Waumbec Mills, Inc.

In the Matter Of WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-866.-Decided September 1, 1939 Rayon Fabrics Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: discrimination in regard to hire-Discrimination : refusal to hire two men because of their record of union activity and labor organization- Offer of Employment : ordered-Back Pay: awarded, from date of refusal to hire to offer of employment. Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board. Mr. John R. McLane, of Manchester, N. H., for the respondent. Mr. Ben Law, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its complaint dated June 18, 1938, against Waumbec Mills, Inc., Man- chester, New Hampshire, herein called the respondent, alleging 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 National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent on or about July 15, 1937, refused and has since refused to hire Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion for the reason that they had been members and officers of the Union and had engaged in concerted activities for collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection with employees of textile mills in Manchester, New Hampshire; and that by such refusal the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its 15 N. L. R. B., No. 4. 37 199549-39-vol. 15--4 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, dated June 23, 1938, in which it admitted the allegations concerning.the nature and scope of its business, but denied all other allegations of the complaint and further stated that according to the fair meaning of the Act there would be no discrimination in taking into account the labor-union record of an applicant for employment; and with respect to Chartier and Geoffrion,.that their lack of experience, their employment else- where, the skill and experience of other applicants, as well as their record of labor-union organization were all given consideration by the respondent in reaching a decision upon their applications. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held June 27, 1938, at Man- chester, New Hampshire, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that : the com- plaint does not state a cause of action; the evidence does not sustain the finding of a violation of the Act; the Act does not cover a situation of unfair labor practice where the relationship of employer and employee has not yet been established, and if the Act is con- strued to cover a relationship prior to employment it is unconsti- tutional. This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. We have reviewed this ruling and a ruling made by the Trial Examiner on an objection to the admission of evidence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. On August 12, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties, finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and, affirmatively, offer immediate employment to Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion, with back pay from July 15, 1937. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report upon substantially the same grounds as were advanced in its afore-mentioned motion to dismiss the complaint. Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing was held before the Board on May 4, 1939, at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the oral argument. The Board has considered WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 39 the exceptions of the respondent to the Intermediate Report and, save as consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order herein- after set forth, 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 RESPONDENT The respondent is a New Hampshire corporation engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of rayon fabrics. Its plant is located at Manchester, New Hampshire, and its only sales office is located in New York City. The raw material used is rayon yarn, of which the respondent purchased during the 10-month period be- ginning July 1, 1937, approximately 600,000 pounds. All of the raw material was transported to the plant from States other than New Hampshire and all of the finished products, valued during the same period at $300,000, were sold through the New York office in States other than New Hampshire. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, affiliated at the time of the hearing with the Textile Workers Organizing Committee and the Committee for Industrial Organization, is a labor organization including in its membership employees who are or have been engaged in the loom fixers' craft in Manchester, New Hampshire. Prior to 1936 it was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The men refused employment Alphonse Chartier was 46 years old at the time of the hearing. His home has been established in Manchester for many years. He has worked in textiles for almost 30 years and has been a loom fixer for much of that time. Altogether he has had 21/2 years' ex- perience as a rayon loom fixer. At the time he applied for work with the respondent he was employed as a rayon loom fixer in the Pacific Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, but was soon after laid off due to a curtailment in production. Chartier was treasurer of the Union from 1929 until 1933. He became president for 4 or 5 months, from on or about November 1934, until the spring of 1935, and chairman of the negotiating com- mittee for loom fixers in 1934 and 1935. As such he was on the Textile.Council of all textile labor organizations in the city of Man- chester. He apparently took an active part in negotiations with em- 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployers before, during, and after the general textile strike in 1934. Due to lack of employment in the industry in the vicinity of Man- chester, the Union has been virtually inactive for some time. It is not clear whether Chartier actually resigned as president of the Union or whether he merely considered the office as defunct in view of the inactive state of the Union. Edward G. Geoffrion'was 50 years old at the time of the hearing. He has always lived in Manchester. He has been in the textile in- dustry for 33 years and has spent 25 years of that period as a loom fixer. At the.time of his application with the respondent he had about 21 months of experience as a rayon loom fixer at the Pacific Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and continued thereafter in the same position. Geoff non was secretary and treasurer of the Union from 1934 until the organization became inactive. He never did resign. He also was for a time treasurer of the Loom Fixers Social Club, a separate social organization for loom fixers to which members of the Union automatically belong. He was a trustee of the Union for an unde- fined period. B. The discriminatory refusal to hire In July 1937, respondent began the manufacture of rayon fabrics in one plant unit of the former Amoskeag properties in Manchester, New Hampshire, most of which had been idle since 1935 and follow- ing the general textile strike of 1934. The record is clear that with the commencement of production and for some time thereafter the respondent was in need of experienced rayon loom fixers. Prior to the opening of the Waumbec Mills, applications for em- ployment were received at the U. S. Silk Mills, situated in the same city, but subsequently closed, by William Zopfi, superintendent of the respondent. Zopfi had full authority to hire employees for the respondent during and after June 1937. During the last week in June or early in July 1937, Chartier and Geoffrion interviewed Zopfi at the U. S. Silk Mills asking for employment as rayon loom fixers in the Waumbec plant, which they had learned. would soon open. Both applicants were then employed in the same craft capacity at a weekly salary of $32 by the Pacific Mills in Lawrence, Massachu setts, about 30 miles distant from Manchester. The jobs for which they applied with the respondent were to pay $31.50 weekly but both men preferred to work in Manchester where their families and homes were established rather than to continue their practice of commuting each day to and from Lawrence. At the interview Zopfi questioned Chartier and Geoff non as to their general experience, their work and pay at Lawrence, and the WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 41 type of looms which they tended there. He took their applications on a piece of paper since regular card forms had not yet been pre- pared. Details of wages and employment agreeable to all three were discussed. Zopfi then raised the question of union affiliation. The two applicants told him that they had previously been officers of the Union but were no longer. Chartier's uncontradicted testimony was that Zopfi replied that he was glad they had told him this and that he added, "We don't want any trouble; we don't want no union and don't want no trouble." Following the interview at the U. S. Silk Mills, Zopfi invited the two men to accompany him to the Waumbec plant a mile or so away to meet the "overseer," Benny Prokuski. Zopfi drove to the plant in his car while the applicants followed in Chartier's. Zopfi and Pro- kuski showed them the looms of which they would be in charge if employed and again their experience on rayon looms at the Pacific Mills in Lawrence was discussed. Neither superintendent nor over- seer expressed doubt as to their experience or ability to take charge of the looms. . Both men then left understanding that they were to be employed. Zopfi assured them that they would hear from him within a few days, after an "investigation." No word reaching them, the two men again visited the respondent's plant on or shortly before July 15, 1937. Chartier's account of this second visit, given at the hearing and uncontradicted by the re- spondent, is as follows : Q. (by Mr. Schneider.) Whom did you see there? Tell me what happened. A. (by Mr. Chartier.) We came in Q. Was Mr. Geoffrion with you? A. Both of us. Q. Together? A. Yes. We went in and we saw an overseer, Mr. Prokuski, and it seems he didn't want to talk to us. So Mr. Zopfi had company from I don't know where, but he left them and came over to us. Q. You saw Mr. Zopfi with some people? A. Yes. He came over to us and he said, "No use, boys; we don't want any trouble; you are the president of the Union," and he said to Geoffrion, "You are the secretary. We don't want any trouble here." I says, "Who told you I was the presi- dent of the Union?" Then of course he wouldn't tell me. I told him, "Who ever told you that, it would be good for him to tell you the truth, that I am 'not." I told him before that I had been but I resigned from the Union. 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Well, he says, "Don't go away like that. I am new in the city. I don't know all the people. Later on we might come to terms." In mid-August Chartier returned alone. At the hearing he gave, the following uncontradicted account of this third visit : Well, I met Mr. Zopfi and he told me that he found that I. have made a lot of trouble in the Amoskeag and he also had found I was a very good loom fixer. He says, "They tell me that you made some trouble in the Amoskeag; you told the Amoskeag who to hire and who to fire in the loom fixers. We don't want any trouble here. I am not ready to hire any- body that is making trouble. Chartier made three or four subsequent applications but each time was refused employment either by Zopfi or Prokuski. Geoffrion did not visit the respondent's plant following the mid- July interview, until February 1938. During the latter month he learned from Maurice Huard, a weaver employed by the respondent, that the company was "badly in need of loom fixers with experience on rayon." Huard, who had worked with Geoffrion in Lawrence, urged him to apply. Geoffrion replied that his application had been on file for some months. A few days later Huard reported to Geoffrion, according to the testimony of both, that the "boss" at respondent's plant wished to see him. Geoffrion went to the plant and saw Prokuski who, he testifies, asked him, "Aren't you the fel- lo^; who was here with Chartier before?" Prokuski admitted that he needed three or four good loom fixers at the time and promised to speak to the "other fellow," apparently referring to Zopfi. He asked Geoffrion if he then held any office in the Union. Geoffrion admitted that he was treasurer of the Loom Fixers Social Club. Geoffrion was never notified as to Prokuski's decision. Huard, however, testified that following Geoffrion's departure, his immediate superior, Berry, reproached him for sending "a guy up here to look for a job, and it turns out to be the treasurer of the Labor Union." Huard asked if that was the reason Geoffrion was refused a job. Berry nodded. As has already been indicated, none of the above testimony concerning the conversations and events at the various in- terviews between the two applicants and the respondent's supervisory officials was contradicted or questioned by any evidence adduced by the respondent. Zopfi, the only witness called by the respondent on the issue' of un- fair labor practices, admitted that one factor leading to his denial of employment to Chartier and Geoffrion was that he was told they had unfavorable labor union records. Zopfi was a newcomer in Man- chester and it seems clear that prior to the first application by the WAUMBBC MILLS, INC. 43 two men he had no knowledge of either. His information concerning their records came entirely as a result of subsequent investigation. Under cross-examination Zopfi said that he had promised not to reveal the identity of the persons of whom he had made inquiry concerning Chartier and Geoffrion and subsequently, after a 5-minute recess in the hearing, declared that he could not remember the name of a single one of them. He did admit that he had never inquired at the Pacific Mills, where both men were employed at the time of initial applica- tion, nor had he obtained information from employment records of the defunct Amoskeag Mills, where both men had worked for many years. Each place would be an obvious and normal source of infor- mation for any prospective employer of the two applicants in doubt about their experience and ability. Zopfi did not define what he meant by the term "unfavorable labor union record." At the oral argument counsel for the respondent, speaking of Chartier in particular, stated that it was not the fact of his being a union member or a union officer that Zopfi objected to, but rather the kind of union officer he was reputed to be. The respondent took no position at either the hearing or oral argument upon the question of whether or not Chartier's alleged unfavorable reputation was deserved, but insisted that he was known as a "trouble maker," and that this reputation justified the refusal to hire. Certain of the questions put by counsel for the respondent to Chartier upon cross-examination appear to carry the implication that Chartier's record was not favorable because in the respondent's opinion he had been unfair to employers and had brought numerous unfounded complaints against them in his former capacity as chair- man of the Loom Fixers' negotiating committee.' Chartier denied that he had been unfair but admitted that an outsider making in- quiries among local employers about him would not receive favorable answers. There is nothing in the entire record to indicate that either Chartier or Geoffrion had ever committed or had ever been accused of com- mitting any unlawful acts within or without their capacities as union officials. In view of the respondent's failure otherwise to define or clarify the terms, "undesirable labor union record," and, "trouble maker," and in view of the circumstances under which they were used, we find that the respondent considered them as applicable solely to 1 Q. (By counsel for the respondent .) "If a man who holds one of these jobs (chairman of the loom fixers' negotiating committee) is not fair and square to the company, then you can see why he wouldn 't get a record which would put him in good standing with some future employer can't you?" Q. "If the chairman of a negotiating committee for his local over a period of time persists in bringing up for attention complaints that have no foundation in fact and keeps on doing that sort of thing, that ought to show in his record one way or another shouldn't it?" 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the previous lawful union activities of the two men. That normal union activities would be regarded by the respondent as "undesirable" is amply established by Zopfi's announcement that "we don't want no union," and by the record as a whole.' The respondent advanced as other alleged factors leading to the re- fusal to employ Chartier and Geoffrion that they lacked experience on the recent types of looms installed at the Waumbec plant, that they were too old, that there were more desirable applicants and that the two men had employment as well as opportunities for employment elsewhere. The contention that Chartier and Geoffrion had insufficient ex- perience and ability as rayon loom fixers lacks substance when weighed by unrefuted evidence that at the first interview both super- intendent and overseer expressed no doubt as to the men's ability, even when pointing out that they would be expected to take charge of 72 looms instead of the lesser number they were then running at the Pacific Mills. Furthermore, it appears that 264 of the 314 looms installed at the respondent's mill were of the same general type, though newer, and required the same type of skill to operate, as those in use at the Pacific Mills. Respondent had employed 19 loom fixers from July 15, 1937, to the time of the hearing. Four of these had obtained their experience on rayon at the Pacific Mills. Eugene God- dette, a loom fixer with less experience on rayon looms than either Chartier or Geoffrion, was employed by the respondent on July 19, 1937. Records introduced at the hearing show that of the 16 loom fixers employed by the respondent at that time, 6 of them range from 41 to 56 years of age. This would indicate that the ages of Chartier and Geoffrion, as well as of other applicants as old or older, were not of themselves a decisive factor in determining eligibility for employ- ment. Even more significant on this point is Zopfi's admission that at the time he made inquiries concerning Chartier's record he had forgotten the applicant's age and lost the memorandum showing it. He had made no subsequent efforts to ascertain Chartier's age though he declared as late as the hearing that he was still considering his application. It is no doubt true that there were several applicants for each loom fixer's job in the respondent's plant. Many of these applied after Chartier and Geoffrion, however, and many lacked experience on rayon. It seems clear that in point of experience and apparent 2 The respondent urged as significant the fact that it had employed a number of union members. It is apparent, however, that the respondent's objection to Chartier and Geoffrion was that they had taken a leading part in union activities and organization ; in view of this fact we do not regard it as important that the respondent has hired some union members. WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 45 ability the two men were at least the equal of many who applied and of some who were hired. That the respondent gave serious consideration to the fact that Chartier and Geoffrion had' employment and possible opportunities for employment elsewhere as a basis for refusing to hire them is not supported by facts or testimony. At the first interview Zopfi knew that both men were then working in Lawrence, but seemed ready enough, pending the results of an investigation, to hire them. That .the fact of current employment was not'a'subject of his investigation is obvious in view of the open declaration by the two applicants that they were then working. Zopfi declared at the hearing that he was still considering the possi- bility of employing the two men. He stated further that if some qualified person spoke well of Chartier he might still give him a job. This appears to be a belated effort to evade the issues of the complaint and mitigates neither his definite refusal to hire the two applicants in mid-July 1937, nor the certainty of the past tense expressed in the respondent's answer, "the most that can be said on behalf of appli- cants Chartier and Geoffrion is that in competition with other appli- cants their record of activity and labor organization was given consideration." All of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the decisive factor in the respondent's refusal to hire Chartier and Geoffrion was the fact that they had previously been union leaders and had taken an outstanding part in concerted activities for mutual aid and protec- tion with employees of textile mills in Manchester, New Hampshire. We find that Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion would have been employed by the respondent on or before July 15, 1937, but for the respondent's knowledge of their past union leadership. Dis- semination of knowledge that Chartier and Geoffrion had been refused employment because of their union records cannot have had other than a restrictive effect upon labor organization among the respondent's employees in a city where the collapse of the textile industry had deprived scores of loom fixers and other textile workers of employment. At the oral argument before the Board the respondent contended that an employer legally has the right to form its own judgment as to whom it shall employ to the extent of refusing to employ any union members at all; that the Act has no application prior to the forma- tion of the employer-employee relationship. Counsel for the respond- ent, in illustration of this contention, conceded that an employers' community blacklist against union members would be legally proper under his theory of the Act. We disagree with this view. It is well established that the Act is not intended to interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select its employees 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or to discharge them. The respondent's contention, however, that the Act has no application whatever prior to the formation of the employer-employee relationship is clearly and specifically contra- dicted by the terms of Section 8 (3) of the Act which provides, "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-By discrimination in regard to hire 3 or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization :..." A reference to the legislative history of the Act indicates that the provision means exactly what it says.4 In addi- tion, the broad purpose of the Act to further industrial peace by "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining" is irreconcilable with the proposition that employers may debar union applicants with impunity. Section 8 (1) of the Act likewise covers a discriminatory refusal to hire as well as a discriminatory discharge. Simply stated, Section 8 (1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization and collective bargaining. One form of interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion is the discharge for union membership or activities of an individual already employed. Another such form is the refusal to hire an individual seeking employment for the same reasons. Each is an open warning to all persons already employed, and it is the interfering, restraining and coercive effect upon these employees that constitutes the violation of Section 8 (1) in both cases. Hence it is immaterial whether the individual discriminated against is already an employee or merely an applicant for employment.5 Since discrimination in hiring is as telling a form of interference with self-organization as any other and as much an incitement to disputes burdening and obstructing commerce, such discrimination is plainly in conflict with both the policy and purposes of the Act. We find that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire of Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion, thereby dis- couraging membership in the Union. We also find that by refusing to hire Alphonse Chartier and, Edward G. Geoffrion, the respondent $ Italics supplied. a The Committee on Labor of the House in its report speaks of "Discrimination in discharge, lay-off, demotion or transfer, hire, forced resignation , or division of work ; in reinstatement or hire following a technical change in corporate structure, a strike, lock-out, temporary lay-off, or a transfer of the plant " as among the various kinds of discriminations prohibited by Section 8 (3) (House Rept. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 19; italics supplied). 8 See Matter of The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of America, Local No. 26 and James M. Reed and Minnie Rank, 6 N. L. R . B. 325, enforced in The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (2d) 1007 ( C. C. A. 4th , 1938 ) ; Matter of Montgomery Ward and Company, Incorporated, a Corporation and United Mail Order and Retail Workers of America , 4 N. L. R. B. 1151; Matter of Algonquin Printing Company and United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 1044, 1 N. L. R. B. 264. WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 47 has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we will order that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire of Chartier and Geoffrion to discourage membership in the Union. This discrimination took the form of a refusal to hire. Clearly the appropriate remedy to effectuate the policies of the Act is to order that they respondent offer employment to Chartier and Geoffrion and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of the respondent's refusal to hire them. We will, therefore, order the respondent to offer immediate employment to Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion; and further that it shall make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of the respondent's refusal to hire from July 15, 1937, to the date employment is offered to him, less his net earnings" in the interim. 6 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an applicant in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the particular respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful refusal of his application for employment and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . For example , the record shows that Chartier and Geoffrion were in the practice of commuting between Lawrence, Massachusetts , where they were employed when they applied for work with the respondent, and Manchester, New Hampshire . where their homes and families were established . This commuting expense would not have been incurred after July 15, 1937, had the respondent not illegally refused them employment in its Manchester plant . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 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 complainants 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. 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. United Textile " Workers of America, Local 86, is a 'labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire of Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion and thereby discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, and other labor organ- izations, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER e 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 respondent, Waumbec Mills, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hiring of applicants for employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its e mployees in their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentacives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate employment to Alphonse Chartier and Ed- ward G. Geoffrion at the same or substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed on July 15, 1937, had the respondent not unlawfully refused to hire them; WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 49 (b) Make whole Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of the respond- ent's refusal to hire him from July 15, 1937, to the date employment is offered him, less his net earnings during that period, deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of them monies received by him during that period for work performed upon Fed- eral, 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 governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in its plant, buildings, and other places of employment, and maintain them for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that it will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a) and (b), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.