Bussman Manufacturing Company and McGraw Electric Company

In the Matter of BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND MCGRAw ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, DISTRICT No. 9, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-777.-Decided August 9, 1939 Electrical Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion : urging employees not to choose an "outside" bargaining representa- tive ; protesting employees' choice of shop committee ; offering wage increase if employees abandon union-Company-Dominated Union: charges of, dismissed- Discrimination : discharges for union membership and activity to discourage membership in union-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: tool and die makers and apprentices , excluding supervisory employees-Representatives: proof of choice : signed application cards ; employers did not question majority status at bargaining conference-Collective Bargaining : announcement at out- set of negotiations that companies refused to enter into signed agreement; equivocal qualification to refusal based on responsibility of union not a de- fense ; duty of employer under circumstances to embody understandings reached with union in signed agreement ; contention that unit inappropriate unreason- able and not advanced in good faith-Reinstatement Ordered: discharged em- ployees-Back Pay: awarded : from date of discrimination to date of reinstate- ment or offer of reinstatement ; monies received by employees for work per- formed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects to be deducted and paid over to agency which supplied funds for such work-relief projects. Mr. Bernard Bralove, for the Board. Cobbs do Logan, by Mr. George Logan and Mr. William H. Arm- strong, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondents. Bartley & Mayfield, of St. Louis, Mo., for the I. A. M. Mr. Isaac C. Orr, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Association. Mr. Robert L. Condon, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Association of Machin- ists, District No. 9, herein called the I. A. M., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Dorothea de Schweinitz, Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), duly issued its complaint, dated April 26, 1938, against Bussmann 14 N. L. R. B., No. 27. 322 BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 323 Manufacturing Company, herein called the Bussmann Company, and McGraw Electric Company, herein called the McGraw Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein jointly called the respondents, alleging that they had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),' (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents and the I. A. M. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance : (1) That on or about May 21 the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the I. A. M. as the exclusive representa- tive of the tool and die workers, although the I. A. M. had been designated by a majority of such employees as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, and such employees con- stituted a unit appropriate for such purposes; (2) that the respondents dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Bussmann Employees' Association, herein called the Association, and contributed support to it, and that on or about June 17, 1937, the respondents entered into a collective bargaining contract with the Association, which provided, among other things, for the recognition of the Association as the exclusive bargaining agency for all employees of the respondents in St. Louis; (3) that the respondents on or about June 23, 1937, discharged Roland Likert and Richard A. Hogge, and at all times have refused to reinstate them, for the reason that they had engaged in concerted activities on behalf of the I. A. M., and that the respondents thereby dis- criminated in regard to their tenure of employment; and (4) that by these acts and by other acts the respondents did interfere with, restrain, and coerce their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On May 3, 1938, the respondents filed their answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint. The answer further alleged that the proceedings should be dismissed because no questions have ever existed which would lead or tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and because the charge is based .upon facts allegedly existing almost a year before the issuance of the complaint. The answer also alleged that the issuance of the complaint was unreasonable because of the lapse of time between it and the filing of the charge, that the failure of the Regional Director to issue such complaint more promptly was,,in effect, a declination to issue it; and that said Regional Direc- tor was without power to issue a complaint unless the I. A. M. had attempted to obtain a review of the Regional Director's previous refusal by filing a request for review with the Board. 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, from May 6 through 13, 1938, before Theo. R. Bland, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respond- ents, and the Association were represented by counsel and partici- pated in the hearing' Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the motion of the Association to intervene in the proceeding, and the Association filed an answer denying that the respondents had com- mitted unfair labor practices in so far as the Association was concerned. The Association also filed a motion to dismiss portions of the complaint. The Trial Examiner overruled this motion. During the course of the hearing, in motions to dismiss, the re- spondents renewed the matter set forth in their answer relating to the lapse of time between the charge and the complaint. The Trial Examiner overruled these motions. The respondents also moved to strike portions of the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied this motion, but ruled that paragraph 14 of the complaint should be amended by the Board, and, in accordance with his ruling, this amendment was made. The Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections 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. Subsequently, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, dated July 20, 1938, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and further finding that the respondents had not discriminated against Roland Likert within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. He recommended that the respondents cease and desist from the unfair labor practices, reinstate Richard A. Hogge with back pay, and take certain other affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the .Act. Thereafter, the respondents, the Association, and the I. A. M. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner. The parties were notified of their right to request oral argument before the Board or for permission to file briefs. The Association requested oral. argument, but the Board found it impossible to schedule it upon the date requested. The Association therefore withdrew its request. 'The I. A. M. was not represented at the bearing . but subsequently on its behalf counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner. BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 325 None of the other parties have requested oral argument. The Board has considered the exceptions of the parties, and, except for those exceptions which are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Bussmann Manufacturing Company is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. McGraw Elec- tric Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. In 1929 the entire assets of the Buss- mann Company were sold to the McGraw Company and the capital stock of the Bussmann Company was reduced to $2,000. The Buss- man Company continued in corporate existence. solely to protect its name.' Since 1929 the business formerly conducted by the Bussmann Company has been conducted by the McGraw Company, under the name of Bussmann Manufacturing Company Division of McGraw Electric Company. The respondents operate two plants in St. Louis, called the Sullivan Avenue and the University Street plants, where they manufacture electric fuses, all kinds of fuse holders, fuse ac- cessories and parts, and Bussmann portable electric lamps. This pro- ceeding concerns itself with the respondents' two plants in St. Louis. During the year 1937 the raw materials which the respondents used in the course of production at the St. Louis plants aggregated in value, approximately $450,000, of which 98 per cent were brought to the, plants from outside the State of. Missouri. The respondents manu- factured in this period at the St. Louis plants finished products of, the approximate value of $750,000, of which 96 per cent were shipped to purchasers located in States other than the State of Missouri. The two St. Louis plants have approximately 395 employees. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It has chartered Tool and Die Makers Local No. 688, herein called Local 688, which admits to membership employees of the respondents who are tool and die makers or apprentices, excluding foremen and assistant foremen. 'The Bussmann Manufacturing Company was organized by the several Bussmann brothers . Five of the brothers were connected with , respondents at the time of the hearing, and, all testified. 326 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD Bussmann Employees'. Association is an incorporated. labor organi. zation, unaffiliated with any other body, which admits to membership persons who are employed' by the respondents at the St. Louis plants. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The refusal to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that a unit consisting of the tool and die makers and apprentices, excluding supervisory employees, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. * In their answers both the respondents and the Association deny this allegation. The record reveals that the respondents employ eight tool and die makers and four or five apprentices, herein collectively called the tool workers. These employees maintain and sharpen all the tools that are used in the respondents' plants. They are responsible for keeping the dies used in production in workable shape, remaking and rehard- ening them as the occasion arises. In addition, the tool workers act as maintenance machinists, repairing and rebuilding the production machinery. The tool and die makers and apprentices have their benches and necessary machinery in a large room in the University Street plant. In addition to the tool workers, certain production workers are also located in this room. Although the tool workers are not physically partitioned off from the production employees, it.is clear that there is a functional difference in the work of the two groups. Furthermore, the tool machines and benches are grouped together at one end of the room. The work of the employees who use the tool machines is not interchangeable with that of the production workers. The tool work- ers are. considered the most highly skilled employees of the respond- ents, and are paid on an hourly basis, unlike the production em- ployees who, in general, have piece-work rates. We believe that the tool and die makers and apprentices constitute a clearly defined craft of machinists and as such might properly be a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.s In addition to these factors, the record reveals that at the time Local 688 started to organize there was no other labor organization in existence at the respondents' plants,' and that when the respondents 8 See Matter of WVillys Overland Motors, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 12, 9 N. L. R. B. 924. 4 See footnote 14, infra. BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 327 refused to bargain with the I. A. M., as set out below, no other organization was seeking recognition from the respondents. The tool workers are the only employees of the respondents,in St. Louis who, are eligible to membership in Local 688 and, as will be indicated below, a majority of those eligible have made application for member-: ship in this organization. Under these circumstances, we find that the tool and die makers and apprentices. of. the respondents, excluding- supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such unit insures to employees of the respondents their full right to collective bargaining and otherwise: effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the I. A. M. of a majority in the appropriate unit During the course of the hearing, the I. A. M. introduced ili evidence: the application cards for membership of 10 employees within the appropriate unit.5 The dates on these application cards range from, April 21 to May 17, 1937. In addition to the 10 who signed appli- cation cards, the record reveals that two tool workers, Hogge and Expy,6 had been members of the I. A. M. for years. Consequently,, their application cards were not introduced into evidence. . Another tool worker, one Harper, had applied for membership in Local 688„ on April 23, 1937, but was later rejected. It was stipulated by the. respondents and counsel for the Board that on May 20, 1937, there, were 13 persons employed as tool and die makers or apprentices. It appears, , therefore, that all the tool and die makers and apprentices,, with the possible exception of Harper, designated the I. A. M. as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining either by being members or by applying for membership in it., The respondents do not contend that the signatures on the authori- zation cards are not genuine, but they insist that it is relevant that, some of those who applied for membership had not paid dues and, were not initiated until after the refusal to.bargain, and consequently- at this time were not members in good standing. The Act, however,, says nothing about membership in good standing. The test is- whether or not the employee had designated the I. A. M. to act as his., representative for the purpose of collective bargaining, and those who, signed the application cards must be deemed to have authorized the, 6 Some of the cards were applications for reinstatement in the 1 . A. M. by employees: who had formerly been members ; the others were applications for new membership. For the purposes of this discussion no distinction need be made between the two. Expy quit the respondents ' employ in 1937 shortly after the I. A. M. attempted to, bargain. 190935-40-vol. 14--22 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I. A. M. to represent them. Furthermore, as will be discussed below, .a conference was held on Wednesday, May 19, 1937, in the office of Aloysius Bussmann, vice president of respondent, the McGraw Com- pany and president of respondent, the Bussmann Company. This -conference was attended by Walker, business agent of the I. A. M., Aloysius Bussmann, and all the tool and die makers, with the excep- tion of the apprentices. At this meeting, Walker acted as the spokes- man for the tool and die makers who were present. Bussmann did not dispute his authority nor question the fact that-the majority -wished to be represented by the I. A. M. In addition, either at this conference or at a subsequent meeting, Friday, May 21, 1937, Walker .submitted a list to Bussmann of those he claimed to represent, which list contained a. majority of the tool workers. Bussmann did not question the accuracy of this list. Under these circumstances, we find that on May 19 and 21, 1937, the I. A. M. represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit. Since we find hereinafter that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices tending to discourage membership in the I. A. M., including the discharge of two men active in its behalf, the con- tention that the latter did not represent a majority of employees at the time of the hearing can have no standing here." Furthermore, at the hearing five employees within the unit testified that they were* still members of the I. A. M.s By adding to these five, the two tool workers who were discriminatorily discharged, it appears that at least seven employees within the unit, or a majority, had designated the I. A. M. at the date of the hearing. We find that on May 19, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the I. A. M. was the duly designated representative of a majority of employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was, therefore, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of work. 3. The refusal to bargain As we have pointed out, the majority of the tool and die makers and apprentices of the respondents had made application for mem- bership in the I. A. M. late in April or early in May 1937. During ' See Matter of Illinois Knitting Company and Federal Labor Union No. 21025, affiliated aoith A. F. of L., 11 N. L. R. B. 48 , and cases there cited ; cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Lonisville Refining Company, 102 F. (2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6th, 1939). °Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A.) (a corporation) and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee of the C. 1. 0., 4 N. L. R. B. 604 . See National Labor Relations Board v. Cotten, 105 F. (2d) 179 (C. C. A. 6th, 1939). 9 Spiegel , Rinehart, Stubitz, Du Verret, and Griffith. BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 329 this organizational drive, Walker, the business agent or walking -delegate of the I. A. M., called on Aloysius Bussmann. The two men discussed the wage rates the respondents paid the tool workers in -comparison with the prevailing rates in St. Louis. Walker stated that he believed the respondents' rates were a few cents an hour too .low. Bussmann said, "Well, if that matter comes up, as it always has in the past, it will be taken care of." When asked to explain this remark at the hearing, Bussmann testified that he meant that any of the employees who felt dissatisfied with his wages could always con- fer with one of the Bussmann brothers, and would either get a raise ,or be told why it must be denied. Bussmann told Walker that the latter was wasting his time in view of this past experience in dealing with the employees directly. Walker and Bussmann met several times during the organizational period of the I. A. M. At one of these meetings, the question arose as to whether the respondents would sign a contract if the I. A. M. was shown to represent a majority of the, employees, and an agree- ment was reached. The testimony of Aloysius Bussmann shows the :respondents' position on this question : Q. Did you tell him [Walker] that you wouldn't sign a con- tract regardless of how many inen he got? A. I told him I would not sign a contract even though condi- tions came whereby we would be asked to recognize somebody, either his outfit of some outfit as the bargaining agent. We would accept that, work under it, but we would not sign a contract with anyone. Q. You would not sign a contract with anyone? A. Unless we knew they. were thoroughly responsible parties. Q. Unless you knew they were thoroughly responsible parties? A. Right. Q. Did you discuss with Mr. Walker the basis of responsibility in your minds? A. Did I discuss with Mr. Walker? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall that I did. Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bussmann, do you consider the American Federation of Labor a responsible organization? A. As such, yes, but the American Federation of Labor has locals which may not have responsibility suitable to me. Q. How about the Tool and Die Workers Local [Local 688] ? A. I know nothing about it. Q. You know nothing about? A. Nothing about it? Q. At that time you refused to sign a contract with him unless he could prove that he [sic] was a responsible organization? 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Oh no, that is not the reason I refused to sign a contract. I said I would never sign a contract. We may work under con- ditions, but I would not put the name of the company in writing on a piece of paper unless the other party was satisfactory from the responsibility standpoint. Despite the attitude evidenced by Aloysius Bussmann, the I. A. M. continued to organize and, as we have indicated above, on May. 19, 1937, presented its demands that the respondents bargain with them. On this day, all the tool and die makers, including the foreman, met in Bussmann's office with Bussmann and Walker. The apprentices. did not attend this meeting. Walker had previously submitted a copy of a proposed contract establishing wages, hours, and conditions of work for the tool makers and apprentices. This contract was dis- cussed by the group present, paragraph by paragraph. The prin- cipal bone of contention which developed was the hourly rate to be paid, and whether the respondents would agree to the closed-shop pro- vision. In spite of the fact that the proposed contract was. the basis of the entire conference, Aloysius Bussmann testified at the hearing that they were merely "talking about wage rates" and that he did not, discuss the contract as a contract. The meeting broke up without an understanding being reached as to rates of pay, and it was agreed that Walker was to meet 'Bussmann on Friday afternoon, May 21, 1937, and see if the two could come to terms. On Thursday, May 20, Aloysius Bussmann instructed. the fore- man, one Butler, to call the five oldest tool workers in point of service to a meeting in Butler's office. There is considerable dispute as to what actually transpired at this meeting. It appears, however, that Bussmann expressed annoyance that the shop committee established by Local 688 consisted of two men junior in service in the depart- ment, and only one of the older employees. Joe Bussmann, the super- intendent of the University Street plant, who came into the office during the discussion, pointed out that the respondents had always been fair to their employees, and Aloysius Bussmann informed them emphatically that he saw no reason that they should have to call in outsiders. One of the tool workers present, Likert, who was the most militant in the plant on behalf of the I. A. M., told the Buss- manns that they were reflecting an anti-union attitude and that the respondents had no right to request them to give up their union organization. Likert further informed Aloysius Bussmann that the latter should see their representative, Walker, if he wished to bargain with the group. Thereafter the meeting-broke up. Likert testified that the following morning, Friday, May 21, Butler,. the foreman, told him that the respondents would be willing to give them an increase in wages if the men did not insist on negotiating BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 331 through Walker. According to Likert, Butler said that the respond- ents wanted him to broach the proposition to the rest of the tool workers before Walker arrived that afternoon. Likert refused to see the other men, and testified that a short time later Butler approached another tool worker, one Du Perret, and asked him to transmit the respondents' offer to the employees. Butler denied Likert's testimony. Du Perret testified that he and Butler had a conversation during the course of which the suggestion was made, apparently by Du Perret, that perhaps the men might accept a raise and the whole problem could be settled. Du Perret further stated that Butler suggested that Du Perret call the men together and see what they thought about it. Du Perret thereupon summoned the tool workers into the hall, and stated that respondents would grant a raise to $1.03 an hour, a compromise figure between the $1.10 an hour demanded on Wednesday and 90 and. 95 cents an hour which the tool and die makers had been receiving. Implicit in the offer was the understanding that the employees would not deal through the I. A. M.10 The proposal was instantly rejected by the men. Butler denied having any conversation with Du Perret on the subject. We do not credit Butler's denials, and we find that he discussed the matter with both Likert and Du Perret. We find further that Butler took the initiative in broaching respondent's proposal to Likert, and that he filially utilized Du Perret as the agent when Likert refused. The record clearly reveals that the tool workers met in the hall and rejected Du Perret's proposal.' We think it unlikely that Du Perret would have suggested that the men accept a wage increase and thus relinquish their union, unless he had been authorized to make such an offer by his superior, Butler. Further- more, Aloysius Bussmann the day before had similarly proposed that the tool workers deal individually and not through their chosen representative. We believe that Butler attempted to secure the acceptance of a concrete proposal, and that he was thereby following up the views previously expressed by Aloysius Bussmann. Since Likert was the recognized spokesman and leader among the tool workers, it was natural that Butler should attempt to enlist his support before turning to Du Perret. Meanwhile, a meeting of the union tool workers of the respondents had been held at the headquarters of the I. A. M., and the men voted to recede from their previous demand for a closed shop. In addi- tion, Walker was authorized to bargain and reach an agreement with Aloysius Bussmann upon the wage rates, accepting if necessary a lesser amount than the original demand. Accordingly, Walker 10 Du Perret, himself , testified that he asked the men if they would accept the raise "in order to call off the trouble that we had." He testified that by "trouble" he meant the previous efforts to get a wage raise. 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mailed a second proposed contract to Bussmann .which dropped the closed-shop proviso and left blank the space for the" hourly wage figures. The accompanying letter, which was dated May 20, con- firmed Walker's appointment with Bussmann on Friday afternoon, May 21, 1937. Walker saw Aloysius Bussmann as scheduled. Bussmann, in the interval between the meeting with the older tool workers the previ- ous morning and this conference, had consulted his attorney, and as a, result informed Walker that he could not bargain with the I. A. M., stating that the respondents doubted that a unit of tool and die workers and apprentices was appropriate. This was the first time that this ground for refusing to bargain had been advanced. Walker disputed the contention, stating that the Board had held that such a craft group could constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under the terms of the Act. - Bussmann refused to retreat from his posi- tion and, after a brief discussion of some of the decisions of the Board, Walker left, indicating, however, that he would file charges with the Regional Director. Thereafter, there were no further nego- tiations by representatives of the I. A. M. with any of the officials of the respondents. It is apparent from what has been set forth that throughout the course of the negotiations the respondents seized upon every pretext in order to avoid recognizing and bargaining with the I. A. M. When the union representative first called, Aloysius Bussmann stated that because of the past history of individual bargaining with the em- ployees, attempts on the part of the I. A. M. to bargain collectively would be futile. The respondents further indicated that they would never sign a contract with the I. A. M. We do not believe that the equivocal qualification to this refusal, that the respondents would sign a contract if "the other party was satisfactory from the responsibility standpoint," alters the effect of the refusal. Particularly would this be so, when as in this case, there is no indication that the respondents communicated to the I. A. M. their alleged uneasiness as to its respon- sibility, or that they set forth the standards, if any, which would make Local 688 acceptable to them. That there was a refusal to embody in writing any agreement which might be reached is further shown by the testimony of Aloysius Bussmann that at the Wednesday meet- ing with all the tool and die makers, he was merely discussing wage rates with them. He was not looking toward the reaching of a signed collective bargaining agreement.. The respondents' readiness to sign with the Association, as will be hereinafter discussed, demonstrates that the respondents' objections to an agreement in writing were applied only to the I. A. M. and were designed to check its progress. The refusal to embody in writing any agreement which might be reached, in the absence of any convincing and legitimate reasons for BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 333 such a refusal, is not permissible under the' Act,' 1 and we find no such reasons here. We believe, moreover, that this advance notice that the .respondents would refuse to sign a contract, was but one manifestation of the respondents' hostility to the I. A. M. The respondents quite clearly made known that under no circumstances would they deal seriously with the I. A. M. We find that the respondents attempted to force the tool and die makers and apprentices to abandon their chosen bargaining representa- tive, both by pointing out the greater feasibility of individual rather than[ collective bargaining and by entering negotiations with their minds proclaimed to be closed to the possibility of a signed agreement. As we have indicated, the respondents, at the meeting between the Bussmanns and the five older tool workers, resorted more directly to coercive practices, by disparaging outside representatives and com- plaining of the shop committee the men had selected. Equally intimi- dating was the action of Butler, an agent of the respondents,12 in using Du Perret, and attempting to use Likert, to persuade the employees to abandon the I. A. M. in exchange for a wage increase. In view of these facts, we believe that the professed doubt about the appropriate- ness of the unit was merely a convenient afterthought of counsel. It. is significant that this contention was advanced for the first time at the last meeting between the respondents and the I. A. M., despite the fact that there had been several previous discussions concerning collective bargaining. We believe that the respondents' entire course of conduct, demonstrates that they had no intention of ever bargaining with the I. A. M. We believe, therefore, that their contention that the unit was inappropriate was advanced in bad faith. Irrespective of the question of the respondents' good faith, under the circumstances of this case and for the reasons indicated in Section III, A, 1, above, a unit of tool and die workers was clearly appro- priate13 We believe therefore that the doubt as to the unit was so unreasonable that it plainly cannot be asserted as a defense to the charge of refusing to bargain. We are not convinced by the argu- "Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amal- gamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R. B. 783; Matter of Western Felt Works, a corporation and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, Western Felt Local, 10 N. L. R. B. 407. "The record reveals that Butler was the only person in the respondents' St. Louis plants in addition to the Bussmann brothers who had the power to hire and discharge. 13 See Matter of Waterbury Clock Company and International Association of Machinists, 4 N. L. R. B. 120; Matter of Schick Dry Shaver Company and Lodge 1557, International Association of Machinists , 4 N. L. R. B. 246; Matter of Waterbury Manufacturing Company and International Association of Machinists, Local 1,435, 5 N. L. R. B. 288; Matter of The Electric Auto-Lite Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America No. 12, 9 N. L. R. B. 147; Matter of Willys Overland Motors, Inc. and Inter- national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 12, 9 N. L. R. B. 924. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment of the respondents that they should not be forced at their peril to choose the appropriate unit. The I. A. M. was the only labor organization at this time requesting the right to bargain ,14 and there was, therefore, no danger of the respondents being caught between conflicting demands of competing labor organizations. The peril was illusory. We find that the respondents on May 19, 20, and 21, 1937, and thereafter, have refused to bargain collectively with the I. A. M. as the representative of their tool and die makers and apprentices in respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. We further find that the respondents by the 'acts set forth herein- above have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or -assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives 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 Act. B. The discharges Richard A. Hogge was first employed by the respondents in Septem- ber 1936. He was discharged June 23, 1937. Hogge had been a tool and die worker and a member of the I. A. M. for 35 years. He was a charter member of Local 688 and at one time served as an officer of it. Although Hogge was not unduly active in the organizing drive of the I. A. M. in April and May 1937, he was one of the two I. A. M. members employed by the respondents prior to this period, and as such was part of the nucleus around which the tool workers were organized. The record reveals that Butler knew Hogge was an I. A. M: member, having been so informed by a tool worker named Harper. Furthermore, the record discloses that Butler had discussed the organizational activities and membership of the I. A. M. with Joe and Aloysius Bussmann. - 14 Sometime in April 1937 a substantial number of the respondents ' employees signed a mimeographed authorization delegating bargaining rights to a committee of 14. This "plan," as it was called at the hearing , never functioned and the committee never attempted to bargain. Aloysius Bussmann informed one of its leaders that the respondents would not deal with the committee. Bussmann apparently felt that it might be considered to be company dominated within the meaning of the Act. The respondents , on May 10, 1937, attempted to breathe vitality into the still-born plan as a means of discouraging the I. A. M. and an American Federation of Labor electrical workers' union . They issued on this date a written statement to their employees , stating that because of the plan the respondents would have to deal with the committee and not with any other group. The respondents had given notice that they would not deal with the committee some time before issuing the statement of May 10. We mention this incident here since it is illustrative of the consistent determination of the respondents not to bargain collectively with the I. A. M., and of their lack of good faith in their contentions. . BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 335 Hogge and Roland Likert, another tool worker, were discharged the same day, but the circumstances surrounding each discharge varied slightly. On Tuesday, .June 22, 1937, most of the tool and. die makers and apprentices worked overtime on a special production machine which was in the process of construction. Customarily,, overtime started at the close of the regular working day and con- tinued for 3 hours until 8 o'clock, with 20 minutes off during this period for supper. Such was the case on June 22. Butler informed a number of the tool workers on Monday, June 21, that they would be expected to work overtime on the day fol- lowing. One tool worker named Griffith, however, was not asked until Tuesday to remain. Butler testified that he instructed Hogge with the others on Monday, and that Hogge indicated that he would be willing to work. Hogge's testimony, however, is to the effect that he was not notified Monday by Butler, but that he learned for the first time he would be expected to stay when Butler asked him about 5 or 10 minutes before quitting time on Tuesday. He testified that he informed Butler that he would be unable to work, as he had made other plans. Tuesday night was meeting night of the I. A. M., and Hogge anticipated attending this meeting. According to his testimony, Butler did not make any objections to his statement that he would be unavailable for work, and Hogge, therefore, assumed that he might leave. At 5 o'clock he punched his card out and left the plant. We do not consider it particularly material whether Hogge re- ceived notice on Monday, as Butler testified, or whether it was not until Tuesday, as Hogge stated at the hearing. Butler did not notify at least one other tool worker until Tuesday, and it is possible that he may have overlooked Hogge on Monday as well. In any event, we are convinced that Hogge was unaware that he was ex- pected to remain when he left the plant at 5 o'clock June 22. Hogge walked past Butler on his way out, and the latter did not attempt to stop him or ask why he was leaving.. Hogge had been working as a tool maker for over 35 years, and was accustomed to normal shop discipline. It was admitted that he had never violated any rule of the respondents during the course of his employment. The record nowhere indicates that he was intractable or likely deliberately to disobey orders. Furthermore, he had been asked on another occa- sion a short time before to work overtime, but had been unable, and the respondents had excused him. His action in leaving at 5 o'clock in company with three other tool workers who had been excused, is entirely consistent with his testimony that he did not know he was expected to stay, and that he thought, as was the *case on another occasion a short time before, that he had been excused. We there- 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fore do not credit Butler's testimony that Hogge said that he would work overtime, particularly when Butler allowed Hogge to leave without question. We find, accordingly, that Hogge told Butler he would be unable to work, that Butler did not object, and that -Rogge therefore reasonably assumed that Butler consented to his leaving at the end of his regular day. The next day, Wednesday, June 23, 1937, Hogge came to work at the usual hour in the morning. He assumed his normal duties until -approximately 9: 30 or 9:45. Butler observed Hogge at work but did not converse with him during this period of 2 hours or so. Sometime between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, however, Joe Bussmann and Butler approached Hogge and, after a brief conversation, Bussmann discharged him. Joe Bussmann shortly thereafter wrote out in long- hand what purported to be an accurate transcription of the discussion with Hogge. It was later typed and signed by both Butler and Bussmann. The dialogue between Joe Bussmann and Rogge, as written by Bussmann, follows : Joe Bussmann and Jim Butler went up to R. A. Rogge. Question by J. Bussmann : Did Jim ask you Monday to work Tuesday night? Answer by Hogge : Yes. Question by J. Bussmann : Did you tell Jim you were unable to work? Answer by Hogge : Not in so many words. Question by J. Bussmann : I am asking you again. Did you tell Jim you were unable to work and please answer yes or no. Answer by Rogge : No. Question by J. Bussmann : Under these circumstances, we will be unable to use you. Your pay will be ready in a few minutes. End of interview. Hogge's version varies slightly from that quoted above. He testi- -fied that Butler and Bussmann approached him Wednesday morn- ing and Bussmann asked if Butler had requested him to work the night before. Hogge admitted that Butler had, and Bussmann then asked if he had refused to work. Hogge testified that he denied refusing to work, and tried to explain, but Bussmann cut him off and discharged him. Accepting Bussmann's written statement as being substantially accu- rate we do not believe that Hogge was discharged because he had failed to work overtime. We are convinced, rather, that this was a pretext to get rid of the one long-standing member of the I. A. M. employed at the time by the respondents.'5 Bussmann's action of " Expy, the other tool worker who was a member of the I. A. M. prior to April or May 1937, had quit respondents' employ shortly before Hogge and Likert were discharged. BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY - 337 insisting upon a yes or no answer despite the fact that Hogge's orig- inal response indicated that he. had an explanation to make, con- vinces us that Bussmann was not interested in learning the actual truth. Although it was admitted that Hogge would have been allowed to go if he had made an excuse, Bussmann refused him the opportunity to assert that he thought he had been excused. We also regard as significant the respondents' unusual procedure of writing down in question and answer form the conversation leading to the discharge 16 This would hardly have been done if the discharge was, as the respondents assert, for refusing to work overtime with- out an excuse. We are convinced that the respondents seized the first opportunity presented after the request of the I. A. M. for bargaining rights to break the organization by discharging Hogge and Likert, whose discharge is discussed below, two men active in that organization. We find that the respondents discharged Richard A. Hogge on June 23, 1937, because of his union membership and activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to tenure of employ-. ment, discouraging membership in the I. A. M., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Roland Likert was first hired by the respondents in September 1.934, but after working a few weeks he left their employ. He re- turned in December 1934 and worked continuously until the date of his discharge June 23, 1937. Likert was the most active tool worker in behalf of the I. A. M., and whatever membership it had at the respondents' plant was largely due to his efforts. Further- more, he had been outspoken in criticism of Aloysius Bussmann when the latter attempted to persuade the five oldest tool workers to aban- don their union. Likert had also refused to suggest to the tool workers that they accept a wage increase in exchange for abandoning the I. A. M., after Butler had broached this proposition to him. Likert had engaged in other union activity, and it is clear from the record that his vigorous support of the I. A. M. and Local 688 was well known to the respondents. Likert was notified on Monday,. June 21, that he would be expected to work overtime the following day. He worked all day Tuesday and continuned working after 5 o'clock, thereby starting the over- time period. Likert worked for about 15 minutes, and then took off his apron and left the plant for the day. In leaving, he passed by Butler but neither man spoke to the other. Likert explained at the hearing that he did not finish the overtime period because he "It was conceded by Joe Bussmann that this was the first occasion on which such a . procedure was utilized. 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wished to attend the meeting of Local 688. He would not have been, able to do this if he had remained. The following morning, Likert reported to work as usual, and sometime after 9: 30 in the morning, Joe Bussmann and Butler ap- proached him and, after a brief conversation, Bussmann discharged him. According to the memorandum written by Bussmann in this case as in that of Hogge, the following transpired : Jim Butler and Joe Bussmann went up to Roland Likert and asked the following questions : Question by J. Bussmann : Did Jim ask you Monday to work Tuesday night? Answer by Likert: Yes. Question by J. Bussmann : Did you tell Jim that you were unable to work? Answer by Likert : No. I did not intend to work. By J. Bussmann : Under those conditions we cannot use you. I'll take care of your envelope right away. End of interview. It is apparent from what has been set forth, that the discharge of Likert is inextricably interwoven with that of Hogge. Even stand- ing by itself, however, we believe that the extraordinary procedure adopted of preserving in writing the conversation between Bussmann and Likert casts a suspicion that the respondents seized the first opportunity as an excuse to eliminate Likert and thus destroy the I. A. M. When we consider his discharge in connection with the discriminatory treatment accorded Hogge, we are convinced that the real reason for Likert's discharge was his activity on behalf of the I. A. M. and not his refusal to work overtime. Bussmann's written memorandum is revealing. No inquiry was made as to what had caused Likert, admittedly a good worker, to leave without permis- sion. Bussmann patently was expecting the answers that Likert gave, and was in no mood to discuss the matter in the reasonable manner one would expect under the circumstances. We do not believe that the respondents normally would have imposed such a drastic penalty as the discharge of .a competent and skilled worker in the hasty and off-hand manner indicated. We believe, rather, that the respondents were motivated by a desire to be rid of the most active I. A. M. member. As we have noted above, the discharges of Hogge and Likert ob- viously stand together. , It is apparent that a common purpose motivated both. In each case the respondents' outward acts were identical. We believe that both discharges were born of the desire to discourage membership in the I. A. M. BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 339 We find that the respondents discharged Roland Likert because -of his union membership and activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to tenure of employment, discouraging mem- bership in the I. A. M., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in :Section 7 of the Act. Hogge was unemployed until September 1937. At that time he worked 40 hours as a tool maker in Evansville, Indiana, at a rate of one dollar an hour. He left this job and was without work until October 4, 1937, when he secured employment at the Wagner Electric Company in St. Louis. He received 82 cents an hour for a 40-hour week with Wagner Electric Company and was employed by them at this rate at the time of the hearing. Likert obtained employment 11 days after his discharge and worked until a week before the hearing. He was paid at the rate of 90 cents an hour. Both Likert and Hogge desire reinstatement. At the time of their discharge, each was earning one dollar an hour with the respondents. C. Interference, restraint, and coercion As we have poilited out above '17 Aloysius Bussmann called the older tool workers together on May 20, 1937, and urged them not to utilize the services of an outside representative. Furthermore, Fore- man Butler secured Du Perret and attempted to use Likert as an agent to propose a wage increase to the tool workers in exchange for their abandoning the I. A. M. We believe that this activity was clearly intimidating upon the employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. We find that by the foregoing enumerated acts the respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged interference with, and domination and support of Bwssmann Employees' Association An abortive attempt to form an employee representation committee was undertaken by three employees of the respondents on April 19, 1937, just after the constitutionality of the Act-had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. These three, Shraner, Lyons, and Harper, mimeographed a notice in the respondents' office. This notice contained a blank space for a signature, and designated 14 employees as bargaining representative. The notice was distributed 17 Section III, A, 3, supra. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD among the various employees of the respondents. A number signed these notices and they were turned over by Lyons to Aloysius Buss- mann. Bussmann, however, refused to recognize the validity of an agent selected in this manner, and none of those designated ever attempted to bargain with the respondents. Under these circum- stances, nothing further came of this attempt, and the committee never functioned. On May 18, 1937, shortly after Bussmann had refused to recognize the committee designated by the mimeographed notice, Shraner, Lyons, and one Lohmeyer undertook to establish an independent labor organization =among the employees of the respondents. These three, none of whom were supervisory employees, took the afternoon off and discussed the matter for an hour or so in a nearby park. The respondents customarily allowed employees to take time off unless they were working on a particularly urgent job. The organizers of the Association, during their discussion, decided to hold a meeting that night to obtain the reaction of the various employees of the re- spondents. Shraner engaged a meeting place and Lyons and Loh- meyer notified the employees of the meeting as they left work. At the meeting the three organizers addressed the employees in at- tendance, urging the formation of an unaffiliated organization in order to forestall both the American Federation of Labor and the Commit- tee for Industrial Organization. The meeting was rather informal and a substantial number of employees indicated their willingness to join the type of organization proposed. The following day, Shraner, Lyons, and Lohmeyer again took the afternoon off and conferred with Mr. Isaac Orr, a St. Louis attorney, to obtain his advice in getting an organization established. The same day membership application. slips were typed at Shraner's house by Harry Bussmann's secretary, who had taken the afternoon off for this purpose. Harry Bussmann was out of town, and on such occasions his secretary occasionally absented herself from the office. That night a second meeting was held to obtain signatures on the application slips which had been pre- pared. At this meeting the organizers informed those in attendance- of the results of their conference with Orr, and officers were elected.. During the next 3 weeks, Orr took the necessary steps to secure a. charter of incorporation. Considerable organizing was carried on,. and the record reveals that the Association secured as members con- siderably more than a majority of the employees of the two plants. During this period, Orr drafted a constitution and bylaws which were subsequently adopted. Orr, and a committee from the Associa- tion also drew up a proposed contract. This contract was read to the. members and approved at a meeting early in June, and the officers were empowered to negotiate with the respondents. Thereafter two, BUSSMANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 341 meetings were held with Aloysius Bussmann, and on June 17, 1937,, the contract was signed. The contract provided for increases in pay- and had provisions regulating overtime, seniority, and other working- conditions. Subsequent to the execution of the contract the Associa- tion has negotiated grievances with officials of the respondents. The Association, prior to August 1937, admitted foreladies and' foremen to membership, and the record reveals that two foreladies, and one foreman were in fact members. In August 1937, however,. the Association requested the foreman and the foreladies to resign.. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any of the supervisory- employees used their position as a means of coercing employees into, the Association, nor did they interfere with its affairs. From what we have set forth, it is apparent that the Association, was the outgrowth of the employees' own desire for self-organization,. and that the respondents have dealt at arms length with its repre- sentatives. We do not believe that the mere fact that supervisory- employees were for a time members of the Association, in the absense, of a showing of interference by them on its behalf, is a sufficient ground on which to predicate a finding of domination, interference. with, or support of the Association by the respondents. While the. respondents' unlawful activities in relation to the I. A. M. are rele-. .want to consider in connection with other alleged violations, such as, that now under discussion, we do not deem them sufficient to show that the Association was company dominated or supported. Accord- ingly, we find that the respondents have not dominated, interfered, with, or contributed support to the Association. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE- We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, A, B, and C, above, occurring in connection with the operations.: of the respondents 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. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair. labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of- the Act and to restore, as nearly as possible, the situation that existed prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. We have found that Richard A. Hagge and Roland Likert were. discriminatorily discharged. Accordingly; 'we shall order the respond-. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tints to offer them reinstatement without prejudice to their seniority br other rights and privileges. We shall further order the respondents to make Richard A. Hogge and Roland Likert whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to ,each of them of the sum which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of rein- statement, less his net earnings 18 during said period. Inasmuch as the Trial Examiner recommended the dismissal of the complaint as to Roland Likert, the respondents shall not be required to pay him back pay from July 23, 1938, when they received the Intermediate Report, ,to the date of this Decision.1° We have found that the respondents have refused to bargain collec- tively with the I. A. M., a labor organization representing a majority ,of the employees in a unit hereinbefore found to be appropriate. We shall, therefore, order the respondents to bargain collectively with the 1. A. M. upon request and to accept the I. A. M. as a contracting party and a signatory if an agreement is reached .211 Although the respond- ents have concluded a contract with the Association, this contract does .not specifically relate to the working conditions of the tool and die makers and apprentices. In any event, the contract is no bar to bar- _ gaining between the respondents and the I. A. M., in view of our order. Since We have found that the respondents have not dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and have not contributed financial or other support to it, we shall .order the complaint dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respond- ents have committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of ,Section 8 (2) of the Act. Upon the 'basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire -record in the case, the Board makes the following : "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 else- -where 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, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 5590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-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 appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work- relief projects. 19 Matter of E. R. Ilafelfinper Company, Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 700. 20 Matter of Acme Air Appliance Company, Inc. and Local No. I?53 of the United Eleetrti.cal, Radio & Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., 10 N. L. R. B. 1385 . We shall also, in .aid of this order, direct the respondents to notify the I. A. M. in writing that they are prepared to resume negotiations and to embody any terms reached in a signed. written agreement with the I. A. M. See Matter of Holston Manufacturing Company and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 13 N. L . R. B. 783. BUSSI\CANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 343 1. International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, ..and Bussmann Employees' Association, are labor organizations within the. meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Richard A. Hogge and Roland Likert and thereby discouraging membership in the Internatioanl Association of Machinists, District No. 9, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The tool and die makers and apprentices of Bussmann Manu- facturing Company and McGraw Electric Company, at their St. Louis, Missouri, plants, excluding supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, was on May 20, 1937, and has, been at all times thereafter the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.. 5. By refusing, to bargain collectively with International Associa- tion of Machinists, District No. 9, as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The respondents have not dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Bussmann Employees' Association or contributed financial or other support to it, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) 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- ents, Bussmann Manufacturing Company and McGraw Electric Com- pany, St. Louis, Missouri, and their officers, agents, successors; and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Ma- chinists, District No. 9, or any other labor organization, by discharg- 190935-40-vol. 14-23 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment because of membership or activity in Interna- tional Association of Machinists, District No. 9, or any other labor organization; (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, as the exclusive representatives of all their tool and die makers and apprentices at their St. Louis, Missouri, plants, excluding supervisory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Richard A. Hogge and Roland Likert immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Richard A. Hogge and Roland Likert for any loss of pay they have suffered by their discharges by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages from June 23, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net.earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees monies received by said employees during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects and pay over the amounts so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied :the -funds _.for such work-relief projects; except that Roland Likert shall not be compensated as aforesaid for the period from July 23, 1938, to the state of this Order; (c) Notify International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, .in writing that they are prepared to renew negotiations looking toward a collective bargaining agreement and to embody the terms of such agreement as finally may be arrived at in a written, signed, contract ; (d) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Asso- ciation of Machinists, District No. 9, as the exclusive representative of all the tool and die makers and apprentices at their St. Louis, Mis- souri, plants, excluding supervisory employees, in respect to rates of BUSSI'IANN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 345 pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment, and if an understanding is reached on such matters, embody said understanding in a written, signed, contract; (e) -Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their St. Louis plants notices stating that Bussmann Manufacturing Company and McGraw Electric Company will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a), (b), and (c), and that they will take the affirma- tive action set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of the posting; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply therewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act by dominating or inter- fering with the formation or administration of Bussmann Employees' Association or contributing financial or other support to it, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.