Union Tribune Publishing Company

In the Matter of UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY and AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL No. 95 Case No. C-4,59.-Decided May 2, 1939 Newspaper Publishing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-Dis- crimination : discharge ; refusal to reemploy employee whose previous dismissal was not discriminatory , when vacancy occurred ; charges of dismissed as to six persons-Employee Status: employee justified in refusing to accept work which is changed upon a discriminatory basis-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded. Mr. William R. Walsh and Mr. Charles M. Brooks, for the Board. Williamson, Hoge & Sargent, by Mr. Willis H. Sargent and Mr. Emil Steck, Jr., of Los Angeles, Calif., and Gray, Cary, Ames d Driscoll, by Mr. W. P. Cary, of San Diego, Calif., for the respondent. Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 22, 1937, American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, herein called the Guild, filed charges, and on October 1, 1937, amended charges, and on November 9, 1937, second amended charges, with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, Cali- fornia), alleging that Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 15, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c), (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the case be consolidated for the purpose of hearing, with another proceeding based upon a petition for investigation of representatives of em- ployees of the respondent. 12 N. L. R. B., No. 69. 589 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the charges and amended charges filed by the Guild, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, dated Novem- ber 11, 1937, against the respondent alleging in substance that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in that (1) the respond- ent, by discharging and refusing to reinstate certain of its employees, had discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment thereby discouraging membership in the Guild, and (2) by these and other acts and conduct the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the com- plaint, accompanied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Guild. On November 26, 1937, the respondent filed an answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices and setting up as an affirmative defense that the proceeding violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pursuant to notice, a joint hearing upon the petition and the com- plaint was held in San Diego, California, on November 29, 30, Decem- ber 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, 1937, and in Los Angeles, California, on December 8, 1937, before Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full op- portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged that the respondent had discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Nellie Adams and M. A. Dunning. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the admission of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committe. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On February 18, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but recommended that so much of the complaint as related to George James Hall be dismissed. On March 4, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and on March 8, 1938, the Guild also filed exceptions, each party excepting to certain findings of fact and recommendations made by the Trial Examiner. Pur- suant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board in Wash- UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 591 ington, D. C., on June 2, 1938. The respondent appeared by counsel and presented its argument. The Guild did not appear. There- after, the respondent filed a brief, which the Board has considered. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, but save for those which are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is a California corporation and has its principal office and place of business in San Diego, California. It owns, prints, and publishes two newspapers, namely, the San Diego Union, herein called the Union, and the Evening Tribune, herein called the Tribune. The editorial and mechanical departments of both newspapers are located in the same building. The Union is a daily morning news- paper with a weekday circulation of 28,000, and a Sunday circula- tion of 39,000. The Tribune is an evening paper, published daily except Sunday, with a circulation of 30,000. All of the stock of the respondent is owned by Copley Press, Inc., an Illinois corporation, with its principal office in Aurora, Illinois. Copley Press, Inc., has a branch office in Los Angeles, California. The stock of Copley Press, Inc., except for qualifying shares, in turn is owned by its president, Ira C. Copley. The Copley Press, Inc., owns three news- papers in addition to the Union and the Tribune. Ira C. Copley owns and controls the Southern California Associated Newspapers which publishes ten newspapers, and he also owns and publishes the Illinois State Journal. Newsprint, the largest single item of physical property that the respondent uses, is purchased by Ira C. Copley in Sweden, and sold by him to the respondent in California. In 1937 the respondent used approximately 5,240 tons of newsprint. The revenue derived from national advertising, that is, from advertising originating out of the State, amounts to approximately 25 per cent of the total adver- tising revenue of the Union and to 21 per cent of that of the Tribune. The respondent is a member of the Associated Press and uses the International News Service. The Associated Press Association main- tains and operates two teletype machines in the respondent's plant in San Diego, and has the privilege of transmitting items of news collected and edited by the respondent's employees for transmittal to the various members of the Associated Press throughout the country. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Associated Press furnishes the respondent with news items amounting to 150,000 words per day, which are sent from all parts of the country and from foreign countries through its main trunk lines to Los Angeles, and from Los Angeles transmitted to the re- spondent's plant, together with California news gathered by the Associations. News items originating with the respondent and amounting to an average of 150 words per day are transmitted to the main line by the Los Angeles Associated Press Office. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Newspaper Guild. It admits to mem- bership employees of the respondent and of the San Diego Sun, an- other local newspaper. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discharges; interference, restraint, and coercion The respondent discharged three employees of its editorial depart- ment on September 15, 1937, and several employees of its circulation department in October. The respondent points to a retrenchment program as the reason for most of these allegedly discriminatory discharges, while the Guild contends that the program was itself devised by the respondent for the purpose of eliminating Guild members. We shall discuss this controversy before taking up the discharges individually. Because of decreased advertising lineage and increased expenses, the respondent's net profits had started to decline in August 1937, and had been steadily diminishing since. It would therefore appear that there was reason for measures of economy. The Guild chal- lenges the respondent's good faith, however, on the ground that the alleged retrenchment program was put into effect without notice to the Guild's negotiating committee. Only a month prior to the re- spondent's asserted decision to institute the program, the respondent accepted the terms of a document known as the bulletin-board agree- ment, which granted to the editorial employees substantial salary increases, shorter hours, and other improvements in conditions of employment.' The respondent replies that it considered an appeal to the Guild for a wage reduction futile within so short a time after the conclusion of the agreement. However, Arthur K. Whyte, pub- lisher and manager of the respondent, admitted that if one of the 'The opening paragraph of the bulletin-board agreement states : "The management of the Union Tribune Publishing Company, as a result of negotiations with the San Diego Newspaper Guild, hereby gives notice of the following schedule of hours, wages , and work- ing conditions, effective July 26, 1937, and until further notice for editorial employees of the Union Tribune Publishing Company." UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 593 traditional trade unions had been involved instead of the Guild, the respondent would have called in the negotiating committee. While the retrenchment program was not devised primarily for the purpose of eliminating Guild members, it was utilized to obscure the real reasons for some of the discharges. Therefore, we reject the respondent's contention that the establishment of the pro- gram is a complete defense to every discharge made pursuant thereto. 1. The discharges of September 15, 1937 Joseph S. Morgan, Charles Edmond Swanson, and Shirley Miller were discharged on September 15, 1937. All three of them had joined the Guild in December 1936. Joseph S. Morgan had been employed by the respondent for ap- proximately 91/2 years, and since 1930 had been a police reporter for the San Diego Union. His editors praised his efficiency and ability very highly. Morgan was senior in length of service to all but a few employees on the editorial staff. Since, by the terms of the bulletin-board agreement, salaries were to be determined according to years of experience, Morgan received a very substantial increase amounting to approximately $20 a week. Morgan's increase was frequently used by the Guild in soliciting other employees for Guild membership, as an example of what the Guild could accomplish. The respondent contends that it discharged Morgan pursuant to its re- trenchment policy because it was unwilling to pay a police reporter the salary it was required to pay Morgan under the agreement. Two reporters, who because of less seniority rated considerably less pay than Morgan, successively held Morgan's position. Swanson, Mor- gan's ultimate successor, receives only $5 less per week than Morgan did, and according to the agreement, his salary will equal Morgan's in less than a year's time. However, Swanson writes his own stories while Morgan was accustomed to telephone his in to rewrite men, although there is no proof in the record that Morgan could not have dispensed with the services of the rewrite men had he been requested to do so. His editor testified that Morgan was a better police reporter than Swanson. The circumstances surrounding Morgan's discharge, his pronounced ability and the Guild's use of his raise as an example of its accom- plishments, arouse strong suspicion of discrimination, but this evi- dence is not sufficient to disprove respondent's defense. Swanson had been employed by the respondent since July 6, 1936, on the staff of the Union. During the summer of 1937 he was the Guild's acting secretary and in that capacity he signed charges filed with the Board against the respondent. Shirley Miller had been employed by the respondent since Septem- ber 26, 1932, on the Tribune first as society reporter, then as society 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD editor. At the time of her discharge she was engaged in general reporting and rewriting work. She has been the secretary of the Guild since January 1937 and in that capacity she signed most of its letters to the respondent. Lester G. Bradley, president and treasurer of the respondent, reprimanded her personally for the language used in a letter in which the Guild protested the anti-Guild statements and actions of W. V. O'Farrell, circulation manager, in spite of her asser- tion that the letter was a communication of the Guild merely signed by her in her official capacity. Bradley admitted at the hearing that he told Miller of his resentment against the letter. Jack Stevenson, one of his district managers, testified that O'Farrell told him that the respondent dismissed Miller because she was the one who was causing him all the trouble and had written the letters to the manage- ment. O'Farrell denied this statement but in the light of his other testimony we cannot give credence to his denial. The respondent claims that Miller was discharged pursuant to the retrenchment program. Frank B. Goodman, the editor of the Tribune testified that Miller was occupied only 5 or 6 hours a day because there had not been enough work for her to do. Miller ad- mitted that since her return from her leave of absence in the summer of 1937 there were periods when her work was so light that she was not occupied a full working day, but claimed that was not unusual since the other reporters were not steadily occupied either. Miller was the only regular employee of the Tribune's editorial staff chosen for discharge pursuant to the retrenchment program. We believe that in the light of the length of her service record and the versatility apparent from her various positions with the re- spondent, Miller's employment would not have been terminated had it not been for her superiors' resentment of her union activities. On September 16, 1937, a conference was held by representatives of the respondent, of the Guild, and of the Board to discuss the above discharges. Swanson suggested that if the respondent would tem- porarily reinstate the three of them the Guild would consider a pro- posal that all editorial employees take salary reductions aggregating the amount saved by the discharges. The respondent agreed to do so and subsequently set the necessary salary reduction at 10 per cent. Accordingly, the three employees were temporarily reinstated. On the following day Miller tendered her resignation. At the hearing she testified that she found it unbearable to be "put back on suffer- ance," that by her resignation on September 18 she intended to end her temporary reinstatement, but that she had not terminated her employee status. Goodman's testimony presents a different version of this incident. Miller told Goodman that she was resigning because she had been dissatisfied for a long time, and that she attended the protest meeting of September 16 only out of loyalty to the Guild. UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 595 Miller's version appears to be more compatible with the evidence in the case. Having found Miller's discharge discriminatory the question arises whether this resignation should bar the remedy. It is clear that the temporary reinstatement and the subsequent resignation therefrom were a direct result of respondent's violation of the Act. We have held that where an employee's status is changed upon a discrimina- tory basis it is justifiable for him to refuse to accept work under the changed status.2 On September 19 at a meeting of the Guild its membership refused to take a salary cut, since the respondent refused to give any assurance against further discharges and the editorial department was unwilling to shoulder the burden of the respondent's economy program. The Guild notified the respondent of the action it had taken at a conference held on September 20. At this time a representative of the Guild voiced the belief that Swanson had been discriminated against by the respondentbecause his name had appeared on the charges filed against the respondent. After a short consultation between the representa- tives of the respondent they agreed to reinstate Swanson in order to eliminate the suspicion of discrimination. Thereupon, Swanson's temporary reinstatement became permanent. Morgan's reinstatement was terminated, however. Conclusions with respect to the discharges of September 15, 1937 Upon all the evidence in this case, we find that the respondent dis- charged Shirley Miller because of her activities on behalf of the Guild. The respondent, by discharging Miller has discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Guild. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged Joseph S. Morgan and Charles Edmond Swanson because of their Guild membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns the discharge of Morgan and Swanson. 2. Other discharges James Edward McMahon had been employed by the respondent for 11 years, when he was discharged on October 21, 1937. Five months prior to this date he had been made district manager; his work con- sisted largely of supervising the carriers in his district. His district was carved out of two other districts, for the purpose of increasing circulation, but when the retrenchment program was put in effect the original districts were restored, and his position thereby eliminated. 2 Matter of Waggoner Refining Company, Inc. and W. T. Waggoner Estate and Interna- tional Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 6 N. L. R. B. 731. 169134-39-vol. 12-39 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McMahon was the first employee in the circulation department to join the Guild. His superior, O'Farrell, head of the department, knew of his Guild membership. O'Farrell was outspoken as to his dislike of the Guild. He admitted at the hearing that he had asked one of the employees to report to him-those who attended a Guild meeting, because he "just wanted to see who was going." His secre- tary testified that in a telephone conversation between O'Farrell and the circulation manager of the Sun, O'Farrell stated in response to a question, "I thought my people had not joined either, but I find they joined 100 per cent" and later added, "there is certainly something we can do about it." Although O'Farrell admitted making only the first part of the above statement, and denied the second, in the light of all the evidence we cannot give credence to his denial and find that he made the entire statement attributed to him. O'Farrell expressed his disapproval of McMahon's Guild activities to several of the employees. Sometime before McMahon's discharge, O'Farrell told McMahon that he had heard that McMahon had "backed out" of the Guild. When McMahon denied this O'Farrell said, "Well, I thought you were getting smart, Eddie, but I guess you are not." We find that McMahon's selection for dismissal on October 21, 1937, was not discriminatory, since his job had been the last created and among the district managers he was the youngest in that position. However, 2 weeks later when one of the district managers was trans- ferred, a vacancy occurred. McMahon was a competent employee; the evidence clearly proves that his record of obtaining new sub- scribers was better than or at least as good as that of most district managers. He applied for the position but it was given to McKain, who was in the respondent's employ as an office boy. The respond- ent's preference for McKain, who had had no experience at this post, in the light of McMahon's Guild activities, can be accounted for only by O'Farrell's disapproval of the Guild. Upon all the evidence in this case, we find that the respondent re- fused to reemploy McMahon at the time the vacancy occurred be- cause of his activities in behalf of the Guild. By its refusal to re- employ McMahon, the respondent has discriminated in regard to McMahon's hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Guild. Viola Crockett 3 had been employed by the respondent in the cir- culation department for 14 months when she was discharged on Oc- tober 4, 1937. She was engaged in filing records of all the sub- scribers in and around San Diego County. These files were discon- tinued as part of the retrenchment program, and Crockett was dis- charged. No one was hired to take her place. 8 Referred to in complaint and answer as V. Crockett. UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 597 She has been a member of the Guild since August 1937. At the time when the Guild had been organizing the circulation department O'Farrell told her to be careful and not to sign anything hastily, but did not tell her not to join. O'Farrell also asked her to attend a Guild meeting and report those present. At the hearing O'Farrell admitted having made both statements, but he claimed that his warning against signing referred to the company-union movement which was then in progress. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged her because of her Guild membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns her discharge. Horace P. Emerson has been employed by the respondent for ap- proximately 12 years as bookkeeper. At the time of his discharge, he was working on the general ledger. He has been a member of the Guild since September 1937. The respondent transferred the general ledger to the Los Angeles office of Copley Press, Inc., as the monthly financial statements were to be prepared there in order to facilitate the handling of taxation matters. Emerson's position was eliminated by the transfer of the books he handled. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged Emerson because of his Guild membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns his discharge. George Booker had been employed as staff photographer of the respondent since May 20, 1935. He was discharged on October 16, 1937. On that day he was assigned to cover two football games. Before taking any pictures, he was knocked down in one of the plays, as a result of which the front shutter of his camera closed. He took several pictures of each game without noticing the closed shutter and consequently when he returned to the office he had only blank nega- tives. When Harry T. Bishop, head of the photographic depart- ment, learned what had happened, he discharged Booher. There is further evidence in the record of Booher's failures to obtain satisfactory results on other previous assignments, and of his unau- thorized absences from the office during working hours. However, the issue before us is not whether his discharge was justified, but whether it was due to his membership and activity in the Guild. The only evidence in support of the allegation that Booher had been discharged because of his Guild membership is in Booher's testi- mony that Bishop hold him "if any of my men join the Union, it means their job." Bishop denied the statement, and since every employee in the photographic department belongs to the Guild and there is no evidence that Booher was more active in the Guild than 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the others, we believe Bishop's testimony. The evidence fails to sus- tain the allegation that the respondent discharged Booher because of of his Guild membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the com- plaint in so far as it concerns his discharge. George James Hall was employed by the respondent as assistant street circulator. For several months he used his own car and received $20 monthly compensation therefor in addition to his salary. On September 10, 1937, the allowance was discontinued as part of the retrenchment program. Hall was unwilling to work without the car allowance and voluntarily terminated his employment. He contra- dicted himself at the hearing regarding the date of his Guild affilia- tion. It appears that he joined the Guild only after the alleged discrimination had already occurred. The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent discharged Hall because of his Guild membership. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns his discharge. 3. The October 11, 1937, rules On October 11, 1937, the respondent posted certain rules and regu- lations concerning conditions of employment in its editorial depart- ment. These rules list a number of offenses, the violation of which constitutes cause for discharge. It was alleged that the posting of these rules intimidated, restrained, and coerced the respondent's em- ployees within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The evi- dence does not sustain the allegation and therefore we will dismiss the complaint in so far as it concerns this charge. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent with respect to Shirley Miller and James Edward McMahon, set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, is a labor organ- ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by discriminating against Shirley Miller and James Edward McMahon, in regard to hire and tenure of employ- ment, thereby discouraging membership in American Newspaper UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY 599 Guild, Local No. 95, 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 by 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 labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By discharging Joseph S. Morgan, Charles Edmond Swanson, Viola Crockett, Horace P. Emerson, George Booher, and George James Hall, the respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices 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 the respond- ent, Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist : (a) From discouraging membership in the American Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95, or any other labor organization of its employees by discriminating 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 the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by 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 Shirley Miller and James Edward McMahon immediate reemployment to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole said Shirley Miller and James Edward McMahon for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of a sum of money equal toi that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of such offer of reemploy- ment, less his net earnings 4 during said period,. deducting, however, 4 By "net earnings" is meant earnings, less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with seeking work or working elsewhere, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking work elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Unaon, Local 2590, 8 N. L. It. B. 440. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees monies received by said employee during said period for work performed on Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay 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; (c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed with respect to the discharge of Joseph S. Morgan, Charles Edmond Swanson, Viola Crockett, Horace P. Emerson, George Booher, and George James Hall. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting : I am of the opinion that Morgan was discharged because of his membership in the Guild. The respondent's contention that it dis- charged Morgan pursuant to its economy program because it was uhwilling to pay a police reporter the salary it had to pay Morgan under the agreement is not supported by the facts. Morgan was admittedly an excellent police reporter. The two less experienced reporters who after Morgan's discharge temporarily filled his position were not seriously contemplated to succeed him. Within a few weeks, the job was given to Swanson who earns only 5 dollars less than Morgan and is according to the evidence not so good a police reporter as Morgan. Furthermore the respondent apparently does not consider that salary unreasonable for the job since the police reporter of its other paper, the Tribune, receives an equal amount. Morgan received the largest salary increase granted under the Guild agreement. That increase was utilized by the Guild as an example of its accomplishments in soliciting members in the plant. Discharg- ing him, after the Guild had pointed with pride at his increased salary, was an effective method of discouraging membership in the organization. Considering all the evidence in the case I find that the respondent discharged Morgan in order to lessen the Guild's prestige rather than to effectuate its economy program. The respondent should be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement, with back pay from the date of his discharge.