F. Jaden Manufacturing Co., Inc.

In -the Matter of F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-1179.-Decided January 8, 1940 Air Conditioning Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion.: anti-union statements ; threats to close plants; questioning employees regarding union activities-Discrimination: discharges, for union affiliation and activity ; charges of, not sustained as to forty employees-Reinstatement Ordered-Backe Pay: awarded-Collective Bargaining: charges of refusal to bargain collectively not sustained. Mr. Henry H. Foster, Jr., for the Board. Mr. W. M. Whelan, of Hastings, Nebr., and Peterson d Devoe, by Mr. J. Devoe, of Lincoln, Nebr., for the respondent. Mr. B. W. King, of Omaha, Nebr., and Mr. P. Hutchings, of Wash- ington, D. C., for the Union. Mr. John K. Odisho, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International As- sociation of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated October 21, 1938, against F. Jaden Manufacturing Company, Incorporated. Hastings, Nebraska, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the un- fair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that the re- spondent (1) on and after May 9, 1938, refused to bargain collectively with the Union although the Union had been designated by the ma- 19 N. L. R. B., No. 23. 170 F. JADEN. MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 171 jority of the respondent's employees within an appropriate unit as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining; (2) discouraged membership in the Union by discharging or laying off 12 named employees 1 during the period from May 5 to 11, 1938, in- clusive, and refusing to reinstate them, because they joined and as- sisted the Union, and by locking out 36 named 2 employees on May 20, 1938, and refusing to reinstate any but 3 of them, because . they joined and assisted the Union; and (3) by the foregoing acts and refusals, by threatening to close its plant before it would bargain with the Union, by attempting to influence its employees against affiliating with the Union, by curtailing the amount of work available for its employees, and in other ways, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent duly, filed an answer to the complaint ad- .mitting that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, but denying the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Hastings, Nebraska, from November 14 to 21, 1938, inclusive, before W. P. Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its rep- resentatives; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be -heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform the pleadings to the proof. The motion was granted. Counsel for the respondent at this time moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling at the hearing, but subsequently denied the motion in his Intermediate Report. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On January 28, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action remedial of their effect. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. 1 J. Stromer, R. Tower, L. Rohrer, H. Brungardt, R. Bowers, T . Buckley, J. Wallace, L. Buckley, D. Fortman, M. Whitcomb, C. Henrichs, and P. Thorngate. 2 These employees are listed in Appendix A, attached. 172 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to notice served upon all parties, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on September 7, 1939, for the purposes of oral argument. The respondent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent and the arguments in the brief and, except to the extent that the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a Nebraska corporation , with its principal place ,of business in Hastings, Nebraska, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of air-conditioning units ( coolers), air hose, blow guns, blowers, cutting cloth , mail boxes, oilers, paint guns, penetrating oil guns, pumps , repair hose, and sprayer cleaners. The value of raw materials purchased by the respondent in 1937 aggre- gated $198 ,901. Approximately 90 per cent of such raw materials came from points outside Nebraska . During the same period, the respondent's sales aggregated $397,602. Approximately 90 per cent of the products sold were shipped to points outside Nebraska. During its busy season (March to July), the respondent employs .about 75 persons ; at other times about 40 persons. 11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem- bership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion There was no union organization or activity in the respondent's plant prior to April 1938. In the latter part of that month the re- spondent's employees decided to organize. Ralph Bowers, an em- ployee, posted notices in the plant announcing a meeting to be held at the home of Richard Tower, another employee. A majority of the respondent's employees attended this meeting on or about April 28 or 29. Those present decided to form and join a local of the Inter- national Association of Machinists. Within 2 days of this meeting, applications for membership in the Union were signed by 40 of the respondent's employees. F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 173 On April 30, John Tjaden, secretary-treasurer of the respondent and a member of its board of directors, asked Charles Anders, an employee, whether the latter was going to join the Union. Anders replied that he had joined, whereupon Tjaden said that Anders could `.pass the word around among the men that the board (of directors) would have nothing to do with the union, and that they would close the plant up if the boys continued to form unions." On May 4, John Tjaden asked Merve Myers, an employee, if he had joined the Union. Myers replied that he had. Tjaden then stated that "The board of directors won't stand to have a union in here. Well, we'll wait to see what happens." On May 5, Wayne Swingle, chief engineer and assistant general manager, and Leo Buckley, superintendent, were separately called to the plant office and questioned by members of the respondent's board of directors about union activities in the plant. The directors indi- cated their hostility toward the Union. Esther Tjaden, a director, asked Swingle who the "agitator" was, stating that "we aren't going to have a union in here. If we have to, we will close the plant down." J. Daugherty, another director, told Swingle that a union was ab- solutely unnecessary and that he had been associated with companies that got along very well without them. John Tjaden told Buckley that the directors had talked to businessmen in Hastings and in other places as far as Omaha, Nebraska, and that all of them had advised against permitting a union in the plant. On about May 10, Guy Adcock, then superintendent, in a conversa- tion with Paul Thorngate, all employee, stated that the respondent's employees did not need a union and that the respondent would not tolerate a union in the plant. We find that the respondent, by the action of its directors in inter- rogating Leo Buckley and Swingle regarding union activity in the plant, and by the action of John Tjaden and Adcock in similarly, interrogating other employees and discouraging them from member- ship in the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Discrimnivattion in regard to hire and teiiR69r of empioyuaent 1. Individual cases At the close of work on May 5, 1938, the respondent laid off John Stromer, Richard Tower, Laurence Rohrer, and Henry Brwngardt. Stromer had worked for the respondent as a pressman since the fall of 1933. At the time of his lay-off, he was foreman of the press department and senior in point of service to the four other employees 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in it. Stromer joined the Union when it was first organized in the latter part of April and was active in soliciting other employees to join. Immediately after his lay -off, he asked John Tjaden, a member of the respondent's executive board, the reason therefor . Tjaden said Stromer had been laid off because of the "Union." Tower worked for the respondent in the assembling department and as a truck driver . At the time of his lay-off on May 5, he had seniority over two of the three other employees doing siihilar work. As stated in Section A, above; notices were posted in the plant in the latter part of April announcing a meeting of the respondent's em- ployees to be held at Tower's home . The announced meeting was held as scheduled on April 28 or 29. The respondent's employees held another meeting at Tower's home on May 4, the day preceding Tower's lay-off. Rohrer and Brungardt had worked for the respondent as tool and die makers since late in 1933. They were senior in point of service to three other employees in the toolroom and were, at the time of their lay-off, in joint charge thereof. Both men joined the Union in the latter part of April and were active in urging their fellow employees to join. Brungardt had previously been a member of the Union from 1918 to 1922. Because of his former connection with the Union, other employees in the plant sought information from him regarding it. Brungardt supplied them with this information and also gave them copies of the union constitution. The respondent contends that the lay-off of Stromer , Tower, Rohrer, and Brungardt on May 5 was a part of a program to curtail production which started with the reduction of working hours early in April and the lay-off of a number of employees in the latter part of April 1938 . The procedure followed by the respondent with respect to the May 5 lay-offs, however, differs materially from that followed in all prior lay-offs. Prior to the May 5 lay-offs, the prac- tice followed by the respondent had been as follows : The superin- tendent and the assistant manager and/or the general manager would consult with the different department heads to determine the number to be laid off and the departments and individual employees to be affected, always following the seniority of the employees involved. The employees selected for lay-off would then be notified orally in advance by their foremen. This procedure was not followed in the lay-off of Stromer , Tower, Rohrer, and Brungardt. At the close of work on May 5, L. Ringsted, general manager, called Leo Buckley to the plant office and handed him four checks and lay-off slips signed by the respondent's executive board, stating that he, Ringsted , "didn't have. anything to do with F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 175 this." Neither Leo Buckley, the superintendent, nor Swingle, the assistant general manager and chief engineer, was consulted by the respondent's executive board regarding these lay-offs. Nor were the laid-off employees given any advance notice of the termination of their employment. Each was simply handed his check and his lay- off slip by Leo Buckley. John Tjaden, a member of the respondent's executive board, admitted on cross-examination that the seniority status of the four employees involved was not considered by the executive board. Assuming that the respondent wished to reduce its working force for the reasons unrelated to the self-organization of its employees, the record nevertheless requires the conclusion that it selected Stromer, Tower, Rohrer, and Brungardt for lay-off because of their union activities. All four were prominent in the organization of the Union. All had seniority over employees doing similar work who were not laid off. The respondent admittedly ignored their seniority although it had theretofore always considered length of service in making reductions of force. At the hearing the respond- ent criticized the work of none of them, contenting itself with the unexplained assertion that they were four whom it could best spare. Only the respondent's evident hostility toward the Union, expressed so shortly prior to the lay-offs, satisfactorily explains its departure from its previous practice. We find that by laying off John Stromer, Richard Tower, Laurence Rohrer, and Henry Brungardt, the respondent discriminated in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coerc- ing its employees in' the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Stromer, Tower, and Rohrer desire reinstatement. Brungardt testified that he has secured other employment and does not desire reinstatement. On May 9, 1938, the respondent laid off Ralph Bowers, Timothy Buckley, and John L. Wallace. Bowers had worked for the respondent as an engineer since Jan- uary 1935 and was senior in point of service to the three-other em- ployees in his department. Bowers led the movement of the re- spondent's employees to organize the Union in the plant. At the first meeting of the respondent's employees on April 28 or 29, he was elected temporary chairman, and at the May 7 union meeting he was elected president and chairman of the negotiating committee. In the latter capacity, Bowers, during the morning of May 9, told Ringsted, general manager, that the union committee wanted to dis- cuss the May 5 lay-offs with the respondent's board of directors and 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asked that he arrange a conference for that afternoon. Ringstecl agreed to arrange the conference. Although the respondent's board of directors met that afternoon, the union committee was not called in. On the same day Bowers was laid off. Timothy Buckley had worked for the respondent as an engineer since November 1937. He was senior in point of service to the two other employees in his department other than Bowers. Timothy Buckley joined the Union in the latter part of April and was elected a trustee at the union meeting of May 7 and was an active union member. The same considerations which led to the conclusion that the May 5 lay-offs were discriminatory are present in the cases of Bowers and Timothy Buckley. Both men were active in the Union. In laying them off the respondent,disregarded their seniority over other men in the same department and failed to consult their superior. Each was handed a pay check and a lay-off slip without any advance notice. Their work was not criticized. We believe they were laid off for union activities. We find that by laying off Ralph Bowers and Timothy Buckley the respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, discouraged membership in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Bowers and Timothy Buckley desire reinstatement. Wallace had worked for the respondent since January 1938 as an apprentice tool and die maker. He joined the Union in the latter part of April, but does not appear to have been active in its affairs. While Wallace's exact seniority status was not indicated, it is clear that he had less service than Rohrer and Brungardt who were laid off on May 5. Including Rohrer, Brungardt, and Wallace, only five persons worked in the tool and die department. Assuming, as we do, that business conditions required as many lay-offs as were actually made, Wallace would, pursuant to strict seniority, have been laid off by May 9 in any event. We find that the respondent did not discrim- inate against Wallace and shall dismiss the allegation of the complaint that it did so. In the morning of May 10, 1938, the respondent discontinued the services of Leo Buckley, one of its oldest employees who, from Feb- ruary 1938 to the day preceding his discharge, had served as its plant superintendent. Leo Buckley did not join the Union until May 10, after his lay-off had taken place. The respondent contends that Leo Buckley was discharged because of differences which had arisen between him and the board of directors regarding the manage- ment of the business, and not for reasons relating to union activity. F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 177 It appears that for some time before his discharge Leo Buckley had been in sharp disagreement with the respondent's board of directors as to matters of policy. Under the circumstances we shall dismiss the allegation of the complaint that the respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Leo Buckley. On May 11, 1938, the respondent laid off D. P. Fortman, H. M. Whitcomb, Cyril Henrichs, and Paul Thorngate. Fortman did not testify. There is no evidence regarding his union membership or activities or the circumstances surrounding his lay-off. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the complaint with respect to him. Whitcomb had worked for the respondent in the sheet-metal depart- nient since January 1938. He joined the Union in the latter part of April. It appears that Whitcomb vas junior in point of service to all the others in his department. We are of the opinion that Whit- comb was not discriminatorily laid off, and shall dismiss the allegation of the complaint to that effect. Henrichs had worked for the respoudeiit in the sheet-metal depart- ment since February 1937. Henrichs was senior in point of service to Whitcomb and at least 4 other of the 15 employees in his depart- ment.. He joined the Union in the latter part of April. We are of the opinion and we find that by laying off Henrichs in disregard of his seniority standing, the respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, discouraged membership in the Union, and in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Henrichs desires reinstatement. At the time of his lay-off, Thorngate was foreman of the respond- ent's paint department and was senior in point of service to the two other employees in that departmment. He joined the Union in the latter part of April and was elected a member of the negotiating committee at the union meeting of May 7. As stated in Section A, above, on about May 10, Adcock, then superintendent, asked Thorn- gate how he felt about the Union. Thorngate expressed his senti- ments in favor of the Union. Adcock then stated that the respond- ent's employees did not need a union and that the respondent would not tolerate a union in the plant. Thorngate was laid off the next clay. In his conversation with Adcock a day preceding his lay-off, Thorngate came to the attention of the respondent as an advocate of the Union. The respondent made no criticism of his work. We find that by laying off Thorngate, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, discouraged member- ship in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thorngate desires reinstatement. 178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The May 20 shut-down The respondent's board of directors held a conference at the plant during the afternoon and evening of May 19, 1938, at which A. J. Koelling, president of the Hastings City National Bank, O. A. Riley, vice president of the Hastings National Bank, and Ben Oberg, office and production manager of W. M. Dutton Sons Co., a manufactur- ing and retail establishment in Hastings , Nebraska, were present in an advisory capacity. The. subject of the conference was the finan- cial condition of the respondent. After considerable deliberation, it was the unanimous opinion of the conferees that the production of coolers should be temporarily discontinued . Members of the re- spondent's board of directors, as well as Koelling, Riley, and Oberg, testified that neither the Union nor the union activities of the re- spondent's employees was mentioned or discussed at the conference. The plant was closed the next day. The record reveals that the respondent , during the spring of 1938, was experiencing difficulty in disposing of its coolers , that produc- tion was far in advance of sales, that the respondent's creditors were pressing for payment of their accounts , and that, at the time of the shut-down on May 20, the respondent had insufficient funds on hand to meet the next pay roll. At the time of the hearing, 6 months after the shut-down, the re- spondent had not yet resumed the production of coolers . Although the statements and threats made by its board of directors evidence an intention to cease operations because of the Union 's activities, we are of the opinion on the entire record that the respondent closed its plant on May 20, 1938 , because of its poor financial condition. We shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint that by ceasing oper- ations the respondent discriminated against its employees for their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union. C. The alleged refusal to bargain Representatives of the respondent and of the Union met for the first time on May 11, 1938 . The respondent was represented by its board of directors and its attorney , W. M. Whelan; the Union by B. W. King, grand lodge representative, and the union negotiating committee. At this time King stated that the Union represented a majority of the respondent's production and maintenance employees and that it had been designated by them as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining . There ensued a general dis- cussion covering proposed negotiation between the respondent and the Union. On May 12 the same parties held a second conference at which the Union's proposed collective bargaining contract was discussed , clause F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 179 by clause. At Whelan's suggestion that the respondent required fur- ther time to consider the proposed contract, the meeting adjourned. On about May 16, Whelan presented to King a memorandum dealing with certain paragraphs of the Union's proposed contract. Thereafter, at King's suggestion, the negotiations proceeded between Whelan, representing the respondent, and King, representing the Union. Conferences and correspondence between, Whelan and King con- tinned through the summer of 1938. In October, just prior to the issuance of the Board's complaint, they were in substantial agreement as to most of the provisions of a contract submitted by the Union. The respondent, however, still objected to the seniority provisions in the contract, and refused to agree to the reinstatement of Stromer, Rohrer, or Leo Buckley.3 Thereupon the negotiations broke off. Upon the entire record we are unable to find that the respondent refused to bargain with the Union or that the negotiations con- ducted by the respondent's representatives were tainted with bad faith. In our view the negotiations reached an impasse. Under the circumstances we need not determine whether or not the Union had been designated as their bargaining representative by a majority of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. We shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 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 the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate , and substan- tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent discriminatorily laid off Stromer, Tower, Rohrer, Brungardt, Bowers, Timothy Buckley, Henrichs, and Thorngate. With the exception of Brungardt, these employees desire reinstatement. 3 We have found that the respondent discriminatorily laid off Stromer and Roher, but that Leo Buckley's discharge was not discriminatory. 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We shall order the respondent to offer Stromer, Tower, Rohrer, Bowers, Timothy Buckley, Henrichs, and Thorngate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions. Such reinstate- ment shall be effected in the following manner : All employees hired after May 20, 1938, shall, if necessary to provide employment for those 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 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 em- ployee because of his union affiliation or activities, following a sys- tem of seniority to such extent as was applied in the conduct of the respondent's business prior to May 5, 1938. Those employees re- maining after such distribution, for whom no employment is immedi- ately available, shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accordance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence, and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in their former or in substantially equivalent positions, as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work. We shall further order the respondent to make whole Stromer, Tower, Rohrer, Bowers, Timothy Buckley, Henrichs, and Thorngate for any loss of pay they have suffered by season of the respondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimination against him 4 to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list pursuant to the terms' of our Order, less his net earnings 6 during said periods. At the time of the hearing, Brungardt had secured other employ- ment. He is, however, entitled to back pay. We shall order the respondent to make him whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to 4'lay 5, 1938, in the cases of Stromer . Tower, and Rohrer ; May 9 , 1938 , in the cases of Bowers and Timothy Buckley ; and May 11, 1938, in the cases of Henriebs and Thorngate. '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 or her unlawful lay-off and the consequent necessity of his or her seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but as provided below in the Order shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be pair 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. F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 181 him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from May 5, 1938, the date of his discharge, to the date on which he secured the employment enjoyed by him at the time of the hearing, less his net earnings during said period. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Amer- ican Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of John Stromer, Richard Tower, Laurence Rohrer, Henry Brungardt, Ralph Bowers, Timothy Buckley, Cyril Henrichs, and Paul Thorngate, thereby discouraging membership in the Interna- tional Association of Machinists, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing the 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 affecting commerce, 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 respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of J. Wallace, Leo Buckley, D. Fortman, and M. Whitcomb, and of the persons named in Appendix A, below, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 6. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, F. Jaden Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, or of any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment; 2.43030-41-vo1.1913 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their 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) Offer to John Stromer, Richard Tower, Laurence Rohrer, Ralph Bowers, Timothy Buckley, Cyril Henrichs, and Paul Thorn- gate immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially 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; -(b) Make whole the employees named in paragraph (a) above for any loss of pay they have suffered by. reason of the respondent's dis- crimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the respondent 's discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement or placement upon. a preferential list pursuant to the terms of this Order, less his net earnings during said period; deducting , however, from the amount otherwise due each, monies received by said employee during said periods 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, mu- nicipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Make whole Henry Brunga.rdt for any loss of pay he has suf- fered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from May 5, 1938, the date of his dis- charge, to the date, on which he secured the employment enjoyed by him at the time of the hearing, less his net earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due, 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; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant notices stating ( 1) that the respondent will cease and desist as afore- said; (2) that it will take the affirmative action required in 'pa.ra- F. JADEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 183 graphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) hereof; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of International Association of Machinists and that the respondent will not discrimi- nate against any employees because of the membership or activity in that organization; (e) Maintain such posted notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of tho posting; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth 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, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of J. Wallace, Leo Buckley, D. Fortman, and M. Whit- comb, and the persons named in Appendix A, below, and has refused to bargain collectively with the Union, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX A C. Anders. H. Armstrong. J. R. Baker. W. A. Barnes. G. Bruntz. E. W. Carl. F. Consbruck. W. M. Davidson. F. De Lay. C. De Moulin. M. Myers. R. E. McCune. H. McGavock. L. Nolda. E. Prochazka. H. J. Ross. G. H. Runge. W. Schuppan. C. Sheets. L. Simmons. R. De Moulin. G. A. Hankins. D. Hall. B. Heering. J. Hohfield. V. S. Jones. T. W. Macomber. R. Marsh. M. Simmons. L. Smith. P. Smith. 0. Sundling. W. Swingle. G. Valentine. F. Whitcomb. O. F. Zimmerman.