Monticello Manufacturing Corp.

In the Matter Of MONTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, No. 2085,1 AFFILIATED WITH THE Co rurrris FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION Case No. C-10.4.-Decided November. 30, 1939 Iron and Sheet Metal Display Fixtures and Equipment Manufacturing Indus- try-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: engendering fear of loss of employ- ment for union membership ; ridiculing union buttons ; persuading employees not to join and to drop union membership ; company-favored union ; inviting rival labor organization to organize plant ; assisting it by discouraging mem- bership in disfavored union ; paying for transportation of prospective members to rival's union hall and paying employees' initiation fees and dues; entering into closed-shop agreement with-Company-Dominated Unions: inside union formed and sponsored by supervisory employees, at suggestion of executive officer of respondent, to deflect interest from outside union commencing mem- bership drive; solicitation by supervisory employees; although defunct, ordered to cease and desist-Discrimination: discharge of active union member discrim- inatory, his promotions and bonus earnings refuting defense of inefficiency and interrupting work of other employees ; making closed-shop agreement with labor organization assisted by respondent's unfair labor practices, thus not within proviso of Section 8 (3), held discrimination as to terms and conditions of employment; discharge of 16 employees under closed-shop agreement held dis- criminatory as to hire and tenure; previous discharge of employee not member of union held nondiscriminatory, complaint dismissed-Closed-Shop Contract: employer ordered to cease giving effect to invalid closed-shop contract entered into with favored labor organizationRein.statemen,t Ordered: for employees discriminatorily discharged-Back Pay: awarded to employees to be reinstated. Mr. Walter B. Chef f, for the Board. Mr. Frank S. Pryor and Mr. Hollis G. Davison, of Frankfort, Ind., for the respondent. Mr. Joseph A. Pathway, by Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washing- ton, D. C., and Mr. Hugh Gormley, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the A. F. of L. Mr. Sidney Sugerman, of counsel to the Board. 1 The complaint designated the charging union as Steel Workers Organizing Committee No. 1076. On motion made at the hearing , the Trial Examiner ordered the pleadings amended so as to substitute No. 2085 for No. 1076 in the designation , conforming to the Union 's new charter number. 17 N. L. R. B., No. 109. 1091 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD DECISION AND .ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, No. 1076, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued its complaint dated July 11, 1938, against Monticello Maim-' facturing Corporation, Elwood, Indiana, herein called the respond-' ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint, with a copy of the amended charge annexed, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the S. W. O. C. The complaint alleges in substance that on June 22, 1937, the respondent discouraged membership in the S. W. O. C. by discharg- ing three named employees 2 and refusing them reinstatment, because they had joined and assisted the S. W. O. C.; that on and after said date the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Association of Metal and Wire Workers, a labor organization, herein called the Association, contributing financial and other support to it; that on and after March 30, 1938, the respondent assisted Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., by encouraging membership of the respondent's employees therein and in other ways, to the end that the A. F. of L. obtained .in agree- ment from the respondent on April 5, 1938, whereby membership in the A. F. of L. was required as a condition of employment; that on April 12, 1938, the respondent discouraged membership in the S. W. O. C. and encouraged membership in the A. F. of L. by discharging 17 named employees 3 in default of their membership in the A. F. of L. and because they had joined and assisted the S. W. O. C.; and that by the acts and practices above mentioned, as well as by anti- union statements and various other means, the respondent interfered 2 At the hearing the name of Robert Buckles was ordered stricken from the complaint, on motion of the Board's attorney , thus reducing the number of discharged employees in this group to two. 8 At the hearing the name of Burgess Shull was ordered stricken from the complaint, on motion of the Board's attorney, thus reducing the number of discharged employees in this group to 16. MONTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1093 with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.of the Act. On July 13, 1938, the respondent filed its answer denying sub- stantially all the material allegations of the complaint as to the discriminatory character of the discharges, as to the respondent's domination of the Association, as to the respondent's assistance to the A. F. of L. and discouragement of membership in the S. W. O. C., and generally as to the respondent's interference with, restraint, and coercion of its employees. The answer affirmatively alleges good and sufficient cause for the discharges of June 22, 1937; that the A. F. of L. was designated bargaining- representative of the employees by the free choice of a majority of them and unassisted by the respondent ; and that the respondent entered into a valid closed-shop agreement with the A. F. of L., in performance of which the dis- charges of April 12, 1938, were necessarily executed. Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and the S. W. O. C., a hearing was held at Elwood, Indiana, from July 20 to 27, 1.938, before Herbert Wenzel, the Trial Examiner duly desig- nated by the Board. On the first day of the hearing, after three witnesses had been heard on the Board's behalf,4 the A. F. of L. filed a petition with the Trial Examiner alleging its involvement in the amended charge and complaint and requesting leave to intervene in the proceeding and defend its-interest. The petition was granted forthwith. The Board and the respondent were represented at the hearing by counsel, and the A. F. of L. by its general representative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing upon the issues was afforded all parties." At the close of the hearing the Board's attorney made two motions : (1) To have the pleadings amended to conform to the proof; (2) to have Respondent Exhibit No. 41 submitted to Northwestern Univer- sity for documentary analysis. The Trial Examiner granted the first motion and, reserving his ruling on the second, denied the latter in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 4 Of those three witnesses, only one, Whitaker, had testified on matters within the issues affecting the A. F. of L.'s interest . Whitaker had been cross -examined by the respondent's counsel. The A. F. of L. did not request the witness' recall to the stand for further cross- examination. Material portions of his testimony were corroborated by subsequent witnesses who were subject to cross-examination by the A. F. of L. G The A. F . of L.'s opportunity in this regard was limited, without objection on its part, to matters bearing upon its interest in the proceeding , as such interest might appear. 1094 DECISIONS. Ol NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 4, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the Act, substantially as alleged in the complaint, except that the discharge of Mary Osborn on June 22, 1937, was for good cause unrelated to her union membership or activities . Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, from giving effect to the agreement made with the A. F. of L., and from recognizing the A. F. of L. as exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees ; that the respondent reinstate all the employees discharged as alleged , with back pay; that the re- spondent withdraw recognition from and disestablish the Association that the respondent post notices to its employees to all the foregoing effect; and that the complaint be dismissed as to the allegedly dis- criminatory discharge of Mary Osborn. On November 19, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions, together with a brief in support thereof, to the Intermediate Report. Ou January 9, 1939, the A . F. of L. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. On September 23, 1939, expressly waiving its privilege of oral argument, the respondent filed a supplemental brief in lieu thereof. On October 3, 1939, a hearing was duly held before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purposes of oral argument, in which the A. F. of L. participated by counsel. The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs filed and the argument presented. In so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, the Board 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, an Indiana corporation having its principal place of business in Elwood , Indiana, is, engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron and sheet-metal display fixtures and equipment . During the fiscal year ended June 30, 1938 , the respondent purchased $126,- 673.46 worth of raw materials for manufacture , of which 35 per cent was transported into the State of Indiana from other States. Eighty- six per cent of its products are shipped outside the State of Indiana, by rail and truck . Its gross sales for the 6-month period ended December 31, 1937, amounted to $100,431 .60. The respondent employs about 125 persons in production and maintenance. MONTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1095 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Steel WWTorkers Organizing Committee, No . 2085,8 Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization (now the Congress of Industrial Organizations ), herein called the C. I. 0., is a labor organization admitting to membership all production and mainte- nance employees of the respondent, excluding clerical and super- visory employees. Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federa- tion of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership all employees of the respondent. Association of Metal & Wire Workers was an unaffiliated labor Organization admitting to membership all employees of the re- spondent. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion The S. W. O. C. began organizing the respondent's employees in the middle of June 1937. About 28 of the employees were signed to membership, principally through the efforts of Whitaker, the local organizer, and Cornelius, a welder in the plant's wire division. Shortly before June 22, 1937, Ballinger, one of the die setters, was called into the office of Melvin, president of the respondent. In the presence of Coates, plant superintendent, Melvin told Ballinger that he had reports that 90 per cent of the employees were members of the C. I. 0., and that most of these were in the wire division. Melvin asked Ballinger, and said that lie had called in others and asked each of them, whether or not he was a member of the C. I. O. Ballinger did not join the S. W. O. C. until March 31, 1938. In this conversa- tion Melvin singled out Cornelius and two others as the active organizers in the plant. His further remarks concerning Cornelius will be discussed in Section III B below. At the same time Melvin asked Ballinger, "How about organizing a little Union of our own?" The events following this suggestion, leading to the formation of the Association, will be discussed in Section III C below. At the beginning of the S. W. O. C.'s organizational drive, Bush, a wire bender, had signed one of the membership cards distributed by Cornelius, but destroyed it on the advice of Derry, a foreman in the sheet metal department, "`that it would be best if (Bush) wouldn't turn it in." Bush did not join the S. W. O. C. until March 28, 1938. Suffice it at this point to observe that after June 1937 and until the end of March 1938 the S. W. O. C.'s ranks were depleted and the campaign came to a halt. See footnote 1 above. 247384-40-vol. I7--70 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The S. W. O. C.'s drive took new life on March 28, 1938. For 6 weeks past the plant had been operating at peak production on day and night shifts of 10 hours each, 7 days a week. During that period the workers on night shift had had no break in their schedule, al- though it had previously been the respondent's practice to alternate shifts weekly. On March 26, 1938, Bush and another employee, Hartley, who was not a member of the S. W. O. C., notified their fore- men, Denton and Manis, that they would not report for work the next night, Sunday. Others followed their lead and stayed away from work, with the result that the plant was shut down during the night of March 27. On their return to work on March 28, Hartley and Bush were called into Coates' office, charged with responsibility for the shut-down, and discharged. In an atmosphere of dissatisfaction and unrest several of the employees walked out with Hartley and Bush. They went to the S. W. O. C. headquarters and joined that union. On March 29, 1938, through the intercession of the Labor De- partnient of the State of Indiana,' the men were reinstated to their positions, to which they returned with their union buttons in full dis- play. Immediately Hartley was twitted about his button by a fore- inan, Truman Leisure, who flicked it and said, "When are you going to start eating those badges?" Denton ridiculed another employee, McKinley, in these words : "Do you know what that C. I. O. button stands for on there? Civilized idiots." In the meantime, on March 28, after the discharge of Hartley and Bush, Coates warned Ballinger, while the latter was at work, "You may be met by a gang on the outside this evening. Well, they will probably want you to join the C. I. O. It looks pretty bad, especially for these boys that have large families." On March 29, when Manis and Gillum, both foremen, were attempt- ing to revive the then moribund Association, they called Bradley, an employee, into the superintendent's office. Bradley at the time was wearing his S. W. O. C. button. Manis, noticing it, said, "Well, Bradley, it looks like you made a slight mistake. You better join over to the Association of Metal and Wire Workers." Earlier that -day Gillum had told Albert Creamer, an employee, that if the latter signed with the S. W. O. C. he would be out of a job. Gillum also told Van Buskirk, another employee, at the latter's home that day, "Well, if you join up with the C. I. O. you will get kicked out . . . I am afraid that the C. I. O. will get kicked out in the street." The foremen called various other employees into the superintendent's office that day and warned them not to hold membership in the S. W. O. C. if they wanted to keep their jobs. ° Referred to in the testimony as the "State Labor Board." DIONTICRLLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1097 On March 30, Hartley, one of the reinstated employees, was called into Melvin's office, where, in the presence of Truman Leisure, produc- tion problems were first discussed. Asking Hartley whether they were still and would continue to be friends, Melvin said, "We start from scratch, but there is one thing I want." Rising from his desk and walking around to where Hartley was seated, Melvin demanded, `I want that thing right there. I want that badge." When Melvin reached for Hartley's button, the latter held him off and said, "Mr. Melvin, that is a thing that you are not going to get." Melvin be- rated him for joining a ".rabble organization," denounced- him as "a man without a soul," and ordered him from the office with the declara- tion, "I know you for the snake you are now . . . Get back to your job, but, Hartley, understand this, the first mistake you make you are fired." As Hartley returned to his bench, remarking to several fellow workers that he had "just got (his) hair combed," Tom Creamer was called into Melvin's office. Tom Creamer was a member of the S: W. O. C. who, the night before, had been asked about his union affiliation by Foreman Gillum with the remark, "You want to keep your job, don't you?" Melvin had scarcely finished saying, "Well, Creamer, I didn't think it of you ... I didn't think you would be against me," when the men in the plant, aroused to suspicion of Mel- vin's purpose in calling them into his office one at a time, protested that they must be seen en masse. Foreman Manis conveyed their protest to Melvin, who invited them all into his office. The em- ployees' dissatisfaction had not crystallized into any clear-cut de- mands. They had neither program nor spokesman. Melvin in- quired who would speak for them, and one of their number, Oran Brown, was then and there designated spokesman. Reminding Brown that he was a newcomer to the plant, Melvin immediately characterized him as a "parasite." Bush testified without contradic- tion that Melvin "stated that the boys pulled a fast one on him when they got taken back to work and he would take care of the Labor Board." Melvin evidently referred to the Indiana State Labor Board, through whose offices the men had been reinstated on March 29. Be- fore Brown could say anything on his group's behalf, Melvin ordered him thrown out of the office by Truman Leisure. Brown left the office without resistance or disturbance, remaining for awhile in the plant with the other employees, who had peacefully filed out of Melvin's office as soon as Brown left. Melvin came into the plant and ordered the men to work. After exchanging more words with Brown, threatening him with fisticuffs, and having some slight physical en- counter with him and Creamer, Melvin ejected Brown, who was fol- lowed out by Hartley and several others. Later that night the em- 1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD ployees met at the S. W. O. C. headquarters and voted to strike. The. next day, March 31, a picket line was thrown around the plant, which remained shut down until April 5, 1939. When Melvin arrived at the plant early the first morning of the strike, Whitaker introduced himself as a C. I. O. organizer and asked Melvin to meet with a committee of the employees to settle the strike. Melvin replied to Whitaker, "I don't like your color," and that he would not deal with the C. I. O. in any manner. He expressed a preference for the A. F. of L. as a labor organization. Melvin also said he would move the plant to Kokomo, Indiana, rather than have anything to do with the C. I. O. The next day, April 1, the A. F. of L. obtained the respondent's recognition as exclusive bargaining representative, and by April 5 had obtained a closed-shop agreement. Discussion of the process of its organization and the negotiation of the agreement will follow in Section III D below. On March 31, Foreman Denton visited Ballinger's home to persuade the latter to join the A. F. of L., cautioning him, "Well, you know if the C. I. O. gets in, the plant may shut down. I know the old boy (referring to Melvin)." The next day Foreman Gillum calve to Bal- linger's house to solicit his membership in the A. F. of L., saying, "If you wait until the A. F. of L. gets in your job will be taken out." Denton also told Bush to join the A. F. of U. or "you will be out of a job, and you have been working here quite a while and you have got a pretty good record. I would just advise you to drop the C. I. 0." Similar statements, in the form of advice, warnings, and exhortations were made by various other supervisory officials to individual em- ployees on March 31 and April 1. On March 31, Superintendent Coates, Howell, the respondent's sec- retary and treasurer, Mitchell, its office manager, and other super- visory officials massed a group of non-picketing employees at the respondent's warehouse several blocks from the plant. Howell in- structed the men that it was Melvin's wish that they break the picket line while he tried to get in touch with the A. F. of L. organizer in Indianapolis. He said he had been informed that the men would have to be back at work before the A. F. of L. could organize the plant. The group went down to the picket line, which held its ranks without trouble. On returning to the warehouse the men were told to disband and they would hear from the respondent later in the day. While the plant was being picketed on April 2, the respondent's two counsel in this proceeding drove up to the picket line in an auto- mobile and gave the strikers a local newspaper of current issue con- taining an item, indicated by heavy pencil marking, to the effect that the respondent's plant would reopen on April 4 under a contract with the A. F. of L. DIONTIC.LLO JIANUFACTURING CORPORATION -1099 On April 4 a field representative of the Board succeeded in obtain- ing in writing from the respondent an agreement to reinstate all the employees on the March 29 pay roll, "without any discrimination or prejudice." The strike was ended and on April 5 the plant reopened. All returned to work except Oran Brown, who refused reinstate- ment. On the same day the respondent signed a closed -shop agree- ment with the A. F. of L. requiring membership in the latter organization as a condition of employment , to be satisfied within 5 days. During that period the respondent 's supervisory staff con- -tinued its efforts as in the past to discourage membership of the employees in the S. W. O. C. The respondent has contested the allegedly supervisory status of .any of its employees other than Melvin, Howell, and Coates. It main- tains that the various men designated by it as and calling themselves foremen, to whom we have referred , had no power to hire or dis- charge and were in fact production workers too, merely responsible for the lay-out of work in their divisions. In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and in its supplemental brief the respondent admits that the employees alleged to be foremen did bear the title "assistant foremen " or "sub-foremen." Most of the individuals whose supervisory status is in question testified at the hearing. In each case they were interrogated as to their duties, and admitted their supervisory status. The fact, relied on by the re- spondent, that the employees in question were admitted to member- ship in the A. F. of L. is immaterial to the issue of their supervisory status. The closed-shop contract required A. F. of L. membership of all employees without distinction . We find that they were over- seers and foremen with duties and powers identifying them with the management of the respondent's business. The evidence upon which the findings in this section are based is not without its contradictory aspects at every turn. In the welter of evidence two main, opposing lines of testimony are demarcated. In resolving the issues, due regard has been given to the test of credibility urged upon us by the respondent in its brief. By dissuading its employees from membership in the S. W. O. C., and by ridiculing and threatening them for their activities on that union's behalf, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. B. Discharge of Cornelius and Osborn Adolph Cornelius had been in the respondent's employ about 1 year when he was discharged on June 22, 1937. In that time he had 1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been promoted successively to several higher positions, last working- as a welder. Cornelius became actively interested in the S. W. O. C. from the first day it came to Elwood. He alone of the respondent's employees attended its early meetings. He joined the S. W. O. C. about June 1,. 1937, and began at once to solicit memberships among the employees,. distributing cards through men whom he had selected in the several divisions of the plant. No attempt seems to have been made to con- ceal this activity, which came to the respondent's attention as found'. in Section III A above. On June 22, as Cornelius received his pay check, Coates discharged him, saying, "You and a few others around here have got an idea of breaking company rules . . . Cornelius, your kind is not wanted out here. You get the hell out and stay out. Get the hell off the- property." Without denying that he made this statement, Coates testified that Cornelius was discharged for not doing his work and for visiting with other employees on the job and interrupting their work in violation of the shop rules. The respondent does not contend that the discharge followed immediately upon any breach of rules.. There is nothing in the record to show that Cornelius failed to heed the warning alleged to have been given him by Coates some time- before. We do not believe that Cornelius was discharged for the reasons assigned by the respondent. Discipline in the plant was loose, even among the foremen. Employees fraternized, smoked, wandered from their tasks on occasion, and otherwise behaved in a manner which stricter supervision might have prevented. However, until the S. W. O. C. activities opened, the respondent treated the situation with no. concern and with only sporadic corrective measures. If Cornelius was indeed guilty of infractions of the shop rules, which he denies, he was nevertheless considered a satisfactory worker. He had been elevated to the position of welder shortly before his discharge. In every pay check, including the last, he received a bonus earned for production in excess of his schedule. The cause of his discharge we find to have been his union mem- bership and activity. Melvin and Coates indicated that in their con- versation with Ballinger immediately before Cornelius' discharge,. when they were running down the source of the activity and planned to combat it with a "little union" of their own. The acrimony of Coates' remarks to Cornelius when dismissing him betrays a deeper resentment than Cornelius' alleged infractions would be expected to cause. We find that the respondent discharged Adolph Cornelius on June 22, 1937, because of his union membership and activities, thereby dis- MONTICRLLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1101 couraging membership in the S. W. O. C., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Cornelius revisited the plant about 6 or 8 weeks later and asked for reinstatement, but Coates ordered him away. He had been earning $18 a week while in the respondent's employ; and thereafter to the date of the hearing, during a period of about 13 months, he earned approximately $500 at other employment. Mary Osborn had been employed by the respondent for 2 years and 3 months prior to her discharge on June 22, 1937. She was assigned to work primarily in the packing department. She had never taken an interest in the S. W. O.- C., and did not become a member of that union until May 1938, almost a year after her dis- charge. The day before her discharge, in a conversation with Dan Hoose, the foreman who announced the dismissal to her, she ex- pressed a preference for an inside union to the C. I. O. Mary Osborn testified that when Hoose paid her off, discharging her for "causing a disturbance in the packing room," she asked,. "Why? Because I want higher wages and shorter hours, as advo- cated by the C. I. O.?' She testified that Hoose confirmed that as: the reason. At the hearing he testified that no mention of it was- made. The respondent contends that Mary Osborn was discharged,. among other proper causes, for failure to perform work laid out. for her by Hoose on June 21 before his leaving the factory on a business trip. During his absence she refused to take orders from her immediate superior left in charge, so that on Hoose's return the, next day the work was entirely undone. He reported the incident to Coates on June 22, the day she was discharged. In view of Mary Osborn's non-membership in the S. W. O. C. and non-participation in union activities, and her admitted expression to. Dan Hoose, before her discharge, of a preference for a "company organized union," the record fails to establish that she was dis- charged because, as alleged in the complaint, she had joined and assisted the S. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and. other mutual aid and protection. We find that by discharging Mary Osborn the respondent did not discriminate in regard to her hire and tenure of employment. The• complaint will be dismissed with respect to Mary Osborn. C. Domination of the Association On June 22, 1937, within a few days after Melvin's suggestion that "a little union of our own" be organized to deflect interest from the- emerging S. W. O. C., Truman Leisure, who at that time had not. 1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as yet been promoted to the position of foreman, circulated a petition among the employees during working hours to form the Association. Leisure claims that he started the organization of the Association on his own initiative, and that Melvin upbraided him for his activity in its behalf on company time, deducting a half-day's pay from Leisure's wages for the time devoted to it. Even if that is true, it is evident that the respondent proposed and gave impetus to the new organization. The first meeting of the Association was held after hours that same day on the respondent's premises. Three meetings were subsequently held elsewhere, in the course of which officers were elected and, with the aid and advice of an attorney who was paid by the Association for his services, a constitution and bylaws were prepared. Elmer Manis, secretary and elected representative of his division, of which he was soon after made foreman, testified that the constitution and bylaws were lost and that he had no other books or records of the Association. Within a month a committee of the Association met with Melvin, Howell, and Coates and obtained some slight increases in the rates of pay for the employees. The S. W. O. C.'s drive having aborted, interest in the Association was permitted to wane and immediately the employees were without self-organization, outside or inside. As Ballinger put it, ". . . the boys were all disgusted about (the Asso- ciation). They had no faith ..." On March 28, 1938, coincidentally with the renewal of the S. W. ,O. C.'s activities at the plant, Marais, Gillum, and Denton, foremen, and Mitchell, the office manager, attempted to revive the Associa- tion. They called employees into the superintendent's office indi- 'vidually, and met them on the outside, and urged them to sign up again with the Association, telling them to drop or avoid membership in the S. W. O. C. or risk losing their jobs. Typical of these efforts of the supervisory employees to enlist membership in the Association was Albert Creamer's experience on March 29. During that day Foreman Gillum met Creamer in town and asked him to sign a card renewing his membership, saying that the respondent was having trouble with the C. I. O., which he warned Creamer against joining. Gillum assured Creamer that Melvin was behind the Association. When Creamer reported for his night shift that evening, he was met at the front of the plant by Superintendent Coates, Denton, and Gillum. He noticed that the plant was strangely not in operation. Coates told Creamer that an Association meeting was to be held at a local hotel and that Creamer had "better go on up." That meeting -was attended by foremen. What was done there does not appear an the record. .0NTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 11O However, the Association vras short-lived. A strike occurred on March 31, as related in Section III A above, and the respondent im- mediately transferred its energies from an attempt to inspire the lifeless Association to the promotion of the A. F. of L., as we find below. The Association was "dropped" and is no longer in exist- ence. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the, formation and administration of the Association, and contributed support to it; and that the respondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As it appears that the Associa- tion has ceased to function, we shall withhold the usual order direct- ing the respondent to disestablish the Association as a representative, of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. Never- theless, in conformity with our practice in the past under circum- stances of the kind here found, we will issue such order as we deem' necessary to bar a resumption or repetition of the activities which constituted the unfair labor practices." D. The closed-shop contract with the A. F. of L. In the early evening of March 31, while the strike continued, word was sent around by the respondent to various supposedly "loyal" employees that they should congregate at the house of Howell, the respondent's secretary and treasurer, from which point they would' journey to the Labor Temple at Frankfort, a, distance of about 35 miles, and join the A. F. of L. Foremen visited the homes of employees to round up as many as possible for the trip. They rep- resented to the employees that attendance of at least 15 of them. was necessary in order to obtain a charter for a local union. They told the employees that free transportation would be provided and that employees would incur no expense either in traveling to and from the A. F. of L. headquarters in Frankfort or in becoming mem- bers of that organization. Those with automobiles who were to, transport the party were told to have their gasoline tanks filled at a. station in town owned by the brother of Dan Hoose, a foreman.. Hoose furnished several of the employees with written orders upon his brother to "fill bearer's car with gas and oil." The orders were. received in evidence. Howell asked Harry Miller, an employee, to drive some of the employees out to Frankfort, where, he said, "We a-re going . . . to sign the A. F. of L." He told Miller to get his gasoline at the Hoose station "and the rest will be taken care of." 8 See Consolidated Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board , 59 S. Ct. 206 ; Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company and Telephone Operators Union , 12 N. L. R. B. 375. 1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hoose's brother, at his own instance, made out a sales slip for Miller's signature in receipt, charging the purchase to the respondent di- rectly. Miller signed it. The receipt is in evidence. The respondent denies that it either authorized the purchase of .gasoline and oil on its account or thereafter paid for it. Dan Noose claims to have directed the purchases on his personal credit and to have paid his brother in full the next day. He also claims to have rendered a bill for reimbursement for this outlay to the A. F. of L. on April 21. He admitted at the hearing that his bill had not yet been paid. Although the A. F. of L. may ultimately have paid the amount of the purchases, we believe that the respond- ent arranged the financing preliminarily. There is no other plaus- ible explanation in the record why the sales slips were made out in the respondent's name, especially as the respondent rarely had such purchases made for its account, and then only on office requisitions. Moreover, Hoose offers no credible reason why he, a foreman, vol- unteered payment for the gasoline purchases without promise or expectation of reimbursement, when the A. F. of L. organization at the plant was still a matter of anticipation. Besides, even if Hoose, a foreman, so acted on his own initiative, the respondent is respon-. sible, though it had no actual participation in the undertaking.9 The employees enlisted for the trip to Frankfort gathered at or outside Howell's home, where Superintendent Coates waited around until the group assembled. Bert Leisure, a brother of the foreman, 'Trueman Leisure, arrived early and was invited into Howell's house by Coates. Coates asked him whether he knew the purpose of his being summoned there, and assured Leisure that some more em- ployees would soon be along to make the trip, too. Howell had already departed for Frankfort before the group started out. He claims to have gone there, with no knowledge of the forgathering and expedition of the employees, in order to engage -counsel for advice in the strike situation. We do not believe his testimony in that regard.' He appeared at the Labor Temple later that evening, in the company of counsel, while the employees were there being organized. Obviously this was no chance happening. Why the respondent's counsel "took [Howell] up there to see what was going on," as Howell testified, if neither of them had any ad- mitted interest in the A. F. of L. or any admitted expectation of meeting the employees there, is left by Howell to mere conjecture, when his presence and actions there call for frank explanation. We 'believe Howell went to the union hall with full knowledge of the 9 Matter of Swift & Company, a Corporation and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 6111, and United Packing House Workers Local Indus- trial Union No. 300, 7 N. L. R. B. 269, enf'd as mod., Swift & Company v. N. L. R . B., 106 'F. (2d) 87 (C. C. A. 10). MONTICFLLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1105 Plan to organize the respondent's employees into an A. F. of L. local, and with full expectation of meeting them there to see that purpose .achieved. Hobbs, an employee, testified that he on his own initiative went to Indianapolis on March 31 to inquire of the A. F. of L. headquarters about joining that organization. His testimony impresses us less with its improbability than with its abbreviation of the whole truth. He appeared at the picket line that morning, and then went to the warehouse where, as we have found, Howell told the "loyal" em- ployees he was trying to get in touch with the A. F. of L. organizer in Indianapolis. From there Hobbs went to Indianapolis, had a talk with the A. F. of L. representative, and was advised to organ- ize through the Council at Frankfort. He returned to Elwood, met Dan Hoose, the foreman, at the warehouse, and reported what he had done. Hobbs then proceeded to Frankfort, met an A. F. of L. or- ganizer, arranged to have sufficient employees there that evening to form their organization and receive their charter, and again reported back to Hoose in Elwood. The sequence of Hobbs' activities for .the day is based substantially on his own testimony, pieced together with other trustworthy evidence in the record. After a day so con- sumed in shuttling back and forth, assertedly on his own initiative, Hobbs himself did not attend at the union hall that evening when some 34 other employees signed up. He had a "date." We believe that Hobbs did all of this at the instance of Howell and Hoose on the respondent's behalf, and we so find. Among those of the respondents' supervisory staff present in the hall from time to time when the employees signed their cards and took their oaths were Howell, Hoose, Denton, Mitchell, and Elmer Manis. An initiation fee of $2 was payable for each membership taken. A large number of those fees, if not all, were paid by the respondent then and there. Foreman Denton admits having paid over money for the fees of six employees, by way of personal loan to two men who were without funds, and merely by passing cash handed to him by four other employees. Hoose and Mitchell, too, admit having paid the fees of eight or nine more employees, by personal loan. Witnesses for the Board testified that they had not asked for loans and that repayment was never demanded ; that the money was advanced for them without question, principally by Denton, who stood at the organizer's table with a sheaf of bills in his hand as the employees filed by. Bert Leisure left the hall for a bite to eat and in a nearby restaurant saw. Howell seated with Clyde, the respondent's insurance broker, when Mitchell came in and said that he needed more money. Leisure testified that Clyde furnished some money to Mitchell, who returned to the hall. Although the respondent called 1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Clyde as a witness on its behalf, he failed to deny Leisure's story; and while Mitchell did testify that he had not "borrowed" any money from Howell or Clyde on that occasion, Howell did not testify un- equivocally on the point. He testified that he did not recall Mitchell's. saying that more money was needed, and did not see Clyde provide it. We find that the respondent provided financial aid and assistance to the employees in the organization of their A. F. of L. local. A federal union charter was granted to the employees that night.. The next day, April 1, Superintendent Coates approached Gardner,. an employee who had just signed a S. W. O. C. membership card,. and told him that if he wanted to get back to work it would be necessary to join the A. F. of L. Gardner, testifying on the Board's- behalf under subpena, said that he did want the, work and that,. against his will, he signed up with the A. F. of L. He was still in the respondent's employ at the time of the hearing. He and other- employees met that day at the respondent's warehouse, where the A. F. of L. organizer continued inducting members, issuing receipts for- initiation fees supplied by the respondent. Howell and Mitchell were present during those proceedings. At about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, the respondent signed a short agreement with the A. F. of L. recognizing the latter as exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, and provid- ing that negotiations as to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment should be conducted at a later date. The agreement stipulated that the A. F. of L. had proven its designation by a major- ity. Melvin testified that before signing it he personally scrutinized 73 to 76 signed cards proffered by the A. F. of L., constituting more than half the number of employees on the respondent's last preceding- pay roll. No mention of a closed shop was made in the April 1 agreement, and.no hint of its being in contemplation was given to- the striking employees upon or before their reinstatement pursuant to the written assurance against discrimination given to the Board's. representative on April 4. On the first day of the employees' return to work, April 5, the. respondent, in spite of its agreement not to discriminate, entered into- a, formal contract in writing with the A. F. of L. respecting wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, and providing, among- ether things, that all employees should be, or within 5 days become,. members of the A. F. of L. The term of the agreement was fixed at- 1 year, automatically renewable in default of notice otherwise.lo 10 The agreement was supplemented in May 1938 . in respects not material to our consid- eration. It appears from the respondent 's supplemental brief filed in lieu of oral argument before the Board , that at its expiration the agreement was superseded by one executed! April 5, 1939, by the respondent and the A. F. of L. for another term of 1 year, which is presently running. The current agreement appears to contain a closed-shop requirement. ZION TICLLLO IIAN UFACTURING CORPORATION 1107 The arrangements made on March 31 for the organization of an A. F. of L.. local union were part of the respondent's deliberate plan to pit the A. F. of L. against the S. W. 0. C., to break the strike, and to defeat the S. W. 0. C. The A. F. of L. had never attempted to organize the respondent's plant. The employees had never re- vealed any interest in that labor organization until March 31. The testimony of several witnesses for the respondent that employees had discussed among themselves, a day or two before then, the desirability of organizing under the aegis of the A. F. of L., is an ill-concealed effort to absolve the respondent of a clear connection with the move- ment. The respondent sought out the A. F. of L. on the first day of the strike, encouraged it to organize the plant, cooperated financially and in other material ways to endow it with the membership of a majority of the employees, rushed into hasty recognition of the A. Y. of L. as exclusive bargaining representative, and shortly thereafter climaxed its assistance to the A. F. of L. by granting it a closed shop. We find that the sole recognition agreement of April 1 and the closed-shop agreement of April 5 between the respondent and the A. F. of L. were not the result of collective bargaining between the respondent and the freely designated representatives of its employees, but were executed on the respondent's initiative as an integral part of its program of discouraging the S. W. 0. C. and assisting the A. F. of L. by acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. We find further that the respondent, by entering into the closed- shop contract under the circumstances described, discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby encouraging membership in the A. F. of L. and discouraging membership in the S. W. 0. C.; and that the respondent thereby inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. E. The mass disdharge of April 1R, 1938 During the 5 days in which the employees were required to become members of the A. F. of L. in order to continue in employment, the respondent posted a notice on the bulletin board that it had signed a contract with the A. F. of L. "as the sole bargaining agency . . . , and employees have five days' time in which to become members of this sole bargaining agency . . ." Immediately, the supervisory em- ployees renewed their attacks on the C. I. 0. and endeavored to per- suade the workers to join the A. F. of L. Thus, Foreman Denton told Bush, "You have to join the A. F. of L. or you will be out in five days." Foreman Twiford told McPhearson the same thing in Bal- linger's presence. Beyond such urgings and warnings spread by the foremen in a manner implying a threat such as had been held over 1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees in the past, the respondent did nothing until April 12 to make known to the employees the explicit closed-shop contents of its contract with the A. F. of L. In the sense that the posted notice was, susceptible of construction that employees were being offered an op- portunity for a limited time only to join the A. F. of L., as a privi- lege and not as a compulsory condition of continued employment, the notice was ambiguous. On April 11, Foreman Denton told a group of employees while they were at work, "Well, we are having a meeting, an A. F. of L. meeting. You can go ahead and work, but you will get paid if you go to the meeting." The men left the factory for about 3 hours to attend the meeting, and were paid by the respondent for the time spent there. On April 12,' the 5-day period having expired, 16 employees 11 were discharged in a group, in the presence of Melvin and the respondent's. counsel. Counsel read the closed-shop provisions of the contract to- the assembled employees who had not become members of the A. F. of L. One of them asked, "In other words, that means we are fired if we don't join the A. F. of L.?" Counsel answered in the affirmative and, according to one witness, remarked that they were in the "wrong- Union." The complaint alleges that these employees were discharged not only under the compulsion of an illegal contract, made with a labor- organization assisted by the respondent's unfair labor practices, but also because those employees exercised the rights guaranteed by Sec- tiolR 7 of the Act, in that they had joined the S. W. O. C. It further alleges that the respondent thereby discriminated in regard to the- hire and tenure of their employment, thus discouraging membership- in the S. W. O. C., and that by the making of the closed-shop agree- ment the respondent discriminated in regard to the terms and condi- tions of their employment, thus encouraging membership in the A. F. of L. and discouraging membership in the S. W. O. C. The respondent admits that it discharged these employees on April 12 because they were not members of the A. F. of L., but pleads the- closed-sl}op contract in justification, and denies that they were dis- charged because they were members of the S. W. O. C. It is provided in Section 8 (3) of the Act that: . . . nothing in this Act . . . shall preclude an employer from, making an agreement with a labor organization (not established,, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in this Act as an. unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment. n Namely, William Hill, Edward Van Buskirk, Clarence Ballinger, Allen Mitchell, Clarence- McPhearson, Lawrence J. Walker, Clifford Miller. Roscoe McKinley. Lee Brooks, Thomas' Creamer, Calvin Bradley , Otis Hickman, Bert Manis, Wilbur Hartley , Thomas Bush, and: Albert Creamer. MONTICELLO MANUl ACTURING CORPORATION 1109, membership therein, if such labor organization is the representa- tive of the employees as provided in Section 9 (a), in the appro- priate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made. Since the closed-shop agreement of the contract of April 5 was entered into with a labor organization which had been assisted by the respondent's unfair labor practices, it does not fall within the proviso. of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and cannot serve as justification for the- discharges. Upon the entire record we find that the respondent discharged the 16 employees on April 12, 1938, because they were not members of and refused to join the A. F. of L. and because they had joined and assisted the S. W. 0. C., thereby discriminating in regard to their hire- and tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the S. W. 0. C., encouraging membership in the A. F. of L., and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We further find that the 16 employees so discharged were earning weekly, at the time of their discharge on April 12, and thereafter earned in total, the respective sums set alongside their names below:- Name of employee Average weekly Total since earnings discharge William Hill--------------------- ----- ----------------------------------- $18. 00 None Edward Van Buskirk------------------------------------------------------ 17.50 None- Clarence Ballinger-------- ------------------------------------------------- 20.00 None- Alien Mitchell -------------------------------------------------------------- 23. 00 None Clarence. McPhearson-------------------------- ---------------------------- 19.00 None Lawrence J. Walker---------------------------------------------------- 15.50 $35.50, Clifford Miller------------------------------------------------------------ 15. 50 None Roscoe McKinley----------------------------------------------------------- 14.00 None Lee Brooks..--------------------------------------------------------------- 18.00 None Thomas Creamer- 19. 00 None Calvin Bradley------------------------------------------------------------- 20. 00 None Otis Hickman-------------------------------------------------------------- 16. 50 $9.00 Bert Manis-------------------------------------------------- -------------- 17.00 26.00 Wilbur Hartley ------------------------------------------------------------- 17.50 None Thomas Bush-------------------------------------------------------------- 18.00 None Albert Creamer------------------------------------------------------------- 17.50 None IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON. COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with its operations 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 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining, and coerc- 1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing its employees in various ways in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act; by dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the Association and contributing .financial and other support to it; and by discriminating in regard to its employees' hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of their employment, thereby discouraging membership in the S. W. O. C. and encouraging membership in the A. F. of L. We -shall order the respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices. We have found that the respondent aided, encouraged, and assisted the A. F. of L. by various unfair labor practices. In order to restore the status quo and to permit the employees full freedom in self- -organization, without hindrance by reason of the respondent's unfair labor practices, we shall order the respondent to withdraw recognition from the A. F. of L. as the exclusive representative of the respond- 'ent's employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and -until the A. F. of L. shall have been certified as such by the Board.12 In addition, we have found that the closed-shop contract granted to the A. F. of L. by the respondent was an integral part of the re- spondent's unlawful campaign of encouraging membership in and rendering assistance to the A. F. of L., while discouraging member- ship in the S. W. O. C. We shall order the respondent to cease and -desist from giving effect. to the contract of April 5, 1938, as well as .any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, and any -superseding contract which may now be in force. Nothing in this Decision and Order should be taken to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour, seniority, and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees themselves, which the respondent estab- lished in performance of the invalid contract as extended, renewed, 'modified, supplemented, or superseded. We have found, too, that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Adolph Cornelius on June 22, 1937, because of his membership in and activities on behalf of the S. W. O. C.; and 16 other employees 11 on April 12, 1938, under color of the invalid closed-shop contract and -because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the S. W. 'O. C. In accordance with our usual custom, we shall order the re- spondent to offer full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions to such of those employees, includ- .:ing Adolph Cornelius, as have not since been fully reinstated. If -necessary to provide employment for Adolph Cornelius, any em- 12 Matter o f Mt. Vernon Car Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and Local Lodge No. 1756, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel d Tin Workers of North America, etc., 11 N. L. R. B. 500; Matter of Lenox Shoe Company, Inc. and United Shoe Workers of America, 4 Ni. L. R. B. 372. 11 See footnote 10. MONTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 1111 ployees. hired after June 22, 1937, shall be dismissed. Reinstatement of the 16 named employees other than Adolph Cornelius shall be effected in the following manner : All employees hired after April 12, 1938, shall, if 'necessary to provide employment for those 16 to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed. If thereupon, by reason of a reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment immediately available for the remaining employees, including those 16 to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among such remaining employees in accordance with the respondent's usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following a system of seniority to such extent as was applied in the conduct of the respondent's business prior to April 13, 1938. Those employees remaining after such distribution, for whom no 'employment is imme- diately available, shall be phiced upon a preferential list prepared in accordance with the principles set forth in the previous sentenee, and shall thereafter in accordance with such list be offered employment in their former or in substantially equivalent positions, as such em- ployment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. We shall order the respondent to make whole those employees, including Adolph Cornelius, for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of their respective discriminatory discharges, by pay- ment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or, in the case of the 16 employees other than Adolph Cornelius, placement upon the pref- erential list hereinabove described, less his net earnings 14 during said period. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, 'the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee, No. 2085, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, are labor "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 Amer- ica. 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 government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects. 247384-40-vol. 17-71 1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD organizations, and Association of Metal & Wire Workers was a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Association of Metal & ; Wire Workers, and contributing support to it, the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure and terms and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby encouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with Amer- ican Federation of Labor, and discouraging membership in Steel. Workers Organizing Committee, No. 2085, Affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. By assisting Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, and in other ways 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. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. By discharging Mary Osborn, the'respondent did not engage in any unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. 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 Monticello Manufacturing Corporation, Elwood, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Asso- ciation of Metal & Wire Workers, or with the formation and admin- istration of any other labor organization of its employees,. and from contributing financial or other support to said Association or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Discouraging membership in Steel- Workers Organizing Corn- mittee, No. 2085, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organi- zation, or encouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or discouraging MONTICELLO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 11:1.3 or encouraging membership in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employ-' ment, or any term or condition of employment, of its employees; (c) Recognizing Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until that labor organization shall have been certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board; (d) Giving effect to its contract of April 5, 1938, with Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of' Labor, or to any - extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding contract which may now be in-force; (e) Urging, persuading, intimidating, or coercing its employees to join Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, and not to join Steel Workers Organizing Committee, No. 2085, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, or to join or not to join any other labor organization of its employees; (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con= certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Federal Labor Union No. 21578, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of its employees for the purpose of deal- ing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until that labor organization shall have been certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board; (b) Offer to the following employees: William Hill, Edward Van Buskirk, Clarence Ballinger, Allen Mitchell, Clarence McPhearson, Lawrence J. Walker, Clifford Miller, Roscoe McKinley, Lee Brooks, Thomas Creamer, Calvin Bradley, Otis Hickman, Bert Manis, Wilbur Hartley, Thomas Bush, Albert Creamer, and Adolph Cornelius im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above, placing those employees for whom employment is not immediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in said section;' 1114 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Make whole the employees named in paragraph 2 (b) above of this Order for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their respective discharges, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to an amount determined in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy" above, deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said employees, monies received by said employee during said period for work performed 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 government or governments which .supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; Qd) Immediately post, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicious places throughout its plant, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in para- graphs 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), and will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c), of this Order; and further stating that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Steel Workers Organizing Committee, No. 2085, Affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writing within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent, by discharging Mary Osborn, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.