Uxbridge Worsted Co., Inc.

In the Matter of UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-131.Decided February 16, 1939 Woolen Textile Industry-Domination of and Interference with Independent Unions: charges of, dismissed-Discrimination : lay-offs and discharges : charges of, sustained as to two employees , dismissed as to others ; refusal to reemploy : charges of, sustained as to one employee-Espionage: charges of, dismissed- Reinstatement Ordered: for employees discriminated against-Back Pay: awarded. Mr. Edmund J. Blake and Mr. John J. Babe, for the Board. Mr. Edward A. Robertson, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. S. A. Lischinsky, of Washington, D. C., for the Glenark Local and the Uxbridge Local. Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Local No. 1810, United Textile Workers of America, herein called the Glenark Local, and by the United Textile Workers of America, herein called the U. T. W., on behalf of the Glenark Local and Local No. 2056, United Textile Workers of America, herein called the Uxbridge Local, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by A. How- ard Myers, the Acting Regional Director for the First Region (Bos- ton, Massachusetts), on June 15, 1936, issued and duly served its complaint against the Uxbridge Worsted Company, Inc., Uxbridge, Massachusetts, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. In regard to the unfair labor practices the complaint as amended in substance alleged (1) that the respondent had discriminated in ' Petition to amend the complaint was granted at the beginning of the hearing on July 9, 1936. 11 N. L. R. B., No. 31. 333 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George Desrosiers, Aime La Lancette, Charles Hubert, Joseph Ethier, Paul Courte- manche, Stanley Wilzek, Arthur B. McCabe, Henry Descaureaux, Osias Turenne, Louis Leduc, Joseph Wilson, and Raymond Barry, because of their membership and activities in the U. T. W.; (2) that the respondent, through its foreman, Sylva Jarry, had watched the doorway of a hall in which the Glenark Local was meeting for the purpose of identifying members thereof and had thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act; (3) that the re- spondent had dominated and interfered with the formation and ad- ministration of the Mutual Benefit Association Independent Union and had contributed financial and other support to it. The respondent filed an answer reserving all rights under a special appearance and motion to dismiss, admitting its corporate status, the nature and extent of its business, the lay-offs and discharges, but denying all other allegations of the complaint. Pursuant to notices 2 duly served on the respondent and the U. T. W., a hearing was held on July 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1936, at Woonsocket, Rhode Island, before Daniel M. Lyons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent appeared specially by counsel and objected to the jurisdiction of the Board and moved that the Trial Examiner proceed to inquire into the facts of the case with respect to the jurisdiction of the Board over the re- spondent. The Trial Examiner ruled that the respondent could pro- ceed with the evidence in regard to jurisdiction if it wished, but that the Board would proceed if the respondent did not. The respondent proceeded with evidence in regard to jurisdiction and at the end of that evidence the Trial Examiner denied the respondent's plea to the Board's jurisdiction. His ruling is hereby affirmed. At the close of the Board's case, the complaint was amended to charge the respondent with dominating and interfering with and contributing financial and other support to the Mutual Benefit Asso- ciation Independent Union in its Glenark mill, the American Inde- pendent Workers' Union in its Andrews mill, and the Uxbridge Worsted Company Independent League in its Uxbridge mill. On July 16, the hearing was adjourned indefinitely to give the respondent time to meet the new allegations. Pursuant to notice duly served, the hearing was resumed on August 10, 1936, and completed on August 11. Oral argument was waived and permission granted to counsel for the respondent to file a brief within 10 days, but no brief was filed since the case was trans- ferred to the Board on August 14. 2 The hearing was first set for June 25, 1936, but was indefinitely postponed on June 18, 1936, and later scheduled for July 9, 1936. 'UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 335 Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. During the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled on motions and ob- jections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the Board's case, and again after all evidence was in, the respondent moved to dismiss the individual allegations on the ground that the evidence did not support the allegations of the com- plaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling. The respondent's motion will be granted in part for the reasons and to the extent hereinafter set forth, but otherwise denied. On August 14, 1936, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the case transferred to and continued before it. On April 21, 1938, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the instant case. On June 25, 1938, the Board notified the parties that its findings of fact and order of April 21, 1938, would be vacated and set aside on July 6, 1938, for the purpose of further proceedings before the Board, unless good cause to the contrary was shown before that date. On July 5, 1938, the respondent filed a notice op- posing the setting aside of the findings of fact and order of April 21, 1938, but on July 6, 1938, the Board overruled the respondent's objections and vacated the findings and order of April 21, 1933, for the purpose of taking such further action as it deemed necessary and advisable. On September 14, 1938, the Board issued an order direct- ing that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order be issued, that no Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner be issued, that the parties have the right, within 10 days after the issuance of the Proposed Findings, Proposed Con- clusions of Law, and Proposed Order, to file exceptions, to request oral argument before the Board, and to request permission to file a brief with the Board. On December 2, 1938, the Board issued Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order in the case, serv- ing them on the parties. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings, Conclusions and Order, and a brief in sup- port of its exceptions. On January 17, 1939, a hearing for the pur- pose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respondent, the Glenark Local, and the Uxbridge Local were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and brief in sup- 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD port thereof, and so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Uxbridge Worsted Co., Inc.,8 is a corporation or- ganized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts, with its main office at Uxbridge, Massachusetts. It operates mills at Uxbridge (herein called the Uxbridge mill) and Lowell (herein called the Lowell mill), in Massachusetts; at Woonsocket (herein called the Glenark mill) and in the town of North Smithfield (herein called the Andrews mill), in Rhode Island; until recently it operated a weave shop known as the Alice mill, in the town of North Smith- field, Rhode Island. The Alice mill was closed in May 1936, and its looms moved to the Andrews Mill .4 The mills owned by the respondent operate in two groups, one headed by the Uxbridge mill and including the Lowell mill, and the other headed by the Glenark mill and including the Andrews mill, and, formerly, the Alice mill. These groups are supposed to operate independently of each other. They have separate bank accounts and their books are kept inde- pendently. The purchasing for the Uxbridge group is done by Harold J. Walter, treasurer and general mianager of the respondent, while that for the Glenark group is done by a purchasing agent at the Glenark mill. Walter has general supervision over the affairs of the Glenark group as well as direct supervision over the Uxbridge group, since he is general manager of the respondent. The Uxbridge mill is a complete unit in itself. On June 5, 1936, it employed 798 persons. It takes the virgin wool, or rags, and cards, spins, weaves, and finishes the goods. It also finishes "grey goods" B 8 Called Uxbridge Worsted Company, Inc., in the complaint and other formal papers. 4 The respondent owns all of the stock of the Cedartown Textiles Corporation, a Georgia corporation operating a mill at Cedartown, Georgia, and of the Putnam Woolen Corporation, a Connecticut corporation operating a mill at Putnam, Connecticut. It is intimated in the record that the respondent owns at least a majority of the stock in the Millbury Spinning Co., a Massachusetts corporation operating mills at Millbury, Massachusetts, and at Pascoag, Rhode Island, and of Macon Textiles, Inc, a Georgia cor- poration operating a mill at Macon, Georgia, producing 30,000 pounds of cotton yarn per week, all of which is purchased by the respondent or its subsidiaries Harold J. Walter, treasurer of the respondent, is also treasurer of all of the afore-mentioned cor- porations except the Putnam Woolen Corporation, of which he is president. Louis Bachman, president of the respondent is also president of the Cedartown Textiles Cor- poration and of Macon Textiles, Inc. Walter testified that these corporations operate as independent units, but do not compete with each other. 6 "Grey goods" is cloth woven from unbleached or undyed yarn. UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 337 which have been woven for it at the Lowell mill and at the Pascoag mill of the Millbury Spinning Company at Pascoag, Rhode Islands The Uxbridge mill finishes approximately 8,000,000 to 9,000,000 yards of goods a year, 50 to 60 per cent of which is from "grey goods" woven for it at the Lowell and Pascoag mills. The final product is men's wear, women's wear, dress goods, and seat, side, and top linings for automobiles. The Lowell mill does not spin any yarn. It buys its woolen yarn from approximately ten different sources, among them the Collins and Aitken Corporation of Bristol, Rhode Island, the Richmond Spinning Company of Maine, the Samoset Worsted Company of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, the Glenark mill of the respondent at Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and the Pascoag mill of the Millbury Spinning Company at Pascoag, Rhode Island. It also uses some southern cotton yarn which is obtained from North Carolina and South Carolina. The yarn is transported to the Lowell mill by rail or truck. If it is coming from the Millbury Spinning Company, it is carried in trucks owned by the respondent and registered in Massa- chusetts and other States. The Lowell mill produces 65,000 to 70,000 yards of "grey goods" a week, all of which is finished at the Uxbridge mill. On June 5, 1936, 446 persons were employed at the Lowell mill. The Pascoag mill is primarily a spinning mill for the Millbury Spinning Company, but it does weave "grey goods" for the Uxbridge mill on a commission basis. The Uxbridge mill buys yarn from the Millbury Spinning Company. When the yarn passes from the spin- ning, room into the weaving room at the Pascoag mill, title to it passes to the Uxbridge mill and it is woven for the Uxbridge mill's account. The Pascoag mill makes about 40,000 yards of "grey goods" a week, all of which is transported to the Uxbridge mill and finished there. On June 5, 1936, the Pascoag mill employed 627 persons in all its operations. The Glenark mill, which, as stated above, is located at Woonsocket, Rhode Island, makes men's worsteds from wool tops, or combed wool, 50 to 60 per cent of which is purchased from the Barre Wool Comb- ing Company of Barre, Massachusetts. The Andrews mill is a weave shop attached to the Glenark mill. Eighty per cent of the weaving for the Glenark mill is done at the Andrews mill, which on June 5, 1936, employed 271 people. The Alice mill was also a weave shop for the Glenark mill until May 1936, when its looms were moved to the Andrews mill. The Glenark mill finishes approximately 50,000 yards of goods a week and employed 519 persons on June 5, 1936. Its production is confined entirely to men's worsteds. 6 The mill at Pascoag, Rhode Island, is owned by the respondent but leased to the Millbury Spinning Company, which operates it principally as a spinning mill but also as a weave shop for the Uxbridge mill. 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD L. Bachman Company of New York, which owns 50 per cent of the stock of the respondent, is employed as factor and contracts to buy the entire output of the respondent's mills. The contract with L. Bachman Company provides that title to the goods passes with the bill of lading when they leave the mill. The respondent manu- factures only to order, and L. Bachman Company assigns the orders to the mill at which the goods are to be manufactured without con- sulting the respondent. The accounts of the Uxbridge and Glenark mills are kept separate by L. Bachman Company. Each mill is credited with the amount of goods it ships for L. Bachman Com- pany, and is in turn debited with the amount that L. Bachman Company as factor pays out for it. The finished goods are shipped by the mill finishing them as directed by L. Bachman Company. A large part of the goods are shipped directly to the purchaser from the mill; the remainder are shipped to the warehouse of L. Bachman Company in New York. Finished goods are not stored by the respondent for any length of time. Ninety per cent of the output of the Uxbridge mill is sold to customers outside of the State of Massachusetts, and 90 per cent of the product of the Glenark mill is sold to customers outside of the State of Rhode Island. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership persons employed in the textile industry in North America. Local No. 1810, United Textile Workers of America, is a local of the international union described above. It is a labor organization ad- mitting to membership persons employed in the Glenark, Andrews, and Alice mills of the respondent. Local No. 2056, United Textile Workers of America, is a local of the international union described above. It is a labor organization admitting to membership persons employed in the Uxbridge mill of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Domination of and interference with. American Independent Work- ers Union, Mutual Benefit Association Independent Union, and Uxbridge Worsted Company Independent League The U. T. W. was organized in the respondent's New England mills in 1933 and 1934. Thereafter, the representatives of the various locals in the respondent's mills met and talked with representatives of the respondent. Feeling that their efforts were not producing proper results, these locals formed a conference board to deal with Harold UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY INC., ET AL. 339 J. Walter, treasurer and general manager of the respondent. In the, spring of 1935, the conference board requested a 15-per cent increase. in wages in all of the mills. When the respondent refused this de- mand, the locals applied to the U. T. W. for strike sanction which was granted to them. After meeting with Walter once more and_ experiencing some difficulty in getting further appointments with him, a strike was called which became effective on June 24, 1935, in all of the New England mills of the respondent and its affiliated com-, panics, except that of the Millbury Spinning Company at Millbury, Massachusetts. This strike was called by the conference board, which had been given authority in a strike vote taken several weeks before. The rank and file of union members did not know the actual date of the strike until they came to the plants on June 24, 1935, and were met by pickets. On August 5, 1935, the strike was called off, and the men returned to work without any substantial gains as a result of the strike. All of the mills except the Andrews mill remained closed for the duration of the strike. American Independent Workers Union, herein called the A. I. W. U., is a labor organization which admits to membership persons employed in the Andrews mill. It is the outgrowth of a back-to-work movement started in about the fourth week of the strike by Cullen, Dwyer, and, Mousseau, employees at the Andrews mill. Mousseau had been a "boss weaver" on the second shift before the strike, and his con- nection with the back-to-work movement and the subsequent organiza- tion of the A. I. W. U. is not entirely clear from the record. Cullen and Dwyer were very active in talking to employees and signing them up for the A. I. W. U. After everyone returned to work on August 5, 1935, there was some solicitation of A. I. W. U. members by Cullen and some collection of dues during working hours, but there is not convincing proof that these activities were carried on in the plant with the knowledge or sanction of the respondent. There is testimony that Ernest Iredale, the foreman at the Andrews mill, disregarded solicitation by Cullen during working hours and at times aided the A. I. W. U. by at least appearing to consult Dwyer before telling an applicant that there was no work for him, but this testimony is flatly contradicted by Iredale. Although the evidence raises doubts concerning the freedom of the A. I. W. U. from the respondent's interference and control, it is not sufficient to warrant a finding that the respondent has dominated and interfered with its formation or administration or contributed support to it. The allegations of the complaint with respect to the A. I. W. U. will therefore be dismissed. Mutual Benefit Association Independent Union, herein called the M. B. A., is a labor organization admitting to membership persons 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employed at the Alice and Glenark mills. It was organized just after the 1935 strike by Sylva Jarry, who is now employed as a warp starter at the Andrews mill, and by one Bender, a mechanic at the Glenark mill. At that time Jarry was employed in the Alice mill. Jarry had been active in the organization of the Glen- ark Local in 1933 and had been president of it for 15 months. In the spring of 1935, he became dissatisfied with the U. T. W. and ceased to pay dues to it. During the strike, Jarry attended strike meetings but became more and more dissatisfied with the way nego- tiations were being conducted, so he decided to form a union of his own. All of the solicitation for the M. B. A. was done by Jarry and Bender. Although the complaint alleged that Jarry was a fore- man and that the M. B. A. was organized at the suggestion of the respondent's foremen, the evidence does not substantiate the allega- tion. Jarry worked on the night shift at the Alice mill and was one of the oldest employees there. He testified at the hearing that there was no foreman on the night shift and that he merely had the authority to call Iredale, the day foreman, if anything went wrong, but that he was not a supervisor and that he had no power to hire or discharge. There is nothing in the record to show that Jarry's statement about his position at the Alice mill is not correct. Although some of the men employed at the Alice mill seem to have been under the impression that it was necessary for them to belong to the M. B. A. in order to be transferred to the Andrews mill, when the Alice mill was closed in May 1936, there is nothing in the record to indicate that there actually was such a requirement or that any person was not transferred for such reason. On the record as it stands, we do not find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation or administration of the M. B. A. or contributed support to it. The allegations of the complaint with respect to the M. B. A. will therefore be dismissed. Uxbridge Worsted Company Independent League, herein called the League, is a labor organization admitting to membership per- sons employed in the Uxbridge mill. The only evidence on the ori- gin of the League is that it was organized in August 1935 by Daub- ney and McCloskey, two employees at Uxbridge, and that soon thereafter they wrote Walter asking for a conference, which was held on August 22, 1935. They informed Walter that they wanted help in organizing an independent union, which Walter, as far as the record shows, declined to give them. Anthony F. Valente, sec- retary and treasurer of the Woolen and Worsted Workers of Amer- ica, testified that when he was working at the Uxbridge mill the week after the 1935 strike, he saw the overseer, Charles F. Herbst, talking to Annie Loughlin, a fine sewer employed at the Uxbridge mill, and immediately thereafter she started to pass out membership UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 341 cards for the League. However, there is no evidence as to what was said in the conversation between Herbst and Loughlin and no other showing of any connection between the conversation and the subsequent activity of Loughlin in the formation of the League. Upon the basis of the evidence adduced, we do not find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with its formation or ad- ministration or contributed support to it. The allegations of the complaint with respect to the League will therefore be dismissed. B. The lay-offs, discharges, and refusal to reinstate In our consideration of the alleged discriminatory lay-offs, dis- charges, and refusals to reinstate, it becomes important to consider certain changes in operations affected by the respondent during this period. Before the strike in 1935 the Draper automatic loom and the Crompton and Knowles non-automatic loom were in use at the An- drews mill. The Draper loom is an automatic loom which runs one type of filling and has one shuttle. One weaver can operate six or eight of these looms. The Crompton and Knowles box loom, or non-automatic, runs four types of filling and has four shuttles. One weaver operates two of these looms. After the strike, the Crompton and Knowles non-automatics were used to finish the current production work. When the sample work was completed those looms were stopped. In December 1935, most of the non-automatics were changed into Crompton and Knowles automatics. A weaver who can operate a non-automatic cannot necessarily operate an automatic; operating the latter requires con- siderable skill and agility, because one weaver operates a battery of six. The evidence indicates that it takes a non-automatic weaver 2 or 3 months to learn to operate a battery of six automatics with acceptable efficiency. The respondent contends that for this reason it was unable to reemploy the weavers formerly employed on the non-automatics. The remaining non-automatics were to be used on samples only thereafter, and the Draper weavers were to alternate, so far as possible, on the Draper looms and the non-automatics. At the Alice mill there was one cam loom in use before the 1935 -strike. About the time of the 1935 strike, the respondent had decided to move this cam loom to one of its southern mills, which was en- gaged in the manufacture of plain cloth, and this was done in August 1935. Henry Descaureaux was a dry-slash operator at the Alice mill prior to the strike. Dry slash is an operation which is performed ,only in connection with a cam loom. Descaureaux returned to work after the strike on August 5, 1935, and was put on temporary work 76427:;-29-vol. si-23 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for 2 days. On August 7, 1935, Descaureaux was laid off because his machine had been moved south. Descaureaux claimed that he had been promised a chance to learn dresser tending before the strike and that he was being discriminated against because he was not given a chance to learn dresser tending or was not transferred to another job when the dry-slash operation was moved. The respondent introduced evidence showing that it already had a full quota of dresser tenders and that due to the transfer of two dressing frames to another of its New England mills, it in fact had an extra dresser tender working as a wet-slash operator who had been with the respondent for 19 years. ` Although Descaureaux had been employed by the respondent for 7 years and had been an officer of the Glenark Local since it was founded, those facts alone are not sufficient to warrant a finding of discrimination. We therefore will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns Descaureaux. Louis Leduc is a weaver on both Draper and non-automatic Cromp- ton and Knowles looms. He had been employed at the Andrews mill intermittently since January 1934, and had been a member of the Glenark Local since 1933. Although he had never been an officer of the Glenark Local, Leduc was the recognized leader of the weavers at the Andrews mill. It was Leduc whom Urquhart, man- ager of the Glenark group of mills, approached on June 24, 1935, to have him take a vote on whether or not the men at the Andrews mill wanted to strike. On August 23 or 24, 1935, Iredale, overseer of weaving at the Andrews mill, laid off Leduc, assigning as the reason for the lay-off a cut of cloth which he charged Leduc had woven wrong 2 weeks before. Leduc denied responsibility for the bad cloth at the time it was woven and Iredale told another employee to ascertain who had started the cut. Thereafter Leduc asked Iredale about it and Ire- dale told him it was "all right." At the hearing Iredale stated that Leduc had woven and was responsible for spoiling the whole cut of 78 yards. Leduc denied that but stated that he merely continued weaving as the previous weaver had been weaving. The evidence showed that one shift did not weave a complete cut of 78 yards and that some other weaver had started it. Leduc testified that the weaver who started the cut had not been disciplined for his error by the respondent and Iredale did not deny that testimony. . At the hearing and in its brief the respondent contended that Leduc had not been discharged but had merely been laid off as a disciplinary measure. The evidence does not support that contention. When Le- duc's employment ceased, Iredale did not inform him of the duration UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC.,, ET AL. 343 of the lay-off. Moreover Leduc returned for work several times there- after and each time Iredale told him there was no work for him. On September 2, 1935, Leduc returned to the mill and talked to Iredale. Iredale consulted Dwyer, president of the A. I. W. U., and then took Leduc aside and told him that there was no work for him but that he should come back again in a few weeks. Leduc then asked Iredale why he had lost his job and stated that he thought the respondent would never reemploy him. Iredale did not contradict Leduc but told him that he could easily obtain a job at another mill and encouraged him to do so. Although Iredale denied talking to Leduc after the latter's lay-off and stated that Leduc never returned to apply for rein- statement, his testimony is not persuasive especially since Leduc's returning to the mill to seek reinstatement, as he testified, was a wholly reasonable action in view of Iredale's assertion that he told Leduc on August 23 or 24 that he was laid off. After his talk with Iredale on September 2, Leduc did not return to the mill. It is our opinion that Iredale had decided to discharge Leduc om_ August 23 or 24 but did not tell Leduc because he was unable to explain- such drastic action. Instead he laid off Leduc on a pretext and them refused to reemploy him, thereafter encouraging him to obtain a job elsewhere. Leduc was the most prominent U. T. W. member at the Andrews mill and had been the leader of the strike there. The re- spondent did not deny that there was work which Leduc was able to do at the time he was discharged and under the circumstances we find that he was discharged because he joined and assisted the U. T. W. We find that the respondent has discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Louis Leduc, thereby discouraging membership in the U. T. W. and has thereby interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the time of the hearing, Leduc was working for the Barnai Wor- sted Company, by whom he had been employed since September 1935. George J. Desrosiers started working at the Andrews mill in Janu- ary 1934, and joined the U. T. W. at that time. He was laid off in May 1934, and reemployed in December 1934, and then worked until May 10, 1935, when he was again laid off. Desrosiers was notified through his father-in-law to report for work on June 24, 1935, which was the day the strike was called. Because of the strike, Desrosiers did not go to work that day. When he reported for work on August 5, the day the strike was called off, Iredale informed him that his loom was not ready for production. Desrosiers claims that Iredale added, "you don't belong to this union." That statement is denied by Iredale, who claims that the reason Desrosiers was not put to work was that he never reapplied after August 5. Desrosiers admitted he did not apply again but testified that lie did not reapply because he heard a rumor 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Iredale was going to have him arrested if he came to the mill again. The basis for his fear was that on August 5, 1935, he had almost gotten into a fight with the watchman at the Andrews mill and with Iredale's son who was employed in the office there, over some matter in connection with returning to work. Iredale denied that he intended to have Desrosiers arrested. Desrosiers was not an especially prominent member of the U. T. W. On the basis of all of the evidence in the record, we do not find that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em- ployment of Desrosiers because he joined and assisted the U. T. W. The allegations of the complaint with respect to George Desrosiers will therefore be dismissed. Arthur B. McCabe is a weaver who was employed at the Andrews mill from January 1935 to April 8, 1935, and from May 27 to Septem- ber 25, 1935, with the exception of the period of the strike from June 24 to August 5, 1935. McCabe can operate either the Crompton and Knowles non-automatic or the Draper loom, and has operated a Cromp- ton and Knowles automatic, although he has never operated a battery ,of six of them. McCabe joined the U. T. W. in 1933. During the strike, McCabe was asked to return to work by one Coleman, an assistant overseer. Dwyer also asked McCabe to return to work during the strike and left a paper with McCabe, which he asked McCabe to have others sign. The day after leaving the paper with McCabe, Dwyer came and got it again. McCabe did not know what the paper was and he did not sign it. On September 24, 1935, Iredale told McCabe that there was not any more work and that he would have to lay him off. McCabe asked if there was anything wrong with his work and Iredale told him there was not but that he was surprised that McCabe had not returned to work during the strike. Iredale also said that McCabe was laid -off because the respondent had "to take care of those who had helped it." While the second reason assigned by Iredale clearly indicated the respondent's continued animus toward McCabe because of his union activities during the strike, it appears that at the time of McCabe's lay-off the non-automatic looms had been discontinued, -Since there were no non-automatics in use and since McCabe was untrained in the use of Crompton and Knowles automatics, we cannot find that McCabe was laid off because of his membership and activities in the U. T. W. Sometime after his lay-off, McCabe had made arrangements with one of the Crompton and Knowles automatic weavers at the Alice mill to learn to operate an automatic loom. He had the permission of Dixon, superintendent of weaving, to enter the Alice mill as a learner on automatics. McCabe went to see Urquhart to receive final UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 345 sanction. McCabe testified that Urquhart told him on that occasion that since he was one of those who had not helped the respondent during the strike, Urquhart could do nothing for him. Urquhart did not deny that statement, but testified that he did not remember making it. McCabe applied for work at the Andrews mill in January 1936. McCabe testified that Iredale told him at that time that work was coming in and that he should return in a few days, which statement Iredale did not deny although in his testimony he denied the exist- ence of such work at that time. McCabe returned on January 17, 1936, and Iredale told him that he would like to put him on but that the "committee" would not stand for it. Iredale also asked McCabe if he belonged to the U. T. W. Iredale denied the latter statements but in view of the animus which the respondent had manifested toward McCabe because of his refusal to return to work during the strike and his refusal to circulate the paper which was left with him at that time, Iredale's denials are not convincing. In view of statements made to McCabe by Iredale and Urquhart, it is evident that McCabe was refused reinstatement because he be- longed to the U. T. W., had stayed out for the duration of the 1935 strike, and had declined to assist in obtaining others to break the strike. We, therefore, find that the respondent refused to reinstate McCabe when he applied on January 17, 1936, because he had joined and assisted the U. T. W., and thereby discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in the U. T. W. We further find that the respondent has thereby inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In November 1935, McCabe was hired by the Montrose Worsted' Company to work on samples. That job was not steady and the record does not show how long McCabe was employed there. Charles Hubert had been employed as a weaver at the Andrews mill intermittently since July 1934, and had been a member of the U. T. W. since 1933. He was employed as a weaver on a non-auto- matic loom and was laid off sometime in September 1935, when his work ran out. Iredale told Hubert that work was very slack and that he would rehire him when it picked up. Hubert testified that work was very slack when he was laid off but claims that he should have been rehired when the second shift was put to work sometime in May 1936. Hubert applied a week before that shift was started, but was not hired. Hubert had operated automatic looms but testi- fied that he had not had much experience and was not very efficient. Iredale testified that Hubert told him he could not operate automatics. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Hubert because of his union 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership or activities. The allegations of the complaint with respect to Charles Hubert will therefore be dismissed. Aime La Lancette is a weaver on non-automatic and Draper looms who was employed by the respondent at the Andrews mill from January 14 to April 4, 1935, and from June 3 to August 8, 1935, with the exception of the strike period. La Lancette had been a member of the U. T. W. since 1933. When La Lancette returned to work after the strike on August 5, 1935, he was met by Cullen who asked him to sign a paper and told him he could not go to work unless he did. La Lancette did not know what the paper was, but he refused to sign and went to work at his loom. On August 8, 1935, Iredale laid La Lancette off and told him that work was slack and that he would rehire him when it picked up. La Lancette never applied for reinstatement because he was waiting for Iredale to call him back. He testified that Iredale had said he would call him back, while Iredale said that he always hired from among the people who were applying at the mill and seldom, if ever, sent for anyone. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Aime La Lancette because of his membership in the U. T. W., and the allegations of the complaint with .respect to him will therefore be dismissed. Paul Courtemanche is a weaver who was employed at the Andrews -mill on a non-automatic loom. He had been a member of the U. T. W. since March 1934, and did not work during the 1935 strike. During the strike Ernest Iredale's son, who was employed in the respondent's office, and one Albert Fafford called on Courtemanche and promised him a job on the day shift if he would return to work at once. Courte- manche refused. He was a few days late in returning after the strike because he did not know that it had ended, but was reinstated, He worked until the middle of September 1935, when he was laid off because work was slack. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Paul Courtemanche because of his membership in the U. T. W., and the allegations of the complaint with respect to Courtemanche will therefore be dismissed. Joseph L'thier is a weaver who was employed at the Andrews mill cn a non-automatic loom. He started there in February 1935, and was laid off in September 1935. During that period he was laid off for two months and a half and was out during the strike. Ethier was a member of the U. T. W. When he was laid off, Ethier was told that there was not any more work. Thereafter, he came back often to apply for work but was never rehired. Ethier claims that one time when he wdnt back there was another man on his loom, but that is denied by Iredale. There is nothing in the record to indicate that UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 347 Ethier was especially active in the U. T. W. or that the respondent had any malice toward him because of his membership. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Joseph Ethier because of his membership in the U. T. W., and the allegations of the complaint with respect to him will therefore be dismissed. Stanley Wilzek is a weaver who was employed on a non-automatic loom at the Andrews mill. He worked for a week in March 1935, and started again on June 5, 1935, and worked until the strike on June 24, 1935. Wilzek th2n got a job in Providence, Rhode Island, as a weaver and did not return after the strike until September 17, 1935, when he worked 4 days at the Andrews mill and was then laid off. On the third day that Wilzek was employed in September at the Andrews mill, Dwyer came to him and asked him to sign a card for the A. I. W. U. and told him if he signed it he would probably have work there. Wilzek testified that he refused to sign because the "work did not look like it would last." He further testified that the next day the work on the samples that he had been making was finished and that he was laid off. Wilzek has been a member of the U. T. W. for 3 years. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Stanley Wilzek because of his membership in the U. T. W., and the allegations of the complaint with respect to him will therefore be dismissed. Osias Turenne is a weaver who was employed at the Alice mill. He was employed on Crompton and Knowles automatic looms. Turenne had also operated Draper and non-automatic Crompton and Knowles looms for the respondent. Turenne joined the U. T. W. in the spring of 1933 and participated in the 1935 strike. He returned to work after the strike and worked until sometime in May 1936.7 In January 1936, Jarry asked Turenne to join the M. B. A., but Turenne refused. In May 1936, there was a rumor circulating at the Alice mill that the looms were to be moved to the Andrews mill and that the weavers had to join an "independent" union in order to move with their looms. Turenne went to Dixon, the overseer of weaving at Alice, and asked him if the looms were 'going to be moved. Dixon told him they were. Turenne informed Dixon that he would not move to the Andrews mill because he did not like the union they had there. Dixon told him that it was not such a bad outfit, but Turenne reiterated his antipathy toward it. The conversation with Dixon occurred in the early part of the week, and on Friday Turenne went to Dixon and told him that he had changed his mind and that he wanted to go to the Andrews mill. 4 The exact date of the severance of employment is not clear. Turenne testified that it was Friday, May 25, 1936 . May 25, 1936 , fell on Monday. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dixon told him he was sorry but that he had already hired some- one else. Turenne became angry and said that if Dixon felt that way he (Turenne) would not work at the Alice mill any more, and he left the shop. Turenne never has applied for a job there since, and testified that he did not wish to go back to work for the respondent under any circumstances because he did not like the rumors which were always prevalent there. The facts discussed above do not sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Osias Turenne because of his membership in the U. T. W. The allegations of the com- plaint with respect to Turenne will therefore be dismissed. Raymond Barry was employed by the respondent as a yarn boy at the Glenark mill. He had worked for the respondent intermit- tently for 8 or 9 years and during that time had been discharged for cause five or six times, on each occasion by a different foreman. His last period of employment began in June 1935, when he was put to work in his brother's place to enable his brother to have an operation. When his brother returned to work, Barry was shifted to a different job. The overseer, Raymond J. Stenson, testified that he had only hired Barry to replace Barry's brother and that when Barry's brother returned Stenson had not noticed what had happened to Barry until he saw him working as yarn boy. 'Barry had been a member of the U. T. W. since 1933 and was elected secretary of the Glenark Local in 1936. He was discharged on May 12, 1936, for mixing yarn. The yarn boy is supposed to sort the different types of yarn which are spun on different colored spindles, which are marked with chalk to differentiate between the types of yarn spun on the same color spindle. The yarn boy's job requires the least experience in the mill and is usually filled by beginners. On May 12, 1936, the shipping room called the night foreman to say that the yarn had been mixed. The ticket on the truck showed that Barry had mixed the yarn, and he was discharged. Stenson testified that the error was serious enough in itself to warrant dis- charge and that in view of Barry's previous poor record he was im- mediately discharged. Barry testified that usually the yarn boy was only laid off for a few days for mixing yarn and denied that he had mixed it. There is nothing in the record to show any special an- tipathy of the respondent toward Barry because of his union activ- ities. In view of all the circumstances we conclude that Barry was dis- charged for the reason assigned by the respondent rather than be- cause of his union membership and activity. Since the allegation that the respondent discharged Raymond Barry because of his mem- UXBRIDGE WORSTED COIIPANY, INC., ET AL. 349 bership and activities in the U. T. W. is not sustained by the evidence, the allegations of the complaint with respect to him will be dismissed. Joseph Wilson had been employed by the respondent as a loom fixer at the Uxbridge mill for 4 years. He was discharged on Jan- uary 7, 1936, ostensibly for failure to repair a loom which had thereafter ruined a cut of cloth. Before working as a loom fixer, Wilson had been employed by the respondent as a warp starter for 6 years. He had been president of the Uxbridge Local since Jan- uary 1935, and had been in charge of the strike at the Uxbridge mill. During that time, Wilson had negotiated with the respondent as president of the Uxbridge Local. Wilson admitted that just prior to his discharge he had been called to fix a loom that was making mispicks and that he had not been successful in repairing it. Wilson testified that usually the loom is not repaired the first time the fixer works on it, but that he has to tinker with it to get it working right. Wilson blamed the bad cloth on the weaver who, he said, should have stopped weaving when he saw the loom was not operating properly. When Wilson was discharged he went to see James J. O'Neil, superintendent- of the Uxbridge mill, and O'Neil offered him a job as a warp starter. O'Neil told him his work as a loom fixer had not been up to standard recently and that he needed a rest. O'Neil suggested that perhaps if he worked as a warp starter for a while, at $10 less per week, he could go back on loom fixing again later. Wilson refused to go to work as a warp starter because of the de- creased pay. O'Neil then gave Wilson a letter to the Crompton and Knowles plant in Worcester, Massachusetts, which would have en- abled Wilson to learn loom fixing on Crompton and Knowles auto- matic looms. Whether Wilson ever took advantage of this oppor- tunity does not appear from the record. Prior to his discharge, no complaints were made to Wilson about his work. The only indication Wilson had that his work was not up to its usual standard was that one of the weavers told him that the boss weaver had blamed some bad cloth on him. Wilson testified that the weaver told him that he (Wilson) had had nothing to do with that cloth and that the boss weaver had been so informed. O'Neil gave no specific instances of Wilson's bad work, and his testimony that Wilson needed a rest is not convincing. O'Neil's offer of a temporary job at $10 less per week as a warp starter was tantamount to a summary discharge and was so regarded by Wilson, who had worked satisfactorily for the respondent as a loom fixer over a period of 4 years. Wilson was one of the most prominent union men at Uxbridge, as is evidenced by the fact that upon his discharge the loom fixers struck but he induced them to return to work. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From the above facts, we conclude that the respondent discharged Wilson because of his union membership- and activity.8 We find that, by the discharge of Joseph Wilson, the respondent has dis- criminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the U. T. W., and thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Espionage The complaint as amended alleged that the respondent, by its foreman, Sylva Jarry, watched the doorway of a hall where the U. T. W. was meeting to determine who attended the meeting. Jarry testified that in May 1936, he had watched a meeting of the U. T. W. for the purpose of comparing its strength with that of the M. B. A. in which he was interested. There is nothing in the record to show that Jarry was a foreman or to show that he ever reported the results of his watching to the respondent. The evidence fails to support the allegation that the respondent caused Jarry to spy on the meeting in order to determine who be- longed to the U. T. W. The allegations of the complaint with respect to espionage will therefore be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several Statesi and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Louis Leduc and Joseph Wilson because of their activities and membership in the U. T. W. We have also found that, although the evidence does not sustain the allegation that Arthur B. McCabe was discharged because of his activities and membership in the U. T. W., it does sustain the charge that the respondent refused to reinstate McCabe on January 17, 1936, because of his membership and activities in the U. T. W. We shall therefore order the respond- ent to reinstate Leduc, Wilson, and McCabe and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimina- 8 See Matter of Waggoner Refining Company . Ine. and W T. TVaggoner Estate and International Association of Oral Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, E N. L. R. B. 731. UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 351 tion against them, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 9 during said period. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLusIONs OF LAW 1. United Textile Workers of America, United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 1810, and United Textile Workers of America,. Local No. 2056, American Independent Workers' Union, Mutual Benefit Association Independent Union, and Uxbridge Worsted Com- pany Independent League are labor organizations, within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and` tenure of employment of Louis Leduc, Arthur B. McCabe, and Joseph Wilson, and each of them, and thereby discouraging member- ship in a labor organization of its employees, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The respondent has not dominated and interfered with the formation or administration of American Independent Workers' Union, Mutual Benefit Association Independent Union, or Uxbridge Worsted Company Independent League, or contributed financial or other support to them, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 6. The respondent, by discharging and refusing to reinstate Henry Descaureaux, Charles Hubert, Aime La Lancette, Paul Courtemanche, Joseph Ethier, Stanley Wilzek, Osias Turenne, and Raymond Barry, 9 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumbar and 6'awnir1l Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal, or other worp-relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid' over to the appiopriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county, municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and by refusing to reinstate George J. Desrosiers, has not discrimi- nated in regard to th-,ir hire and tenure of employment and thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Ux- bridge Worsted Company, Iuic., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist : (a) From discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 1810, United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2056, United Textile Workers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the, purpose of collective bargaining or -other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Louis Leduc and Joseph Wilson immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges; (b) Offer present employment to Arthur B. McCabe, comparable as to wages, general duties, and general conditions of employment with the position formerly held by him; (c) Make whole Louis Leduc, Arthur B. McCabe, and Joseph Wilson for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as . wages during the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, pursuant to this Order, less his net earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed upon Fed- eral, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay UXBRIDGE WORSTED COMPANY, INC., ET AL. 353 over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern- ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its Uxbridge, Andrews, and Glenark mills, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, or within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, with respect to Henry Descaureaux, Charles Hubert, Aime La Lancette, Paul Courtemanche, Joseph Ethier, Stanley Wilzek, Osias Turenne, Ray- mond Barry, and George J. Desrosiers; or within the meaning of_ Section 8 (1) of the Act with respect to espionage by Sylva Jarry..