West Kentucky Coal Co.

In the Matter Of WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AssociATION, LOCAL No..1549 Cases Nos. C-148 and R-1389.-Decided June 91, 1940 Coal Mining • and Distribn.tin•g- Industry-Laterference , Restraint and Coer- cion: attempts . by Company officials to induce employees who were members of a union to renounce membership in that organization and to become members of a union advocated by the Company ; speeches by Company official and the granting of a voluntary pay increase for that purpose ; introduction of a repre- sentative of the Company favored organization for purposes of solicitation- Discrimination: charges of, dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collective. Bar- gaivnvng: employees of the Company at Memphis , Tennessee , excluding truck drivers , supervisors, clerical and office employees, but. specifically including watchmen , chutemen, pump tenders, firemen, deck hands, and laborers ; geo- graphical isolation and functional coherence of ; desires of established organiza- tion among employees as determinative of-Representatives : proof of choice; finding in Intermediate Report as to union's majority in unit not excepted to; no dispute as to-Collective Bargaining : failure by -employer to consider request for ; employer ordered to bargain with union-Company Dominated Union: . held unnecessary to 'consider allegations in complaint as to in view of Board's prior determination of issue in regard to union named , in. the complaint , wherein the Board ordered disestablishment of that organization-Investigation of Rep- resentatives : petition for, dismissed in view of -order to bargain. Mr. Marion Prowell, for the Board. Mr. James G. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky., for the respondent. Mr. Charles G. Franklin, of Madisonville, Ky., for E. M. B. A. Mr. Bonnell Phillips, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 28, 1938, International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1549, herein called the Union, filed charges and on January '28, 1939, filed amended charges with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), alleging that West Kentucky Coal Com= pany,l Sturgis; Kentucky, herein called the respondent, had engaged i Designated in many of the formal papers herein as West Kentucky Coal Company, Inc. A motion to conform them to the correct corporate name was granted at the hearing without objection. 24 N. L. R. B., No. 91. ' 863 864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On February 20, 1939, the Union filed with the Regional Director a petition alleging that a question affect- ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees at the respondent's Memphis, Tennessee, plant, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.? On March 13, 1939, the Union duly filed second amended charges of unfair labor practices. On April 5, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section9 (c) of the Act and Article III,. Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation in the representation case and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the repre- sentation proceeding _ and the proceeding initiated by the filing of unfair labor practice charges be consolidated for the purpose of hearing. Thereafter, upon the second amended charges, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint, dated May 1939, against 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), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the petition, the Board' s order of consolidation and direction of investigation and hearing, and notices of hearing on the complaint and the petition were duly served upon the respondent, the Union, and the Employees' Mutual Benefit Association, herein called the E. M. B. A. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged .in substance: (1) that the respondent, prior to February 1938, and at all times thereafter, fostered, aided, encouraged, and dominated the E. M. B. A.; (2) that the respondent during the month of Feb- ruary 1938, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees of the respondent in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining, although the Union became, (luring the month of December 1937, and has at all times thereafter remained the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in such unit; (3) that the respondent, on or about May 12, 1939, discharged William Coleman, and on or about August 9, 1939, discharged James Allen, and has since refused 2 On March 9, 1940, the respondent filed an answer to the petition , controverting certain allegations in the petition. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 865 to employ their because . they joined and assisted the Union; and (4) that by these acts, by advising, urging, and warning its employees not to join or assist the Union , by soliciting and urging its employees to join the E. M. B. A., and by other acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained, And , coerced its employees in the exercise of "rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On May 10, 1939, the respondent filed its answer , iin substance denying that it had engaged ' in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices . On May 17, 1939, the E. M. B. A. filed a motion with the Regional Director to intervene in the proceedings. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 22 and 23, 1939, at Memphis, Tennessee, before Joseph F. Kiernan, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Board . At the commencement of the hearing the Trial' Erainiiner granted the motion to intervene pre- viously filed by the E. A B. A. Thereafter the E. Al. B. A. filed an answer, in substance denying the allegations of the complaint that the E. M. B. A. was fostered, aided, encouraged , or dominated by the respondent, amid alleging affirmatively that since September 1995, the E. M: B. A. had functioned as a bona fide labor organization repre- senting a large majority of the respondent's employees . The Board, the respondent , and the E. M. B. A. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex- arnine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence was af- forded all parties . At the close of the hearing , counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to conform to the proof . The motion was granted. During" the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner ruled on other 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 Armed. On February 1, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, finding that the respondent had. engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner recom- mended that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor. practices,, and,, affirmatively, upon request bar- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its longshoremen employees at Memphis, Tennessee, and withdraw all recognition from and completely disestablish Employees' Mutual Benefit Association as representative of its employees. The Trial Examiner further. found that the evidence did not support the allega- tions in the complaint that the respondent discharged James Allen or William Coleman in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the re- spondent withdraw recognition from and disestablish. Employees' Mutual Benefit Association as representative of its employees, the Board considered the relationship existing between this organization and the respondent in Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 23,3 in which it found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the administration of said Employees' Mutual Benefit Association and contributed sup- port thereto. The Board, having found that the respondent thereby engaged in an • unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, ordered the respondent to withdraw recognition from and disestablish Employees' Mutual Benefit Association as rep- resentative of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. At the present writing the Board is seeking enforcement of its order in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Under these circumstances, a consideration of this issue in the present proceedings is unnecessary and, accordingly, we shall make no find- ings of fact or conclusions of law herein, based upon the allegation in the complaint that the respondent has engaged in an.unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. After the hearing and again. after issuance of the Intermediate Report the respondent filed briefs with the Board. On February 9, 1940, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Thereafter, on April 25, 1940, pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held in. Washington, D. C., forAhe. purposes of oral argument. Only the respondent appeared. It was repre- sented by counsel and, presented oral argument. The Board has con- sidered the briefs filed by the respondent and the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far, as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions of law, 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 I. THE. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, a New Jersey corporation with its principal office at Sturgis, Kentucky, owns and operates eight or more coal mines in the State of Kentucky. During the year 1937, and for a number of years prior thereto, approximately 59 per cent of the, coal produced by the respondent in its aforesaid mines was shipped to points outside the State of Kentucky, either.by railroad or by some 70 barges owned and operated by. the respondent. Shipments by barge amount to between ` 3 10 N. L. R. B. 88. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 867 6,000 and 12,000 tons of coal monthly, and are made from a point, near Caseyville, Kentucky, to various discharging and distributing points along the Ohio and- Mississippi Rivers, among them Rosi- clare, Illinois;' St. Louis, Missouri; Paducah, Kentucky; 4 Memphis, Tennessee; and Greenville, Mississippi. This proceeding ' is con- cerned only with the respondent's operations at and near Memphis. At Memphis the respondent owns and operates a coal distributing yard. Opposite Memphis, on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi River, the respondent moors a fleet of vessels, consisting of a house or shanty boat, a pump boat, and some 6 to 12 coal barges. Loaded coal barges, as they are brought down the river, are tied up at the Arkan= sas moorings and are later transferred to the Memphis water front by one of the two tugs stationed and operated by the respondent at this point. The coal is then unloaded by means of a digger and placed in a chute which conveys it, to the respondent's coal yard. From there coal is delivered to consumers by truck. Over 5,000 tons of coal a year are thus handled at Memphis. ' The respondent, in all its operations, employs over 2,400 persons. At Memphis the respond- ent has approximately 50 employees. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1549, is a labor organization. affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership firemen, deck hands, chutemen, crane operators, hoisters; pump tenders, coal workers, and watchmen. Employees' Mutual Benefit Association is an unaffiliated labor. or- ganization admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. ' THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The sequence of events On or about December 31, 1937, the Union received its charter from the International Longshoremen's Association, granted specifically to firemen, deck hands, chutemen, crane operators, hoisters, hop ten- ders, coal workers, and watchmen. At this time 17 of the 18 men employed by the respondent at Memphis who were eligible to mem- bership within the above classification became charter members of the Union. , On or about February 17, 1938, William Coleman and Thomas Watkinz, president and business manager of the Union, respectively, submitted a proposed contract containing provisions as to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment to the respond- 'At Paducah the respondent also maintains a barge plant where it engages. in the.con- struction ' and repair of its coal barges. 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent's Memphis manager, E. A. Jeffords. Jeffords in reply informed the onion representatives that he lacked authority to enter into col- lective bargaining negotiations with the Union, but that he would forward the proposals to his superior officers. The proposed contract was thereafter sent to R. E. Vennum in Paducah, Kentucky. - Approximately 2 weeks after the proposed contract had been sub- mitted, Vennum, the respondent's transportation manager, came to Memphis "to advise the men regarding everything in connection with" collective bargaining. On this occasion, and again at a later' date, Vennum conferred with various groups of union members, informing them iii effect that they were free to join any labor organization they preferred, but that a majority of the respondent's employees held membership in the E. M. B. A., and that "if any bargaining 'Was to be done, I felt that the Association (E. M. B. A.) would necessarily be the bargaining agency, because they had a majority of the men." Ven- num then proceeded to outline some of the benefits that the E. M. B. A. conferred upon its members, stating, in substance, "that when you get old the E: M. B. A. will pension you and will do more for you than any other union there is, and the company [respondent] will recognize it more than any other union." Several of the em- ployees testified that they had not been aware of the existence of the E. M. B. A. prior to Vennum's first speech on the subject of collective bargaining, and that they had informed him at the con- clusion of his remarks that they did not wish to join that organi- zation. Upon learning of their decision Vennum stated : "Everybody gets a raise from today on of 75 cents a day." . The foregoing narra- tion of events is, in substance, undenied, and it is admitted that the employees to whom Vennum addressed his speech received imme- diately thereafter a wage increase of 75 cents a day. Vennum testi- fied that this raise was not, however, confined solely to Memphis employees, but was also extended to the respondent's employees at Paducah and Caseyville. On the day that the increase in pay became effective, Jeffords appeared on a tug operated by union members and introduced one Wilcox, the secretary of the E. M. B. A., who said that he had "come down to write you boys up in the E. M. B. A.; that the company would recognize only the E. M. B. A."; and that that organization "would pay the men more money and would do more for them than any other Union." Other than making the above-described endeavors to enroll' the union members in the E. M. B. A., the respondent made no reply to the Union's. attempt to institute collective bargaining. Having received no response from the proposed contract which had been submitted in February 1938, the Union claimed to have uiian imously approved and to have submitted, through Watkinz, a second. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 869'' proposed contract in June or July 1938. Jeffords, to whom the con tract was alleged to have been submitted, denied ever having received such a docliinent. B. The refusal to bargain collectively 1. The appropriate unit A description of the respondent's operations at Memphis is given in Section I above. The employees Who perform these operations: may be divided into three groups: (1) longshoremen, that is, those employees who handle and unload barges,5 serve on .the respondent's tugs, perform unskilled manual labor, and assist in the control of' machinery used to transfer coal from the barges to the "respondent's coalyard; (2) truck drivers; and (3) clerical and office employees.. The complaint alleges that the employees of the respondent at Memphis, Tennessee, excluding truck drivers, supervisors, clerical and. office employees, but specifically including watchmen, chutemen, pump tenders, firemen, deck hands, and laborers; constitute an appropriate unit for. the purposes of collective bargaining. This definition corre- sponds in substance with the membership limitations of the Union,. and includes those employees characterized above as, and herein col- lectively called, longshoremen. The respondent contends that the longshoremen. at Memphis do not constitute an appropriate unit, urging in its brief and at oral argu- ment that the employees in its entire transportation department,, which would include employees of this type at other distribution. points, together with those at Memphis, and also some 65 or more, employees who operate the three steamboats used by the respondent in towing its coal barges, constitute a unit appropriate for collective, bargaining purposes. The record does not show, however, that any attempt at self-organi- zation has been made on this basis. On the other hand, as found below, the respondent's Memphis longshoremen have indicated their free choice as to the appropriate unit by endeavoring to obtain the benefits of collective bargaining through majority membership in the Union. As far as the record reveals, the longshoremen at Memphis, have little or no contact with similar employees at other distribution points, and thus constitute, in our opinion, a geographical entity suitable for purposes of collective bargaining.6 We find, moreover,. Included in this category ' are watchmen whose duties, besides guarding the respondent's. fleet , include "sparring out" the vessels in the fleet and keeping them pumped free of bilge water. e See Matter of American Radiator Company and APii.algamated Association of Iron, Steel; t Tin Workers Lodges, 1199 and 1629, 7 N. L. R. B. 452. 283035=42-vol. 24-56 870 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from certain contracts submitted in evidence, that units of workers engaged in labor similar to that performed by the respondent's Memphis longshoremen have organized on a similar geographical basis and have successfully achieved recognition from other employers at Memphis.7 . We find that the employees of the respondent at Memphis, Ten- nessee, excluding truck drivers, supervisors, clerical and office em- ployees,' but specifically including watchmen, chutemen, pump tenders, firemen, deck hands, and laborers, at all times material herein constituted. and they now constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment, .and that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-.organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effec- tuates the policies of the Act. - 2. Representation by the Union,of a majority in the appropriate unit Watkinz, the Union's business manager, and Bovan, the Union's secretary, both testified without denial. that the Union represented 17 of the 18 employees in the. appropriate unit on or about January 1, 1938.0 The names of these members were given in their testimony. An examination of the respondent's pay roll of February 17, 1940, the date upon which Coleman and Watkinz submitted the proposed contract to.Jeffords, reveals that 16 employees were in the appropriate unit on that *'date and that the names of 15 of them correspond to those given by Watkinz and Bovan. The pay roll of the respondent for the period ending February 16, 1939, was also introduced in evidence, as were lists prepared by the secretary of the Union of clues-paying members of the Union for January and February 1939. Upon comp'trison, we find that the Union on February 16, 1939, represented 11 of the 16 or 1710 em- ployees in the appropriate unit at that time. 'Local No. 1506 of the International Longshoremen 's Association has signed bargaining contracts with the Southern Transfer Company , at Memphis, and. with the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (covering longshoremen at its Memphis plant). Local No. 1400 has a similar contract with The Federal Barge Lines, at Memphis. 8 The respondent' s Memphis employees above excluded obviously perform . work different in nature from the respondent 's longshoremen , and are not eligible to membership in the Union. 'While there was no documentary evidence introduced at the hearing to support this testimony, the respondent did not question this fact, but stated , at oral argument, that "according to the evidence , they [respondent's Memphis longshoremen ] all joined the Union, with the exception of one man." In explanation . of the lack of documentary evidence, it was testified that the Union's records had been destroyed by fire, and that • Bovan's copies of the minutes of the Union 's meetings had been lost. 10 we are unable to determine the status of west Weeden , who was classified by Jeffords both as a deck hand on the digger and as a truck driver. . WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 871 We_find.that on February 17, 1938, and at all times thereafter, ,the Union .was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit and that by virtue-of Section 9 (a) of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining." 3. The refusal to bargain collectively As before 'stated, the Union submitted a proposed contract contain- ing provisions in respect to wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, to Jeffords on or about February 17, 1933. Jeffords forwarded this contract to Vennum, and there is evidence in the record to show that Vennum subsequently discussed the proposed contract with C. F. Richardson, the respondent's president. No effort to bargain with the. Union or even to determine the Union's status as the majority . representative of the respondent's Memphis ' long- shoremen was thereafter made. The Union claims to- have submitted a second proposed contract. to Jeffords in June or July 1938. Jeffords denies having received this contract. In view of the clear request for collective bargaining im- plicit in the submission of the first contract, we think it unnecessary to resolve this conflict. The respondent contends that the first contract was unsigned and that consequently the authority..of Watkinz or Coleman to represent any group of its employees was not shown. Watkinz's testimony was undenied, however, that he had informed Jeffords that he was business manager, and Coleman president, of the Union at the time the contract was submitted. It is, moreover, clear that Vennum, in his speeches to the respondent's longshoremen as set forth above, recognized that these proposals had emanated from them as members of the Union.13 ' We find that the respondent, having received a request from the Union for collective bargaining inrrespect to wages, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment on or about February 17, 1938, thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. C; Interference, restraint, and coercion We find that the speeches of Vennum, delivered after the Union's attempt to bargain collectively on February 17, 1938; the introduction "A similar finding was made by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. The respondent excepted to,this-finding only on the ground that the unit was not appropriate, and did not question the finding as to majority representation. 11 Vennum prefaced one of his speeches, according to the undenied testimony of a union member, with the query: "How come you boys want to join the I. L. A. [the Union], why don'tyou:join the E.'M .. B. A.?" 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Wilcox, an E. M. B. A. representative, by Jeffords; and the grant- ink of a pay increase immediately following the refusal of the respondent's employees to join the E. M. B. A., had the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union and of encouraging member- ship in another labor organization-; the E. M. B. A. We find that the respondent, by the aforesaid actions 14 and by its refusal to bargain collectively with the Union, interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The alleged discriminatory discha' ges The complaint alleged that the.respondent had discriminatorily dis- charged. James Allen and William Coleman. No evidence was adduced at the hearing to support the allegation with respect to James Allen. The' Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report found that William Coleman had not been discharged because of union membership or ac- tivity. No exception to this finding has been filed. Upon an examina- tion of the record, we concur in the Trial Examiner's finding in respect to the discharge of Coleman. The allegations in the complaint charging the respondent with having discriminated against James Allen and William Coleman in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act will be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR . PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent.set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection. with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate; and sub- stantial 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 Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and, in aid of such cease and desist order, io take affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the Union, on February 17, 1938; and at all times thereafter was and that it is the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Having further found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively With the Union as such As to the voluntary pay increase granted by Verindiii , see M. E. Rif wbliei .Company V. National Labor Relations Board, 114 F. (2d) 432 (C. C. A. 7), decided May 8, 1940. WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 873 i i representative, we shall order it, upon request, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. VI. THE PETITION In view of the findings in Section III B above, as to the appropri- ate unit and. the designation of the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, it is not necessary to consider the petition of the Union for certification of representatives.. Consequently, the petition for certification will be dismissed. 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. International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1549, and Employees' Mutual Benefit Association are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The employees of the respondent at Memphis,. Tennessee, ex- cluding truck drivers, supervisors, clerical and office employees, but specifically including watchmen, chutemen, pump tenders, firemen, deck hands, and laborers, at all times material herein constituted and they now constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes.of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9. (b) of the Act. 3. International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1549, is, and has been at all times since February 1938, the exclusive repre-. sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing and continuing to. refuse to bargain collectively with International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1549, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in. and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment of James Allen and William Coleman, thereby discouraging membership in ' a :labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 874 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, West Kentucky Coal Company, Sturgis, Kentucky, and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain , collectively with International Long- shoremen's . Association , Local No. , 1549, as . the exclusive representa- tive . of its employees at Memphis , Tennessee, excluding truck drivers, supervisors , clerical and office employees, but specifically including watchmen, chutemen; pump tenders, firemen , deck hands, and laborers; (b) In any other manner 'interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in con- certed 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) Upon request , bargain collectively with International Long- shoremen's Association, ' Local No. 1549, as the exclusive representa- tive of its employees at Memphis , Tennessee, excluding. truck drivers, supervisors, clerical and office employees , in respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places on its digger, on its vessels, and at other places in ' or - about its Memphis, Tennessee, properties, notices to its employees, stating that the respondent' will cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a ) and (b ) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 '(a) of the Order, and maintain. such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days; . (c) Notify the Regional Director' for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED . that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act , and.the petition for investigation and certification of, representatives be, and they hereby are, dismissed.