Milan Shirt Manufacturing Co.

r'a l In the'Matter Of MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND MILAN IMPROVEMENT COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA Case No. C-1306.-Decided April W, 1940 Cotton Garment Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraont, and Co- ercion: advising employees not to attend union meetings ; advising employee to cease boarding at the home of a union leader; discrimination in regard to hir- ing-Discrimination: refusal to hire because of union activities: sustained as to 42 employees of predecessor company : dismissed as to 14-Offer of Employ- ment: of dered-Bactc Pay: awarded : from dates of refusal to hire to dates of offers of employment-Company-Dominated Unions- charges of, dismissed-Em- ployer Status: corporation leasing build' to an employer but not acting in the interest of an employer directly or inectly , held, not employer within the meaning of the Act-Complaint: dismissed as to corporation, found not to be an employer within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Marion A. Prowell and Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board. Miss Griselda Kuhlman, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Amalgamated. Mr. J. P. Rhodes and Mr. John E. Leake, both of Milan, Tenn., for the Landlord. ! Holmes and Holmes, by Mr. V. H. Holmes and Mr. Richard Holmes, of Franklin, Tenn., for the Tenant. Mr. Robert P. Adams, of Trenton, Tenn., for Irene Bryant. Mr. Charles F. McFrlean, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated April 10, 1939, against Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company and Milan Improvement Company, herein called, respec- tively, the Tenant and the Landlord, and collectively called the re- spondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the 22 N. L. R. B., No. 99. 1143 1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meaning of Section 8 ( 1), (2), and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor, Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served on the Tenant, the Landlord, the Amalgamated , and Milan Employees, Inc., herein called Employees, Inc., a labor organization alleged in the complaint to be dominated by the respondents. The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the Landlord leased industrial property to the Washington Manufacturing Company until on or about April 16, 1938; that it acted in the interest of the Washington Manufacturing Company in the employment of per- sonnel, in the determination of working conditions , and in other ways; that the Landlord has since April 16, 1938, leased industrial prop- erty to the Tenant; that it has acted and is acting in the interest of the Tenant in the employment of personnel , in the determination of working conditions, and in other ways; that it is an employer within the meaning of the Act; and that the Tenant is a successor to and the agent for the Washington Manufacturing Company; (2) that the existence of interlocking officers , directors, ownership, and manage- ment among the respondents , the identity of their labor policies, and the business operations of the respondent , all form, with respect to the matters referred to in the complaint, a wholly integrated business enterprise; (3) that on or about October 18, 1937, the Washington Manufacturing Company discharged Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, and Ruth Gant because said employees refused to join the Milan Employees Association, herein called the Association, a com- pany-dominated labor organization, and because said employees joined the Amalgamated ; that said discharges were caused and dic- tated by the Landlord acting in the interest of the Washington Manu- facturing Company ; that on or about May 23, 1938 , and at all times thereafter, the respondents refused to reinstate, reemploy, or hire Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, and Ruth Gant because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Amalgamated and because of their refusal to join or assist the Association and/or Employees , Inc.; that on or about May 23,1938, and at all times there- after, the respondents have refused to employ or put to work 56 named individuals , all former employees of the Washington Mann. facturing Company, at its Milan plant , because said employees had engaged in union activities in behalf of the Amalgamated and be- cause they had refused to join or assist the Association and/or Em- ployees, Inc.; (4 ) that between August 1, 1937, and May 23, 1938, the Washington Manufacturing Company dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and/or Employees , Inc., and contributed financial support to said labor organization; that the Washington Manufacturing Company through the respondents en- MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1145 couraged membership in said labor organization and discouraged membership in the Amalgamated by assisting the Association and/or Employees, Inc. ; that on or about April 16, 1938, and at all times, thereafter, the respondents have dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and/or Employees, Inc., and have contributed financial and other support to said labor organization by requiring membership therein as a condition of em- ployment, and by other acts; that the Association was found to be company dominated by the Board; 1 that Employees, Inc., is the same labor organization as, and is the successor to, the Association; (5) that on or about April 16, 1938, an at all times thereafter, the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em- ployees by discouraging membership in the Amalgamated, by urging employees not to join the Amalgamated, by vilifying and criticizing employees belonging to the Amalgamated, by making employment conditional on non-membership in the Amalgamated, and by per- suading and prevailing upon local officials to deny civil rights to representatives of the Amalgamated. The Landlord and the Tenant filed separate answers on April 17, 1939. The answer of the Landlord challenged the jurisdiction of the Board ; denied that it was an employer within the meaning of the Act, that it shipped or received any goods in interstate commerce, the existence of interlocking officers, directors, owners, and manage- inent between the Landlord and the Tenant, or that it had committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The Landlord also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction over it since it was not engaged in interstate commerce and was not an employer within the meaning of the Act. The answer of the Tenant denied that it was a successor to or agent of the Washington Manufacturing Company; that the Landlord had any connection with the Tenant, that it had committed any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and set up certain matters by way of affirmative defense which outlined the history of the Tenant. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was commenced at Jackson, Ten- nessee, on April 24, 1939, and continued at Milan, Tennessee, on April 25, 26, and 27, and May 1, 2, and 3, 1939, before A. Bruce Hunt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Landlord, the Tenant, and the Amalgamated were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Irene Bryant, a witness, was also represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to 1Matter of Washington Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 970. 1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bear- ing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. At the close of the Board's case the Landlord moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion, together with the motion which was filed as part of the Landlord's answer, was denied by the Trial Examiner. The Landlord also moved to strike the testimony of certain witnesses in so far as it affected the Landlord. This motion was also denied. These motions were renewed by the Landlord at the conclusion of the respondents' case and were denied by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report. At the close of the respondents' case the Land- lord moved to strike the allegations of the complaint as to all matters occurring prior to May 17, 1938, concerning the relationship between the Landlord and the Washington Manufacturing Company on the ground that those matters are res adjudicata because of a stipulation entered into on March 21, 1939, between the Washington Manufac- turing Company and the Board. This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. He also moved to dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleged that Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, Ruth Gant, Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Jean McFarhn, and Ruby Rimmer had been discriminated against in violation of the Act. Both motions were granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made various other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi- dence. The Board has reviewed these rulings and finds that no prej- udicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On June 9, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties, finding that both the Landlord and the Tenant had engaged in and were engaging in un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recom- mended that the respondents cease and desist from engaging in un- fair labor practices, that they withdraw all recognition from the Association and its successor, Employees, Inc., and completely dis- establish said organizations, and that they offer immediate and full reinstatement. with back pay to 50 of the persons named in the com- plaint. The Trial Examiner also recommended that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleged that the Washington Manufactur- ing Company had engaged in unfair labor practices and in so far as it alleged that the Landlord and the Tenant were engaged in business as agents of the Washington Manufacturing Company. Thereafter the respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1147 was scheduled before the Board on December 14, 1939, at Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. None of the parties ap- peared at the appointed time and place. The Board has considered the respondents' exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS A. Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company The Tenant, a Tennessee corporation, chartered on April 16, 1938, is engaged in the manufacture of shirts and play suits at Milan, Tennessee. It has three customers that ship cloth to its plant in Milan, where it converts the cloth into garments and re- turns it to the customers. Title to the cloth and the finished products remains in the respective customers. About 75 per cent of the Tenant's business is furnished by the Washington Manufactur- ing Company of Nashville, Tennessee, which from May 16, 1938, to January 1, 1939, shipped in its trucks to the Milan plant approxi- mately $210,000 worth of cotton cloth, at least 50 per cent of which came from the States of North Carolina and Virginia. When con- verted into wearing apparel this cloth, then valued at approxi- mately $285,000, was returned to the Washington Manufacturing Company at Nashville, Tennessee, in its trucks and thereafter at least 50 per cent of it was shipped by the Washington Manufactur- ing Company to points outside the State of Tennessee. About 25 per cent of the Tenant's business is received from Brown Pants Company of Little Rock, Arkansas, and Tru-Fit Trousers, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois. These concerns ship cloth by common carrier to the Tenant to be converted into garments and returned by common carrier to the respective customers. From March 15, 1939, to the date of the hearing, April 24, 1939, Brown Pants Com- pany shipped cloth to be converted into approximately 800 dozen shirts. From the beginning of 1939 to the date of the hearing Tru- Fit Trousers, Inc., shipped cloth to the Tenant to be converted into approximately 150 dozen shirts. The record does not disclose the value of the cloth or shirts. The buttons and other trimmings used by the Tenant in its busi- ness, except thread, are furnished by its customers. Neither the value nor the source of such trimmings is disclosed by the record. Thread is furnished by the Tenant and is purchased from the 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Plymouth Thread and Rayon Company of New York City. Neither the value nor the quantity of the thread used is shown by the record. The Tenant employs an average of 240 employees and at the time of the hearing there were 276 employees on the pay roll. B. Milan Improvement Company. The Landlord is a Tennessee corporation, chartered on February 20, 1924, "for the purpose of erecting, owning and leasing a build- ing or buildings in the town of Milan, Tennessee." It owns one factory building located in Milan, Tennessee, which is now occupied by the Tenant and which was formerly occupied by the Washington Manufacturing Company. The Landlord has no source of income and the factory is leased rent free. The Landlord has no employees and the record does not disclose the receipt or shipment of any goods by the Landlord. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor or- ganization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which admits to its membership employees of the Tenant. Milan Employees Association was an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion which admitted to membership persons employed by the Wash- ington Manufacturing Company at the plant owned by the Land- lord in Milan, Tennessee. Milan Employees, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, is an unaffiliated labor organization which admits to its membership employees of the Tenant. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background of the unfair labor practices The town of Milan, Tennessee, has approximately 4,000 inhabit- ants. During 1924 the Landlord was organized by the businessmen of Milan for the purpose of erecting a factory building. Nine busi- nessmen of the community became the incorporators and directors of the Landlord. Through the sale of stock to themselves and to approximately 80 other businessmen and concerns, the building, costing approximately $40,000, was financed. The factory was occupied for several years by the American Cigar Company and from about 1931 to May 1938 by the Washington Manufacturing Company. During 1934 the Washington Manufacturing Company complained to the Landlord that the plant was not sufficiently large for its pur- poses. Accordingly, an addition to the plant was constructed. This MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1149 addition was financed by a loan made on the strength of promissory notes executed by local businessmen . While the exact cost of the addition does not appear in the record, it is clear that the amount totaled several thousand dollars. Shortly thereafter the employees who were working in the factory purchased stock in the Landlord by the payment of a sum equal to 10 per cent of their wages. The money so raised was used to pay the notes which had been signed to secure the loan. In the spring of 1937 the Amalgamated commenced organiza- tional activities among employees of the Washington Manufactur- ing Company. It is clear from the record that these organizational activities did not meet with the approval of the town officials and many local businessmen . The Amalgamated filed charges against the Washington Manufacturing Company with the Board. A com- plaint was issued and hearing thereon , as it affected the activities of the Washington Manufacturing Company at its Milan plant, was held from June 25 to July 2, 1937, in Milan. Subsequent to July 2, 1937, the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany experienced continued labor difficulties in the Milan plant. The Association , which the Board's complaint had alleged to be dominated, interfered with, and supported by the Washington Manufacturing Company, decided to engage in a strike to enforce a demand for a closed shop. Accordingly , early in September 1937 a strike was called and all employees, except the active members of the Amalgamated, participated therein. Within 3 days the strike terminated unsuccessfully , the Washington Manufacturing Company having refused to grant the closed-shop demand. During November 1937 the Washington Manufacturing Company suspended various operations at its Milan plant and numerous em- ployees were laid off. Some of these employees were recalled after the first of the year 1938 . On January 19, 1938, the Board issued its Decision and Order finding that the Washington Manufacturing Company had engaged in unfair labor practices .2 At approxi- mately the same time it became known that the Washington Manu- facturing Company had decided to cease operating the Milan plant. At or about the same time W. H. Yost, who prior to 1934 had been employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company as traveling manager and representative of factories, was approached by some employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company and in- formed that the Washington Manufacturing Company planned to cease operating in Milan and would either sell or lease the Milan plant. They persuaded him to attempt to secure and operate the 2 Matter of Washington Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of i&merica, 4 N L. R. B. 970 1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant. Yost approached the Washington Manufacturing Company and was given an option on the plant. Subsequently he went to Milan to examine the plant and machinery to determine whether or not he could successfully operate it. Yost remained at the plant from February 1938 until the Washington Manufacturing Company ceased operation on May 5, 1938. Some employees testified that Yost was manager during this period and Yost admitted that he may have given orders to the employees. He testified that one Dietz, who had been nmanager, left in April 1938, at which time the Washington Manufacturing Company requested him to look after their interests at the plant. Yost also testified that the Washing- ton Manufacturing Company paid all his expenses including his living expenses while he was in Milan from February to May 1938, in return for which he was to assist in the management of the factory. Yost, Mildred K. Bryant, then an office employee of the Washing- ton Manufacturing Company, and J. W. Haynie,' the publisher of a local newspaper in Milan, and stockholder in and former president of the Landlord, became incorporators and directors of the Tenant. Yost, the sole stockholder, became its president and manager, and Mildred K. Bryant became its secretary. On May 3, 1938, the Washington Manufacturing Company and the Tenant entered into a written agreement whereby the latter succeeded to the rights and obligations of the former under the terms of the lease agreement with the Landlord. The succession was approved by the Landlord. By this agreement the Tenant also became the lessee of the machinery and equipment owned by the Washington Manu- facturing Company, which was located in the Milan plant. In addi- tion to this agreement the Washington Manufacturing Company and the Tenant entered into an agreement whereby the latter receives about three-fourths of its business from the Washington Manufactur- ing Company. On May 9, 1938, the Tenant posted a notice in part as follows : The Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company expects to com- mence operations on or about May 17, 1938. Should you desire to make application for employment you may do so at the com- pany's office on and after May 11th, 1938. Pursuant to this notice, the Tenant received several hundred appli- cations, including those of many former employees of the Washing- ton Manufacturing Company. Included among the applicants were the employees who, as active members of the Amalgamated, had re- fused to participate in the strike during September 1937. Each 3 Also referred to in the record as Haney. MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1151 applicant for employment was directed to give as reference two local businessmen, and Yost, who had talked to nearly everybody in town before forming the Tenant, wrote to various businessmen with respect to such applicants. Certain of the applicants called upon business- men in an effort to obtain endorsement for employment with the Tenant. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Oberlon Houge, a former employee of the Washington Manufac- turing Company and an applicant for employment with the Tenant, testified that she had a conversation with J. W. Haynie in the office of Dr. Virgil Fields, a local dentist, in December 1938. The record establishes that Haynie was one of the three incorporators and direc- tors of the Tenant and that he was still a director at the time the conversation took place. She testified as follows : He [Haynie] asked me why I wasn't working. I told him that I was laid off and never called back. . . . so he said "You are not one of those silly girls that joined the C. I. 0.?" I said, "I certainly am." He said, "Well, if you would like to go back to work," he said, "I can help you." About that time Virgil Fields called from his inner office and said, "If you belong to the C. I. O. you will never get back." . . . He [Haynie] told me he would talk to Mr. Yost and try to get me my job back. . . . He said Mr. Yost was a very good friend of his; he was sure he could get me back if Mildred [Bryant] didn't have anything against me. After testifying that Haynie later told her that he had been unable to obtain employment for her, Houge continued : He [Haynie] said, "Let me tell you don't go to any of those C. I. O. meetings between now and next Monday." Then he told me, "If I get you back you will have to move your boarding place, not board with Elizabeth Bryant." The record establishes that Elizabeth Bryant was one of the two leading figures in the Amalgamated. The testimony of Houge was not denied and the record shows that Haynie was in Milan during the hearing. We find that Haynie made the statement attributed to him by Houge substantially as related above. We find further that the Tenant has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Many of the witnesses called by the Board testified to conversations they had had with various local businessmen, most of whom were stockholders in the Landlord and some of whom were officers and 1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD directors of the Landlord. The substance of the statements, if made by an employer to his employees, would fall within the proscription of Section 8 (1) of the Act since the statements interfered with the rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that the Landlord was responsible for the acts of these individuals and that both the Landlord and the indi- viduals, in the commission of the acts, were acting in the interest of the Tenant in endeavoring to maintain conditions which the Trial Examiner found the Tenant had demanded, and that they were acting within the scope of the corporate functions of the Landlord. The Trial Examiner found that Yost had threatened to vacate the plant in the event the Amalgamated should organize the employees and that the fear of such an event had caused the Landlord's officers, directors, and stockholders to commit the acts which he found to be unfair labor practices. We are not convinced that the record supports the finding of the Trial Examiner that Yost threatened to vacate the plant in the event the Amalgamated organized the em- ployees, or that the Landlord, its officers, directors, and stockholders acted pursuant to any authority from the Tenant, express or implied, or in order to maintain any particular conditions demanded by the Tenant, in engaging in the acts set out in the record.4 The only relationship between the Landlord and the Tenant which this record establishes is that of landlord and sublessee. We, therefore, overrule the Trial Examiner's finding that the Landlord is acting in the inter- est of the Tenant and is an employer within the meaning of the Act. We shall dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the Landlord has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of the Act. C. Discrimin ation The complaint alleges that the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany discharged 3 individuals in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act and that the respondents violated Section 8 (3) of the Act by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment of 56 individuals, including 2 of the 3 individuals alleged to have been discriminated against by the Washington Manufacturing Company. As to the three individuals 5 alleged to have been discriminated against by the Washington Manufacturing Company and as to six of the individuals ° alleged to have been discriminated against by the respondents , the Trial Examiner on motion of Board counsel 4 Cf Matter of Regal Shirt Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 4 N L R. B. 567 5 Their names are Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, and Ruth Gant °Their names are Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Ruth Gant, Jean McFarlin, Ruby Rimmer, and Theda Throgmorton. MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1153 dismissed the complaint. No exceptions were filed to his ruling and it is hereby affirmed. The remaining 50 persons named in the complaint, who are listed in Appendix A hereto, were all employees of the Washington Manu- facturing Company and were laid off by that concern at various times between September 1937 and May 5, 193&, the day the plant closed, except that the record is not clear as to when Frances Whitman was laid off. They performed various operations for the Washington Manufacturing Company, many of them having been employed since the commencement of operations in Milan in 1932. The 50 employees affiliated themselves with the Amalgamated and attended its meet- ings; many of them served on its committees and otherwise partici- pated actively in the conduct of its affairs. With one exception they all applied for employment with the Tenant when it commenced operations on or about May 17, 1938. Irene Altman Grady , applied for employment with the Tenant during January 1939. It was claimed by some of the witnesses at the hearing that all of the 50 refused to take part in the Association strike in September 1937, that they thereby publicized their allegiance to the Amalgamated and their opposition to the Association, and that because of such ac- tion they had been refused employment by the Tenant. The record is clear, and we find, that the 42 employees of the Washington Manu- facturing Company named in Appendix B hereto refused to take part in the Association's strike for a closed shop in September 1937. A list of persons, 42 in number, who did not participate in the strike, was introduced in evidence at the hearing. The list was compiled from a diary kept by Elizabeth Bryant, one of the leaders of the Amalgamated, who testified that the diary contained the names of all but a "couple" who did not participate in the strike. Three of the persons so listed, namely Labon Burrow, Jean McFarlin, and Ruby Rimmer were among the persons concerning whom the complaint was dismissed on motion of Board's counsel. In addition to the other 39 persons on the list, the parties stipulated at the hearing that Marine. Wadkins did not participate in the strike, and from the testimony- of Robert Taylor and Lela Mae Chatman we find that Mary Ella.. Bowene and Lorraine Johnson did not participate in the strike. Thus, a total of 42 employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company did not participate in the strike. Their names are listed in Appendix B. As to the other eight persons listed in Appendix A hereto, namely, Imogene Garmany, Oberlon Houge, Irene Sanders, Martha Rogers, Frances Whitman, Laura Sue Jackson, Lessie Myracle, I Irene Altman Grady appears in the complaint as "Irene Altman ," but she testified that she had recently been married and that her married name is "Grady " 1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Euline Killen, there is not sufficient evidence to show that they remained at work and refused to participate in the strike. It is clear from the record that the strike of September 1937 was purely an Association affair, called for the purpose of attempting to enforce the Association's demand for a closed shop. The mem- bers of the Amalgamated, having heard of the strike prior to its occurrence, decided not to participate in it. They accordingly re- mained in the plant when the Association members left, but they were unable to work because the power had been shut off by the mem- bers of the Association as they left the plant. The identity of those who remained at their work was known. Hedrick, an official of the Washington Manufacturing Company, and Ault, a supervisory em- ployee of that company, who is now in the employ of the Tenant, apparently in a supervisory capacity, remained in the plant with the, members of the Amalgamated until they left at the end of the day. Shortly after the strike started, the sheriff of Milan County also went into the plant and talked to the employees remaining there. That others knew who remained in the plant is clear from a conversation between Charlie Fields, the foreman of the finishing room for the Washington Manufacturing Company, who is now employed by the Tenant, apparently in a supervisory capacity, and Will E. Robinson, the father of Irene Robinson Davidson and Lucille Robinson Phelps, two employees named in Appendices A and B hereto. The conver- sation took place during October 1938 when Robinson called on Fields in an effort to obtain employment for his daughters. We adopt Robinson's uncontradicted testimony that : I said, "Charlie, could you help me get my girls back to work? We need it awful bad." He says, "I will do anything in the world I can for you, Mr. Will. I always liked your girls. They gave perfect satisfaction. They worked in that.factory a long time, but they made a mistake; they stayed in up there the day they walked out; they showed which side of the fence they were on. I doubt very much whether they can ever get back on in that factory now ..." [Italics supplied.] Charlie Fields was not in the plant during the strike, but it is clear from the above that he knew who refused to participate in the strike. At the time that applications for employment were being made to the Tenant, as previously described, Yost brought to the plant a young woman named Dorothy Arnold, a stranger to the community, for the purpose of interviewing applicants. She required each appli- cant to give as references two local businessmen and the Tenant sought the recommendations of local businessmen for some of its MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1155 applicants: A few references to the record will show the effect of requiring this type of reference. Otis E. Carter, a local druggist, testified : "I imagine 95 per cent" of the local businessmen are opposed to the Amalgamated. This testimony is further supported by the fact that practically every business house in Milan had placards in its windows shortly after the Amalgamated first organized, stating in part that they were 100 per cent for the Association and against the C. I. O.s Dr. Odell Fields, a local dentist, testified that he had written Yost concerning the "desirability" of certain applicants for employment and that some of his letters were in response to letters received from Yost. Fields further testified: "I didn't care for the C. I. 0.; I didn't feel that it was best for Milan." Fields also testified that he at one time told the C. I. O. organizers that it would be best for them to leave town, and he openly admitted that he was prejudiced against the C. I. O. Fields also testified that he would not recom- mend a member of the Amalgamated for employment. John Denney,° who is a local banker in Milan, acknowledged that he had recommended persons for employment with the Tenant and that in this connection he had conversed with Yost. Concerning the employment of Amalgamated members Denney testified : I don't think it would be good advertising for me in my busi- ness, to employ them . .. This is a small town and we have this factory and payroll here. We have had a happy factory here; we have now something like between two and three hundred working; two hundred and forty or fifty, and the payroll is run- ning close to $13,000.00 a month. I think the people need em- ployment. It is quite an asset to the town, and this seems to bring a disturbance . . . tho local business men didn't want to lose the payroll in the local factory and the people lose em- ployment. (Italics supplied). Mattie Hurt, one of the persons named in Appendix B hereto, ap- proached Denney in August 1938 in an attempt to secure employment with the Tenant. She testified without contradiction, and we find, that he told her that "he could not do anything for me [her] ; they wouldn't work any C. I. O.'s." The record contains considerable additional testimony of a similar nature. Yost, who provided that all applicants for employment with the Tenant should give two local businessmen as references, testified that he talked to nearly everyone in Milan before incorporating the 8 The Amalgamated, an affiliate of the C. I 0., was often referred to as the C. I. O. Also referred to in the record as "John D Denny" 1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tenant. In addition, the record shows that he sought the recom- mendations of businessmen in Milan concerning applicants for employment. A total of 360 persons have been employed by the Tenant since it commenced operations. Of this number, 82 had not previously been employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company, while 278 had been so employed. All of the 278 persons previously employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company, who have since been hired by the Tenant, were members of the Association. None of the former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company, who affiliated with the Amalgamated and retained that affiliation and who refused to participate in the strike of the Association, have been employed by the Tenant.10 The Tenant hired 278, or approximately 62 per cent, of the 449 employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company.il Under such circumstances the 42 members of the Amalgamated who refused to participate in the Association strike might reasonably have ex- pected 26 of their number, as a minimum, to receive employment from the Tenant;'- yet none were hired. That 26 was the minimum number of jobs they should have received is apparent from certain other facts. The Tenant did not restrict its hiring to 62 per cent of 11 The record shows that only about eight people were employed by the Tenant who were ever affiliated with the Amalgamated, and they either resigned or withdrew from the Amal- gamated prior to their employment by the Tenant Certain other persons who affiliated themselves with the Amalgamated have not been called to work by the Tenant although they filed applications , but we are unable to find on the basis of the record before us that their affiliation with the Amalgamated was a matter of public knowledge in the community as was that of the 42 who publicly displayed their affiliation when they refused to partici- pate in the strike of the Association , or that their affiliation was known at all n The record does not show the total number of employees of the Washington Manufac - turing Company , as such We base our finding that the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany had 449 employees on the following facts (1) the Tenant employed 278 persons formerly employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company; ( 2) 147 former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company who belonged to the Association were not hired by the Tenant; ( 3),24 former employees of the Washington Manufactuiing Company who were members of the Amalgamated and who had not also joined the Association, were not hired by the Tenant Adding these figures we arrive at a total of 449 employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company This figure is corroborated by Adams, attorney for the Association, who testified that the Association represented all but about 20 of the Washington Manufacturing Company employees . The Association had 425 members among the employees of the Washington Manufactui ing Company 'a Cf North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v N L R B, 306 U S 660. enf'g Matter of North Whittier Heights Citrus Association and Citrus Packing House Workers Union, Local No 21091, 10 N L R B. 1269 ; West Oregon Lumber Company and Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No 3, International TVoodworkers of America, 20 N L R B 1; Hamilton-Bi own Shoe Company, a corporation v N L R B, 104 F (2d) 49 (C C A. 8), enf'g as mod Matter of Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, a corpora- tion and Local No 125 United Shoe Workers of America , affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, 9 N. L R. B 1073; Montgomery Ward <C Co , Inc v N L R B , 107 F. (2d) 555 (C C A 7), enf'g as mod Matter of Montgomery Ward cC Company and Reuben Litzenberger, et at, 9 N L R B 538, N L R B v The Louisville Refining Com- pany, 101 F (2d) 678 (C. C. A. 6), cent denied, 308 U S 568. enf'g as mod Matter of The Louisville Refining Company and International Association, Oil Field , Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America, 4 N. L R B 844 MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1157 the former Washington Manufacturing Company employees because of a scarcity of jobs .- This is evidenced by the fact that 82 em- ployees who never worked for the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany were hired by the Tenant. Since the Tenant hired 278 former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company who were members of the Association, the fact that it did not hire 147 former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company who be- longed to the Association cannot be attributed to the fact that the 147 were members of the Association. The failure of the Tenant to hire the 147 , except in so far as they are also within the group of 42 members of the Amalgamated who refused to participate in the Association's strike, must rest, therefore , upon other reasons, such as their failure to seek employment , their unavailability, etc. It fol- lows that the 82 jobs filled by persons not previously employed by the Washington Manufacturing Company were all open to the 42 employees in question. On the basis of the foregoing, we believe that the Tenant's selec- tion of employees was made on a discriminatory basis; that it re- fused to hire the 42 persons named in Appendix B because they were known supporters of the Amalgamated. All of the 42 persons named in Appendix B refused to participate in the Association's strike for a closed shop in September 1937, thereby publicizing their affiliation with the Amalgamated. Their action was known to the businessmen of Milan, a group of individuals who openly and repeatedly expressed their opposition to the Amalgamated. The Tenant, being fully cog- nizant of this state of fact, thereafter required applicants for em- ployment to furnish the names of two businessmen for references and consulted with the businessmen relative to the applicants. Then, although the Tenant hired 360 employees, 278 of them being former employees of the Washington Manufacturing Company who belonged to the Association, it refused to hire any of the 42 persons named in Appendix B who joined and remained members of the Amalgamated and refused to participate in the Association 's strike for a closed shop in September 1937. Only one individual who refused to participate in the strike, Elizabeth Throgmorton West, is now working for the Tenant, but she withdrew from the Amalgamated . The evidence does not disclose that a fair comparison was made between the abilities of the persons named in Appendix B and other applicants for em- ployment or that the former were given an opportunity of being judged on the basis of merit. We think that the evidence compels the conclusion that the Tenant refused to hire the 42 persons named 13 Cf Matter of Hoosier Veneer Company, a Corporation and Frank F Woolling, Receivei for Hoosier Veneer Company and United Veneer and Lumber Workers Local Industrial Union No 607, affiliated with the C I. 0, 21 N L R B 907. 283033-41-Vol 22-74 1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in Appendix B because of their affiliation with, and open support of, the Amalgamated. This conclusion we deem controlling unless destroyed or refuted by other evidence. 14 No question of inefficiency on the part of any of the 42 employees in question is raised by the Tenant; nor is there any indication that the operations of the plant are any different under the Tenant than when the plant was occupied by the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany. Many of the employees named in Appendix B hereto had worked in the plant for the Washington Manufacturing Company from the time it started in 1932, and all of them at one time or another worked at the plant for the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany and were familiar with the operations. In addition, many, if not all, of the employees named in Appendix B were known to Yost, as they had worked in the plant while he was there representing the Washington Manufacturing Company; and, as to most of them, their relationship to him was not that of strangers. The Tenant contends that it did not discriminate in favor of mem- bers of the Association or against members of the Amalgamated in hiring its employees, the ultimate substance of its defense being that the results obtained were merely a coincidence. The defense was based on the testimony of Yost, who, when pressed for an explanation for having brought to assist him in selecting the employees, a person who was wholly unacquainted with the ability of the applicants, testi- fied that he did not want to be influenced by any information given by any of the applicants and that the girl (Dorothy Arnold) would not be influenced by anything the applicants said. It is not disputed that other persons were available who had knowledge of the abilities of the applicants and who also knew the applicants. Yost testified that he did not want to select the employees on the basis of knowing them, but that he exercised his "own judgment in respect of the employment of personnel." However, he neither admitted nor denied the testi- mony of various businessmen that they had recommended persons to him for employment and that some of them had written him and had received letters from him on that subject. Moreover, the record shows that shortly after the Tenant commenced operations it granted recognition to the hastily organized Employees, Inc., which was formed mainly by persons who had been officers of the Association and whose membership was in a large part that of former members 14 N L. R. B. v. The Kentucky Fire Brick Company, 99 F (2d ) 89 (C C. A. 6 ), rehearing denied October 12, 1938, aff 'g Matter of Kentucky Firebrick Company and United Brick and Clay Workers of America, Local Union No. 510, 3 N. L R. B. 455 ; Matter of Hoosier Veneer Company, a Corporation and Frank F. Woolling, Receiver for Hoosier Veneer Com- pany and United Veneer and Lumber Workers Local Industrial Union No. 607, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 21 N. L. R. B. 907. MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1159 of the Association, and, in addition, entered into an agreement with it, which provided : that hereafter, when you the Tenant] expect to employ new employees, you will give due consideration to recommendations of Milan Employees, Inc., as to moral qualifications and quali- fications for work; and that you will not employ any person morally unfit or deficient and not properly qualified to perform the work which would be expected of such employee, it being agreed and understood that recommendations of Milan Employ- ees, Inc. shall be made within three days after you notify them of your intention to employ additional employees. We find nothing in the Tenant's method of selection of employees which rebuts the conclusion arising from the facts previously stated, that the Tenant refused to hire the 42 employees in question because they were active supporters of the Amalgamated, as evidenced by their refusal to participate in the Association's strike for a closed shop in September 1937. Rather, we think, its unusual use, in the selection of employees, of a person unacquainted with the applicants for employment tends to support the conclusion that the selection of employees was made on a, discriminatory basis. The recognition of Employees, Inc., and the contract granted to it must be viewed in the same light. Although Yost testified that Employees, Inc., had never refused to accept any person he desired to employ, we note that the Trial Examiner, who from his observation of Yost when he testified had an opportunity to form a trustworthy opinion as to his credi- bility, found that Yost was not a truthful witness. After examining the record, we are unable to place any reliance on his testimony or to believe, as the Tenant would have us, that the results of the Ten- ant's selection of employees, which excluded the 42 members of the Amalgamated who refused to participate in the Association's strike, Was a matter of coincidence. We find that the Tenant, by refusing to hire the 42 employees named in Appendix B hereto on May 17, 1938,11 and thereafter, dis- criminated against them in regard to hire, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated. We further find that by such action the Tenant interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We also find that the Tenant has not discriminated against Imo- gene Garmany, Oberlon Houge, Irene Sanders, Martha Rogers, u With regard to Irene Altman Grady , w ho applied for work in January 1939, we find that the Tenant, by refusing to hire her on and after Februaiy 1, 1939 , discriminated against her in regard to hire, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated. 1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Frances Whitman, Laura Sue Jackson, Lessie Myracle, and Euline Killen by refusing to hire them . We shall dismiss the complaint against the Tenant with respect to these individuals. D. Milan Employees, Inc. The complaint alleges that between August 1, 1937, and May 23, 1938, the Washington Manufacturing Company dominated and in- terfered with the administration of the Association and/or Employ- ees, Inc., and contributed financial and other support thereto, and that in so doing, the Washington Manufacturing Company received the aid of the Landlord and the Tenant. The complaint also al- leges that on or about April 16, 1938, and thereafter, the Landlord and the Tenant dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Association and/or Employees, Inc., and con- tributed financial and other support to said organization. The complaint further alleges that the Association was found by the Board to be a company-dominated union in Matter of Washington Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clot7zinq Workers of America,1G and that Employees, Inc., is the same organization as, and the successor to, the Association. On July 6, 1938, we entered an order setting aside and vacating our Decision and Order of January 19, 1938, in the Washington Manu- facturing Company case. Therefore, there is no finding of the Board that the Association is a company-dominated union in violation of the Act. We further take judicial notice of a stipulation entered into between the Board and the Washington Manufacturing Com- pany, which completely settled the Washington Manufacturing Con? - pany case and which provided that the instant case should be dis- missed in so far as it applied to the Washington Manufacturing Company. On the basis of the entire record in this case, we conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to find that either the Association or Employees, Inc. was dominated and interfered with by the Washing- ton Manufacturing Company, and for that reason, as well as the existence of our order of July 6, . 1938, and the stipulation referred to above, we find that the Washington Manufacturing Company. between August 1, 1937, and May 23, 1938, has not dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and/or lm- ployees, Inc., or contributed financial and other support to said organizations, and that it has not received the aid of the Landlord and the Tenant in so doing. 16 4 N. L R B. 970. MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1161 On May 21, 1938, Adams, attorney for both the Association and Employees, Inc., wrote to Yost calling his attention to a contract which had been in existence between the Association and the Wash- ington Manufacturing Company, and informing Yost that the mem- bers of the Association should "under the contract, be given employ- ment, and at least preference over other and new employees." On May 24, 1938, Yost replied that the Tenant "cannot recognize your labor organization or prefer its members." At about the same time the Association went out of existence. We find that the Tenant has not dominated and interfered with the Association. Shortly after the exchange of letters between Yost and Adams referred to above, Employees, Inc. was chartered by the State of Tennessee. Apparently, the expenses of incorporating were paid by Adams. Some of the officers of Employees, Inc. had been officers and leaders in the Association. They testified that there was no difference between Employees, Inc. and the Association except that one was a corporation and the other was not. On the record before us we cannot find that the Tenant interfered with the formation of Employees, Inc. or that it aided and supported it in any manner in organizing the employees of the Tenant. On June 11, 1938, Employees, Inc. notified the Tenant, in writing, that 154 of the latter's employees had joined Employees, Inc. and requested that Employees, Inc. be recognized by the Tenant as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees and that it be granted a closed shop. In addition, they requested that "no person not now employed by you will be employed without his or her char- acter and qualifications being approved by Milan Employees, Inc." Yost referred the letter to his counsel who wrote to Adams, "we have no disposition to do other than to recognize your client," but refused to enter into the type of contract proposed by Employees, Inc., and set a date for a bargaining conference. On June 30, 1938, a bargaining conference was held in the Tenant's plant, at which time Employees, Inc. was requested to prove its majority status. Employees, Inc. declined to disclose its members on the ground that its bylaws prohibited it from doing so, but it assured the Tenant that it had a majority. The parties then entered into a contract which granted exclusive recognition to Employees, Inc. "if and so long as its membership constitutes a majority of the employees." The contract also provided that the Tenant would give due consideration to the recommendations of Employees, Inc. before hiring new employees. The contract further provided that any person who was a member or who thereafter became a member of Employees, Inc. and who was certified to the Tenant by Em- ployees, Inc. as not being in good standing would, within 4 days, be 1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharged by the Tenant. There is no evidence of any other meet- ings between the Tenant and Employees, Inc. The record discloses that Employees, Inc. receives approximately $60 per month in dues and has only a few minor expenses. Its attorney, Adams, has made no arrangements concerning his - fee or the money which he advanced to defray the expenses of incorporating Employees, Inc. The record further discloses that Employees, Inc. has not endeavored to bargain collectively for increased wages, or different working hours, its officers claiming that although they had asked the membership at meetings to suggest matters for bargaining with the Tenant, no suggestions had been forthcoming. In view of the nature of the bargaining between the Tenant and Employees, Inc. which resulted in their contract, the provisions of the contract, and the failure of Employees, Inc. to bargain with the Tenant concerning wages or other working conditions, we have some doubt as to whether Employees, Inc. is free from company domina- tion. However, in light of the entire record we do not find that the Tenant dominated or interfered with the formation and administra- tion of Employees, Inc. or contributed financial support to said or- ganization. We will, therefore, dismiss the complaint in so far as it alleges that the Association and/or Employees, Inc. have been dom- inated and interfered with by the Tenant. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Tenant set forth in Section III B and C above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Tenant, described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and Lend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the Tenant has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, we will order that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the Tenant has discriminated in re- gard to the persons named in Appendix B hereto in order to dis- courage membership in the Amalgamated. This discrimination takes the form of a refusal to hire. Clearly the appropriate remedy to effectuate the policies of the Act is to order that the Tenant offer employment to the persons named in Appendix B hereto and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1163 of the Tenant's refusal to hire them 17 We Will, therefore, order that the Tenant offer immediate employment to the persons named in Appendix B hereto; and further, that it shall make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result of the Tenant's refusal to hire from May 17, 1938,18 the date the Tenant commenced operations, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings 19 of each during such period. 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. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and Milan Em- ployees, Inc., are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The Landlord is not an employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (2) 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 Tenant has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire of the persons named in Appendix B hereto, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the Tenant has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean- ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 17 Matter of Waumbec Mills, Inc and United Textile Workers of America, 15 N. L R B 37 1s Unlike the other employees named in Appendix B hereto, Irene Altman Grady did not apply for employment with the Tenant until January 1939 Thereafter, various persons were employed by the Tenant Accordingly, the back pay due Irene Altman Grady will be computed from February 1, 1939 , instead of May 17, 1938 18 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 Tenant, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination in his or her hire or tenure of emplovment and the consequent necessity of his or bei seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and Misted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2590, 8 N L. R B 440 Monies received for work performed upon Fed- eral , State, county , municipal or other work -relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Older , shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be 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 Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L. R B 219 . enf'd , as modified as to other issues, Republic Steel Corpora- tion V N. L R. B, 107 F (2d) 472 (C. C. A 3), cert denied, April 8, 1940 1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. The Tenant has not dominated and interfered with the forma- tion or administration of, or contributed support to, Milan Em- ployees Association or Milan Employees, Inc., within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 7. The Tenant has not discriminated in regard to hire for the pur- pose of discouraging membership in the Amalgamated, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by refusing to hire Imogene Garmany, Oberlon Houge, Irene Sanders, Martha Rogers, Frances Whitman, Laura Sue Jackson, Lessie Myracle, Euline Killen, Theda Throgmorton, Flora Sanders, Ruth Gant, Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Jean McFarlin, and Ruby Rimmer. 8. The operations of the Landlord, Milan Improvement Company, do not affect commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER ' Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Tenant, Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company, Milan, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging memberhip in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by refusing to hire, discharging, or refusing to reinstate 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) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to the employees named in Appendix B hereto, imme- diate employment at the same or substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed, including any seniority or other rights and privileges they would have acquired had the Tenant, Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company, not unlawfully discriminated against them ; MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1165 (b) Make whole the employees listed in Appendix B hereto, other than Irene Altman Grady, for any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of the Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company's refusal to hire them, by payment to each of them , respectively , of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages during the period from May 17, 1938, to the date employment is offered, less his or her net earnings 20 during said period ; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each of them monies received by them during that period for work performed upon Federal , State, county, or municipal , or other work-relief projects ; and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate 'fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supply funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Make whole Irene Altman Grady for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a, result of the Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company's refusal to hire her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned as wages during the period from February 1, 1939, to the date employment is offered her, less her net earnings 21 during said period ; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due her, monies received by her during that period for work performed upon Federal, State , county, or municipal, or other work-relief projects ; and pay over the amounts so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, munici- pal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and main- tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the re- spondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of membership or activity in that organization; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Tenant, Milan Shirt Manufacturing Company, has taken to Comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the Tenant has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices 20 See footnote 19, supra. 21 See footnote 19, supra 1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the Tenant has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, by refusing to hire Theda Throg- morton, Ruth Gant, Labon Burrow, Verna Cantrell, Jean McFarlin, -Ruby Rimmer, Imogene Garmany, Oberlon Houge, Irene Sanders, Martha Rogers, Frances Whitman, Laura Sue Jackson, Lessie Myracle, and Euline Killen, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the Landlord is an employer, within the meaning of the Act, and that the Landlord has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that the Washington Manufacturing Company has engaged- in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Act, and the allegations that the Landlord and the Tenant are agents of the Washington Manufacturing Company be, and they hereby are, dismissed. APPENDIX A Pauline Bennett Mary Ella Bowene Elizabeth Bryant Frances Burrow Lela Mae Chatman Louise Daniel Allene Davenport Irene Robinson Davidson Nelle Dorsett Ruth Enloe Florence Eubank Lucille Robinson 'Phelps b Marye Foust Mildred Foust Lillian Fuchs Imogene Garmany Irene Altman Grady c Jewell Harper Elouise Barnett Holyfield d Oberlon Houge Mattie Hurt Irene James Laura Sue Jackson Lorene Johnson Euline Killen Lockie Martin Nell Martin Annie Mae McFarlin Sudie Beasley Morgan Brooxie Cox Myracle Lessie Myracle Ruth Parr Edna Pugh Roy Rimmer Alma Rogers Matha Rogers a Named in complaint as Irene Robinson Named in complaint as Lucille Robinson. Named in complaint as Irene Altman. 4 Named in complaint as Eloulse Barnett. MILAN SHIRT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1167 Mary Spain Alice Taylor Stavely Nettie Mae Butler Stewart Mamie Stockard Robert Taylor Ruby Thetford Amy Thomas Hazel Via Marine Wadkins Georgia West Frances Whitman Cordie Ball Woodside Avice Wood Irene Sanders APPENDIX B Pauline Bennett Mary Ella Bowene Elizabeth Bryant Frances Burrow Lela Mae Chatman Louise Daniel Allene Davenport Irene Robinson Davidson a Nelle Dorsett Ruth Enloe Florence Eubank Lucille Robinson Phelps b Marve Foust Mildred Foust Lillian Fuchs Irene Altman Grady Jewell Harper Elouise Barnett,Holyfield a Mattie Hurt Irene James Lorene Johnson Lockie Martin Nell Martin Annie Mae McFarlin Sudie Beasley Morgan Brooxie Cox Myracle Ruth Parr Edna Pugh Roy Rimmer Alma Rogers Mary Spain Alice Taylor Stavely Nettie Mae Butler Stewart Mamie Stockard Robert Taylor Ruby Thetford Amy Thomas Hazel Via Marine Wadkins George West Cordie Ball Woodside Avice Wood • Named in complaint as Irene Robinson Named in complaint as Lucille Robinson. Named in complaint as Irene Altman. d Named in complaint as Elouise Barnett. Named in complaint as Nettie Mae Butler.