Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

In the Matter of INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and UTILITY WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, LOCAL 120, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and ASSOCIATED BROADCAST TECHNICIANS Cases Nos. C-1./19 and C-1420.-Decided July 6, 19110 Jurisdiction : electric utility industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; interrogation con- cerning union membership ; encouragement of and support to "inside" union ; charges of, by surveillance of employees and meetings of one of complainant unions, dismissed. The granting of a raise in wages to employees just prior to date on which an employee meeting to consider grievances was scheduled held an attempt to forestall concerted employee activity. Discrmnnation: discharges for union membership and activity ; charges of, as to three persons dismissed Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded. Award of back pay to victim of discrimination, not desiring reinstate- ment, from date of discharge to date he secured other employment held not affected by company's sale, subsequent to time said victim secured other employment, of part of business where said victim had been employed prior to his discharge. Respondent ordered to cease encouragement in or otherwise supporting an "inside" union. Mr. Colonel C. Sawyer and Cllr. Robert D. Malarne y, for, the Board. . Mr. Arthur L. Gilliom, Mr. Elbert R. Gilliom, and Mr. Karl J. Stipher, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the respondent. Mr. Orval Kincaid, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the U. W. O. C. Mr. Francis O'Rourke, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Mr. Lawson }Vimberiy, of Washington, D. C., for the A. B. T'. Mr. Arnold R. Cutler, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 19, 1937, United Electric and Radio Workers of America, Local 1008, a labor organization now known as Utility 25 N. L It B., No. 21 193 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, herein called the U. W. O. C., and on January 26, 1938, Associated Broadcast Tech- nicians, a labor organization now known as Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,' herein called the A. B. T., respectively filed charges with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indi- ana), charging that Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Indian- apolis, Indiana, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Thereafter, the U. W. O. C. and the A. B. T. respectively filed amended charges. On July 11, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec- tion 37 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the cases thus instituted by the U. W. O. C. and the A. B. T. be consolidated for all purposes and that one record be made of the hearing to be held. Upon the amended charges the Board by the Regional Director issued a complaint dated July 17, 1939, against the respondent alleg- ing 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. A copy of the. complaint, together with notice of hearing and a copy of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, Was duly served upon the respondent, upon the U. W. O. C., upon the A. B. T., and upon Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Associa- tion, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association, herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be supported and encouraged by the respondent. On July 18, 1939, an amended notice of hearing was duly served on these parties. Thereafter, at the hearing mentioned below, the complaint was amended. The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance, so far as here material, that the respondent (1) discharged Roy Payton and Harry Wilkins on or about July 24, 1937, and May 24, 1938, respectively, from its C. C. Perry plant; Thomas Elbreg and Sidney Collier on or about January 6, 1938, from its Harding Street plant, and Dewey Logsdon 2 on or about. January 6, 1938, from its Mill Street plant, be- cause they assisted the U. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (2) discharged Russell Rennaker 1 At the oral argument the respondent agreed that the name "Assocnited Bi oadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers." be substituted for that of "Associated Broadcast Technicians," for the pin poses of the iecoid 2 Also referred to in the record as Logston. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 195 on or about January 15, 1938, from its WFBM radio-broadcasting station because he assisted the A. B. T. and engaged in concerted activi- ties-with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3) urged, persuaded, and warned its employees in the city of Indianapolis to refrain from be- coming or remaining members of the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T., threatened said employees with discharge and other reprisals if they became or remained members of the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T., and put under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of employee members of said labor organizations; (4) rendered support and en- couragement to the Association by allowing the solicitation of mem- bership for that organization during working hours and on the re- spondent's property and permitting supervisory employees to encour- age and solicit membership in said organization while refusing such privileges to the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T., and by coercing As employees to join or assist the Association; and (5)• by the foregoing and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced 'its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On July 31, 1939, the respondent filed a written motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter, and also filed an answer to the complaint. In its answer the respondent denied, the material allegations of the complaint, and averred, among other things, that Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, Thomas Elbreg, Sidney Collier, and Dewey Logsdon, the persons mentioned'in the complaint, as amended, were laid off by the respondent, and not discharged, solely because of "lack of work brouglit about by'general economic conditions iresulting in reduced demand on the part of respondent's customers for electricity and steam, and in part clue to the fact-that improvements in plant made by respondent resulted in reduction in operating forces" ; t hat Russell Rennaker, the employee mentioned in the complaint, Was laid off and not discharged "because of the general economic recession then prevalent compelling a reduction in the technician force"; and that the respondent has recognized the Association as the representative of its employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held of Indianapolis, Indiana, from July 31 to August 4,1939, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.! The Board and the respondent ap- peared and were represented by counsel, the U. W. O. C. and the A.'B. T. by their representatives, and all participated in the hearing. Full-opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, 'aud to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the respondent's motion, above mentioned, to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdic- tion, and upon other motions of the respondent made at the hearing 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to dismiss the complaint for other reasons. These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report, mentioned below. He granted a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the plead- ings to the proof. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various other rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the above rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On November 24, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, a copy of which was duly served upon the respondent, upon the A. B. T., and upon the U. W. O. C., in which he 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; and recommended that the respond- ent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices which he found and that it take certain specified affirmative action, including rein- statement of Collier and Elbreg, the persons named in the complaint, and payment of compensation to them and to Rennaker, also named in the complaint, in order to remedy the situation brought about by such practices. The Trial Examiner also recommended that the com- plaint, in so far as it related to Payton, Wilkins, and Logsdon, and in so far as it averred or may be taken to have averred that the respondent kept under surveillance its employees and meetings of the A. B. T. and U. W. O. C. and encouraged the formation of the Association, be dismissed., On December 13, 1939, the respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the record, and on January 15, 1940, submitted a brief in support thereof. On January 10, 1940, Logsdon filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report in so far as the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner related to him. Pursuant to notice a hearing for the purpose of oral argument on the exceptions and record was held before the Board on March 5, 1940, in Washington, D. C. The respondent and the A. B. T. appeared by counsel or by a representative and presented argument to the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent to the Intermediate Report and to the record and, in so far as they are in- consistent with the findings, conclusions of law, and order below, finds them to be without merit. The Board also has considered the excep- tions of Logsdon to the Intermediate Report, and in that connection has reviewed the entire record relating to his allegedly discriminatory discharge. The Board is of the opinion that the recommendations of the Trial Examiner relating to this individual should be followed, and accordingly will dismiss the allegations of the complaint, as amended, in respect to Logsdon. Although no exceptions have been INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 197 filed to the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations regard- ing Payton and Wilkins, the Board, nevertheless, has reviewed the record bearing upon their discharges and concurs in the recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner .3 The order will so provide. Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Indianapolis Power & Light Company is a public utility corpora- tion, organized under the laws of Indiana and having its principal office and place of business at Indianapolis, Indiana. It is engaged chiefly in the generation, transmission, sale, and distribution of elec- tricity and steam, and in connection therewith serves some 400,000 persons resident in Marion County and in certain counties immedi- ately adjacent thereto within the State of Indiana. It is the sole supplier of electricity to all users, except one,' in this area, and has approximately 125,000 customers for its electricity and steam. The respondent also is engaged' in the business of selling retail elec- trical appliances and, until August 8, 1939, was engaged in commercial radio broadcasting. In connection with its generation of electricity and steam, the re- spondent operates three generating plants located in the city of In- dianapolis, known as the C. C. Perry plant, the Harding Street plant, and the Mill Street plant. The C. C. Perry plant comprises two sub- divisions, Perry W. and Perry K. The respondent's broadcasting enterprise was carried on through a radio-broadcasting station which it owned and operated in that city, known as Station WFBM. At the time of the hearing the respondent employed approximately 1,26Q workers, including 270 at the three generating plants and 39 at Station WFBM. During 1938 the respondent in the course of generating steam and electricity at the generating plants used 565,870 tons of coal of which 2,879 tons were shipped to the plants from points outside the State of Indiana. Also in that year 1,522 transmission-line poles having a value of $23,208, $12,074 worth of raw materials, and $1,302,829 5 worth of power equipment were shipped to the respondent at various places in Indiana from without the State. Also during that year approximately $249,968 worth of electrical appliances for resale and 3 Cf Matter of National Supply Company and Steel Workers Oiganszing Comrnittee, 16 N L. R B 304 4 The transportation system at Indianapolis 5 The figures for 1937 are similar to those of 1938 except that a substantially larger amount was expended for power equipment during 1938 because of certain extensive im- provements made during that year. 283036-42-vol 25-14 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD distribution at retail by the respondent were shipped to it in Indiana from sources outside the State. In 1936 the respondent generated 368,667,283 kilowatt hours of electrical energy, and its total revenue therefor from sales to custom- ers was $9,728 ,959. During that year 1,642,506 kilowatt hours, or approximately .446 per cent of the total output, was furnished to the United States for its post office and other -purposes at Indianapolis, and 7,970,586 kilowatt hours or 2.162 per cent of the total output was furnished to various interstate railroads and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce, hereinbelow described . In 1937 and 193'9 the percentage of total output of kilowatt hours furnished to the United States for the above-mentioned purposes and to the mentioned inter- state railroads and other instrumentalities of commerce was approxi- mately the same as in 1936. The respondent furnishes electrical energy to the following inter- state railroads, Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company ; Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company , Illinois Central; New York Central ,Railroad; New York, Chicago, and St. Louis Railroad Company; and Pennsylvania Railroad. These railroads all have lines extending in and through the State of Indiana and into other States, and are engaged in hauling interstate and local traffic . The respondent also furnishes electrical energy to Indianapolis Union Railway Com- pany, a local belt railroad, which owns and operates switching facilities and the only terminal in Indianapolis . All the mentioned interstate railroads must use the switching facilities and terminal of the In- dianapolis Union Railway Company . The electricity purchased from the respondent is used by the railroads for lighting, for operating train-control equipment , signals, interlocking equipment, flasher lights, and miscellaneous power applications. The respondent supplies electrical energy to Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Western Union Telegraph Company , and Postal Telegraph Company for the operation of equipment utilized by these companies in the receipt and transmission of interstate telephonic and telegraphic messages . The respondent also furnishes the electrical energy used in operating the following radio -broadcasting stations , Station WFBM, Station WIRE, and Station WIBC, all of which stations are engaged in interstate broadcasting , communications , and commerce. The respondent transmits electrical energy to the Indianapolis Municipal Airport, an airport for commercial and other airplanes engaging in flights from points within the State of Indiana to States other than the State of Indiana and from such other States to points within the State of Indiana. The electricity purchased from the re- spondent is used by the airport to operate its beacons, its radio equip- ment. its field , building, flood, flush, and boundary lights, and the blind- landing equipment. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 199 Cessation of the flow of electrical energy from the respondent would completely stop the operations of a number of these instrumentalities. The others have auxiliary devices to which they could resort, as gas engines, batteries, hand equipment, and similar devices. Considerable time,would be required before the railroads could effectively utilize their auxiliary equipment and its use would thereafter entail a great amount of delay in the arrival and departure of trains. Reliance on auxiliary equipment by the other instrumentalities which have such equipment available would create an increased break-down hazard and necessitate continued periodic replacement of makeshift equipment. It is evident that resort to auxiliary equipment on an emergency basis in itself would involve a burden upon and obstruction of the operations of these instrumentalities of interstate commerce. The foregoing facts show, and we find, that a stoppage in the re- spondent's business and operations occasioned by a labor dispute with its employees would naturally and necessarily impose substantial burdens upon, obstruct, and directly affect interstate trade, traffic, com- merce, transportation, and communication., In the event of such stoppage the flow of large quantities of transmission-line poles, power equipment, electrical appliances, and merchandise, as well as other commodities, in interstate commerce to the respondent's place of busi- ness or other points in Indiana from outside Indiana would be dis- rupted or cease,' and the operations and services of various instrumen- talities of interstate transportation, communication, and commerce dependent for their functioning upon electrical energy furnished by the respondent would be hampered seriously or terminated because of the inability of such instrumentalities to obtain power. The respondent contends that a stoppage of operations at its gener- ating plants occasioned by a labor dispute would have no substantial effect upon interstate commerce because of an arrangement which it has with another producer of electrical energy located in Indiana, for an interchange of electricity in "emergencies or unusual operating periods." The respondent asserts that under this arrangement and in the event of such stoppage it could acquire the necessary electrical energy to supply the various interstate instrumentalities which it serves. The arrangement in question is evidenced by a written so- called Declaration of Intent, and a written extension thereof. °Consumers Power Company v N L R B, 113 F (2d) 38 (C C A 6), enf'g Matter of Consumers Power Company, a corporation and Local No 740, United Electoical, Radio & Machine TPorkers of America, 9 N L R B 701 , Southern Colorado Power Company, a cor- poration v N L R B., 111 F (2d) 539 (C C. A 10), enf'g Matter of Southern Colorado Power Co, a corporation and II M Stcwait and I L Watkins, indio.duals, 13 N. L R B 699; Consolidated Edison Co v N L R B, 305 U S 197 S Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co et at v N L R B, 101 F (2d) 841 (C C A 4) iev'd on other grounds 60 S Ct 203, enf'g Matter of Nev,port News Ship building and Dig Dock Company and Industi ial Union of Maiine and Eliipbaild.ng Worleis of America, 8 N L R B 866 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is apparent from the provisions of these documents that they are non-contractual in character and impose no legal obligation upon either party thereto to furnish the other with emergency electricity. Among other things, they provide that "nothing herein contained shall give rise to any claim for damages for any reason whatever, and that the only obligation incurred by either party hereto on account of this Declaration of Intent, shall be to pay for electrical energy delivered. . . ." 8 The record does not show whether the producer of electrical energy with whom this arrangement exists could in fact supply the respondent with all the energy it would need in the event of a complete cessation of the generation of elec- tricity at the respondent's plants or whether it could maintain such transmission for any length of time. Nor are we satisfied from the record that the respondent could transmit electrical energy from this emergency source without preparation therefor or continuing opera- tions on its part. We are unable to find, therefore, upon the record presented, especially in view of the non-contractual character of the arrangement in question; that such arrangement removes the possible occurrence of a substantial effect upon interstate commerce in the event of a disruption of the respondent's generating operations by a labor dispute.9 Finally, even if the respondent could rely com- pletely upon this source of emergency energy, and transmit the power to all its consumers for any period without action on its part, we would consider that fact immaterial. The necessity for resort to emergency energy in case of a stoppage resulting from a labor dis- pute, in itself involves an interruption to and impairment or cessa- tion of regular and normal essential services to instrumentalities engaged in interstate trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, and communication, and in consequence, a substantial burden and obstruc- tion to such trade, traffic, commerce, transportation and communica- tion.lo IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, formerly known as United Electric and Radio Workers of America, Local 1008, is a local of Utility Workers Organizing Committee, a labor organization affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, formerly known as Committee for Industrial Organization. The U. W. O. C. admits to membership all production and maintenance 8 They also provide that "the party called on to deliver additional electricity shall be the sole judge of its ability to make such delivery " arouthern. Colorado Power Company , a corporation v N L R. B, ill F (2d) 539 (C. C A 10), enf'g Matter of Southern Colorado Power Co, a corporation and H H Stewart and I L Watkins, individuals, 13 N L R B, 699 See also footnote 6, supra 10 See North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v N L R B, 109 F (2d) 76 (C C. A. 9). INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 201 workers employed by the respondent at its generating plants, exclud- ing clerical and supervisory employees. Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organization formerly known as Associated Broadcast Technicians and now affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a labor organization affiliated with American Federation of Labor. The A. B. T. admits to membership radio operators and technicians employed at Station WFBM. Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Association, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association, is a labor organization unaffiliated with any national or other labor organ- ization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent, exclu- sively. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, coercion in connection with the radio-sta- tion employees, and the discriminatory discharge of Rennaker Prior to March 1937 no labor organization existed among the work- ers employed by the respondent at Station WFBM, nor had these employees, so far as the record shows, ever engaged in concerted activ- ity to advance their employee interests. In that month two of the workers employed in the technical, department of the station, Russell Rennaker, the person named in the complaint, as amended, and one Winter, called a meeting of all employees in their department, for the purpose of discussing various grievances which the employees had respecting working conditions. The meeting was arranged to be held on March 19 after working hours in a room, which the respondent had made generally available to employees at the station. On the day preceding the meeting the wages of all the employees in the technical department were raised, and each was notified of his respective increase. On the following day, shortly before the time for the meeting, Rennaker was visited at his home by one Wil- liams, the, chief engineer of the technical department, and interro- gated about the meeting: Williams inquired whether the meeting would be held. Rennaker stated that it would and explained that Wil- liams had not been invited because his presence would prevent a free discussion by the employees of their problems. Williams continued his inquiry, asking the names of the employees who would attend, whether the representatives of any labor organization would be pres- ent, and what Rennaker's own interest in union organization was. Rennaker stated that he believed in unionization and had been inter- ested in membership in the A. B. T. Williams stated that the respond- 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent's station employees should "beware of union organizations that were organizing broadcast technicians," and concluded the conver- sation with a statement that he would not be present at the meeting. On March 19, after working hours, the employees met. As they, gathered together Williams and his superior, one Blossom, the man- ager of the station, entered the meeting place. In consequence; none of the employees spoke. Blossom assumed charge of the meeting and addressed those present. He stated, among other things, that he was "surprised" and "disheartened" to find that the employees considered it necessary "to get together in the manner that [they] had apparently done that evening;" that there was no reason for them to "meet and discuss working conditions;" that it was not "good for the department or for the company to hold general meetings where everyone was present;" and that it was the policy of the respondent to discuss grievances with its employees on an individual basis. He invited those present to submit what grievances they had to him for individu-zl adjustment. Upon completing his statement Blossom suggested that the meeting adjourn and the employees "think this over." One of the employees asked whether it was not the essence of Blossom's state- ment that the respondent opposed collective bargaining by its em- ployees. Blossom replied that it was the policy of the respondent not to bargain collectively "with groups," and admonished those present never to hold a similar meeting at the station. The meeting thus ended. Section 8. (1) of the Act provides that employers shall not interfere with, restrain, or coerce their 'employees in the exercise of the funda- mental rights which the Act in Section 7 secures to employees. Sec- tion 7 pronounces as a basic right of employees the right "to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." We have had occasion to point out that "in enacting these provisions it was the- intent of the Congress that employees, irrespective of whether they are or are not members of a labor organization, have full freedom 'and liberty to enjoy the advantages of concerted action lawfully designed and engaged in to advance their economic and other interests as employees." Section 7 also guarantees to employees the right of self-organization. Of this provision we have observed that employer conduct which dis- courages employees from engaging in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, where no labor organization exists, also "has the effect of discouraging the formation of and membership in a labor organization, which is the customary "Matter of Servel, Inc and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1002, 11 N L. R B 1295, 1325-1326 . See also Matter of Pittsburgh Standard Envelope Company and Pittsburgh Prrnting Pressmen and Assistants Union . No 64, 20 N L R B 516, 524. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 203 instrument utilized by employees to achieve collective bargaining." 12 Under these sections of the Act employees in the technical depart- ment of the station were secure in their right to arrange for the con- duct of a meeting where grievances regarding working conditions could be discussed and a course of action, including collective bar- gaining, determined upon. There is no contention that the employees were without license to use at that time the respondent's property for such a meeting. The foregoing facts show that the respondent, through its agents, interfered with, restrained, and coerced these employees in the exer- cise of their afore-mentioned right. The rise in wages which it ac- corded them on the day preceding the meeting plainly was intended, as these employees necessarily understood, to express employer oppo- sition to and forestall a species of joint action which the respondent feared would result in collective action and in the formation of a labor organization at the station. The Board and the courts re- peatedly have recognized as intimidatory in its effect upon employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act and as violative of the statute, the grant'of a wage increase by the employer under cir- cumstances calculated to and which does disclose to employees the employer's hostility to organization or to other concerted activity pro- tected by the Act.13 Similarly, Williams' interrogation of and state- ments to Rennaker on March 19 were intended to avert the holding of the meeting and the initiation of concerted activity. The use by Williams of his authority as Rennaker's superior and of the respond- ent's economic power vested in him, to-pry into the circumstances surrounding the meeting, the names of employees who would attend; and Rennaker's own interest in the matter was a particularly intoler- able assault upon the right guaranteed by the Act, for it singled out the leader of the movement to require of him a breach of trust. Finally, the attendance without invitation of Williams and Blossom at the meeting, and the statements of Blossom there made demonstrated the respondent's determined opposition to concerted activities by its employees. Indeed, Blossom's statement that it was the respondent's policy to discuss grievances with its employees on an individual basis, like Williams' comment to Rennaker that the employees should "be- ware of union organizations" was intended to reveal to the station "Matter of Stehli and Co , Inc and Textile Workers Union of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and Vicinity , Local # 133, 11 N L R . B. 1397, 1451. 11 The M H Ritzwoller Company v N. L R B , 114 F (2d) 432.(C C A 7), aff'g as mod Matter of the M H Ritzwoller Company and Coopers ' International Union of North America, Local No 28, 15 N. L R B 15 ; N L R. B. v. The Falk Corporation, 102 F. (2d) 383, (C C A 7) enf'g Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workcrs of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N L R B 654 ; N L R B v American Potash and Chemical Corporation, 98 F. (2d ) 448 (C C A 9), cert den 306 U S 643, enfg Matter of Ameii,can Potash and Chemical Corporation and Bronx & Potash Workers' Union No. 20181, 3 N. L R. B 140. 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees that the respondent was not merely opposing their conduct of a meeting such as that of March 19 or engaging in other concerted activity, but their taking the next logical step, viz, their forming or becoming affiliated with a labor organization for purposes of collec- tive bargaining. Blossom's words were not mere casual expressions or comments. Considered in the light of the respondent's control over the livelihood of its employees, they constituted clear threats of un- favorable consequences should the employees discuss in a group their work grievances or attempt collective bargaining or other concerted action. Following the March 19 meeting and continuing through January 1938, the respondent's opposition to its station employees ' engaging in concerted activity, within the meaning of the Act, or becoming affiliated with a labor organization, continued unabated . In the lat- ter part of June 1937, at the time the U. W. 0. C., as more particu- larly set forth below, was attempting to organize workers employed in the respondent's generating plants, Williams questioned several employees at the station as to whether any "outside" union was en- rolling members among the station force, and requested one such em- ployee to inform him if and when a labor organizer for an outside union approached any of these workers . Shortly after Rennaker's discharge by Blossom on January 15, 1938, as stated below, Blossom approached one of the oldest employees in the technical department and requested him to inform Blossom of any union activity that might thereafter take place at the station . Blossom confided that while the respondent was not so much concerned with being required to increase the wages of its station employees as a result of organiza- tion, it was concerned with the encouragement which successful or- ganization in the station would give to employees in other depart- ments of the respondent to organize. In many cases we have held it to be an unfair labor practice under Section 8 (1) for an employer to interrogate employees about organi- zation activities .14 We have said, "attempts to elicit information of this character . . . necessarily would intimidate , restrain, and coerce [employees] . . . in the exercise of their right to organize . Such in- 1a See Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Professional Workers of America, No 24, 14 N. L R. B. 1045 , 1054; Matter of Planters Manufacturing Company, Inc and United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, C I O. 10 N. L R. B. 735 , 753, enf'd N. L R B. v. Planters Manufacturing Company, Inc, 105 F. (2d) 750 (C. C. A. 4) ; Matter of Harry Schwartz Yarn Co. and Textile Workers Organ- izing Committee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1339, 1146 , 1151; Matter of The Boss Manufacturing Com- pany and International Glove Workers' Union of America, Local No 85, 3 N L R B 400, 405, enf'd as mod, N. L It. B. v. The Boss Manufacturing Company, 107 F (2d) 574 (C. C.' A. 7 ) ; Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines Inc , Greyhound Management Coin= pang, corporations and Local Diiision No 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1. N L. R B. 1, 18, enf'd N. L R. B . v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc , et al , 303 U S 261 , rev'g 91 F. ( 2d) 178 (C. C. A. 3). INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 205 terrogation constitutes a threat that the employer's economic power and superior position may be used to the disadvantage of the individual employees disclosed to be members of or active in the union." 15 We also have held, and the courts have affirmed our holding, that at- tempts of employers to persuade and urge upon employees that they become informers and report the organization activities of their fellow workers violates Section 8 (1)." Such anti-union conduct is but one step removed from industrial espionage." We find that the respondent by attempting to use an increase in, wages to forestall concerted activity of employees in connection with the meeting to consider employee grievances ; by attempting to avert the initiation of such activity through interrogation of and statements to an employee leader regarding the same and his interest therein; by attending without invitation such meeting for the same purpose and there making statements opposing concerted activity, collective bargaining, and unionization; by interrogating employees about unionization ; by requesting employees to become informers in respect to unionization; and by other and each of said acts, inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On January 15, 1938, the respondent, through Blossom, dismissed Rennaker. Rennaker had been employed as an operator at Station WFBM for 4 years and ranked third in seniority among the seven operators in the station. There is no doubt of his competence as a workman. Rennaker's interest in unionization and in obtaining an ameliora- tion of working conditions at the station through concerted activities of the station employees was known to the respondent. Reference already has been made to his part in arranging for the March 19 meeting and to the respondent's concern therewith. In November 1937, when dissatisfaction with working conditions again arose among the station employees, Rennaker advised Blossom that the dissatis- faction might be avoided if the respondent paid wages and compen- sation for overtime work commensurate with what employees at unionized radio stations were being paid under collective wage 16 Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Pro- fessional Workers of America, No 24, 14 N L R . B 1045, 1054 10 See Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local 66, 5 N L R B 930 , enf'd as mod N L R B V. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U S 240, aff'g as mod , 98 F. (2d ) 375 (C. C. A. 7) ; Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc, et al and United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 4 N L. It. B. 71, enf'd as mod . Consolidated Edison Company of New York , Inc, et al. v. N. L. R. B. at al., 305 U S. 197, aff'g as mod 95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C A 2) ; Matter of Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No 19375, 1 N L R. B 68, enf'd N. L. R B. v. Fruehauf Trailer Company, 301 U. S 49, rev'g 85 F. (2d) 391 (C. C. A. 7). 11 See footnote 16, supra 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreements. In that same month Rennaker disclosed to Williams a communication he received from the A. B. T. stating that in conse- quence of a liberalizing of its membership requirements employees of Station WFBM were eligible to membership in its organization. On that occasion Williams advised Rennaker to inform the A. B. T. that the station employees were members of and satisfied with the Association'18 and were not interested in nor was there need for "any outside connection." Rennaker did not follow this advice. In December 1937 the A. B. T. began organization activities among the station employees. One Knight, an official of the union, came to Indianapolis from Chicago, and conferred with Rennaker and other employees about establishing a local. of the A. B. T. at the station. Rennaker was entrusted with carrying on this work. On January 14, 1938, upon receiving from the A. B. T. form application cards for membership in the union, Rennaker took these cards to the station and told the various employees that the cards were available for those who wished to sign them. On the following day, January 15, Blossom dismissed Rennaker, as above mentioned. Blossom told Ren- naker that the reason for the dismissal was poor business conditions, that Rennaker rather than one of the other operators had been selected for dismissal because he apparently was "dissatisfied" with working at Station WFBM, had sought employment at other stations and his work had been affected thereby. As already stated, the respondent in its answer denies that it dis- charged Rennaker, and alleges that it laid him off "because of the general economic recession then prevalent compelling a reduction in the technician force" at the station. We are convinced, as herein- after set forth, that Rennaker was discharged and not merely laid off. We also are convinced, and find, that the reason for his dis- charge was not business conditions. While the respondent at the hearing introduced proof of a diminution in operations at its gen- erating plants in consequence of a decreased load, it offered no evi- dence to show, and the record does not establish, the existence of a need for reducing operations at Station WFBM during the period under review or that in fact such a reduction took place. The sta- tion operators continued to perform a substantial amount of over- time work after January 15, 1938. Four months later one employee was transferred from another departinent to the station to perform radio-operation work and some time thereafter an additional new worker was hired for similar work. No real economy would have resulted from Rennaker's discharge, for immediately thereafter the respondent began to pay the operators time and a half for their to The formation of the Association and the respondent's assistance to that organization are set forth below. See Section III C, anja a. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 207 overtime work, which it had not previously done. It is significant - that in dismissing Rennaker the respondent ignored any considera- tion of his seniority and departed from its general policy of pre- ferring married to unmarried workers in laying off employees for slack work. We also find that Rennaker was not discharged because he sought employment elsewhere or because his work was affected thereby. The record is bare of proof supporting such a position. At least three other station operators had applied for work elsewhere without being discharged. As heretofore found, Rennaker was a competent work- man, and there is no proof of any deviation prior to his discharge in the quality of his work. The foregoing facts, considered in the fight of the entire record, show that the respondent discharged Rennaker on January 15, 1938, because of his undertaking to form a local of the A. B. T. among the station employees. The respondent, through its agents, had made clear prior to the discharge its opposition to these employees affiliat- ing themselves with an outside labor organization. Although follow- ing the establishment of the Association, an "inside union," at the plant," the respondent was ready to accept the Association as a bar- gaining representative for its employees, it never receded from its position of determined hostility to their affiliation with a labor organization not restricted in its membership to such employees. Rennaker's interest in unionization and concerted activity was well known to the respondent, and when he converted that interest into action, the respondent promptly proceeded to rid itself of him. We are satisfied that in so doing it did not intend a termination merely of his work but of his employment status. The conversation above set forth of Blossom with one of the operators following the dis- charge confirms our finding that Rennaker was discriminatorily discharged. We find that the respondent discharged Russell Rennaker on January 15, 1937, because he assisted the A. B. T. and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of col- lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby dis- criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said employee and discouraging membership "in a labor organization ; that by said discharge the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. On February 1, 1939, Rennaker obtained employment with an- other radio station. He does not desire reinstatement to employment io Upon its formation, the Association , as found below , was illegally supported by the respondent and membership of employees in it was encouraged by the respondent. See Section III C, infra. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the respondent. On August 8, 1939, the respondent sold Station WFBM and no longer owns or operates it. This fact is advanced by the respondent as affecting the validity of any finding by the Board of unfair labor practices in connection with either the station or Rennaker, and of any order which otherwise might be validly made in that connection. As regards Rennaker there is no question here of his reinstatement to his former position at the station, but merely one of back pay to February 1, 1939. We are of the opinion that the sale of the station is without relevance either to the validity of the findings mentioned or to the portion of the order below based thereon. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion in connection with the gener- ating-plant employees and the discriminatory discharges of Collier and Elbreg In February 1937 the six operators 20 employed by the respondent in the condenser pit at the Harding Street plant decided to make a collective request of the employer for an increase in wages. The men were not at that time members of any labor organization. Before such action was taken, however, the chief engineer of the plant, one Goodrich, learned of the matter and forthwith interrogated the individual operators about it. He told,them in the course thereof that they "were absolutely wrong to try to approach [the respondent] cellectively," "that one voice speaks louder than many," and that while the respondent would confer with individual operators about working conditions it would not "meet [with them] as a group." In consequence, the operators refrained from presenting the joint request. The right of these employees to determine upon and make a col- lective request for an increase in wages was secured to them by Section 7 of the Act, as part of their rights to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, and to self-organization.21 In preventing the oper- ators from taking the action which they desired, and in cautioning them against concerted activity, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced these employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7, and engaged in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (1). In May 1937 the Committee for Industrial Organization 22 under- took to organize persons employed at the generating plants of the respondent. In June it held an organizational meeting, attended by 20 Among the six were Collier and Elbreg , the employees whose dismissals are hereinafter discussed. 21 See Section III A, and cases cited in footnote 11, supra. 2z As stated above this labor organization is now known as Congress of Industrial Organizations. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 209 some 50 of these workers, where the formation of the U. W. 0. C. as a local union for production and maintenance employees, of the plants was begun. In August organization of the U. W. 0. C. was perfected and officers were elected.23 Collier and Elbreg, the em- ployees whose dismissals are hereinafter discussed, became president and secretary, respectively, of the U. W. 0. C. Throughout this period the management of the respondent, by questioning of and statements to plant employees, sought to prevent and discourage enrollment in and affiliation with the U. W. 0. C. Chief Engineer Goodrich summoned Collier to his office, and told Collier that he should "feel just a little better towards the com- pany, ... that [the U. W. 0. C.] . . . would not be very satis- factory among the employees, because some would join and some would not, ... [that he, Collier] ought to be more considerate" of the respondent. Goodrich on another occasion summoned another employee, spoke to him about "outside" unions and warned him "to be careful where [he] went," that "if things didn't turn up right [he] may slip later on." The assistant chief engineer at the Harding Street plant, one Humphrey, questioned Elbreg during working hours about the U. W. 0. C. and stated that the respondent desired no "violence and bloodshed" in its plants, that "violence and blood- shed" would accompany organization of the plants by' the U. W. 0. C., and that the plants would close down for a long period. Humphrey also questioned Collier about the U. W. 0. C. and told him that while the respondent knew that the U. W. 0. C. was "corn- ing in," it would "try to keep it out as long as" it could. In his interrogation of another employee about the U. W. 0. C., Humphrey was unsuccessful, for the employee refused to speak because of a fear of losing his position. The assistant chief engineer of the Perry W. subdivision, one McKay, told an employee that a union would result in "strikes and everything" and that the employees would lose their jobs. Foreman Houston of this same subdivision ques- tioned at least one employee as to whether he was a member of the U. W. 0. C. Plainly the foregoing action by persons of responsibility and au- thority associated with the respondent's management was intended by the respondent to be and was intimidatory in its effect upon affilia- tion of the plant employees with the U. W. 0. C. It was conduct contrived to discourage membership in the U. W. 0. C. by making .apparent to the plant employees, as no doubt they understood, The employer's hostility to that union and the implicit threat to their tenure of employment if that attitude was not respected. We find 23 The number of employees who became members of the U W 0 C is not shown by the record. 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that by such action and conduct the respondent interfered with, re- strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act . The record shows that in September or October 1937 the U. W. O. C. ceased holding meetings . Elbreg, the union secretary , testified that by that time "the attendance had dwindled so that no one was present but the officers." On January 6, 1938, the respondent dismissed Collier and Elbreg. The two men worked as operators in the condenser pit of the Hard- ing Street plant along with four other operators . Both , were com- petent workmen and had been employed by the respondent for many years. The respondent contends that it dismissed Collier and Elbreg solely because of business conditions , that a decline in the consump- tion of its electrical energy made imperative a dismissal of two, of the six persons employed as condenser -pit operators at the Hard- ing Street plant, and that it selected the two men in question for such purpose upon ordinary business considerations and not for seasons related to their participation in the concerted activity of the condenser-pit operators in February 1937 or the activities of the two men , and their leadership , in connection with the U. W. O. C. The record shows that in December 1937 the respondent's sale of electrical energy decreased in volume and the load at the Harding Street plant correspondingly declined. However , as we have said of a similar situation , "it does not necessarily follow that the afore- mentioned dismissals, or any of them , were occasioned thereby ... . The question remains whether the termination of the employment of those persons was in whole or in part caused by their union affiliation and activity." 24 In support of its contention the respondent asserts that it selected and dismissed Collier and Elbreg as the logical two of the six con- denser pit operators , to be dismissed, because of their comparative seniority, efficiency , experience , and special qualifications , and their personalities . The record shows that Collier and Elbreg each had greater seniority than two of the remaining four operators, one Cogill and one Schorn .25 Collier was hired on September 10, 1931, Elbreg, on May 1, 1931; whereas Cogill was hired on November 25, 1931, and Schorn more than 2 years later, on March 29, 1934. As regards efficiency , there is nothing in the record to show, and the respondent did 24Mlatter of Walter Stover, doing businees under the trade name and stifle of Stover Bedding Company and Upholsterers Allied Crafts Local Union No 501, 15 N L R B 635, 642 zc Seniority was measured by length of seivice with the respondent However, even if 'measured by Iength-of employment In the condenser pit, the seniority of Collier and Elbreg ,was greater than that of Cogill and Schorn Elbreg also had greater seniority than one other pit operator, Bates However we find it unnecessary to consider whether Bates rather than Elbreg was the more logical per son to be dismissed INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 211 not establish,- that Collier and Elbreg were less efficient in the per- formance of their work as condenser-pit operators than Cogill and Schorn. Collier and Elbreg both were competent operators. In re- spect of "experience" and "special qualifications," the respondent states that Cogill had had previous "practical mechanical experience"; that Seliorn, some 11 years prior to his employment in 1934, had -worked 3 years with the respondent on a repair gang at one of its plants; that neither Collier nor Elbreg had had such experience or qualifications, and, therefore, they were logical persons for it to dis- miss.2' However, Collier and Elbreg were at least as experienced as Cogill and Schorn in the performance of the work required of the condenser-pit operators. Indeed, Collier had much more experience. He worked in the respondent's pit for 6 years, while Cogill and Schorn each had been employed there only 111,2 years.''? We are not convinced of the importance which the respondent would ascribe to Schorn's work 11 years previous on the repair gang. It is not established that Schorn at the time of the dismissals was qualified for this work. It is not shown that following his employment by the respondent in March 1934 Schorn worked as a member of the repair gang. There was no *need at the time of the discharges for another employee to work on this gang, for the respondent retained for this purpose its full con- tingent of seven repair men. Finally, as to Collier's and Elbreg's "personality," Goodrich testified that Collier was "grumpy and grouchy" and had had arguments with his foreman, and that Elbreg was talkative. However, concerning Elbreg, Goodrich also testified that his talking "never interfered with his work," and that the em- ployee had never, been "in trouble or anything." Collier's alleged "grumpiness and grouchiness" apparently became of consequence only immediately preceding the dismissal. His arguments with his fore- man involved chiefly a heated controversy that had occurred 2 years before the dismissal. That controversy was then settled amicably, and Collier and his foreman thereafter enjoyed friendly relations. We are convinced, and we find, that Collier and Elbreg were selected for dismissal and were dismissed by the respondent on January 6, 1938, in furtherance of the same anti-union policy which theretofore had induced the conduct of its management, already considered, and which resulted in Rennaker's discharge at Station WFBM. We find nothing by way of efficiency, experience, special qualifications, per- sonality, or other matter which satisfactorily explains the respondent's ignoring of the seniority right of Collier and Elbreg tb their jobs. The emphasis placed by the respondent upon Collier's allegedly poor " As stated above , the hearing herein was begun on July 31, 1939. r Elbreg's experience in the respondent's pit was about a month more than that of either Cogill or Schorn. 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD personality is particularly unconvincing. We find it difficult to be- lieve that after more than 6 years' employment with the respondent Collier should then have his personality loom as so important a con- sideration. The foregoing facts, viewed in the light of the entire record, establish that Collier's and Elbreg's general interest in unioni- zation of the respondent's plant employees by an "outside" labor or- ganization, their willingness to assume direction of such an organiza- tion, and, more especially, their participation in the abortive collective request for a wage increase of the condenser-pit operators and their union leadership as president and secretary, respectively, of the U.W.O.C., were the determining factors which resulted in their being selected, rather than other employees of lesser seniority, for dismissal. Some question has arisen as to whether they were laid off or dis- charged. The issue is without substance, for in either event the re- spondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment, within the meaning of the Act.2$ Upon the circumstances presented, especially the reasons which induced their dismissals, we are of the opinion, and find, that the respondent intended to rid itself permanent- ly of the two men and, accordingly, that it discharged them. We find that the respondent discharged Sidney Collier and Thomas Elbreg on January 6, 1938, because they assisted the U. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of said employees and discouraging membership in a labor organization; that by said dis- charges, and each of them, the respondent has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C. Support of and encouragement of membership in the Association As heretofore set forth, the Association is a labor organization unaf- filiated with any national or other labor organization, and confined in its membership to employees of the respondent. It is an "inside" union. Although formation of the Association was begun by some of the plant employees early in 1937, the Association attracted no substan- tial membership and enjoyed no prominent role in the labor relations of the respondent until July 1937, after the U. W. O. C. was formed and had begun its campaign for members. On July 6, 1937, the Association held its first organizational meeting, and within 3 weeks thereafter 28 Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221, United Electrical d Radio Workers of America, C 1 0, 18 N L R B 1028; Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc and Iron Molders Union of North America, Local 80, 8 N L R B 879 ; Matter of Servel, Inc and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1002, 11 N L R B. 1295 1 .1 INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 213 elected officers, obtained a majority of the employees as members, and was granted recognition by the respondent as sole bargaining agency for all employees. Shortly thereafter, it entered into a collective labor .Agreement with the respondent. The evidence shows that the Association was favored and actively supported by the respondent. Solicitation of membership in that organization proceeded on company time and property, with the tacit acquiescence if not the express assent of the respondent's mapagement. We have no doubt that the respondent knew of this use of its time and facilities. Li July Williams told Rennaker that the respondent felt the Association "was a move in the right direction for the em- ployees" and "would consider it the right thing if an employee would join" it. In the same period Foreman Houston at the. C. C. Perry plant asked an employee whether he bad been invited to join the Association, and when the employee answered in the negative, told him that "somebody Will." 29 The marked contrast between the respondent's attitude and corre- sponding action When its employees sought to join the U. W.. 0. C. and its attitude when the Association bid for their affiliation would have but one meaning to the employees, viz, that the respondent desired them to join the Association. Support to and encouragement of membership in the Association was another of the tactics which the respondent utilized to prevent unionization of its employees by an out- svde labor organization. We are satisfied, and we find, that in conse- fluence of the respondent's favoritism to the Association and its hos- tility toward outside unions, the Association has never been a freely chosen labor organization and collective bargaining representative of its members. We find that by its support to and encouragement of membership in the Association, the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice, ,xithin the meaning of Section 8 (1). IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICFS 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, commerce, transportation, and communication among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, and communication, and the free flow thereof. 2D Some time later, in November 1937, one Deems, a supervisor in the addressograph ,department, after continually urging Rennaker to join the Association, and after telling him that be was holding up the works by virtue of . , not having signed a card," finally compelled Rennaker to loin the Association. 28303G-42-N of 25- -1 5 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY It is essential to an effectuation of the purposes and policies of the Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices in which we have found it to have engaged, and, in aid of such order and as a means of removing and avoiding the consequences of such practices, that the respondent be ordered to take certain action, more particularly described below. We have found that the respondent by various acts, including sup- port to and encouragement of membership in the Association, inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. The respondent must cease and desist from these practices, and we shall so order. We also have found that the respondent discharged Russell Ren- naker on January 15, 1938, and ' Sidney Collier and Thomas Elbreg on January 6, 1938, in contravention of the Act. To effectuate the policies of the Act we shall order that these employees be made whole for any loss of wages they have sustained by reason of their respective discharges. Moreover, we shall order the respondent to offer Collier and Elbreg reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions. As heretofore mentioned, Rennaker is, and since February 1, 1939, has been, regularly employed at other work and does not desire reinstatement. Accordingly, we shall not order his reinstatement. Our order also will direct certain other action which we deem neces- sary to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor prac- tices which we have found. Upon the basis of the foregoing findiilgs of fact and upon the entire record in the cases, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120; Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ; and Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Pro- tective Association, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Russell Rennaker, Sidney Collier, and Thomas Elbreg, and each of them, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organ- ization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 215 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or to any term or condition of employment of Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, or Dewey Logsdon, within the mean- ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, nor has it engaged in any other un- fair labor practice with respect to any of said persons, as alleged in the complaint, as amended. 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, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Indianapolis. Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organi- zations, in Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization of its em- ployees, by discharging or by laying off any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term, or condition of their employment; (b) Encouraging membership in or otherwise supporting or assist- ing Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Association, also known as I. P.-and L. Employees Protective Association, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment, by urging, persuading, warning, or coercing employees to join such labor organization and/or to resign from. or refuse to join Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations; Associated Broadcast Tech- nicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, affiliated with American Federation' of Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees;,or by any'other act or acts; (c) 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. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Russell Rennaker for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory termina- tion of his employment, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from January 15, 1938, until February 1, 1939, less his net earnings during that period; 30 deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to him, monies received by him during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern- ments which supplied the funds for said projects; (b) Offer to Sidney Collier and Thomas Elbreg, and to each of them, immediate and full reinstatement to the positions which they formerly occupied at the Harding Street plant or to positions sub- stantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; and make them, and each of them, whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory termination of their employment, by pay- ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from January 6, 1938, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 31 during such period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of said employees monies received by him during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appro- priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which. supplied the funds for said projects ; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all its plants and offices at Indianapolis, Indiana, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post- ing, notices to its employees, stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct which it is ordered to cease and desist in 30 By "net earnings " Is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful termination of his employment and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590_8 N L It B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon Federal State, county, municipal, or othet work- relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided, are to be deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State , county , municipal , or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects 31 See footnote 30, supra. INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 217 paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of the Order, and in that respect describing such conduct with particularity as in said paragraphs set forth, (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, (3) that its em- ployees are free to become or remain members of Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with Congress of In- dustrial Organizations; Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with American Federation of Labor; or'any other labor organization, and (4) that it will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in or activity in behalf of such labor organization; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region ins 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, as amended,'in so far as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, and Dewey Logsdon, or in connection with surveillance of its employees and meetings of • Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or in connection ,with the forma- tion of Indianapolis Power & Light Employees ' Protective Associa- tion, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association, be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.