Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

In the Matter of HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY BRANCH OF MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, and ALFRED H. MCMASTERS, G. H. KOEHLER , HENRY C. ATTEBERRY , MATT GILLEN In the Matter of HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY BRANCH OF MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY , INCORPORATED, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE 628 Cases Nos. C-960 and C-961, respectively. Decided November 18, 1939 General Merchandising Mail Order Business and Manufacturing Industry- Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements ; effort made to secure names of employees in favor of Union-Discrimination: discharge of four union members ; charges of, sustained as to two employees , not sustained as to one employee, and not reopened as to another-Reinstatement: ordered as two-Back Pay: awarded from date of filing charge to date of offer of rein- statement-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : stipulated ; all hourly paid production and maintenance employees excluding supervisory and office employees and watchmen-Repre.senn-tatives: proof of choice: stipulated-Collec- tive Bargaining : respondent readily negotiated with and recognized the Union as the representative of the employees ; reluctance of respondent to embody in writing some of the proposals advanced by the Union is insufficient evidence to sustain allegation of refusal to bargain , in the absence of proof of a demand by the Union, or a refusal by the respondent, to so do ; allegations of refusal to bargain dismissed. Mr. Robert Rissman, for the Board. Mr. Stuart Ball and Mr. J. A. Lind, of Chicago, Ill., for the respondent. Mr. Harry J. Gill, of Bloomington, Ill., and Mr. Paul Hutchings, of Washington, D. C., for Lodge 628. Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE "CASE Upon charges duly filed by Alfred H. McMasters, G. H. Koehler, Henry C. Atteberry, and Matt Gillen, herein sometimes collectively called the four employees, and upon charges duly filed by Interna- 17 N. L. R. B., No. 80. 917 918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, herein called Lodge 628, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board', by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its consolidated complaint 1 dated August 24, 1938, against Hummer Manufacturing Company Branch of Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated, 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), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 419, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint and accompanying notice of hearing were served upon the respondent, Lodge 628, and the four employees. Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discouraged membership in Amal- gamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North Amer- ica, ' herein called the Amalgamated, a labor organization affiliated with Steel Workers Organizing Committee, and, through it, with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and in Lodge 628, by discharging McMasters and Atteberry and refusing to employ Gillen because-.they joined and assisted the Amalgamated, and by discharg- ing Koehler because he joined and assisted Lodge 628, refused to bargain collectively with Lodge 628 as the exclusive representative of its employees within an appropriate unit; and, by the foregoing :acts and refusals, by warning, urging, and advising its employees to refrain from joining and retaining their membership in the Amalgamated and Lodge 628, and by other acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights .guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On August 30, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the com- plaint denying the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 1 and 2, 1938,. at Springfield, Illinois, before Albert L. Lohm, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and Lodge 628 by its representative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the Board's case and at the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved decision upon a motion, by counsel for the respondent, to dismiss the complaint, and granted a, motion, by counsel for the Board, to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. Numerous 1 On August 24, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c), of Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended , ordered that the case arising on charges filed by the four employees and that arising on charges filed by Lodge 628 be consolidated. HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 919 other motions and objections to the admission of evidence were made and ruled upon at the hearing. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On October 3, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were served upon all the parties, in which he denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint except as to the allegation that the respondent had discriminatorily discharged Koehler and found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices; reinstate with back pay Alfred McMasters and Henry C. Atteberry; offer immediate employment with back pay to Matt Gillen; and bargain, collectively with Lodge 628. He recom- mended, further, that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged G. H. Koehler. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of such exceptions were thereafter filed by the respondent. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash- ington, D. C., on August 8, 1939, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and Lodge 628 were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has considered the ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report, the brief filed, and the argu- ments advanced by the respondent and Lodge 628 at the hearing before the Board and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated, in addition to its large mail order and retail business operates a branch factory, known as Hummer Manufacturing Company, at Springfield, Illinois. This case exclusively concerns the branch factory, at which the respondent manufactures cream separators, pumps, air compressors, hammer mills, and shovels. For the fiscal year ending May 31, 1938, the respondent purchased raw materials for the branch factory valued at $764,625.83, of which approximately 25 per cent were received from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period the respondent sold products, manufactured at the branch factory, valued 247384-40-col. 17-50 920; DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at $1,266,806.01, of which between 85 and 95 per cent were shipped to destinations outside the State of Illinois. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America is a labor organization affiliated with Steel Workers Organ- izing Committee and, through it, with the Committee for Industrial' Organization,2 herein called the C. I. O. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, is a labor or- ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Although both labor organizations admit to membership employees of the respondent, the record does not disclose the eligibility require- ments of either. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion Koehler, one of the employees named in. the complaint, testified without contradiction that in February 1937 he had the following conversation with Watson, a watchman : Watson stated that Atte- berry, another of the alleged victims of discrimination, was a C. I. O. man, Koehler suggested that Watson might get in trouble by talk- ing about union matters on company time. Watson replied that Killiam, the foreman over the watchmen, would not object to Wat- son's activity in obtaining information concerning the C. I. 0., inas- much as Goss, the general superintendent, desired such information. We accept Koehler's testimony as true. In so far as it relates to the attitude of Foreman Killiam and to the desires of General Super- intendent Goss it is, of course, hearsay. In that respect it is corrob- orated, however, by the testimony discussed below. McMasters, a third alleged victim of discrimination, testified with- out contradiction as follows : In the middle of March 1937, Killiam, his foreman, after first asking McMasters, whether he could keep a secret, stated that "there was quite a union movement going on in the plant," and that Saxer, plant manager, had asked Killiam to pick a dependable man to find out which employees were in favor of the C. I. O. Killiam asked McMasters to circulate among the men to get this information. McMasters told Killiam that he would prefer not to do this as he had attended school with many of the employees, whereupon Killiam told McMasters that the respondent would close down if it had to recognize the C. I. O. Further, according to the uncontradicted testimony of McMasters, the day after the foregoing conversation took place McMasters heard 2 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations. HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 921 Watson tell Killiam that he had some information regarding Atte- berry, that Atteberry was in favor of the C. I. O. and "was talking pretty stoutly," whereupon Killiam replied that, there were many others in favor of it. We accept McMasters' testimony as true. Atteberry testified that shortly before his lay-off, Goss, knowing that Atteberry was a member of the Amalgamated, asked him how the union was going and whether the men were satisfied with their pay, and requested him, in the event the men were not satisfied, to find out what the trouble was. Atteberry further testified that Goss told him that if he did not stop his union activities Goss would have to let him go. Goss denied these statements. Upon the entire record, however, we find that lie made them substantially as related by Atteberry. We find that the respondent, through its supervisory employees, by requesting its employees to obtain information concerning the Amalgamated's activities, and by indicating to its employees that it was hostile toward the Amalgamated, influenced them against and interfered with their participation in the Amalgamated and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. The discharges Alfred McMasters was first employed by the respondent in Decem- ber 1934 and worked continuously until he was discharged on April 19, 1937. The respondent reinstated him on April 27 and laid him off on May 13, 1937. Thereafter he filed a charge with the Board alleging that he had been discriminatorily laid off. As the result of a conference between the Board's investigator and, the respondent, McMasters was reinstated by the respondent on December 9, 1937, and -has since worked continuously except for 28 days during July 1938. . According to McMasters, after his last reinstatement he received a letter from the Board's regional office requesting him "to close his case." McMasters neither replied to the Board's letter, nor pressed the charge previously filed by him. On March 30, 1938, McMasters, filed another charge wherein he requested that his former charge against the respondent be reopened. Although the record does not show, we deem it probable that McMasters was reinstated on Decem- ber 9 pursuant to an understanding between the respondent, the Board's agent, and McMasters that his charge would not be pressed after his reinstatement. There is no evidence that the respondent discriminated against McMasters after reinstating him in December 1937. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ques- tion of discrimination against McMasters should not now be re- opened. We shall dimiss the allegation of the complaint that 922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RrLATIONS BOARD McMasters was discriminatorily discharged because he had joined and: assisted the Amalgamated. Matt Gillen, a tool maker and machinist with 17 years experience, had worked for the respondent for short periods on 3 prior occasions. He was last employed by it from April to August 1934, when he was laid off because of lack of work. Subsequently, he worked for Allis- Chalmers Company for about 20 months and while there employed served as president of Local 1125, a labor organization affiliated with the Amalgamated. The respondent's employees were solicited for, membership in Local 1125. On January 15, 1937, Atteberry, knowing that the respondent needed tool makers because several had quit, introduced Gillen to Goss, to whom Gillen applied for a job as a tool maker. After they briefly discussed Gillen's trade, Goss took him to Chris De Young, a toolroom foreman, who remembered Gillen as a former employee. Goss said, "could you use this man, Chris," whereupon De Young replied, "yes, I can." Goss left, saying, "Well, you and Mr. Gillen come to an agreement now and, Mr. Gillen, conie and see me after you get through with Mr. De Young." In the conversation between Gillen and De Young, the latter asked Gillen, "how is that union coming out at Allis-Chalmers," whereupon Gillen replied that he guessed it was all right. De Young agreed to pay Gillen 75 cents an hour, and told him to report to work as soon as possible. , Gillen then told Goss that De Young had instructed him to report to work, whereupon Goss signed an employment slip stating that Gillen was hired at 75 cents an hour as a tool maker, and sent Gillen to the doc- tor for a physical examination. As Gillen was going from the nurse's room .to the doctor's office, Goss approached and said, "Give me those papers . . . We can't hire you, can't use you . . . Just no reason, can't hire you, can't use you." The next day Goss called Atte- berry into his office-and told him that he did not hire Gillen because. Allis-Chalmers Company had informed him that Gillen was a trouble maker. From March to December 1937, Gillen was employed as an organ- izer for the Amalgamated. In December when Gillen again applied for work at the plant, Saxer inquired whether he was still working for the union. Gillen replied in the affirmative. Saxer took his application, but Gillen was not called to work. Gillen filed charges on May 20, 1938. Gillen's ability and temperament was necessarily known by the respondent from his previous employment. There is no evidence that the respondent had asked Gillen for references. The respond- ent did not deny, affirm, or explain the statement attributed to Goss s This date was erroneously stated in the complaint as June 15, 1937. HUMMEB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 923 that Gillen, who was president of the Amalgamated's Local 1125 while employed at Allis-Chalmers, was not hired because the Allis- Chalmers Company reported that he was a trouble maker. Upon the entire record we are of the opinion that the respondent rejected Gillen because of his union affiliation and activity. We find that the respondent hired Gillen on January 15, 1937, but discharged him the same day because of his membership in and activity on behalf of Local 1125, and that by discharging Gillen the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ- ment, discouraged membership in the Amalgamated, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Henry Atteberry, an inspector in the purchasing department, was first employed by the respondent in August 1936 and worked con- tinuously until April 30, 1937, when the respondent laid him off. During his employment he received two raises, the last one on March 1, 1937. Atteberry was a member of the Amalgamated and assisted Gillen, then an organizer for the Amalgamated, in its organizational work. We have indicated in Section III, A above, that Goss threatened to discharge Atteberry if he did not stop his union activities. Thereafter, on April 30, 1937, Smith, the inspection foreman, told Atteberry not to report for work the next day, but stated that he would be called back in a couple of days. In an effort to obtain re- instatement Atteberry had several telephone conversations with Goss. The last time he called Goss, however, the latter refused to speak with him. Two months after his lay-off Atteberry received a letter from the respondent with a, discharge slip and a request for his tool check. The respondent augmented its force during the period between Atteberry's lay-off and discharge. At the hearing, the respondent did not give any reason for Atteberry's lay-off, or subsequent discharge. Upon the entire record, we believe that when the respondent laid off Atteberry on April 30, it did not intend to reinstate him. We accordingly find that on April 30, 1937, the respondent dis- charged Atteberry because of his membership and activity in the Amalgamated, and that the respondent thereby discriminated in re- gard to his tenure of employment, discouraged membership in the Amalgamated, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. George H. Koehler had worked intermittently for the respondent for 9 years. He was last continuously employed from 1934 to March 924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1, 1938, the date of his discharge. During the last 2 years of his em- ployment he was head storekeeper. He was a member of Lodge 628. On March 1, 1938, the respondent discharged Koehler, allegedly for incompetency . All other employees then employed in the storeroom had seniority over Koehler. He was replaced by one Perry, who had not previously worked in the storeroom, but who had made a survey of its operations. The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report found that Koeh- ler was not discharged for his union activity , and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged him. We agree with the Trial Ex- aminer's conclusion that Koehler was not discharged for union activ- ity. Since no exceptions were filed to this conclusion of the Trial Examiner, we shall not discuss further the discharge of Koehler, but shall dismiss the complaint as to him. C. The alleged refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit. The respondent and Lodge 628 stipulated and we find that all hourly paid production and maintenance employees in the branch factory of the respondent, excluding supervisory and office em- ployes and watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining and that this unit will insure to employees of the respondent at its branch factory the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by Lodge 628 of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit The respondent and Lodge Q8 stipulated that on or before March 24, 1938, and at all times since then, Lodge 628 was and has been designated by ,a majority of the employees in the unit above found appropriate as their bargaining representative. We accordingly find that on March 24, 1938, and at all times there- after, Lodge 628 has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the unit above found appropriate as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and pursuant to Sec- tion 9 (a) of the Act, was, on that date and at all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with the respondent in respect to HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 925 rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em- ployment. 3. The alleged refusal to bargain At a conference 4 on March 24,1938, a committee representing Lodge 628 told Saxer and Goss that Lodge 628 represented a majority of employees in the branch factory and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of such employees. Saxer replied that he would refer the request to the respondent's home office in Chicago. On April 6, Alexander, secretary of Lodge 628, told Saxer and Anderson, respondent's manager of factories, that Lodge 628 rep- resented a majority of employees in the branch factory, whereupon they replied that they would have to grant the right of exclusive bargaining to Lodge 628. Upon Alexander's request that Anderson and Saxer acknowledge in writing the respondent's recognition of Lodge 628, they said it was not necessary as the law granted Lodge 628 this recognition.. Several days later at a meeting with Saxer, the committee gave him a copy of a proposed exclusive bargaining contract, covering wages, hours, and working conditions. Saxer said he had no au- thority to consider the contract and would have to take it up with the Chicago office. On April 20 the parties again met from 2 to 6.: 30 p. m. Lodge 628 was represented by its committee and one Gill, Grand Lodge rep- resentative of the International Association of Machinists, herein called the International; the respondent by Saxer and Anderson. Al- though all the provisions of the proposed contract were separately discussed, the respondent's representatives said that a statement of policy covering working rules and rates, which the respondent had previously posted, was all they could offer. During this discussion they objected to the closed-shop provision and said that they were checking the wage schedule. They did, however, agree to a modifica- tion of one clause. They further stated that it was not necessary to embody the other provisions in a contract because they were either embodied in its statement of policy or were provided for under the law. The respondent's representatives again stated that they could not agree to anything without authority from the home office. Again on May 9 after discussing the proposed contract and the respondent's statement of policy, the representatives of the respondent 'All meetings and conferences except the one on June 15 were held at the branch fac- tory in Springfield , Illinois. 926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told the committee and Lartz, spokesman for Lodge 628, that they had no authority to execute a contract. William White, a conciliator from the United States Department of Labor, attended a conference between the parties on May 25.. Again the proposed contract _was read and discussed. The represen- tatives of the respondent raised the same contentions as they had previously made at the April 20 conference. At the suggestion of White, a revised contract, basically the same as the first contract, was sent to the Chicago office of the respondent. The contract was not accepted, but, Stuart S. Ball, an officer of the respondent who served as its counsel at the hearing , agreed to meet with Lodge 628 in Chicago. On June 15 Gill and Nickerson , vice president of the International,. representing Lodge 628 met with Ball, Anderson, and others repre- senting the respondent, in Chicago from 10 a. m. to 4 p. m. They dis- cussed the contract as well as other matters of mutual interest. The meeting was fruitless. As to some of the demands advanced by Lodge 628, the respondent refused to yield. As to others, to which it did not object, it argued that they were already part of its policy or were guaranteed by law and so did not require reduction to writing in a signed agreement. According to the uncontraclicted testimony of Gill, Ball said, "I do not say that we will not sign an agreement, but I do say when possible we will not enter into an agreement." At the close of the meeting Lodge 628 indicated its intention to file charges with the Board. Thereafter no further conferences were sought by Lodge 628. The course of negotiations between the respondent and Lodge 628 indicates that the respondent readily recognized and negotiated with Lodge 628 at its request. Although its branch factory executives at first insisted that they were without authority to bind the respond- ent, a bargaining conference was finally arranged in which a duly authorized representative of the respondent participated. The evi- dence bearing on that meeting is insufficient to sustain the allegation. of refusal to bargain collectively . Although the respondent mani- fested reluctance to embody in writing its acquiesence in certain of the proposals advanced by Lodge 628, it does not appear with any certainty that Lodge 628 demanded that the respondent do so, or- that the respondent in fact refused. We are of the opinion that the respondent did not refuse to bargain collectively with Lodge 628. Accordingly , we shall dismiss the allegation of the complaint that. the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with representa - tives designated for the purpose of collective bargaining by a ma- jority of its employees in an appropriate unit. HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 927 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, A and B 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 We have found that the respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act. Our order will require the respondent to cease and desist from such practices. Having found that the respondent discharged Matt Gillen and Henry C. Atteberry because of their membership and activity in the Amalgamated, we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, direct the respondent to reinstate each of them to his former posi- tion, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi- leges, and to make each of them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge, subject only to one qualifi- cation. Atteberry and Gillen first filed their charges on May 20, 1938, approximately 16 months after Gillen's discharge and approxi- mately 12 months after Atteberry's. The respondent argues in its brief that in view of this circumstance back pay in any event should not be directed, as is our usual practice, for the period commencing with the date of discharge. We find merit in the respondent's conten- tion,5 and accordingly shall order the respondent to make whole each of these men for any loss of pay he may have suffered during the pe- riod from May 20, 1938, until the date of offer of reinstatement by payment to him of a sum equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages during said period at the rate he was paid at the time of his discharge, less his net earnings 6 during that period. 5 Matter of Inland Lime and Stone Company and Quarry Workers International Union of North America, Branch No . 259, 8 N. L. R. B. 944; Matter of L. C. Smith and Corona Typewriters Inc. and International Metal Polishers, Buffers and Plasters Union of North America, 11 N. L. it. B. 1382. O By "net earnings " Is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his un- lawful 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. it. 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. 928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, affiliated with Steel Workers Organizing Committee and, through it, with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Matt Gillen and Henry C. Atteberry and thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, and International Associa- tion of Machinists, Lodge 628, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act: 5. The hourly paid production and maintenance employees of the respondent at its branch factory, exclusive of supervisory and office employees and watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 6. International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, was on March 24, 1938, and at all times since has been, the exclusive repre- sentative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section & (5) of the Act. 8. The respondent, by terminating the employment of G. H. Koehler, has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Hummer HUMMER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 929 Manufacturing Company Branch of Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, affiliated with Steel Workers Organizing Committee and, through it, with the Commit- tee for Industrial Organization, and International Association of Machinists, Lodge 628, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by dis- criminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its 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 concerted activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Matt Gillen and Henry C. Atteberry immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Matt Gillen and Henry C. Atteberry for any loss of pay they have suffered after May 20, 1938, by reason of their discharges by payment to each of them of a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period from May 20, 1938, to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings, during said period; provided that the respondent shall deduct from the back pay due each employee a sum equal to that received by such employee for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects during the period for which back pay is due him under this Order, and shall pay any such amount 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) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its branch factory notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist as provided in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order and will take the affirmative action required by paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, and of International Asso- ciation of Machinists, Lodge 628; 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, and in so far as it alleges that the respondent discouraged membership in a labor organization by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alfred H. McMasters and G. H. Koehler.