Entwistle Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of ENTWISTLE MANUFACTURING CoivrANY and TEx2II.E WORIi ERS UNION OF AMERICA Case -No. C-1416.-Decided May 22, 1940 Cotton Textile Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-Discrimina- tion: discharge of onq employee for union membership and activity-Reinstate4 ment Ordered-Back Pay: awarded ; from date of discharge until reinstatement. Mr. Samuel IT,. Spencer, for the Board. Mr. L. P. McLendon, of Greensboro, N. C., and Guthrie, Pierce & Blakency by Mr. 1V. S. Blakeney, of Charlotte, N. C., and Mr. Fred TV. Bynum, of Rockingham, N. C., for the respondent. Miss Charlotte Anschuetz, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEDIENT OF THE CASE Upon charges 1 and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint, dated July 31, 1939, against Entwistle Manufacturing Company, Rockingham, North Carolina, 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. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that on or about January 27, 1939, the respondent dis. charged and thereafter refused to reinstate S. W. Rainwater, an em- ployee, because he engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and that by the discharge and by other acts the respondent interfered with, 1 The charge was filed by Textile workers' Organizing Committee, to which Textile Work. ers Union of America is the successor. 23 N. L. R. B., No. 114. 1058 ENTWISTLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY- 1059 restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. In its answer duly filed with the, Board, the respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, with respect to its business but denied that its business affected com- rnerce within the meaning of the Act, denied the averments of unfair labor practices, and set forth a number of affirmative defenses. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 18 , 19, 21, and 22, 1939, at Rockingham , North Carolina, before Gustaf B. Erick- son, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties . At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved (1) to dismiss the portions of the complaint and, the amended charge referring to other acts by which the respondent' was alleged to have interfered with, restrained , and coerced its ein-, ployees in the exercise of their rights under the Act or (2) in they alternative , for a bill of particulars . The Trial Examiner denied the, above motion to dismiss but granted the motion for a bill of particu lars. Counsel for the Board made a statement in the nature of ,a'bill- of particulars alleging that two named supervisory employees had, made statements to employees designed ' to discourage their member., ship' in-the Union. The respondent then made a motion going ,to- the jurisdiction of the Board, upon which the Trial Examiner reserved' ruling and denied- in his Intermediate Report ' thereafter filed. A; motion filed by the respondent at the close of the hearing to dismiss, for failure of proof was'denied also iii the Intermediate Report. Dur- ing the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made tulings on' other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed these and the foregoing rulings of the Trim; Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.: . Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report dated Xovember 4, 1939, copies of which were duly served upon the respond- ent and the ' Union. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent' had engaged in and was engaging-in unfair labor practices affecting' commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section' 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He accordingly recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor, practices , that it reinstate Rainwater with back pay, and , that it post appropriate notices. '-On-December 4, 1939, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and -a, brief, and . recjuested oral argument. 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pursuant to notice, duly served on the respondent and the Union, oral argument was held on April 2, 1940, before the Board in Wash- ington, D. C. The respondent was represented by counsel and partici- pated in the argument. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, save as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order 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 North Carolina corporation, is engaged in manu- facturing cotton cloth. It operates 3 plants at Rockingham, North Carolina, numbered 1, 2, and 3 respectively, each being in close prox- imity to the others and to neighboring cotton mills. In plants Nos. 1 and 3 print cloths and sheeting, and in plant No. 2, colored goods are manufactured. The raw materials used in the manufacture of cloth are raw cotton, dyes, various chemicals, and sizing compounds. About 90 per cent of the raw cotton used by the respondent is shipped to its plants from points outside North Carolina, mainly from Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and "South' Cdrohna. The dyes and chemicals used by the respondent are manufactured by the Dupont Company and the' National Aniline Company of Char- lotte, North Carolina. During 1939, the respondent purchased for its 8 plants approximately 16,000 bales of cotton valued at about $800,000. Its finished products in 1938 were valued at approximately $1,250,000, and approximately 99 per cent of these finished products were shipped- to destinations outside the State of North Carolina. A total of approximately 1,200 men and women are employed by the respondent at its 3 plants. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated with- the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It is the successor to the Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, herein called the T. W. O. C., and admits to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The first collective activity at the respondent's plants which the record reveals occurred in 1932, when the plants were shut down for ENTWISTLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1061 approximately 8 weeks during a dispute over working conditions at the plants.2 In opposition to a group of the employees who became known as the "strikers," Robert C. Heyward, the superintendent of Plants Nos. 1 and 3, helped to organize the "Loyal Workers" whose sole aim was to "get the mill started up." The "Loyal Workers" received food supplies from the respondent through the company store. The "strikers" received assistance from outside sources, in- cluding the American Federation of Labor. The plants reopened and the employees returned, to work after appeals "to cooperate" and "to forget the union" by Governor Mrd'ner of North Carolina and- after promises by Heyward to be absolutely impartial to the oppos- ing groups of workers. After the return to work, dissention did not cease, and each group claimed that it was the object of discrimina- tion. Finally five families of strikers were given notice to move, and some of these had to be evicted. Thereafter all attempts at union activity ceased. The 'next attempt at union organization was an open-air meeting in 1934, held for the purpose of electing officers to a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. No activity followed the meeting and this attempt to organize the employees subsided. 'In; the "fall of 1938 'the T. W. 0. C. started to organize all the cotton, mills in Rockingham. A number of the respondent's em- ployees joined in the following weeks, but kept their actions secret. In the second week of January 1939, an organizer, Homer Welch, was assigned to the district, and on April 15, 1939, a local charter was granted to those workers in the Rockingham area who had joined the T. W. 0. C. B. The discharge of Rainwater Rainwater's employment in the respondent's plant began in 1933 when he was hired as a weaver. About 4 years later he was pro- ., mooted -to "smash , hand," and as such had charge of "breakouts" on the 540 looms in the weaving room to which he was assigned. Rainwater testified that he joined the Union on August 20, 1938, when it was first organizing. He attended a number of meetings, but was not acquainted with all the members who joined during the fall. He was active in trying to get new members . About a week or two before the discharge, at an open union meeting in the house of one of the members , he was elected to the union "steering com- mittee." This committee consisted of six or seven individuals, each of whom represented a different mill, and its purpose was to lead a 2It is not necessary for the purposes of this proceeding to determine whether the shut- down was a lock-out or the result of a strike. 283034-41-vol. 23---68 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD membership campaign in each mill. Rainwater procured seven or, eight memberships among his fellow workers and discussed the union, with others whom he mentioned by name. In an effort to refute Rainwater's testimony regarding his union membership and activity the respondent called as witnesses approxi-, mately 20 individuals who testified that they were either kin, close friends, or fellow workers of Rainwater's, and that they had no knowledge of Rainwater's union membership or activity before his, discharge. It also called Clarence Taylor who testified that he had joined the Union in September 1938 and was never aware that Rain- water was also a union member. On the other hand, Rainwater's testimony to the effect that he was a member of the steering committee: of the union was corroborated by Clyde Ramey and Edward William-, son, two employees of another mill who were also members of the steering committee. Moreover, one of the respondent's witnesses tes- tified that he saw the car of the union organizer, WTelch, parked in front of Rainwater's house some time before the day of the discharge, and that he had seen Rainwater with Welch. In view of Rainwater's; positive testimony regarding his union membership and activity and its corroboration by these witnesses we do not consider the testimony of the respondent's witnesses to the effect that they had no knowledge of Rainwater's union membership contradictory of his testimony. On January 27, 1939, H. G. Bunn, the overseer of the weaving room iii which Rainwater worked, told him that he had bad news, that it was necessary to discharge him. Rainwater immediately protested that the reason therefor was his union activity. Bunn denied this, asserting merely that the only reason for the discharge was "to take care of a more destitute family." 11 On February 7, 1939, a few days after Rainwater's discharge, Bunn was approached by the two employees from another mill mentioned a I bove,' Williamson and Ramey. Williamson was seeking to procure a' position as weaver for his brother,and not knowing 'Bunn, he took. Ramey with him to point him chit. ' After they arrived at the cloth room, Ramey indicated Bunn's identity, and then stood off to one side' while Bunn talked to Williamson. When' they were finished, Ramey, turned to Bunn and the following conversation took place : RAMEY. Kind of bad about Rainwater; looks as if hard luck came; upon him all at. one time., , BUNN. How. was that? . RAMEY. He lost his job one week and his grandfather, the next.' BUNN. I didn't know that was his grandfather; I thoughtthat was his father. If Rainwater had stayed out of the union he wpuld have been -working today. ENTWISTLE NFANuFACTuRING • COMPANY 1063 With this,, the two men left the room. Both Ramey' and Williamson testified that this was the conversation as it occurred; Bunn admitted- all 'of it, except the final statement. The respondent claims that the. truth of Bunn's, testimony, concerning his alleged statement is sub- stantiated by the testimony of T. C: Howard, cloth-room overseer and son of the, superintendent. The latter testified that he was present in the room when the conversation between Ramey, Bunn, and Wil-, li£tmson took place; that although-he was not within hearing, distance, being from 20 to 25 feet away, he interpreted the 'remarks of Bunn by what he saw. He testified that after the conversation between Bunn and Williamson, "Mr. Ramey just passed by and spoke a word, to Mr. Bunn, just kind of` nodded,"acid they went on out" and in return Bttnn "didn't speak enough to speak a sentence." Upon-cross- examination Howard admitted, that he could not swear that nothing whatever was said about Rainwater, but he declared that Bunn did not utter sufficient words to say what he was alleged to -have said. He, in$isted that "if he (Burin) ,said much about it in that length of time he was talking, he had to talk pretty fast." Heyward's testimony that Ramey "spoke a word" and "just kind of nodded" indicates that, he, did not, see Ramey rriake the statements which even Bunn admits were made. We find as did the Trial Examiner, that Bunn made the` statement attributed to him. The respondent contends that the -discharge of Rainwater was due to' the necessity-of discharging one employee and that he was, selected, because of his family status, efficiency, ability, and conduct., Tie necessity for a discharge, the, respondent claimed, arose out of the' rehiring of Ed Freeman; -a ' former employee, who had been dis-, charged for drunkenness. The respondent's officials testified that, Freeman had been rehired because of'their,sympathy for Freeman's wife and-child; that for G-weeks(he had replaced ' an oiler , Albert Ray, while be -was ill; that, Ray 's',return caused an-oversupply of labor' at, the plant; and that 'Heyward, the superintendent, chose Rainwater as the employee to be eliminated. Heyward testified that he; made, this decision only after thinking about it for 3 days, and after carefully considering, with Bunn, each employee on the second- shift, pay roll. Rainwater's place was taken by. Wilson Davidson who heretofore had, tied warps in the basement, and Davidson's. work was assumed by Freeman. Since the respondent contended that 'the factors considered which resulted in the selection of Rainwater as the employee to be, elimi-' nated from its employment consisted of family status, efficiency, ability, and conduct, it is necessary to examine Rainwater's status in. the light of such-factors. 1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "Family status" was alleged to be the main consideration . By this was meant, first, the extent of the employee's family and home re- sponsibility, and second,-the number of persons per family working for the respondent. Heyward based his decision on his personal knowledge of his employees, testifying that he knew every person in the mill and his home situation . He insisted, however, that he did not know that Rainwater lived with and helped to support a widowed aunt, an aged grandfather, and a blind cousin. He intimated that if he had known of Rainwater 's obligations, he would have treated Rainwater differently. Evidence in the record clearly refutes 'Hey- ward's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge of Rainwater's family responsibilities. The blind cousin spent part of his time around the company store, and Heyward admitted that he had often seen him but denied that he had known who he was. Yet Heyward's house was situated immediately behind Rainwater's; both had lived there for many years and Rainwater had often led the blind boy around the back yard which was in clear view of Heyward 's front porch. Heyward also admitted that his brother-in-law lived next door to Rainwater until the time of his discharge and that he (Heyward ) often visited there. When asked about his lack of knowledge of Rainwater's. home life , in view , of the fact that this was alleged to be the main reason for his discharge, Heyward said : "There was no occasion to investigate his condition . . . because he was single and apparently without responsibility ." Under these circum- stances it is inconceivable that Heyward had no knowledge of Rain- water's family responsibilities . We find that Heyward had knowl- edge of Rainwater's family responsibilities at the time he selected him to be laid off. The evidence discloses that there were at least 15 persons on the pay-roll list which Heyward and Bunn consulted who were un- married on January 27, 1939. A number of these had no family responsibilities and no relatives working for- the respondent. Hey- ward, when asked , whether he had' :considered specific unmarried persons, could not remember making any investigation , nor could he give any reason why they and not Rainwater were retained. His only response was: "Well, I had them in mind. They had been working some time." When questioned further whether they had worked longer than Rainwater , he testified that he did not know. We find that Heyward, despite his allegations, did not consider the "family status" of his unmarried employees in making his decision. Rainwater's eiliciency was not directly attacked by the respondent's witnesses. The only evidence on this point is that excessive talking during certain periods of his employment diminished his production. ENTWISTLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1065 Most of these conversations were with a woman employee who had left the respondent's employ at some unspecified time in the past. In regard to this talking, however, Judson Brown, the second hand in the weaving department, testified that Rainwater refrained there- from immediately after being reprimanded. Concerning his ability, Heyward stated that Rainwater showed no inclination to better him- self and advance to a higher position and that he felt that this made Rainwater an undesirable employee. On the other hand, in a rec- ommendation given Rainwater after the discharge in which Heyward concurred, Bunn stated that he was a "good smash hand and a fair weaver" and confirmed this opinion on cross-examination. Bunn claimed, however, that Davidson who replaced Rainwater was a faster and better worker and that this justified the discharge. Other witnesses who had observed the work of both Davidson and Rain- water denied that the former was a more efficient worker. We find that the evidence does not show that Rainwater was lacking in ability or efficiency as compared with his fellow workers, or that his conduct rendered him open to criticism at the time of the discharge. Finally we are not satisfied with the respondent's assertion that it was necessary to discharge someone to make room for Freeman. Four days after the discharge, an employee named Marion Dutton was rehired after an absence of several months. Heyward at first insisted that Dutton had been taken back before Rainwater's dis- charge, but when asked to check his employment data he admitted that he had been rehired on January 31, 1939. Dutton was assigned to "spare weaving." A few days later one of the weavers, Clarence Lambert, left, and his looms were turned over to Dutton. Heyward admitted that it was not necessary to discharge anyone to make room for Dutton. He first claimed that Dutton was specifically hired to take "the set of looms that this fellow Lambert quit on" but later as- serted that Lambert did not leave until several days after Dutton returned. Three weeks later, on February 21, 1939, another man was hired, one Harry Rivers, an unmarried man who, like Freeman, had been discharged at a previous time for drunkenness. The respondent gave no explanation for its failure to offer Rainwater either the. "spare weaving" job, or Rivers' job as oiler. With respect to the job of weaver which was open when Lambert resigned, Heyward first testified that "Mr. Lambert was running a set of looms that Mr. Rain- water could not possibly run." Later, however, upon cross-examina- tion, he asserted that he would have given Rainwater an opportunity to run the looms "if he had asked it." We find that the reasons assigned by the respondent for Rain- water's discharge find no support in the record. In defense of its position that it did not discriminatorily discharge Rainwater,Pthe-respondent colntendedsthat: it had°no-•knowledge,of- Rain- 1066 DECISIONS Ok NATIONAL, UABOR..- RELATIONS -BOARD water's membership or activity in behalf of the Union. Four super- visory employees, including Bunn and ' Heyward, testified that they knew nothing whatsoever concerning Rainwater's union membership or activity before the discharge. Heyward wrote on the recommenda- tion which he gave Rainwater after'the discharge, "So far as I know he does not belong to a Labor Union." Furth6rmore, the respondent claims that the fact that it offered Rainwater a temporary weaving job on the third shift in early March, 1939, shows that it was not motivated by an anti-union feeling in his "lay off" in January. We find that since a charge had already been filed with the Board, the offer of the job was of no imports Although Rainwater found it expedient to keep his union activity inconspicuous, the statement by Bunli to Ramey after Rainwater's discharge to the effect that "If Rainwater had stayed out of the union he would have been working today" clearly indicate knowledge on the part of the respondent regarding his union member- ship and activity. Moreover, the respondent's supervisory employees admitted that they were aware that union organization had been taking place. Rainwater had been seen in the company of the union organizer, and the latter's car had been seen parked in front of Rainwater's house. We are of the opinion that the respondent was interested in and was well aware of the union activity of its employees. Upon cross-examina- tion W. H. Entwistle, the general manager, was asked how he happened to know that one Jones was a union member. He answered, "Well, we hear lots of things they (the employees) never tell us." We are Satisfied, in the light of all the evidence, that the respondent had knowl- edge of Rainwater's union activities. The explanation for Rainwater's discharge, we believe, lies in the respondent's hostility to the union organization of its employees. The respondent acknowledged its interest in the union activity of its employees. Indeed, the application forms for employment with the respondent provided a space for indicating the union affiliation of 'prospective employees.4 Moreover it is apparent that the respondent did not successfully conceal its anti-union animus. We have noted that 'Rainwater attempted-to be secretive in conducting- his activities-on behalf of the union and we have 'noted above Bunn's statement to Ramey after the discharge. Several employees testified that there was "general talk" around the mill even before the discharge that the tenure of union members was uncertain. Their testimony finds support in the statement of I. B. Smith, a witness called by the respondent, that as soon as he learned that Rainwater was connected with the Union, he was reluctant to visit Rainwater's grandfather (who lived Rainwater refused to accept this employment because it was temporary. Entwistle, the General manager, claimed that this portion of the form was not required to he filled ' out. Ills own superNisory employees, however, whcm he claimed he had ad- vised to disregard the question of union affiliation , testified that they understood they were to obtain complete answers to all questions on the application form, and always did so. ENTWISTLE- 1VIANiT 'ACTURING =COMPANY 1067 with Rainwater) for fear that his sons' (who were non-union) might "accidentally" be discharged "if something might be told that th ^,y were members." The respondent contends that it had issued instruc- tions to all supervisory employees to maintain absolute neutrality on the subject of unions, and it claims to have employed and retained many who are union members or who had actively engaged in strikes at other mills. It called nine employees to testify that they had heard supervisory employees state that union membership and activity had no effect upon employment. We do not believe that the testimony of these witnesses establishes the absence of the respondent's hostility to the union.5 We find that the respondent was antagonistic to the union organization of its employees and that it discharged Rainwater in order to curb the efforts of the Union to obtain members. Upon all the evidence we find that the respondent discharged Simon W. Rainwater on January 27, 1939, because of his union mem- bership and activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to hire and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in a labor organization. We further find that by such acts the respond- ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights, guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Up to the time of his discharge, Rainwater's average weekly wage was $14.00. He was offered a job at Steele's Mill shortly after his discharge, but he refused to accept it because the mill was 3 or 4 miles away and he had no means of transportation, and further because of the illness of his grandfather. He received no work between the time of his discharge and the hearing. Rainwater indicated his desire for reinstatement. C. Other acts of alleged interference, restraint, and coercion In his statement in the nature of a bill of particulars made at the opening of the hearing, counsel for the Board alleged that during the ,month of February 1939, Bell, a foreman, made certain derogatory statements to the effect that the respondent would not employ union ,members or persons who had union inclinations. The Trial Exam- iner found that the evidence was insufficient to support this allega- tion, and the Union took no exception to this finding. We have r Upon aralysis , the record reveals that of the nine employees who testified , two were never union members ; three had dropped their union actin ity ; two had joined the union only since the tiling of the charge against the respondent , and had heard the "hands-off" Statements since then ; one belon3ed to a railroad union and had returned to the employ of the railroad ; and one witness was not , asked his present union affiliation Of six men who were mentioned as being "employed and retained" although members of the Union, the one returned to railroad cmplo^ ment as stated above , one had resigned from the Union, and the other four had joined the Union only since the filing of the charge . The men employed after the strike at their former mill had all terminated their union affiliation as far as the record'shous. . 1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reviewed the evidence as to these statements and we concur in the Trial Examiner's findings as to them. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial re- lation 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. THE REMEDY Since the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent discriminatorily terminated the employment of Simon W. Rainwater because of his union activi- ties. We shall therefore order the respondent to offer Rainwater full and immediate reinstatement to his former or to a substantially equivalent position. We shall further order the respondent to make Rainwater whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that Which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date reinstatement is offered to him, less his net earnings during said periocl.° Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America 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 employment of Simon W. Rainwater, thereby discouraging membership in Tex- tile Workers Union of America the respondent has engaged in and is "Ty "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such aq for transportation, room, and boaid, incurred by an employee in connection isith obtaining work and working else- wheic than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, Lumber and Sawmill lVor/ers Union, Local 1500, 8 N. L. It. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State county, municipal, or other work-relief projects are not considered as earnings, but as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief proiects; Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel 111orlcers Organizing Committee, 0 N. L. It. B 219, enf'd as modified as to other issues, "Rep'ublio•Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 107 F. (2d) 472 (C. C. A. 3). ENTWISTLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1069 engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 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, Entwistle Manufacturing Company, and its officers, agents, 'successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, or any other labor organization of its employees, by laying off or discharging any of its employees because of membership in, or activity in connection with, Textile Workers Union of America, or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or 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 Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Simon W. Rainwater full and immediate reinstatement ,.to his former or, substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed; (b) Make whole said Simon W. Rainwater for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages,from the date of his discharge to the date reinstate- ment is offered to him, less his net earnings 7 during said period; provided, however, that the respondent shall deduct from the amount otherwise due him monies received by him during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work- I 7 See footnote 8, supra. 1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appro- priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work- relief projects; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plants, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from .the date of the posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America and the respondent will not discriminate against any em- ployees because of membership or activity in that organization; . (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what, steps `tlie respondent has taken to comply herewith.