West Kentucky Coal Co.

In the Matter Of WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY and INLAND BOATMEN'S UNION, C. I. O. Case No. C-1015.-Decided November 15, 1939 Coal Mining and Shipping Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion-- Discrimination: discharge of three employees for union activity and member- ship; charges of discharge of three other employees. not sustained-Employee. Status: termination of voyage, as affecting-Reinstatement Ordered: of dis- charged employees against whom discrimination practiced-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminated against, including reasonable value of board and maintenance. Mr. Walter B. Chel f, for the Board. Wheeler & Shelbourne, by Mr. James G. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., for the respondent. Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Robert H. Cowdrill, the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued its com- plaint, dated August 29, 1938, against the West Kentucky Coal Com- pany, Sturgis, Kentucky, 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. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent dis- charged and thereafter continuously refused to reinstate eight named employees 1 because of their membership in the Union, thereby dis- couraging membership in the Union, and that the respondent by the discharges and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced 'The complaint alleged that Leon Lyles, Luther Brooks, William Woods, and W. E. Hines were discharged on April 22, 1938, and that Emmett Cooper, Charles Faughn, Eddie Adkins, and James Adkins were discharged on May 7, 1938. 17 N. L. R. B., No. 62. 724 WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 725 its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. On September 6, 1938, the re- spondent filed an answer admitting the allegations concerning its busi- ness and commerce, and denying the commission of the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Paducah, Kentucky, on September 15 and 16, 1938, before William P. Webb, 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 introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing, counsel for the Board made a motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice in so far as Leon Lyles and Eddie Adkins were concerned. The Trial Examiner granted this motion. At the conclusion of the case, counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. This motion was likewise granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner' made several'rulings on- other motions and on objections to the, admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings. of, the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial er- rors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. On October 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2.(6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to William Woods and Emmett Cooper and that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor prac- tices and, affirmatively, offer reinstatement and back pay to Luther Brooks, W. E. Hines, James Adkins, and Charlie Faughn. On November 8, 1938, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and on December 19, 1938, submitted a brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to notice duly served on the re- spondent and the Union, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on December 22, 1938. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Union did not appear. The Board has consid- ered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FAcT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a New Jersey corporation having its principal office and place of business at Sturgis, Kentucky, is engaged in the general business of coal mining. It owns and operates a coal -loading tipple <,n t lie Ohio River near Caseyville, Kentucky, and a barge plant on the Paducah side of the Tennessee River. The respondent owns and operates approximately 70 coal barges for the transportation of its coal on the Ohio River, in addition to 3 steamers which are used for the purpose of towing its coal barges. l'1ReseF3 steAmeis ,are known as the C1uai:les, F+. BRiehardson;.,tlie .1l(arcia 11ichavdso'n, and the Ellen Richardson. From 6,000 to 12,000 tons of coal are shipped each month through the aforesaid tipple. During the year 1937 and for a number of years prior thereto, approximately 59 per cent of the coal produced by the respondent was shipped to points outside the State of Kentucky by rail and barge. 11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Inland Boatmen's Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., is a labor organization admitting to membership the firemen and deckhands employed on the respondent's steamers. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of union activity 1: O. Ford, a master and pilot of river boats, started to organize the employees on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers about the early part of 1936. The first, meeting of the Union was held in February 1938. In March 1938, .the Union was duly chartered by the C. I. O. On April 14, 1938, the towboat A. I. Baker, owned by the Wood Pree1 ing:. Corporation,. which is separate and distinct. fr•Pm the r(^spoii0ent, was stationed at the place where the respondent's steamers anchor. At that time a .strike occurred among the mem- bers of the crew of this towboat, and lasted until about May 4, 1938. Various employees of the respondent who were members of the Union and who assisted the strikers in picketing were seen and recognized by supervisory officials of the respondent while they were on picket duty. Although the respondent claimed that it did not know what employees were members of the Union , we are satisfied that it pos- ses sed-st ch knowledge. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 727 B. The discharges It is the pra; Tice of the respondent to notify its employees prior to the time that the steamers sail. Such notification is given by the officials themselves, by leaving notices in the neighborhood where the employees reside, or by notifying employees to tell others. The re- spondent generally notifies more men than it requires for a particu- lar trip and then employs those who report first. It is the normal practice of the respondent, however, as well as of other companies engaged in the shipping industry to reship a crew when that crew is satisfactory. The chief engineers hire the firemen, and the mates hire the deckhands. . The respondent contends that its employees are hired only by the trip, that each man is paid off at the end of the trip, that there is no agreement for future trips, that there are no seniority rules, and that each trip of the steamer constitutes separate and distinct em- ployment of the crews. In view of the established practice we have in analogous cases overruled contentions similar to those offered by the respondent.2 We,therefore conclude that notwithstanding the termination of a particular voyage and the payment of the men at the conclusion of each trip, the employment status of the employees with the respondent is not severed at the conclusion of each trip. The complaint alleged the discriminatory discharge of eight named employees, but the cases of Leon Lyles and Eddie Adkins were dis- missed at the hearing upon motion of counsel for the Board. The other six will be discussed individually. Luther Brooks Brooks was first employed by the respondent as an extra deck- hand in September 1937. In January 1938, he obtained regular em- ployment on the Ellen Richardson and, according to his testimony, he shipped aboard this boat on every trip thereafter until his discharge on April 22, 1938. The respondent submitted figures purporting to show that in the period from October 1937 to April 1938, Brooks made 12 trips and missed 19. These figures fail to show, however, the dates of the trips that Brooks made and the dates of those that he missed. We accept Brooks' testimony as true. Brooks testified that during his last trip on the Ellen Richardson from April 13 to April 16, 1938, Captain Carroll, of this boat, told him and Leon Lyles, a fellow employee, that if they joined the Union 2 See Matter of Southgate -Nelson Corporation and National Marine E ngineers' Beneficial Association ; Matter of Southgate-Nelson Corporation and American Telegraphists' Asso- ciation, Baltimore Local No. 4, and David R. Crawford, 3 N. L. R. B. 535; Matter of South Atlantic Steamship Company of Delaware and National Maritime Union of North America, 12 N. L. R. B.-1367. 247384-40-vol. 17--4 7 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they might not be working. Carroll denied that he had made this statement and testified that Brooks was not present during his con- versation with Lyles.3 That Carroll wiis aware of the conversation to which Brooks alluded in his testimony is obvious, and we find that he made the statement attributed to him by Brooks. On April 18 Brooks joined the Union, solicited members, and assisted the Union in picketing the A. I. Baker. Brooks testified that on April 20 he went to the office of Ralph E. Vennum, the respondent's manager of transportation, in order to borrow a dollar; that in the conversation which ensued Vennum asked him whether he was interested in the Union; and that when he denied such interest Vennum, suggested that the respondent had a labor organization of its own and that it would not be of advantage to join the Union., During the conversation Vennum also advised Brooks that the Ellen Richardson would sail on Friday, April 22, and that Brooks should be on hand to make the trip. Vennum ad- mitted that Brooks borrowed the dollar but he denied that he had mentioned the Union or the date of the sailing of the steamer. In view of Brooks' treatment by the respondent, discussed below, we find that Vennum made the statements ascribed to him by Brooks. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Captain Carroll told Brooks that he would be notified through Lyles when the boat would sail. We need not, however, resolve the conflict. At 6:00 a. m., on April 22, Brooks boarded the Ellen Richardson for the pur- pose of signing on for the trip. The mate, Jack Fulton, first told him that the boat was not sailing, but later, after Lyles appeared, Fulton told both men that he had a full crew and that the boat would stop at the barge plant before sailing. Despite Fulton's statement, Brooks remained on the Ellen Richardson until it reached the barge plant. At that point two barge employees, McCoy and Phillips, were signed on for the trip. On the previous trip, the Ellen Richardson had a complement of four deckhands: Brooks, Lyles, and two non-union employees, Metzker and Beard. For the instant trip, only Brooks and Lyles were re- placed. According to Fulton, whose testimony we accept as true, Vennum had requested him to take on the two bargemen, a request which was unusual since it was customary for the mate to hire deck- hands. Fulton admitted that this was the first time that he. had ever supplemented his crew with barge-plant employees. At the conclu- sion of the voyage both McCoy and Phillips resumed their work at the barge plant, jobs which were better paying than berths on the steamers. 8 Counsel for the Board announced at the conclusion of the Board's case that Lyles was outside the State and was therefore unavailable as a witness . As noted above, the con. plaint with respect to him was dismissed. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 729 The respo;i ent's reasons for refusing to hire Brooks and Lyles are inconsister t and find little support in the record. Fulton argued that Brooks and Lyles applied too late, but there is no evidence that McCoy,' and Phillips who were signed on later in the morning had applied earlier. On the other hand, Vennum urged as the reason for the refusal the fact that he had desired to give work to McCoy and Phillips because work was slack at the barge, plant and these men, who had families, needed the employment. Vennum's further con- tention that the employment was interchangeable between the boats and the ,barges is not borne out by the evidence. We are satisfied, from the respondent's deviations from the usual practice of hiring deckhands and from the innovation of shipping bargemen on the steamers, that the respondent's immediate purpose was to deprive Brooks and Lyles of their employment because of their membership in the Union. Captain Carroll's remark to Brooks on the morning of April 22 lends support to our conclusion. On that day, Brooks stated to Captain Carroll: "Well, Captain, they won't make anything taking me off the boat for joining the Union, for the Marcia Rich- ardson and the Charles F. Richardson and everything on it is organ- ized." Captain Carroll responded: "You mean they just was work- ing on it; they wasn't any more." Thereafter, contrary to its usual practice, the respondent at no time thereafter notified Brooks to report to work. Subsequent to April 22, a chief engineer on the Charles F. Richardson and the Ellen Richardson told Brooks to tear up his union card and go back to work. When the Ellen Richardson returned on April 29, it did not pro-- ceed to the respondent's usual anchorage at Paducah, but stopped at Livingston Point, about a mile above the anchorage, and made sub- sequent trips therefrom for the next 30 days. Thereafter, it resumed its voyages from Paducah. Captain Carroll testified that he so docked because of orders from Vennum; and, in response to a ques- tion concerning its unusualness, he stated that after the order was given, he "did 'not ask any questions. The respondent offered no ex- planation for changing the anchorage of the Ellen Richardson. The inference is plain, and we find, that the respondent docked the Ellen Richardson at Livingston Point in order to prevent Brooks and other union members from applying for employment thereon. The respondent contended that the four to six positions open for deckhands on the Ellen Richardson were filled by 37 men from Sep- tember 1937 to and including August 1938, when, on 58 trips, there was an average turn-over in the personnel per trip of 17 per cent. These figures, however, are unreliable as a guide to employment turn- over since :the names of the employees who made ,each trip do not appear in the record. In any event, the mere percentage of turn- over cannot justify a discriminatory discharge of an employee. 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the respondent, by terminating the employment of Luther Brooks on April 22, 1938, and thereafter failing to notify him of employment, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of his employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Brooks' average earnings with the respondent were $52.50 per month. In addition to the monetary wages, he also received board and living quarters while on shipboard. Brooks has not obtained steady employment since his discharge, having earned approximately $30.00 up to the time of the hearing. James M. Adkins and Charlie Faughn Adkins was first employed by the respondent as an extra deckhandt in 1934. In 1937 he obtained regular employment on the Marcia Richardson and Ellen Richardson and shipped out with these steam- ers until his discharge on May 7, 1938. Faughn had worked at vari- ous times as a deckhand and a fireman for the respondent since about 1922. During September 1936 he obtained regular employment with the respondent and did not miss a trip thereafter. On February 23, 1938, Faughn joined the Union, and on March 31, 1938, Adkins joined. They both solicited members and assisted the Union in picketing, the A. I. Baker. The last trip that Adkins and Faughn made with the respondent was on the Marcia Richardson from April 4 to April 12, 1938. A few weeks prior to that trip, Robert Hearall, mate of the Marcia Richardson told Adkins that he "don't think so much about" the Union and that he did not think that he would join it. About 2 weeks after Faughn returned from this trip, he went to Vemium's office for the purpose of borrowing $2.00. Faughn testified that Ven- num for the first time in their association refused to make the loan, and further, questioned Faughn as to his membership in the Union. Vennum testified that he was "at the end of the rope" and that there- fore he refused to lend Faughn any money. He subsequently testi- fied, however, that he did not recall any conversation with Faughn. We find that Vennum questioned'Faughn about his union member- ship as testified to by the latter. On May 6, Adkins telephoned Hearall for the purpose of securing employment on the Marcia Richardson, which was to sail on the following day. Hearall informed him that the crew was already hired. When Adkins and Faughn appeared at the boat for employ- ment, Hearall stated to them that Vennum was hiring the men. Hearall testified that he had requested Vennum to send him three men from the barge plant. However, Hearall also testified that he WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 731 had never made a similar request of Vennum, except that he took one man from the barge plant on April 23, 1936. Three carpenters from the barge plant were hired as deckhands and returned to barge work at the completion of the trip on May 16, 1938. Neither Adkins nor Faughn was subsequently notified by the respondent to report to work. The respondent's asserted reasons for hiring barge employees in- stead of Adkins and Faughn, are similar to those we have discussed in the case of Brooks. However, in addition, the respondent con- tends that Adkins and Faughn were undesirable employees because they drank excessively. The evidence shows that the respondent tol- erated drinking and took employees aboard the ship who were in an inebriated condition. We do not believe that the respondent refused to employ Adkins and Faughn for the reasons it advances above. We find that the respondent, by terminating the employment of James M. Adkins and Charlie Faughn on May 7, 1938, and thereafter failing to notify them of employment, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Adkins and Faughn have not secured steady employment since their discharge by the respondent. William Woods Woods was a colored deckhand on the Charles F. Richardson, where only colored deckhands were employed. Woods worked con- tinuously for the respondent for about 12 years, except for a period of 9 months when he received an injury to his leg. Woods joined the Union on April 8, 1938, and solicited members. The last trip that he made on the Charles F. Richardson was from April 10 to 19, 1938. Previously, Captain Fred McCandless usually retained Woods at the conclusion of each trip to do general utility work on the boat. However, when the steamer docked after this trip, the Captain did not instruct Woods to remain. On May 31 McCandless left word for Woods at a neighborhood store that the steamer would leave the following morning. Woods on the morning of June 1, went down to the river landing where the Charles F. Richardson was anchored, in order to board a yawl to the steamer. When an employee brought the yawl over from the steamer to the river landing, the employee informed the mate, who was at the landing, that there were 16 men on board, 2 more than were needed. The mate told Woods. that there would be no 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "use in going over" to the steamer. Woods replied : "I am glad of it" and thereafter left. All the deckhands who worked on this trip were experienced employees who had worked on the boat many times previously. We find that Woods' failure to receive employment on June 1, 1938, was due to his own failure to report to the-steamer earlier. After the end of this trip on June 10, and until the time of the hearing herein, the Charles F. Richardson had made no further trips. We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment of William Woods on June 1., 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment. Emmett Cooper Cooper has been employed by the respondent since 1927. He generally worked as a fireman on the Charles F. Richardson,. The last trip that Cooper made on this steamer was from March 3 to 14, 1938. Of the 11 trips that the Charles F. Richardson made from about June 1937 to June 1938, he made only 5 trips. On March 30, 1938, Cooper joined the Union, solicited members, and assisted the Union in picketing the A. I. Baker. Cooper also occasionally worked as a deckhand on the Marcia Richardson. The last trip that he made on this steamer was from April 4 to 12, 1938. Cooper did not attempt to ship out on the next trip of the Marcia Richardson, which was from May 7 to 16. The next effort he made to ship out was on June 1, when he went down to the river landing for the purpose of securing employment as a fireman on the. Charles F. Richardson. When Cooper arrived at the river landing, the mate informed Cooper, as he had informed Woods, that he already had a full crew. Of the five firemen who had made the previous trip on the Charles F. Richardson, two were reemployed and three new experienced firemen were hired. All firemen that were employed for the June 1 trip were union members. As noted above, the Charles F. Richardson did not sail after this trip. The Marcia Richardson made subsequent trips in June and July. Cooper was not thereafter notified by the respondent to report for work, nor did he inform the respondent of his desire to work. As indicated above, however, Cooper was normally employed on the Charles F. Richardson, and we are not satisfied that he was entitled to be notified of sailings of the Marcia Richardson. We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment of Emmett Cooper on June 1, 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY W. E. Hines 733 W. E. Hines had worked for the respondent on the Charles F. Richardson as a fireman since 1921. Since about June 1937, he had been continuously employed by the respondent and did not miss any trips. The last trip that Hines made on the Charles F. Richard- son was from April 10 to 19, 1938. He subsequently joined the Union on or about April 23, and assisted the Union in picketing the A. I. Baker. On May 31, 1938, the day before the Charles F. Richardson was scheduled to sail, Hines telephoned the chief engineer who informed him that Vennum was hiring the crew. On the following morning, Hines telephoned Vennum who told him that the crew had already been hired. The chief engineer testified that he asked Vennum to secure firemen for him because he was too busy at the steamer. All the firemen who made this trip were union members. We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment of W. E. Hines on June 1, 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard to his hire and tenure of employment. IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that 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 com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the- Act. We have found that, because of their union activities, the respond- ent discriminatorily terminated the employment of Luther Brooks, James Al. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn. We will therefore order the respondent to offer Brooks, Adkins, and Faughn full and im- mediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. The respondent claims in its brief that reinstate- ment, of the complainants on the succeeding trips of the steamers would result in replacing other employees who were equally, if not more, deserving and thus would give an unreasonable and unfair preference which would be violative of the spirit of the Act. How- 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ever, as reinstatement herein will only be directed to the employees' positions and privileges they possessed prior to the discharge, we find that such a contention is untenable. We will further order the respondent to make these employees whole for any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of his dis- criminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date reinstatement is offered to him, less his net earnings' during said period. Deckhands, in addition to monetary wages, receive from the respondent board and living quar- ters while on shipboard. Accordingly, in determining the amount of back pay to be awarded to Brooks, Adkins, and Faughn, we will order that the reasonable value of their'board and living quarters on shipboard be added to their monetary compensation from the respondent.' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment and terms and conditions of employment of Luther Brooks, James M. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn, thereby discouraging mem- bership in Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., 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. 4 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 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 employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State , county, municipal , or other govern- ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. ' See Matter of Southern Steamship Company and Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso- ciation, 12 N. L. R. B. 1088. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 735 5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to 'Leon Lyles, Eddie Adkins, Emmett Cooper, William Woods, and W. E. Hines. 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 West Kentucky Coal Company, Sturgis, Kentucky, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by laying off or discharging any of its employees because of membership in, or activity in connection with, Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or 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 Luther Brooks, James M. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn, and each of them, full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole said. Luther Brooks, James M. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn for any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a Cum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages- including therein the reasonable value of his board and living quar- ters on shipboard-from the date of his discharge to the date rein- statement is offered to him, less his net earnings s during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise clue each of these employees monies received by him during said period for work per- formed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other See footnote 4. 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD government or governments which supplied the funds for said : ivork- relief projects ; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its ,principal ;place of business at Sturgis, Kentucky, and also on each of its steamers, notices to its employees, and maintain said notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and that the re- spondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., and that the respondent will not dis- criminate against any employee because of membership or. activity in that organization; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the.date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging Leon Lyles, Eddie Adkins, Emmett Cooper, William Woods, and W. E. Hines.