, the average hourly earned rate for factory employees in the Rouge was $.5947 as compared to the industry average of $.656. Records of the N.R.A., National Archives, Record Group 9, Box 669 (henceforth, records from this group will be designated N.R.A.); Myrick, George, “An Economic Survey of the Automobile Industry” (1936), Vol. III, p. 52, N.R.A. Box 8309.Google Scholar

22 Detroit Free Press, Sept. 2, 1933; “Reminiscences of Liebold,” p. 1,406, Ford Archives.

23 File of letters in Folder 11, N.R.A. Box 656; N.R.A. letters on F.M.C. attitude, Acc. 390, Box 10, Ford Archives; Jerome T. Harriman to Ford Motor Co., Sept. 1, 1933, George Gould to Ford, July 19, 1934, Acc. 38, Box 75, Ford Archives; various letters in Acc. 6, Boxes 150, 166, Acc. 23, Box 12, Acc. 38, Box 73, Ford Archives.

24 Folder 11, N.R.A. Box 656.

25 Detroit News, Aug. 30, 1933.

26 New York Times, Sept. 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 1933.

27 Detroit Free Press, Sept. 7, 16, 24, 1933; New York Times, Sept. 6, 7, 14, 26, 29, 1933; Detroit News, Sept. 6, 7, 16, 24, 1933; “Reminiscences of Moekle,” Vol. II, p. 155, Ford Archives.

28 Hill, Jordan D., Relationship of N.R.A. to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government Funds, N.R.A. Division of Review, Work Materials No. 49 (Washington, 1936), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

29 Johnson to Daniel Roper, Sept. 22, 1933, Official File 466, Box 2, F.D.R. Library, Hyde Park (henceforth, Official File will be designated O.F.); Press Conference #64, Oct. 27, 1933, pp. 382–383, F.D.R. Library.

30 Detroit News, Oct. 27, 28, 1933; New York Times, Oct. 28, 1933. Johnson, after this exchange of verbal blows with Ford, traded in his Lincoln for a Cadillac. New York Times, Oct. 29, 1933.

31 New York Times, Oct. 26, 31, 1933; Detroit News, Nov. 21, 1933; McCarl to Secretary of Agriculture, McCarl to Secretary of Commerce, Nov. 10, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives.

32 Ammerman to Johnson, Nov. 15, 1933, and attached letter for Rexford G. Tugwell, N.E.A. Box 654. The wages and hours reports of the Ford Motor Co. to the N.R.A. are in N.R.A. Box 669. In an effort to embarrass the N.R.A., Ford, on Nov. 3, 1933, made an ostentatious display of his compliance by announcing that “in compliance with the new prohibition against work in this Country,” Rouge employees, then working 40 hours per week, would be laid off in shifts for 7 days at a time so that their average weekly hours of employment for the effective period of the code should not exceed the stipulated 35-hour limit. Johnson correctly interpreted this action as a response to the seasonal drop in automotive production. Ford plants in the U.S. produced only 7,142 cars and trucks in November. Detroit Free Press, Nov. 4, 5, 1933; N.R.A. Release No. 1556, Nov. 4, 1933, Acc. 822, Ford Archives.

33 Detroit News, Dec. 2, 1933, May 6, 1934. The extent to which the Northwest Motor Co. actually represented the Ford Motor Co. in submitting bids for government business has been a matter of some uncertainty. According to E. C. Simons, who was employed at the time in Ford's Washington District Sales Office, the Ford Motor Co. ceased direct bidding on government contracts as the result of Executive Order 6246. Sabine thereupon requested and received permission from Henry Ford “to engage in Government selling.” Simons was instructed “to render every assistance possible” to Sabine but “to avoid any action that could be construed as participation by the Ford Motor Company in the direct sales.” Until Sabine became “better established,” the Ford Motor Co. aided him in financing sales to the government, and Simons did “most of the work of preparing the bids and processing the orders.” Simons indicates that the Northwest Motor Co. sold 828 vehicles to the federal government in 1933; 1,518 vehicles in 1934; and 3,833 vehicles in 1935. Statement of E. C Simons, Feb. 11, 1958, Ford Archives.

34 Hill, Relationship of N.R.A. to Government Contracts, pp. 17–18.

35 Ibid., pp. 38–42; New York Times, May 18, 20, 25, 1934; Detroit News, May 6, 14, 18, 25, 26, 1934.

36 Detroit News, June 26, Aug. 6, 1934. Ford claimed that he refused to sign a certificate of compliance because this meant to “waive his constitutional rights and accept Gen. Hugh S. Johnson as both judge and jury in any dispute that might arise.” Detroit News, June 27, 1934. Ford, however, refused to sign a certificate of compliance even after Johnson left the N.R.A.

37 H. J. Collins to Administrator, N.R.A., June 11, 1934, Frank Healy to Blackwell Smith, June 25, 1934, Healy to Sol Rosenblatt, Dec. 6, 1934, Administrative Order GC-73, Jan. 16, 1935, N.R.A. Drawer 1798; Healy to Donald Nelson, Nov. 6, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

38 Healy to George Lynch, Oct. 12, 1934, Healy to S. Clay Williams et al., Jan. 3, 1934 [1935], N.R.A. Drawer 642; Sabine to Williams, Oct. 22, 1934, N.R.A. Box 3; Detroit News, Nov. 22, 1934. There is a copy of the alleged Cowling telegram in N.R.A. Box 677.

39 Executive Assistant, Division II, to W. A. Harriman, Nov. 26, 1934, N.R.A. Box 34; Detroit Free Press, Feb. 20, 26, 1935.

40 Cited in Simonds, William A., Henry Ford, His Life — His Work — His Genius (In dianapolis, 1943), p. 247.Google Scholar

41 Federal Trade Commission, Report on Motor Vehicle Industry, p. 649; Ward's 1939 Automotive Year Book, pp. 42, 46; New York Times, Nov. 2, 1934.

42 Atwell to F.D.R., Sept. 29, 1933, F.D.R. to Mac, Oct. 3, 1933, O.F. 3217, F.D.R. Library.

43 Ford to Edison, Oct. 6, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives.

44 Text of phone conversation with Edison [Oct. 7, 1933], Edison to Ford, Oct. 8, 9, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives.

45 F.D.R. to Ford, Nov. 7, 1933, President's Personal File 680, F.D.R. Library (henceforth. President's Personal File will be designated P.P.F.); Detroit News, Nov. 28, 1933.

46 Ford to F.D.R., Jan. 30, 1934, F.D.R. to Ford, Feb. 23, 1934, P.P.F. 680, F.D.R. Library.

47 Confidential memo for the President from S. T. Early, undated, attached to F.D.R. to Ford, Nov. 8, 1934, P.P.F. 680, F.D.R. Library; Ford to F.D.R., Nov. 16, 1934, McIntyre to Ford, Nov. 21, 1934, Acc. 285, Box 1676, Ford Archives; Detroit News, Nov. 25, 1934. The following notation appears at the bottom of Early's memo: “Hold till after Cong, elections. S.E.”

48 The workers' version of the events of Sept. 26 is presented in Thomas J. Dunphy et al. to Wagner, Oct. 11, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641; transcript of conference in Handler's office, Dec. 4–5, 1933, Case 105, Records of the National Labor Board, Hecord Group 25, National Archives, Drawer 17 (henceforth, records in this group will be designated N.L.B.); and N.H.A., Ford Motor Co., Transcript of Hearing Held at Chester, Pa., Mar. 3, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642. Harris' version is in Statement Dictated by Mr. A. M. Harris, Mar. 1, 1934, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. The grievances of the workers are summed up in Dunphy et al. to Wagner, Sept. 27, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641.

49 Harris statement, Mar. 1, 1934, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

50 Transcript of Handler conference, Dec. 4–5, 1933, pp. 2, 5–6, Case 105, N.L.B. Drawer 17,. N.R.A., Transcript of Chester Hearing, Mar. 3, 1934, pp. 9–10, 25–26, 87–88, N.R.A. Drawer 642; memorandum based on information supplied by Michael J. Gandiello, Oct. 16, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641. The N.L.B. was created by the President on Aug. 5, 1933, to adjust “differences and controversies” arising out of the President's Re-employment Agreement. It also began dealing with “differences and controversies” arising under the codes, although it was not specifically authorized to do so until Dec. 16, 1933.

51 There is conflicting evidence as regards the intention of the workers on the morning of the 27th. See Dunphy et al. to Wagner, Oct. 11, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641; transcript of Handler conference, Dec. 4–5, 1933, p. 6, Case 105, N.L.B. Drawer 17; N.R.A., Transcript of Chester Hearing, Mar. 3, 1934, p. 89, N.R.A. Drawer 642; Chester Times, Sept. 26, 1933.

52 Dewey testimony, transcript of Handler conference, Dec. 4–5, 1933, pp. 8–9, Case 105, N.L.B. Drawer 17; Dewey to Leiserson, Sept. 27, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641.

53 Wagner to H. Ford, Sept. 29, 1933, Liebold to Wagner, Oct. 3, 1933, Leiserson to Liebold, Oct. 5, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641.

54 A. J. Bait to H. C. Doss, Oct. 20, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 8, Ford Archives; Atcheson to Doss, Oct. 26, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives (Doss, who was assistant to the Ford sales manager, served as the liaison man between Dearborn and the Chester and Edgewater plants during the period of the labor disturbances); Dunphy et al. to Wagner, no date, N.R.A. Drawer 641; undated memorandum dealing with the reopening of the plant, N.R.A. Drawer 641; Chester Times, Oct. 14, 1933; Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 15, 1933. Some of the workers were apparently asked to sign a card certifying the signer as one of the “Loyal Ford Employees” of Chester. Company officials denied knowledge of this. Dunphy et al. to Wagner, undated, N.R.A. Drawer 641. One of these cards is in N.R.A. Drawer 642.

55 For the N.L.B.'s position, see Lorwin, Lewis L. and Wubnig, Arthur, Labor Relations Boards: The Regulation of Collective Bargaining under the National Industrial Recovery Act (Washington, 1935), p. 174.Google Scholar There is a copy in Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives, of the communication sent to the Chester employees, following the shutdown of the plant, terminating their services with the company.

56 Wagner to Atcheson, Oct. 14, 1933, Ford Motor Co. to Wagner, Oct. 16, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641; Wagner to Ford Motor Co., Oct. 17, 1933, Atcheson to Doss, Oct. 18, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

57 Atcheson to Doss, Oct. 26, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Meeting of Strikers” Committee and Chester Branch Officials, Oct. 25, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; memorandum by Benedict Wolf, Oct. 23, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641.

58 Doss to Atcheson, Nov. 8, 1933, and attached reply to workers' demands, Atcheson to Doss, Nov. 14, 1933, Aco. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

59 Transcript of Handler conference, Dec. 4–5, 1933, Case 105, N.L.B. Drawer 17.

60 Memorandum by Handler, Dec. 7, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 641; #45 to George J. Schmidt (Chester factory service head), Nov. [Dec. ?], 7, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. Internal evidence strongly indicates that the latter report, only a typed copy of which is available in the Ford Archives, was actually made on Dec. 7. If this is so, #45 was Ed Hoffman, acting secretary of the Chester local, who later was chairman of the Communist-led Ford Workers' Protective Association against Discrimination, an organization formed by former Chester employees after the A.F. of L. local dissolved. According to #45's report, Handler advised that the men should return to work. Handler, who names Hoffman as the man who questioned him, states that Hoffman thought that under the circumstances the men should return to work.

61 Dunphy to Healy, Feb. 22, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 641; Chester Times, Mar. 5, 1934.

62 The National Compliance Board, consisting of the Compliance Director and a member each from the N.R.A.'s Labor Advisory Board and Industrial Advisory Board, heard cases involving violation of a code.

63 Exchange of correspondence between William H. Davis and G. C. Royall and Ford Motor Co., Feb. 27–Mar. 4, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642; N.R.A., Transcript of Chester Hearing, N.R.A. Drawer 642; Chester Times, Mar. 5, 1934.

64 “Payroll Data” attached to typed sheet with heading, “March 1st, 1934,” Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. Section 7(a) did not specifically forbid an employer to discriminate against union members, but it was so interpreted by the N.L.B. Lorwin and Wubnig, Labor Relations Boards, pp. 167–168.

65 The president of the A.F. of L. local still had not been re-employed as late as Feb. 22, 1934. Dunphy to Healy, Feb. 22, 1934, N.H.A. Drawer 641. Two of the members of the employees' committee had worked for the company for over 10 years. Meeting of Strikers' Committee and Chester Branch Officials, Oct. 25, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

66 T. M. Manning to E. Ford, Aug. 24, 1933, and enclosed report of Aug. 22 meeting, Acc. 6, Box 154, Ford Archives. Manning sent this report to Edsel as a means of soliciting business for the Manning Industrial Service. Edsel's secretary, A. J. Lepine, replied to Manning on Sept. 11: “The Ford Motor Company service department has covered meetings such as you mentioned, and the Company is not in the market for outside service,” Acc. 6, Box 154, Ford Archives.

67 See the numerous reports of strikers' meetings in Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

68 Stenographic Report of Conference Held at the Office of the Ford Motor Car Co., Edgewater, Oct. 19, 1933, pp. 2–3, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Albert F. Wickens affidavit, undated, N.R.A. Drawer 642. The day of the first meeting, the foreman of the export department warned the workers in his charge that those attending would be discharged. William Herford affidavit, Nov. 11, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

69 New York Times, Sept. 29, 1933; Brown to Doss, Nov. 21, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; In re: Striking Employees of Edgewater, New Jersey, Plant of Ford Motor Co. Informal Hearing Held before Harry L. Tepper, Nov. 29, 1933, p. 3, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

70 Stenographic Report of Oct. 19 Conference, pp. 24–29, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Ford Conference at [New Jersey] State Headquarters, Oct. 19, 1933, pp. 8–13, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

71 Transcript of Shorthand Notes of Conference at the Office of the New Jersey Recovery Board, Oct. 18, 1933, pp. 12–13, 18–26, N.R.A. Drawer 642; W. M. L[eiserson] memorandum, Sept. 29, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 642; J. T. Ingram report, Sept. 29, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Stenographic Report of Oct. 19 Conference, pp. 11–15, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Newark Evening News, Sept. 29, 1933.

72 Wright, Thomas H., “Why Ford's Men Strike,” Christian Century, Vol. L (Nov. 29, 1933), pp. 1,501–1,502.Google Scholar

73 Conversation of E. Ford and Esslinger, Oct. 9, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

74 Memoranda of phone conversations between Colombo and Beck, Oct. 17, 1933, Doss to Brown (dictated by Colombo), Oct. 17, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; New York Times, Oct. 19, 1933.

75 Transcript of Oct. 18 Conference, pp. 3–11, 30–50, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

76 Stenographic Report of Oct. 19 Conference, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. It is difficult to reconcile Brown's statements at this conference with Charles Edison's report to the White House on Oct. 21 that Ford would treat the workers as striking employees. K. memo for Mclntyre, Oct. 21 [1933], O.F. 407–B, Box 18, F.D.R. Library.

77 Ford Conference at State Headquarters, Oct. 19, 1933, p. 17, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

78 Doss to Brown, Oct. 31, 1933, and attached statement, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; typed sheet dated Nov. 1, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. The press reported that Senator Wagner regarded the company's reply as evidence that Ford was bargaining collectively with the strikers. New York Times, Nov. 3, 1933.

79 Report of strikers' meeting, Nov. 2, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Newark Evening News, Nov. 2, 3, 1933.

80 “In the District of the State of New Jersey to the Honorable Franklin D, Roosevelt,” and supplementary petition with same title, N.R.A. Drawer 642. For Brown's comments on the petitions' charges, see Brown to Doss, Nov. 21, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

81 Strike committee to E. Ford, Nov. 9, 1933, E. Ford to Wickens, Nov. 21, 1933, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

82 Brown to Doss, Nov. 21, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives. Brown noted that 75 per cent of the strikers lived in Keamy and Bayonne and that it was unlikely that the company would “ever secure the right type of worker as long as we continue to pick men from these communities. We believe by going to the better communities, north and west of the plant, we will secure a much better class of worker….”

83 Brown to Doss, Nov. 28, 1933, and attached report of Nov. 27 meeting, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Tepper Hearing, Nov. 29, 1933, pp. 2, 7–8, 10–11, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

84 Brown to J. Crawford, Dec. 12, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives.

85 Report of strikers' meetings, Dec. 13, 18, 1933, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Green to Johnson, Dec. 21, 1933, and Brief of Facts on Behalf of the Striking Employees of the Edgewater, New Jersey, Plant of the Ford Motor Co., N.B.A. Drawer 642; Newark Evening News, Dec. 18, 1933; New York Times, Dec. 27, 1933.

86 Doss to Cameron, Jan. 8, 1934, and attached report of strikers' meeting of Jan. 8, 1934, Acc. 52, Box 12, Ford Archives; Wickens to Davis, Jan. 18, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642; Newark Evening News, Jan. 9, 1934.

87 Davis to Ford Motor Co., Jan. 17, 1934, Craig to Davis, Feb. 2, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

88 Davis to Johnson, Feb. 5, 1934, Davis to Ford Motor Co., Feb. 15, 17, 1934, Craig to Davis, Feb. 2, 20, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642; National Compliance Board, Hearing on Ford Motor Co. Strike at Edgewater, Feb. 23, 1934, N.R.A. Box 7264.

89 National Compliance Board to Johnson, Mar. 15, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

90 Johnson to Davis, Mar. 24, 1934, and enclosed memorandum of Michelson, Mar. 19, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

91 Stephens to Davis, Mar. 16, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642; memorandum from J. W. Randal to Johnson et al., Apr. 17, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

92 Randal to Davis, Mar. 15, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642; memorandum from Randal to K. Johnston, Apr, 2, 1934, memorandum from Randal to Johnson et al., Apr. 17, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

93 Memorandum from Randal to Johnson et al., Apr. 17, 1934, Smith to A. G. McNight Apr. 17, 1934, N.R.A. Drawer 642.

94 Randal to Poliak, Apr. 23, 1934, Poliak to William G. Rice, Aug. 28, 1934, Randal, In re: Ford Motor Co., N.R.A. Drawer 642. In the Detroit area, complaints that Ford was violating Section 7(a) were brought to the attention first of the Detroit Regional Labor Board and then after Mar. 25, 1934, of the Automobile Labor Board, although the latter was not too sure it had any jurisdiction over Ford since Ford had not been a party to the settlement that led to the board's establishment. The complaints involved the issue of discrimination because of union activity and were nearly all lodged by members of the Mechanics Educational Society of America, an independent organization of tool and die makers, which had organized some of Ford's workers. Several workers were reinstated when their allegations were referred to the company by one of the boards noted above. In one unusual case, the company, although unwilling to reinstate the M.E.S.A. member alleging discrimination, agreed to hire in his place any union member the M.E.S.A. suggested. The case was settled on this basis. See Cases 46 and 78 in D.R.L.B. Box 282 (the D.R.L.B. records are part of the N.L.B. records), and A.L.B. Drawer 3998 (the A.L.B. records are part of the N.R.A. records).