Empire District Electric Co.

In the Matter of EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION B-95 Case No. C-874.-Decided Mar-c& 13, 19410 Elects is Utility Industi y-In.tertei ence, Restraint , and Coercion : inducing and coercing resignations from Union ; surveillance of union membership and ac- tivities ; anti-union statements by supervisory officials ; charges of ; as to interference with union meetings by means of entertainment , dismissed- Discrimination : transfers to discourage union membership and activities; charges of, as to other employees transferred , laid off, or discharged, dismissed- Reinstatement Ordered: transferred employee-Back Pay: reimbursement ordered transferred employee for any loss of pay incurred by reason of transfer Jlr. Henry H. Foster, Jr., for the Board. Spencer c6 Spencer, by Mr. A. E. Spencer and Mr. John W. Scott, of Joplin, Mo., for the respondent. 111r. Gibson Langsdale, of Kansas City, Mo., for the I. B. E. W. Mr. Willard Yonciq Morris, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95, herein called the I. B. E. W.,1 the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri), issued its complaint dated May 11, 1938, against Empire District Electric Company, Joplin, Missouri, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the I. B. E. W. IInteinational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95, superseded Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 95 in May 1937 The distinction not being pertinent to the present case, we shall refer to both as the I B E. W 21 N L. R. B., No 59 605 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - Concerning the unfair labor practices , the complaint, as amended,2 al- leges in substance that ( 1) the respondent discriminatorily transferred to less favorable positions six named employees , laid off out of sen- iority four named employees, discharged four named employees, and refused employment to Ned Barkley, and thereby discouraged mem- bership in a labor organization ; and (2 ) the respondent by its officers and supervisory officials interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by the above acts and by ( a) making statements hostile to the I. B. E. W., (b) maintaining surveillance over the organizational activities of its employees, (c) conducting parties on the meeting nights of the I . B. E. W. for the purpose of inducing its employees to stay away from such meetings , and (d ) inducing members of or applicants for membership in the I. B. E. W. to resign from or with- draw applications for membership in said labor organization. On May 17, 1938, the respondent filed its answer , which was sub- sequently amended, denying that it had committed the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Joplin, Missouri, from May 26 to June 7, 1938, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the I . B. E. W., and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full, opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made various 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. On August 25, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, iri which he found that the respondent had engaged in un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 ( 1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, recom- mended dismissal of the complaint as to two persons alleged to have been discriminatorily laid off out of seniority and one person alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged , and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action remedial of their effect. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent and by the I. B. E. W . On June 27 and 30, 1939, 2 During the hearing the complaint was amended, omitting the name of Fred Pickett, alleged in the original complaint to have been disciiminatorily laid off out of seniority, adding the name of Jack Pritchard to the list of those alleged to have been discrimina- torily laid off out of seniority, adding the name of Ned Barkley to the list of those alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged, and separately alleging that Ned Barkley was discriminatorily refused employment. EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 607 respectively, oral argument upon the exceptions before the Board in Washington, D. C., was waived by the respondent and the I. B. E. W. Thereafter , pursuant to leave granted by the Board, briefs were sub- mitted by the respondent and the I. B. E. W. The Board has con- sidered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and save as they 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 Empire District Electric Company , a subsidiary of Cities Service {Power & Light Company , is a Kansas corporation , engaged print-- pally in the generation , transmission , distribution , and sale, at whole- sale and retail , of electricity in the States of Kansas , Missouri, and Oklahoma. Its principal office and place of business is located at Joplin, Missouri . It has generating plants in Kansas and Missouri. In addition to the electrical energy there generated, the respondent in 1937 purchased 2,354,726 kilowatt hours of electricity from the Ozark Utilities Company in Missouri. In 1937, the respondent sold 48,715,284 kilowatt hours of electricity in Kansas , 135,777,329 kilo- watt hours of electricity in Missouri , and approximately 70,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in Oklahoma. The respondent in 1937 also sold 761,211 kilowatt hours of electricity to the Benton County Company at the Missouri -Arkansas boundary line for distribution in Arkansas. The electric power purchased by the respondent and generated in its plants is transmitted through interconnected trans- mission and distribution lines, making it impossible to determine the exact amounts of electricity transmitted from State to State. How- ever, in 1937, in Kansas the respondent generated over 180,000,000 kilowatt hours more than it sold; in Missouri it sold over 60,000,000 kilowatt hours more than it generated ; and in Oklahoma all the cur- rent sold was generated in other States . Thus it appears that in that year, at least 130,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity was transmitted by the respondent across State lines. The respondent also engages in selling at retail electrical ;equip- ment and supplies, more than half of which are purchased by the respondent outside the State of Missouri from various manufacturers "throughout the country." The respondent makes such sales through its offices located in Joplin, Webb City, Aurora, Neosho, and Pierce City in the State of Missouri and in Baxter Springs , Galena, and Columbus in the State of Kansas. In the conduct of its business, the respondent operates a plant de- partment, in the charge of a superintendent , a chief engineer, and a 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD chief electrician, and a distribution department, in the charge of a superintendent, supervisors, and various foremen. The distribution department is divided, into three geographical divisions, each in the charge of a supervisor, line foremen, and other supervisory employees. The Eastern Division of the distribution department comprises a large part of eastern Missouri ; the Central Division, a limited section of Missouri around Joplin ; and the Western Division, parts of Kansas, Oklahoma, and southwestern Missouri. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95, is a labor organization affiliated with American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. In May 1937, Local Union B-95 superseded Local Union 95 of the Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 950, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Local No. 950, was a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent in and around Picher, Oklahoma. Local No. 950 surrendered its charter in February 1937. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Coerced resignations On October 18, 1937, the I. B. E. W. filed with the Regional Direc- tor for the Seventeenth Region a petition for investigation and certification of representatives.3 Negotiations were thereupon begun between the I. B. E. W. and the respondent in an attempt to agree upon an appropriate bargaining unit and a method of determining majority representation, in order to avoid the necessity of formal action on the petition by the Board. During the following month, conferences with this in view were held by representatives of the respondent, the I. B. E. W., and the Board. These negotiations, however, finally proved fruitless, agreement not being reached as to the appropriate unit and the method of determining majority representation. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent induced 20 named employees to resign from the I. B. E. W. At the hearing there were introduced into evidence written resignations signed by the same 20 employees. These resignations bear dates which range $Matter of Empire District Elect,Ic Co and laaternational Brothc,hood of Electrical Workers, Case No. XVII-R-58, dismissed in June 1938 EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 609 from October 26 to November 10, 1937, the period immediately follow- ing the filing of the above-mentioned petition. Of the 20 named employees only 4, Hugh Orcutt, Claude Biddlecome, T. T. Alexander, and Charles Buxton, appeared at the hearing to testify. Hugh Orcutt, a substation electrician working in the respondent's Eastern Division, testified that a few days before October 28, 1937, he was approached by Glenn Watkins,4 one of the respondent's line foremen, and told by him that Adam Rogers, supervisor of the respondent's Eastern Division would "appreciate" Orcutt's resigning from the I. B. E. W. and that the respondent would reward him for doing so. Watkins threatened him, in the alternative, with dis- charge. According to Orcutt, Watkins took him to one of the re- spondent's plant offices where he wrote his resignation at Watkins' dictation. After several attempts they finally agreed on the wording of the resignation. Watkins, noticing that it was written on the respondent's stationery, suggested that the letterhead be cut off, which was done. Watkins took a carbon copy of the resignation and Orcutt retained the original, which he mailed to the T. B. E. W. a few days later. Watkins did not testify at the hearing. We accept Orcutt's testimony as an accurate account of the occurrence. On October 28, 1937, Supervisor Rogers invited T. T. Alexander, a line foreman, and Claude Biddlecome, a lineman, both members of the I. B. E. W., and another employee, to accompany him to a cafe, where Rogers bought them beer and gin to drink. During the course of the conversation Rogers told Biddlecome and Alexander that several members of the I. B. E. W. had resigned. Rogers pro- duced a carbon copy of Orcutt's resignation and showed it to them. Biddlecome, then, at Rogers' suggestion, wrote out his resignation. Alexander testified that he wrote out his resignation after Rogers had told him and Biddlecome that unless they resigned it was "on down the river for them." Alexander explained that he understood by this that they were threatened with discharge. Carbon copies were made of these resignations, Rogers providing the paper and carbons. Alexander mailed the originals to the I. B. E. W. and Rogers retained the carbon copies. Rogers, in his testimony, admitted taking these employees to the cafe, and buying drinks for them. He further admitted showing Orcutt's resignation to Biddlecome and discussing the matter with him, but denied speaking with Alexander about resigning, insisting that Alexander must have overheard his discussion with Biddlecome. He admitted, however, having writing paper and carbon paper in his pocket which he gave to both Biddlecome and Alexander for their resignations. Rogers denied having threatened either Alexander or "Watkins also resigned from the I. B E. W. His resignation is dated October 28, 1937. 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Biddlecome. Rogers testified that his talk with Biddlecome concern- ing resignation from the I. B. E. W. was prompted by his having heard that Biddlecome was misinformed concerning the I. B. E. W. We find it unnecessary to resolve whatever conflict may exist between the testimony of Alexander and Rogers. Rogers did not deny his having obtained the resignations of both Biddlecome and Alexander. Whether Alexander's resignation resulted from Rogers' remarks addressed to Biddlecome alone or to both Biddlecorne and Alexander is immaterial. It is clear that the resignations resulted from Rogers' suggestions, if not from actual threats, and we so find. Charles Buxton, a lineman employed in the respondent's Central Division, testified that late in October 1937 his foreman, Lee Mills, told him the following : that Orcutt and Alexander had resigned from the I. B. E. W.; that other members were going to resign ; that the I. B. E. W. was going to attempt to compel the respondent to sign a contract; that Buxton, whose name was on the rolls of the I. B. E. W., should go to the respondent's storeroom at noon and write his resignation; and that the respondent wanted a carbon copy of it. Buxton further testified that he went to the storeroom at the noon hour, but because there were two or three other employees present he postponed writing his resignation. According to Buxton, Mills then said : "Hurry up and get that letter in there ; they are going to use your name on this list." Buxton, however, did not sign his resignation until that evening. Mills, in his testimony, at first denied discussing resignation from the I. B. E. W. with Buxton. On being closely questioned, however, he admitted having had a conversation with Buxton as follows : He [Buxton] asked me if-what I thought about it and I told him that if he wanted to get out of it that it was-that he could send in his resignation and that would stop it. That was my idea about it. Mills further admitted telling Buxton that there was writing paper available in the respondent's office and receiving carbon copies of resignations from Buxton and another employee, Degraffenreid, who, Mills stated, might have heard him tell Buxton that there was writing paper available in the office for the purpose of resignation. Mills' admissions are consistent with the campaign waged by the respond- ent to obtain its employees' resignations from the I. B. E. W. In the light of his admissions and all the evidence concerning the resig- nations, we cannot accept Mills' denial. We find that the respondent, by its foreman, Mills, coerced Buxton into resigning from the I. B. E. W. E. E. Spracklen, superintendent of the respondent's distribution department, testified that Rogers telephoned to him between EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 611 October 23 and 25 to inform him of Orcutt's having resigned, and that he instructed Rogers to forward the copy of the resignation to him. Spracklen insisted in his testimony that he did not under- stand the reason for Orcutt's turning in a copy of the resignation. Spracklen, on being asked whether he had ordered or instructed Brown, supervisor of the respondent's Central Division, and Rogers to obtain copies, replied as follows : I had asked Brown and Rogers both to bring me in the copies of resignations that apparently were appearing all over the district, all over the organization. When asked why copies of the resignations were made, Spracklen replied : I don't know. I can't account for the first one, where Orcutt sent the one to Rogers at Aurora. That first made me suspicious of the whole set-up and I asked for all of them if there were any. -I asked for all that might appear and that one came in, and as I say, four or five days, had apparently an avalanche, that is four five days later after we received the first one. When Brown was asked to explain the resignations and the carbon copies, he testified : "I suppose the boys wanted them kept on file for their own reference that they had sent this resignation in." Brown testified that he understood that the men wanted the com- pany to "preserve" the resignations for the men. He admitted, however, that it was not customary for the respondent to "preserve" the personal files or papers of its employees. Pressed further, Brown admitted that the respondent was "interested" in the letters of resignation. Brown also admitted knowing that "there was some negotiations going on" concerning the determination of the I. B. E. W.'s representation of a majority of the respondent's em- ployees. Brown at first denied knowing what the "stimulus" of the resignations might have been. Having testified that he received several copies of resignations from Foreman Mills, Brown was asked whether he had ever requested Mills to obtain them. He replied : "No. Mr. Mills asked me if there was any way for the boys to get out from under this thing, and I said I didn't know of any way unless they wanted to resign." Brown admitted that he had made the foregoing statement before receiving any copies of resignations. We think the picture is clear. At a time when the I. B. E. W. was claiming to represent a majority of the respondent's employees within a unit claimed to be appropriate and attempting to nego- tiate with the respondent on such a basis, the respondent by its supervisory employees set out to destroy the I. B. E. W.'s member- ship or at least to disprove that it represented a majority as it 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD claimed. The respondent's superintendent, its supervisors, and its foremen participated in creating a mass defection from the I. B. E. W. and to attain the respondent's end resorted to persuasion, promises, and threats. The respondent contends that it cannot be held responsible for the "individual acts . . . or expressions of opinion by its fore- men and other supervisory officials . . ." and points to the fact that, pursuant to an understanding reached with the I. B. E. W. soon after the passage of the Act, the respondent posted notices on its bulletin boards, stating that all foremen and other supervisory employees had been instructed to observe the Act. There can be no question as to the supervisory status of those who conducted the respondent's anti-union campaign. Spracklen, Rogers, and Brown all hire and discharge employees, and the re- spondent's foremen, although it is not clear that they have authority to do so, as a matter of practice discharge employees. The union membership of Alexander or of similar supervisory employees does not relieve the respondent from responsibility for the activities of its supervisory employees which interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.-5 While the respondent posted notices in which it stated an intention to observe the Act, it is clear that it took no effective means to stop repeated violations of the Act. On the contrary, the respondent par- ticipated in and ratified the illegal acts of its supervisory employees by such acts as accepting from them copies of the resignations which had been procured by means of threats, intimidation, and coercion. Furthermore, with respect to the supervisory employees the doctrine of respondent superior applies, and the respondent is responsible for the actions of those employees, even though it had no actual partici- pation therein.6 5See Matter of Ward Baking Company and Committee Jon Industrial Organization and Bakery and Confectionery Wo) kers International Union -of America, 8 N L R B 558; Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A F. of L. Federal Union No 21164, 8 N. L R B 575, 9 N L. R. B 117; Matter of Mt. Vernon Car Manu fact it? ing Company, a corpora- tion and Local Lodge No. 1756, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization , 11 N L R. B 500; Matter of Borden Mills, Inc. and Textile Woi kers Organizing Committee, 13 N. L. R. B 459. °Swift & Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 106 F (2d) 87 (C. C A 10), enforcing Matter of Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work- men, etc ; International Association of Machinists v National Labor Relations Board. 311 II S 72, enforcing Matter of The Seri icb Corporation and International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local No 459, National Labor Relations Boairl v The 4 S Abell Co, 97 F (2d) 951 (C C A 4), enforcing Matte) of The A S Abell Co , a con poi ation and Intonational Printing and Pressmen 's Union , 5 N L R B 644 EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 613 We find that the respondent, by inducing and coercing the resigna- tion of I. B. E. W. members, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Surveillance The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent maintained surveillance over the union activities of its employees. There is abundant evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the respond- ent's supervisory officials to inquire of the employees under them concerning their membership in and attitude toward Local No. 950 and the I. B. E. W. Supervisor Rogers admitted having "sounded out" most of the employees working under him concerning their attitude toward or- ganizational activities. We accept Rogers' admission. Walter Pick- ering, who is in charge of the respondent's meter department, testified that during the summer of 1937 Superintendent Spracklen inquired of him concerning union activities in his department. Ac- cording to Pickering, he thereupon inquired of his men as to their union membership and activities. When asked whether he had re- ported to Spracklen the results of such inquiries, Pickering testified : "I imagine I did. I have no definite memory. I undoubtedly did." Spracklen did not deny asking for or receiving such information. We find that Pickering made such inquiries of the employees under him and reported his findings to Spracklen. It is evident from the record that during the summer and fall of 1937 other foremen and supervisors of the respondent also questioned employees concerning their attitude toward and membership in the I. B. E. W. During the summer of 1937 Superintendent Spracklen and Super- visor Brown were repeatedly seen by members of the I. B. E. W. walking past the hall in Joplin, Missouri, in which the I. B. E. W. held its meetings on nights when such meetings were held. Both Spracklen and Brown admitted seeing the respondent's employees coming out of or standing in front of the hall but denied that they had walked past the hall for the purpose of learning the identity of those attending meetings. It appears that Spracklen and Brown knew that union meetings were held at the hall. We reject the denials of Spracklen and Brown and the explanation offered by Brown'that he could be seen anywhere "downtown most any night," in view of the other activities engaged in by Spracklen, Brown, and other supervisory officials to ascertain the union membership and activities of the employees, and find that Spracklen and Brown maintained surveillance over the union activities of the respondent's employees. 23.1032-41-vol 21-40 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the respondent, by inquiring of its employees con- cerning their union membership and activities and by maintaining surveillance over its employees' union activities, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. '3. Alleged interference by means of entertainment The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent conducted parties on meeting nights of the I. B. E. W. for the purpose of inducing employees to remain away from such meetings. But one such party, that of May 5, 1937, appears to have been held on a meeting night. The party began at 5 p. m., immediately after work- ing hours, and the I. B. E. W.'s meeting was not scheduled to begin until 8 p. m. During the course of the party at least two kegs of beer, furnished by Supervisor Brown, were consumed. Tickets to a game of baseball being played that night were given to some of the employees present. There is no evidence to show that any mem- bers of the I. B. E. W. failed to attend the scheduled union meeting, although it appears that some of those attending were somewhat intoxicated. Supervisor Brown, who conducted the party, testified, without contradiction, that May 5, 1937, was the first pay day follow- ing a general wage increase and that the respondent had also just completed the electrification of a baseball park, which that evening was opening its season of night games. Brown stated that he had bought several tickets to the game, which he gave to some of the employees at the party. From all the evidence, we do not find that the respondent, by con- ducting the party of May 5, 1937, or any other party, interfered with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment; further interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The transfers The complaint alleges that the respondent discriminatorily trans- ferred to less favorable positions the following persons : Hugh Or- cutt, T. T. Alexander, Claude Biddlecome, Clay Marshall, Mitchell Vaughan, and Clyde Dilworth. Hugh Orcutt was employed by the respondent as a substation elec- trician. His last period of employment with the respondent began in April 1933, although he had previously been in its employ over a period of several years. He was a charter member of Local No. 950, which was chartered in August 1935, and was elected to the EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 615 office of financial secretary while working for the respondent at Picher, Oklahoma, under Foreman Ed Wilson. Orcutt testified that in March 1936, Adam Rogers, supervisor of the respondent's Eastern Division, came to Picher, which is located in the respondent's Western Division, and told him that he had come to "straighten out" Orcutt and the "rest of the boys" and that Rogers attempted to find out who belonged to Local No. 950, which Orcutt refused to disclose. According to Orcutt, Rogers then asked "what it would take to bust it [Local No. 950] up". Orcutt answered that they "would have to quiet Ed Wilson [foreman] down", that Wilson should be forced to "stop riding the boys all the time, and causing trouble that was unnecessary." About a week later Orcutt was transferred to work at Columbus, Kansas. According to Or- cutt, although he admitted at the hearing that he had "wanted to get out of the place," [Picher] Rogers told him that his transfer to Columbus "was to break up the union". Although Rogers at the hearing denied the entire incident, we do not credit his denial and we accept Orcutt's account as being consistent with Rogers' other admitted acts of interference. In August 1936 Spracklen sent Rogers to Picher to investigate the trouble the employees there were reported to be having with Wilson. Rogers went first to Columbus and asked Orcutt to accom- pany him to Picher. Rogers explained, at the hearing, that he considered Orcutt a good friend and that Orcutt had worked at Picher under Wilson and understood the situation there. On the way to Picher, Rogers and Orcutt discussed the union situation there. Orcutt told Rogers that the "boys" there had organized a union because it was the only way to "fight Wilson." Rogers asked Orcutt, as financial secretary, for the records of Local No. 950, but Orcutt refused to surrender them. At Picher, Rogers and Or- cutt went to a cafe with two other employees, Boyd and William- son, and discussed difficulties the men were having working under Foreman Wilson. Rogers, in his testimony, described part of the conversation as follows : He [Boyd] said, "Well, Rogers, you or some one will have to take me out of this place or there is going to be trouble. I am either going to kill Ed Wilson or he is going to kill me." And I thought that was a lot of bluff conversation; I didn't take it so seriously, but we went along with the conversation and I drifted back into the Union, [italics supplied] and they gave me a little dope on the membership and how they were getting on with it. They wasn't doing so good. It seemed like their president, Mr. Stevens, J. D. Stevens, or "Red" I think they called him, he had gone South and they were a little 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shy on some initiation funds, I think they said. So they had before about decided, or said they was giving it up, and made me this proposition, that if I would get Williamson more money, and get Boyd transferred, that they would roll up their charter and sent it back to Tulsa. Well, it sounded kind of absurd to me and I told them I did not have any promises to make. I was sent down there to investigate and not to make promises, but I would make my recommendations when I came back to Joplin, and I did. And I recommended that Boyd be trans- ferred and Williamson, in my estimation was a second-class lineman, but his pay probably should be increased. I believe that is all. Although Rogers denied that he had asked these men to surrender their charter, or promised them that he would make the desired recommendations if they would "drop out of" Local No. 950, it is clear from his own testimony, set out above, that such was the un- derstanding between him and the men. Rogers' activities in this connection were consistent with his later activities in procuring resignations from I. B. E. W. members. The I. B. E. W. started a membership drive in April 1937, and Orcutt joined on April 21. In August 1937 Rogers asked Orcutt why he had joined and inquired of him what was required to "bust up the union again." Orcutt told Rogers that it would "take a substantial raise and stop working on holidays, nights and Sun- days, when it was unnecessary." Rogers then informed Orcutt that a man was needed at Aurora, Missouri, and assured Orcutt that he could do the work there. Orcutt said that he would accept the transfer. Before the transfer was effectuated, Rogers warned Or- cutt not to "talk union" to the employees at Aurora, threatening to discharge him if he did, and Orcutt promised that he would not. Orcutt was soon thereafter sent to Aurora to work under Foreman Wegman. Although Rogers denied that he inquired of Orcutt what was required to "bust up the union" or that he warned Orcutt not to "talk union" we reject his denial, finding the inquiry and warning to be consistent with his other activities designed to cause defection from the I. B. E. W. While Orcutt was assigned to work at Aurora he was sent to work temporarily at Greenfield and White River Dam, Missouri, to do substation work. It was at Greenfield, as discussed above in Section III, A, 1, that his foreman, Glenn Watkins, procured his resigna- tion from the I. B. E. W. Orcutt was also sent out on a tree- trimming job near Ash Grove, Missouri, where he worked for approximately one month. While this work was somewhat unusual for a substation electrician such as Orcutt, there does not appear to have been any discrimination in assigning him to this work. EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 617 Orcutt was transferred back to Columbus, Kansas, in March 1938, and was there placed at his regular duties. The evidence does not show that this last transfer was discriminatory. It thus appears that the respondent, in its efforts to "break up the union," transferred Orcutt from Picher to Columbus and to Aurora. By so doing, we find that the respondent discriminated with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of Orcutt and thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization. Or- cutt's acquiescence in the transfers does not mitigate the effect of the respondent's acts. We further find that by Rogers' continued inquiries into the affairs of the I. B. E. W. and Local No. 950, by his constant efforts to "break up the union," and by the respondent's transferring Or- cutt for that purpose, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. T. 7'. Alexander entered the respondent's employ in June 1933. At the time of the hearing he was employed as a line foreman. He joined the I. B. E. W. on April 10, 1937, at which time he was fore- man of a "hot-stick" 7 gang in Joplin, Missouri. On April 12 he was invited to dinner by his supervisor, Oscar Brown. Alexander's version of the conversation which then 'took place between him and Brown is, briefly, as follows: Brown said that he understood that a union organizational meeting had been held on April 10 and asked Alexander to explain. Alexander admitted having attended the meeting. Brown then exclaimed : "What in the hell is the matter with you fellows; what are you all turning against me for"? Alex- ander denied that they were turning against him and assured Brown of the loyalty of his men. Brown went oil: "... You sneak out and get lined up with this damned C. I. O. You should all be smart enough to stay out of it." Alexander informed Brown that the I. B. E. W. was not affiliated with the "C. I. 0." Brown then in- quired of Alexander as to who attended the meeting. Alexander refused to make any statement. Brown accused Alexander of try- ing to organize the "boys." Alexander denied any such activities. Brown then said, "Well, this thing came up about two years ago . . . I don't know but what I would have been a damn sight better off if I had fired you then." Brown went on to say that he was opposed to organized labor and that the respondent "wouldn't stand for organized labor." Brown, in testifying, admitted talking with Alexander about meeting of employees but denied knowing beforehand that the meet- ° A hot stick is a special tool used in working on high voltage lines. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing pertained to a labor union. Brown explained his interest as follows: .. . I was merely after the information as to what this meeting had been called for and what the boys were doing that I couldn't give them without them holding a meeting out some- where without my knowledge; that I thought I had always treated them all right, and if they were holding some kind of a meeting to try to get something, it wasn't necessary for them to do that; that they were always welcome to come in to see me at any time about anything that they wanted. Brown denied having accused the men of turning against him or having asked Alexander why he "lined up with this C. I. O. outfit." We accept Alexander's version of the conversation. As shown above in Section III, A, 2, Brown, together with Spracklen, engaged in surveillance of the I. B. E. W.'s meetings. Brown also was active in obtaining the resignation of I. B. E. W. members. Under the cir- cumstances, we are unable to credit Brown's denials or his account of his conversation with Alexander. On May 8, 1937, Brown informed Alexander that he was to be transferred to the Eastern Division under Supervisor Rogers. Alexander testified that he asked the reason for the transfer and was told by Brown : Well you got yourself in a hell of a mess here with this union . . . If you go up there, it will give you a chance to, get out of it, square yourself. Alexander testified that he asked Brown whether he thought that it was "the proper thing . . . to do" and when Brown said that he thought that it was "the place" for him, Alexander agreed to the transfer. Brown, in his testimony, denied telling Alexander that he was being transferred because of his getting "in a hell of a mess with the union." According to Brown, Supervisor Rogers was organizing a crew to do maintenance work in the Eastern Division and had re- quested Alexander's transfer to him because of his qualifications to handle high-voltage lines. Brown stated that Alexander seemed "rather glad to go." In view of our findings as to Brown's hostility to the I. B. E. W. and his knowledge of Alexander's activities there- in, we credit Alexander's testimony as to Brown's statement. The work in the Eastern Division to which Alexander was as- signed, herein called the Warsaw project,8 consisted of reconditioning the poles in a transmission line which runs between Springfield and 8It was so called by most of the witnesses. Warsaw , Missouri , out of which the crew worked part of the time , is located near the Spiingfield-Sedalia transmission line EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 619 Sedalia, Missouri. While it appears that the work on this project was necessary and required the services of at least one man skilled, as was Alexander, in handling "hot" or high-voltage lines, it is clear that Alexander was transferred there because of his union activities. Alexander worked on the Warsaw project until the end of 1937 when he was transferred to Webb City, Missouri, where he was placed in charge of maintenance and distribution. At the time of the hearing he was still at Webb City. We find that the respondent, by transferring Alexander to War- saw, discriminated with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment and thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization. We further find that, by transferring Alexander and by Brown's anti-union statements, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Clay Marshall did not testify at the hearing. He entered the re- spondent's employ on a temporary basis in January 1937 and joined the I. B. E. W. in April 1937. In May 1937 he was i ransferred from the Central Division to the Warsaw project to work under Alexander. According to Alexander, Marshall, whose family lived near the Warsaw project, had requested Alexander to have him transferred there. We find that the respondent did not discriminate in regard to the terms or conditions of Marshall's employment to discourage mem- bership in a labor organization. Mitchell Vaughan was first employed by the respondent on Feb- ruary 8, 1937, on a temporary basis, and was assigned to the Central Division to work under Foreman Lee Mills as a second-class lineman. He joined the I. B. E. W. on April 17, 1937. A few days later, Mills made the comment to Vaughan and other members of the crew that he thought that they "had done the wrong thing" by joining the I. B. E. W. On May 6 Supervisor Rogers of the Eastern Division, questioned Vaughan concerning his membership in the I. B. E. W. and disparaged attempts to organize the respondent's employees: About a week later Vaughan was told by Mills that he was being transferred to Warsaw to work with Marshall under Alexander. The respondent explains Vaughan's transfer to Warsaw as having been necessary to avoid laying him off. While the circumstances surrounding Vaughan's transfer are not free from doubt, from the evidence as a whole we do not find that his union membership was the cause thereof or that by,transferring Vaughan the respondent discriminated in regard to the terms or conditions of his employment to discourage membership in a labor organization. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, however, that by Mills' and Rogers' disparaging remarks concerning employees' organizing and the I. B. E. W., the respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Claude Biddlecome entered the respondent's employ in 1926. At the time of the hearing and for some years prior thereto he was em- ployed as a first-class lineman. He joined the I. B. E. W. in Sep- tember or October 1937, while working at Aurora, Missouri, under Foreman A. L. Provance and Supervisor Rogers. A day or two after Biddlecome had joined the I. B. E. W., Provance inquired of him as to whether he had. Biddlecome at first denied it but later admitted joining. Provance testified that after Biddlecome joined the I. B. E. W. he created a disturbance among the employees as a result of which the men were "squabbling" and quarreling about the "union" and that Provance decided to transfer Biddlecome away from the other employees. Rogers testified that Provance informed him of Biddle- come's joining the I. B. E. W. and of his becoming quarrelsome. According to Rogers, he told Biddlecome a transfer would be neces- sary and gave him his choice of places; Biddlecome agreed to work at any place but Picher, and Rogers transferred him to Warsaw where he worked under Alexander. Biddlecome testified that some time after he had joined the I. B. E. W., Rogers asked him whether he would "drop the union." When Biddlecome refused, Rogers said, "We are going to have to put you up on the creosote job [at Warsaw] then." In view of Rogers' activities in procuring Bicldlecome's resig- nation from the I. B. E. «T., as set out in Section III, A, 1, above, and his other activities with a view to getting employees to "drop the union," we credit Biclcllecome's version of his conversation with Rogers. Biddlecome was later transferred back to Aurora and when the Warsaw project, which was closed down at the end of 1937, was reopened in May 1938, Biddlecome was reassigned to it. At the time of the hearing he was still working there. He desires to be transferred back to Aurora, where his home and family are located. Prior to Biddlecome's last transfer to Warsaw and when told that it was the respondent's intention so to transfer him, he expressed some doubt as to whether he would accept the transfer. In talking about it with Provance, Biddlecome testified, he asked why a par- ticular employee who was junior to him in point of service was not sent to Warsaw, and Provance, in reply, pointed out that this em- ployee was a foreman and had "enough sense to stay in the clear." Provance neither explained nor denied making this statement. We credit Biddlecome's testimony and find that Provance in saying "stay in the clear" referred to avoiding participation in union activities. EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY . 621 From all the evidence, we find that the respondent, in transferring Biddlecome to the Warsaw project both in 1937 and in 1938, discrim- inated as to the terms and conditions of his employment because of his membership and activities in the I. B. E. W. and thereby discouraged membership in the I. B. E. W. and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Clyde Dilworth, started to work for the respondent in 1925. Early in 1937 Dilworth was regularly sent out to all parts of the respondent's system to check transformers and equipment bushings . In May 1937, soon after Dilworth joined the I. B. E. W., he was told by O. A. Pendle- ton, the respondent's transmission engineer, under whose supervision Dilworth worked, that the respondent was curtailing expenses and was not going to send Dilworth or any one else out of town any more. For a while thereafter Dilworth worked on bushing records, pre- paring a reference book. Between June 20 and 30, 1937, he was trans- ferred from Pendleton 's division to the Central Division under Super- visor Brown. After his transfer Dilworth was obliged to do general construction work and only occasionally was permitted to do electrical work, for which he was trained and qualified. Following his transfer, Dilworth received an increase in pay of $5 per month. Pendleton testified that in June 1937 his division was not busy and that because Supervisor Brown needed men to work on a substation which was under construction, Dilworth's transfer was arranged. Pendleton further testified that it was his intention to take Dilworth back into his division when work increased. Pendleton stated that he himself had clone manual work in constructing a substation subse- quent to Dilworth's transfer. Dilworth admitted that after his transfer most of the other men with whom he had formerly worked were also obliged to do construction work. From all the evidence we find that the respondent did not discrimina- torily transfer Clyde Dilworth to discourage membership in a labor organization. 2. The alleged discriminatory lay-offs The complaint alleges that four named employees were laid off out of seniority. We shall discuss their cases seriatim . Of the four factors considered by the respondent in laying off its men, seniority was con- sidered by it to be the least important.9 Mitchell Vaughan, while working at Warsaw subsequent to his trans- fer there,'° was laid off on August 20, 1937, by Foreman Alexander, under orders from Rogers , and was replaced by Biddlecome, a union 9According to Spracklen the other factors were ( 1) ability to get along with the pub- lic ; (2) quantity of work accomplished ; and (3 ) quality of work 10 Discussed above in Section III, B, 1 622° DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD member, who had considerable seniority over Vaughan. At the time it laid off Vaughan, the respondent also laid off at least three other employees. Vaughan testified that he had heard that there were two men in his division who had less seniority than he but who were retained by the respondent. The respondent's records demonstrate, however, that the two men named by Vaughan were senior to him in point of service. From all the evidence, we find that Vaughan was not discriminatorily laid off. Ned Barkley is alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily (1) laid off out of seniority, (2) discharged, and (3) refused employ- ment in the respondent's generating plant at Riverton, Kansas. Barkley first applied for work in January 1937, at the respondent's generating plant in Riverton. He was there given considerable en- couragement by George Irey, the superintendent, and E. J. Drewelow, the chief engineer, and told that permission to hire him would have to be obtained from the respondent's main office. Irey told Barkley not to refuse any work which might become available to him pending the respondent's approving the new position at Riverton. Barkley then applied for and obtained a job under Walter Picker- ing in the respondent's distribution department, starting work there on February 5, 1937, as a meter tester. In March Barkley received a letter from Drewelow, notifying him that his application for work at the Riverton plant had been approved. Barkley went to see Drewelow and Irey and told them that he had obtained other employ- ment with the respondent but that he would prefer to work at the Riverton plant. The evidence is in conflict as to the nature of Drewelow's reply, Barkley testifying that Drewelow said that he would try to arrange the transfer and Drewelow, himself, testify- ing that he urged Barkley to work hard at the job he had but gave him no encouragement concerning any immediate transfer. Since transfers from the distribution department to the generating plant were of unusual occurrence, we accept Drewelow's testimony in this regard. Barkley joined the I. B. E. W. on May 5, 1937, and took an active part in union affairs. Sometime in August, Pickering questioned Barkley about his union membership asking him whether he had joined because of dissatisfaction with his job. Near the end of August, Pickering informed Barkley that he was to be laid off be- cause the respondent was curtailing expenses, but that he would keep him on the pay roll for 10 days longer than Superintendent Spracklen had ordered. At the end of that time, Barkley was laid off. His place was taken by a man 3 years his senior in point of service. EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 623 Barkley admitted at the hearing that he was the youngest man doing his type of work to be laid off at that time but complained that four individuals in other departments were retained although having less seniority than he. One of these was a stenographer. Barkley admitted that he was not qualified to do such work. Another did drafting work. Barkley admitted having little drafting experience. Another operated a telephone switchboard, work at which Barkley admitted having had no practical experience. The last, an employee named Brown, did accounting and file work, which Barkley felt that he could do. Brown received less pay than Barkley and was himself laid off a few months later. It has already been pointed out that the respondent did not follow a strict policy of seniority in the matter of lay-offs. From all the evidence we find that Barkley was not dis- criminatorily laid off out of seniority or discharged. A few days after being laid off, Barkley went to the Riverton plant to inquire regarding the job for which he had previously applied. Ac- cording to Barkley, Irey told him that the job had not been filled. Irey testified, however, that the job had been filled in June 1937 and that he had so informed Barkley. The respondent's records show that a man was employed in June 1937 at the kind of work for which Barkley had previously applied. From all the evidence we find that the respondent did not dis- criminatorily refuse to employ Barkley at the Riverton plant. Fred Walters entered the respondent's employ in July 1935. He worked as a meter tester under Foreman Pickering. He joined the I. B. E. W. in May 1937 and was active therein to the extent, at least, of attending meetings when he was in town. Walters was laid off on October 30, 1937, at the same time that two other employees who do not appear to have been members of the I. B. E. W. were laid off. He complains that an employee, named Buchanan, who had less seniority, was retained in preference to him. The respondent admits that such was the case, explaining that Buchanan was held in high regard by Pickering at whose request Buchanan was put for a while at drafting work. The respondent laid off Buchanan in February 1938. From all the evidence we find that the respondent did not discrim- inatorily lay off Fred Walters. Jack Pritchard entered the respondent's employ early in February 1937. He worked part of the time on damaged lines but mostly on new construction work. He joined the I. B. E. W. in April 1937 and attended union meetings regularly. Pritchard was laid off August 13, 1937. He complains that Mitchell Vaughan and Clay Marshall were retained in preference to him al- though having less seniority than he. As stated above, Vaughan and Marshall were also members of the I. B. E. W., and they were them- 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD selves laid off a short time after Pritchard. We note also that while Pritchard had seniority over Vaughan by 1 week, Marshall had 3 weeks' seniority over Pritchard. From all the evidence we find that the respondent did not dis- criminatorily lay off Jack Pritchard. 3. The alleged discriminatory discharges B. D. Stevens, although named in the complaint, did not testify in his own behalf. He was employed by the respondent as a lineman at Picher, Oklahoma, under Foreman Wilson. Wilson laid him off in November 1935 as part of a general curtailment of personnel. Stevens was a charter member and president of Local No. 950. There is evidence that Wilson disliked him, telling the other members of Local No. 950 that they had made a poor choice in electing Stevens president. Wilson, in his testimony, spoke disparagingly of Stevens, accusing him of 'serious personal deficiencies. While it appears that Wilson harbored personal animosity towards Stevens, the evidence as a whole does not support a finding that Wilson laid off Stevens because of his union activities. We find, from all the evidence, that Stevens was not discriminatorily discharged. William S. Monson 1Y first worked for the respondent in August 1934. He was discharged by Foreman Wilson on December 31, 1936. Monson was a charter member of Local No. 950 and for a while acted as its recording secretary. Monson testified that after the organization of Local No. 950 Wilson was more difficult to work under and repeatedly spoke disparagingly of that organization. According to Monson, in December 1936 Wil- son told him that all he did was "just talk" and that Wilson was obliged to "let him go to dusty." Monson explained that Wilson meant thereby, "Just down the road, talking to myself, I guess." Monson further testified that Wilson told him that he had no coin- plaint concerning his work, aside from his talking, and that Wilson gave him his regular check and told him that after he had paid his bills, he, Wilson, would give him another check for 2 weeks in advance. Wilson testified that Monson's discharge was the consummation of it long series of difficulties with Monson ; that he had received numerous complaints from Monson's creditors; that he had been called repeatedly by Monson's wife "to quiet family disturbances at Monson's house"; that he had received complaints regarding Monson's conduct toward the public; and that Monson quarreled with other members of the crew. Wilson further testified that whenever he reproached u Incorrectly spelled in the complaint : "Munson." EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 625 Monson the latter retorted, "Well, now, listen, if you don't like my work, pay me." A few days before Monson's discharge Wilson stated that Gang Foreman Clanton complained to him of his inability to "get along with" Monson. Wilson then told Clanton that if Monson could not get along with the men the respondent would be obliged to "let him go." Soon thereafter, according to Wilson, he told Monson that he had had more trouble with him than with any other man who had ever worked under him and that he did not know what to do about it. Monson, according to Wilson, then said, "I will tell you what to do. Pay me." Wilson did. Monson admitted that Wilson had on one occasion volunteered to lend him money with which to pay a debt. He did not deny that his conduct toward the public had been the cause of complaints, and denied, but qualifiedly, Wilson's other charges against him. Monson testified that for a while he had acted as recording secretary of Local No. 950 and had otherwise been active in the Union. He did not state, however, when these activities had occurred. It appears, however, that such activities occurred a considerable time prior to his discharge. While the circumstances surrounding Monson's discharge are not free from doubt, from the evidence as a whole we do not find that Monson was discharged because of his membership or activities in Local No. 950. Herschel Taboi° started to work for the respondent in 1922 and was discharged on May 6, 1937. He joined the I. B. F. W. in April 1937 and shortly thereafter Supervisor Brown inquired of him regarding his membership therein. On the day of his discharge, Tabor was putting on cross arms at the top of a pole where there were 2,300-volt risers. He had forgotten to take with him his rubber gloves, which the respondent required its employees to wear when working on lines of such high voltage. He called to a fellow workman who was on the ground some distance away and asked him to bring his gloves. Foreman Mills shouted to Tabor to get his gloves himself. Tabor did not get them, but went about his work and handled the 2,300-volt risers without wearing rubber gloves. Mills called Tabor down off the pole and told him that he was discharged for his violation of the respondent's safety rules. Tabor had been severely reprimanded in March 1937 for working without rubber gloves. Tabor claimed that others had also violated the safety rules. It was shown, however, that several fatalities among the respondent's employees had resulted from .their working on high voltage lines and that the respondent had been attempting for a period of almost 2 years to compel its employees to observe the safety rules. From all the evidence we find that the respondent did not dis- criminatorily discharge Herschel Tabor. 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom . We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirm- ative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent, because of their union mem- bership and activities , has discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of Hugh Orcutt, T. T. Alexander, and Claude Biddlecome, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. We have found that Orcutt's transfer to Columbus, Kansas, where he was working at the time of the hearing, was not discriminatory. Orcutt desires to be transferred to Joplin, Missouri, although he admits not having worked there since 1931, which was prior to the start of his last term of employment with the respondent. We see no basis for ordering Orcutt's transfer to Joplin. Orcutt received the same salary after his transfers as prior thereto. Alexander, at the time of the hearing , was working for the respond- •ent at Webb City, Missouri, where he was in charge of maintenance and distribution. Alexander stated at the hearing that he did not consider his transfer to Webb City to have been discriminatory, but expressed a desire to be transferred back to the "hot-stick" gang in Joplin. Alexander had received $150 per month as foreman of the "hot-stick" gang in Joplin. The man who replaced him in Joplin was, at the time of the hearing, receiving $145 per month. Alexan- der at that time was receiving $160 per month. Alexander stated that he did not wish to be transferred back to Joplin either at the salary he received when formerly there or at the salary of his suc- cessor. Under such circumstances, we see no basis for ordering Alexander's transfer to Joplin. Biddlecome desires to be transferred back to Aurora where he was working before being transferred to the Warsaw project and where his home and family are located. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act we shall order the respondent to offer to Biddlecome imme- diate reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent posi- tion at Aurora, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 627 and privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make Biddle- come whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discriminatory transfer by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would have earned at Aurora from the date of his first transfer to Warsaw to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement to him to a position in Aurora, less his net earnings 12 during said period. Since we have found that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or con- dition of employment of Marshall, Vaughan, Dilworth, Barkley, Walters, Pritchard. Stevens, Monson, or Tabor, we shall dismiss the complaint as to them. We shall also order the complaint dismissed with respect to the allegation that the respondent conducted parties on the meeting nights of the I. B. E. W. for the purpose of inducing employees to stay away from such meetings. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95 is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 95, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 950, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, were labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of Hugh Orcutt, T. T. Alexander, and Claude Biddle- come, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) 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. 12 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by Biddlecome in connection with his working at Warsaw, away from his home in Aurora , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful transfer See Hatter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jouieis of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local t590, 8 N L. R B, 440 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, Empire District Electric Company, Joplin, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by transferring its employees to less desirable positions or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Claude Biddlecome immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position at Aurora, Missouri, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole the said Claude Biddlecome for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination in regard to the terms and conditions of his employment by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned at Aurora, Missouri , from the date of such discrimination to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement , less his net earn- ings 13 during said period; (c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in each of its plants and offices and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecu- tive days, notices to its employees stating ( 1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1 (a) and (b), and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union B-95, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization ; 13 See footnote 12, supra EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY 629 (d) 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Clay Marshall, Mitchell Vaughan, Clyde Dilworth, Ned Barkley, Fred Walters, Jack Pritchard, B. D. Stevens, William Monson, and Herschel Tabor. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, as amended, be, and it hereby is, dismissed with respect to the allegation contained therein that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by conducting certain parties for the purpose of inducing employees to stay away from union meetings. 293032-4J--vol 21- ----41