Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc.

In the Matter of ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, (C. 1. 0.) Case No. C-195,?.-Decided October 30, 1941 Jurisdiction : textile manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Discrim4natiom: discharge caused by employee's union activities; discriminatory eviction-from company-owned home ; refusal to reinstate upon request. Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back 'pay awarded; employer ordered to reimburse employee for losses caused by the eviction"and to offer him immediate occupancy of his former or substantially equivalent living quarters in a company-owned house or tenement on. the same terms accorded other employees. Mr. William S. Gordon, for the Board. Mr. John R. McLane and Mr. Ralph 1V. Davis, of Manchester, N. H., for the respondent. Mr. Raymond C. Leahy, of Nashua, N. H., for the W. W. W. A. Ann Lancly Wolf, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STA'1 EMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges' duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the' T. W; U. A., the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its com- plaint, dated May 27, 1941, against Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc., Wilton, New Hampshire, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting colnlnerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,'49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the T. W. U. A. 1 The original charge was filed October 21, 1940 ; the amended charge, on April 11, 1941. 36 N. L. R. B., No. •116. 545 433118-42-vol. 36-36 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance (1) that on or about September 21, 1940, the respondent discharged, and since that date refused to reinstate, Wilfred Champagne; (2) that on or about January 9. 1941., the respondent evicted Champagne from his living quarters; (3) that the discharge, the refusal to reinstate, and the eviction were be- cause of Champagne's activity on behalf of the T. W. U. A. and the Wilton Worsted Workers Association, herein called the W. W. W. A., because of his failure to retain membership in the W. W. W. A.,2 and because he engaged in concerted activities with other employees for their mutual aid and protection; and (4) that by the said acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. There- after the respondent filed its answer, dated June 3, 1941, in which it denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 10, 1941, at Wilton, New Hampshire, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the opening of the hear- ing, the W. W. W.: A. filed a motion to intervene. The motion was granted, restricting intervention to such matters as might directly con- cern the W. W. W. A. The respondent, the Board, and the W. W. W. A. were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine. witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted, without objection on the part of counsel for the respondent, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof. Rulings on other •mo- tions and on objections to.the admission of evidence were also made by the Trial Examiner during the course of the hearing. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Also at the close of the hearing, the parties were accorded an oppor- tunity to argue orally before the ,Trial Examiner. Only counsel for the Board availed himself of this opportunity. The respondent, how- ever, filed a brief with the Trial Examiner. Thereafter the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, dated August 14, 1941, copies of which were duly served on the respondent, the T. W. U. A., and the W. W. W. A. In his Intermediate Report 2 During the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion by counsel for the Board to amend the complaint by adding the words "because of his failure to retain member- ship in the Association [W. W. W. A.]" as a further alleged reason for the alleged discriminatory discharge , eviction , and refusal to reinstate. Counsel for the respondent at first objected to the motion on the grounds that the evidence adduced did not support the proposed amendment , but thereafter stated that he did not "think it is on a point that the surprise" would do him any damage, and further stated that he would take no exception to the ruling. ,ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC. 547 the Trial Examiner found that the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting' commerce, within 'the'meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist there- from, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On September 9 and 22, 1941, respectively, the respondent filed with the• Board its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. None of the parties requested opportunity to argue orally before the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief filed by the respondent and except in so far as the exceptions are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent is •a New Hampshire corporation:. ineo ported in 1933, with its office, principal place of business , and plant located in Wilton, New Hampshire . It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of worsted cloth. Materials used by the respondent in its manufacturing processes are worsted yarn and silk yarn. Principal places from which this yarn is shipped to the respondent are Milford , New Hampshire; Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ; and' Providence , Rhode Island. The respondent annually uses about 400,000 pounds of yarn, worth ap- proximately $600,000. Except for about $5,000 worth of yarn, which is shipped to it from outside the State of New Hampshire , the re- spondent uses yarn purchased by it from the Hillsboro Mills of Milford, New Hampshire , a corporation controlled by the majority stockholders of the respondent . Hillsboro Mills receives more than 90 per cent of its raw materials from sources outside --the State of New Hampshire. The respondent's principal product is worsted cloth, of which it manufactures annually approximately 400,000 yards , valued at about 4900,000. The entire output. is sold and shipped to points located outside the State of New Hampshire , 'including New York City; Rochester, New York; and Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . The respond- ent maintains a sales representative in New York City." The respondent concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it is subject to the.jurisdiction of the Board. 3 The findings of fact in Section I are based upon • a stipulation • entered- into between counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent. 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Wilton Worsted Workers Associa- tion, unaffiliated, are .labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discrimination in regard to the hire and 'tenure and a term and condition of the employment of Wilfred Champagne 1. The issues- The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent discharged Wilfred Champagne on or about September 21, 1940, thereafter re- fused to reinstate him, and on or about January 9, 1941, evicted him from his living quarters in a dwelling owned by the respondent be- cause of his activity on behalf of the T. W. U. A. and the W. W. W. A., and because of his failure to retain membership in the W. W. W. A. In its answer the respondent denies the allegations. 2. Events surrounding the discharge and eviction of, and the refusal to reinstate Champagne E. J. Abbott is president of the respondent corporation; his son, James Abbott, is in active charge of the respondent's mill; and Charles Lucas is overseer of the weavers employed by the respondent. Champagne began working for the respondent in 1933 and, except for short lay-offs, worked continuously until his dismissal on September 20, 1940, when he was the senior, weaver in length of service. In 1935'an abortive effort to organize a local union affiliated with the A. F. of L. was made by the respondent's employees. Champagne was appointed secretary. After this organization's first meeting, the re- spondent increased the weavers' wages, and union organization ceased. In December 1938 the T. W. U. A. sought to organize the respondent's employees. Champagne was elected secretary-treasurer. Thereafter, the W. W. W. A. was formed and was certified by the Board in January 1940 as the exclusive bargaining agency of the respondent's employees, following an election in which the T. W. U. A. did not take -part. Champagne thereupon joined the W. W. W. A., was elected to the executive committee as representative of the weavers, and frequently presented grievances to James Abbott. By July 1940 the executive committee of the W. W. W. A. became inactive; Champagne became dissatisfied with the organization as a bargaining agent, ceased paying dues, and was automatically suspended. ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS,-INC. • 549 Early in September. 1940, a campaign to revive the T. W. U. A. was begun by Champagne and union- organizers. They met outside Champagne's company-owned home, in view of the mill and of fellow. employees. On September 10 the. T. W. U. A. sent to about 20 em- ployees letters sounding out sentiment on the matter of reviving the organization. These letters claimed that no "true collective bargain- ing" had been carried on by 'the W. W. W. A. Management officials, particularly Overseer Lucas, knew, of Champagne's union activity; it was common knowledge in the plant.4 On September 20 Lucas was called to James Abbott's office and ordered to lay Champagne off. The overseer was surprised at receiv- ing such instructions, but carried them out. When Lucas gave him no reason for his lay-off, Champagne was referred to James Abbott. Abbott explained to him that there was "no particular reason," but that he was laid off just to give somebody else a chance at his job. Champagne pressed in vain for information as to when he would be re- called, and inquired whether or not his work and conduct had been satisfactory. Abbott assured him that he was one of the best weavers, but declared that he had brought too many employee complaints from the weave room to management. Champagne was then informed that he would be sent for when needed. Another employee was immediately called in to take his place. • Champagne waited 4 weeks, applied for reinstatement, and was refused.. Thereafter, at intervals of 2 or 3 weeks, he made unsuccessful efforts to obtain reinstatement. During the -summer of 1940, weavers at the respondent's mill were operating only two shifts. A number of weavers lost time in that period, while Champagne and other regular weavers continued to work. In actual number of hours worked during 1940, however, by September 20 at least two other weavers had a greater total than. Champagne 5 -and other weavers approximately the same. None of the weavers other than Champagne was laid off in September or thereafter. In October three-shift operation in the weave room was started. Spare weavers were recalled, employees theretofore em- ployed in other departments were assigned to weaving, and at least one new worker was hired in the weave room. At the time of the 4 This finding rests upon the testimony of Overseer Lucas . James Abbott at first denied knowledge of the letter, of C. I. 0. activity, or of the meetings at Champagne's home. He then admitted , however, that there might have been some talk of union activity which he could not remember at the hearing. Furthermore, when questioned concerning his knowledge of Champagne's union activity , he replied : "* * * I made it my business not to know * * * I tried not to know it . I weuld simply close my ears when anything like that would come up. As a mill official I made it my business to disclaim and immediately forget if possible any rumors or hearsay or anything I heard :about - it- * * *" E. J . Abbott also denied knowledge of Champagne's union activity. We can place no reliance upon the testimony of either James Abbott or E. J . Abbott on controversial ' isues . Their testimony generally, as revealed in Section III A 3, and as found ' by the Trial Examiner , was replete with inconsistencies , self-contrad ictions, and Bergeron . and Vanderhayden. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing three shifts were still in operation, and six new sets of looms, such as Champagne, had been regularly employed upon, were being installed. On January 9 or 10, 1941, Champagne asked James, Abbott whether he intended to reemploy him. Abbott -replied, "I never tell anybody when they are all done here. When we need them we use them." On his way,home from this interview, Champagne received at the local post office a registered letter from James Abbott, notifying him that "We would like the use of your tenement, and would therefore like to have you vacate same one month from Saturday, January 11, 1941." Pursuant to the notice Champagne vacated his company-owned home at about the end of January. Use of company-owned homes or "tene- ments" is restricted to the respondent's "regular employees," who pay a nominal sum as rent therefor." It is the respondent's practice to evict from such homes persons whose employment has terminated.? However, employees who are temporarily laid off are permitted to retain their residence, and are not required'to pay rent until they return to work, whereupon the accrued rent is deducted from their earnings. Champagne had no regular employment from September 20 until about the middle of November. At that time he obtained mill work in Lawrence, Massachusetts, which lasted about 6 weeks. Thereafter he obtained work in Manchester, New Hampshire. Having been forced by the. respondent to vacate his home, Champagne moved his family and household goods to Manchester, where he now resides. He desires to be reinstated in his former position and to return to his company- owned home. 3. Testimony of the respondent's officials and George Smith relative to the discharge of, and refusal- to reinstate-, Champagne With respect to Champagne's discharge, James Abbott testified, when first called as a witness by the Board, that the employee was an exceptionally good weaver, and that in seniority he ranked ahead of all other weavers. He also corroborated Lucas' testimony that Cham- pagne was a better qualified weaver than Brown, who was called in to replace Champagne. He testified that he received instructions from his father, E. J. Abbott, a few days before September 20, to lay Champagne off. As to these instructions, he testified : In substance my father told me he had had a conversation with Smith, the president.of the Wilton Worsted Workers Association, ° Champagne paid $1 .80 per week as rent for his company-owned home. He pays $5 a week as rent for his present home in Manchester. ° E. J. Abbott testified, "• * * after a man has not been actually working here for us for some months we generally try to get the house and give it to someone else." ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC. 551 and as a result of that conversation I was to lay-or they had de- cided to lay Champagne off and he gave me instructions therefor to lay Champagne off; no further reason. He stated that he did not ask, nor was lie ever informed, as to the na- ture of Smith's conversation with his father. He further declared, after denying that Champagne's discharge was caused by a force re- duction or, so far as he knew; to equalize work, that : I don't know any reason. The, only reason I ordered Champagne laid off was because of instructions from my father and he in his instructions gives me as much of his reasons as he thinks fit and I usually obey his instructions. At this point in his son's testiinony,_E. J. Abbott was called to the stand. The elder Abbott, who characterized himself as "a little Caesar," testified that : Champagne was a good average boy but he had that fault; he would get in disputes with his comrades and the management there about things he thought ought to be done differently, but not enough to let him go on account of that because we would get straightened out eventually. He admitted that the complaints to which he referred were made while Champagne was -a member. of the W. W. W. A.'s executive committee. Questioned concerning a meeting with Smith, the president of the W. W. W. A., prior to, Champagne's discharge, the senior Abbott at first testified that it "lapses back to a period somewhere in the spring, I should" say, in May or.-Jiine." ^ He?stated that, he could,not. recall'each of the conferences with Smith, which had occurred-about once a month; but as to a specific meeting, "early in September," he testified : that Smith suggested, in view of their previous talks, that there should be '.some. rotation of the help" in the weave room; that Smith had told him the W. W. W. A.'s executive committee was "quite insistent that something be done"; that "in fact be had talked this with me before several times in the spring and also in August"; that on the September occasion he had agreed and asked Smith whom he wanted to lay off and whom recalled; that Smith had named Champagne for the lay-off but had named no replacement and that thereupon she had instructed his son to lay Champagne off. Abbott admitted that he knew of no one but Champagne who was laid off under this "policy," but insisted that the "idea" of rotating the help was not his but the "union's [W. W. W. A.]" idea, and that he told his son to keep in touch with Smith "about the matter." Abbott further testified that by September 20 management "almost always" referred matters of lay-off aid hiring to the W. W. W. A., and that Champagne's lay-off was in line with the re- spondent's existing understanding with the W. W. W. A., which in 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 1940, 3 months after Champagne's discharge, was reduced to writing in a contracts Abbott further testified that it was his under- standing that, at the time of his lay-off, Champagne was still on the executive committee of the W. W.. W. A. and was "apparently a very good member of that union." He denied having ever discussed with Smith Champagne's C. I. O. activity, but immediately qualified the denial by adding, "of course, you get your recollections confused." Abbott also testified that Smith " sees me about once a month and talks matters over with me about broad policy.'," He further testified that not until recently, since the start of these proceedings, did he explain to his son that he had established the policy of "equalizing" the work. Smith, president of the W. W. W. A., `was present in the hearing room throughout the testimony of the Abbotts. When asked to re- count his conversations with E. J. Abbott with respect to Champagne's lay-off, he replied : Well, as near as I can remember the conversation that Mr. Abbott and I had was identical with what lie testified to; as near as I can remember it is absolutely right. On examination by the respondent's counsel, Smith testified that "dif- ferent weavers" had asked for a policy of rotating work, and that the executive committee suggested that Champagne be the first man to be laid off. On cross-examination , however, he testified that he did not discuss rotation of work with any weaver. Also on cross-examination, Smith'testified that the executive committee first discussed work rota- tion about 2 months before Champagne's lay-off, and that he brought np the subject. He further stated that a. vote was taken and that a majority approved. Pressed for details of the meeting, he then ad- mitted that "we might not have taken a vote on that," but insisted that, the employees must ]law been in favor of the policy because no one complained about Champagne's discharge. Finally Smith ad- initted that the only members of the executive committee then func- tioning were himself and Secretary-Treasurer Phinney. Smith further testified that he could not remember having ever discussed rotation of work with E. J. Abbott except during the "slack period" and stated that he never discussed it with James Abbott and Center, management representatives with whom the W. W. W. A. ordinarily conferred on W. W. W. A. matters. He stated that he brought the subject up to E. J. Abbott "a short while" before Champagne's lay-off. As to this occasion, he stated that he told Abbott that "some changes" should be made to provide employment for men then out of work. In 8 Article X of the agreement reads : "The corporation agrees to discuss with the Asso- ciation matters pertaining to lay-off of employees and the employment &f applicants for employment , and to follow as far as may seem practicable recommendations of the Association." ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC. 553 answer to four consecutive questions , Smith both denied and affirmed that he mentioned Brown to Abbott as a replacement for Champagne. When confronted with his contradictory testimony, he explained, "I am not sure about that . It is so long I have forgotten." Thereafter, Smith testified that in approaching E. J. Abbott, "my whole thought at the time was to get back some of the members of the association that were out on, the street doing nothing." Later, however , he testified that he and Phinney had decided,, since Champagne was. not in. good standing as a member of the W. W. W. A., that he should be laid off temporarily. Smith denied that, . at the time of Champagne 's lay-off, the W. W. W. A. had either a contract or an oral understanding with the respondent. After his father had been excused from the stand, James Abbott testified that on the day of the hearing he had first heard that Cham- pagne was laid off to equalize work, and admitted that if this had been the policy, a.' number of other weavers would 'have been laid off. He further testified that only recently had he learned of Smith 's visit to his father. With respect to the refusal to reinstate Champagne , James Abbott admitted that he never toldthe' employee that he was definitely dis- charged, although he had been told by his father that Champagne was not to be reinstated. E. J. Abbott at first testified that.Smith, not his son , asked him about reemployi ng Champagne , stating that : I took the matter up with Mr. Smith or he took it up with me and he said that Champagne was working elsewhere and he didn't figure it was necessary to re-employ him. Thereafter during his testimony he stated that his son asked him "once or twice,," and that he informed him "Smith had told me that he was apparently working somewhere else and there was no particular need of it." Although denying that he expected Champagne to remain idle in order to be eligible for reemployment, the elder Abbott declared that he had acceded to the position of the W. W. W. A. that Champagne should not be reinstated because he had. another job. Further on this subject, he testified : we keep people going in seeing that they don't starve and we nurse this town along as well as any town .in the United States . . . We followed that policy out until a few years ago and we had an election and the union (W. W. W. A.) was set up as the official bargaining agent and we turned over to them a good many functions that we used to have ourselves as managers. Abbott further testified that during the first part of 1941 he told the Board's Regional Director that he would reinstate Champagne if he 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' were needed. He also declared that after the complaint had been filed, on May 29, 1941, he consulted Smith about reemploying 'Champagne, that Smith agreed- to submit the matter to his executive committee or the "union," but that Smith had not made known his decision. He thereafter declared that not "until five minutes ago," when Champagne testified, did he learn that the employee wanted his job back, although the respondent's couusel.conceded that counsel for the Board specifically made-declaration of this fact on or about June 17, 1941. Smith was asked, after E. J. Abbott's testimony, if he would oppose reinstatement of Champagne. He testified that lie would not, provided he came back at the bottom of the seniority list. He twice denied that he had discussed the question of Champagne's reinstatement with the elder Abbott, and then testified that at the time Champagne was work- ing-in Lawrence he had told Abbott of the fact and had said "he didn't see any reason for taking him back." Pressed as to the ,date of this conference; he stated that it was during the 6-week period of Cham- pagne's Lawrence employment in the latter part of 1940, and that he knew Champagne had worked there that long because he had heard him so testify'9 Phinney, secretary-treasurer of the W. W. W. A., testified that Smith was not authorized by the executive committee to recommend Cham- pagne's lay-off, and denied that it was a "union. matter." He both affirmed and denied having discussed the lay-off with Smith, and denied that Champagne was mentioned by himself and Smith for lay-off be- cause he was not in good standing in the W. W. W. A. He also testi- fied that he only knew of one meeting between Smith and the elder Abbott, and that Smith had no authority from the organization to bargain with Abbott. 4. Conclusions as to the discharge and refusal to reinstate Champagne As is manifest. in the foregoing summary of testimony of James Abbott, E. J. Abbott, and George Smith, no one of them gave a coherent and consistent account of Champagne's discharge- and the circumstances surrounding it. It is apparent from their testimony that both James Abbott and Smith were trying to' fit,their statements to the pattern delineated by the elder Abbott-a pattern which itself was a maze of self-contradictions. It is inconceivable that the elder Abbott, who described himself as "a-little Caesar," should have yielded management power to hire and discharge to Smith and then not have informed his son, actively in charge of the mill, of the change in policy. It is clear that.no agreement, closed- shop or otherwise,-,existed, be- 9 In substance, section III A 3 summarizes the testimony of the Abbotts and Smith relative to Champagne 's discharge and the refusal to reinstate him. The record contains many other examples of inconsistent and contradictory testimony by these witnesses on this issue. ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC.' ' 555 tween the W. W. W. A. and the respondent at the time'of Champagne's discharge. Because of the unreliability of testimony given by the two Abbotts and Smith, and from his observation of these witnesses while testifying, the Trial Examiner found, and we affirm his findings, that their testimony that Champagne's discharge was the result of any agreement between E. J. Abbott and Smith or 'the W. W. W. A. to rotate or equalize work is not credible. Both. Champagne and Lucas, one of the respondent's supervisors, gave reasonable and mutually consistent accounts of events preceding the discharge. Champagne was well known as a "union" employee. When the Board certified the W. W. W. A. he dropped his activity in the T. W. U. A. and represented the weavers on the executive com- mittee of the former organization. He presented grievances and urged seniority rights and betterment of working conditions. Thereafter. bargaining by the W. W. W. A. subsided until only Smith and Phinney were active on the executive committee. Champagne then 'communi- cated with T. W. U. A. organizers, and an attempt was made to revive the organization. As found above, this attempt and Champagne's part in it was common knowledge in the mill, and was well known to the respondent's officials. A few days after letters seeking to revive the Union were sent out, Champagne was discharged. It is plain that the immediate cause of his discharge was his renewed T. W. U. A. activity, and it is equally clear, from James Abbott's statement to him at the time, that his pressing of grievances while an executive committee member of the W. W. W. A. was 'a contributing cause. Nor can we credit the testimony of the Abbotts as .to the refusal to reinstate Champagne. We are satisfied that the elder Abbott at no time consulted Smith as to the reemployment of Champagne. Assum- ing that he did and that he was informed by Smith that Champagne had other employment, E. J. Abbott's admission that he did not expect Champagne to remain idle in order to be eligible for reinstatement renders, impossible; his contention that reinstatement was refused because the employee had another job. From the foregoing, and in view of the glaring conflict in testimony of the respondent's officials as to the issue of Champagne's reinstate- ment, we conclude as did the Trial Examiner, (1) that the matter of his employment elsewhere was not a motivating factor in the refusal to reinstate, (2) that the respondent, by September 20, had resolved ..not to reemploy Champagne, and (3), that Champagne's "layoff" was actually a discharge. Further, the respondent evicted Champagne from his company- owned home or "tenement" in January 1941. It is plain, and we so find, that the lease of such homes to employees in the manner set forth above is a privilege amounting in effect to a part of their wages and constitutes a term and condition of their employment, within the 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In view of the respondent's prac- tice of restricting ,the use of these homes to its employees and in the absence of any explanation for Champagne's eviction apart from the termination.of his employment, we are satisfied and find that Cham- pagne was evicted for the same reason that he was discharged, that is, for his afore-mentioned union activity to Upon the entire record, we conclude and fired, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent, by its discharge of Wilfred, Cham- pagne on September, 20, 1940, by evicting Champagne from his com- pany-owned home, and by its refusal to. reinstate him, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment and a term and con- dition of his employment, discouraged membership in the T. W. U. A. and also thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees .in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent described in Section III above, occurring in "connection with the. operations of the respond- ent described in Section'I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the seN=eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the. Act, -we, must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also predicate our cease. and desist order upon the following findings. Discrimination because. of a person's union affiliation goes to "the very heart of the Act." 11 The respond- ent's course of conduct discloses a purpose and tendency to defeat self- organization and its objects.12 Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency, we are convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other 10 Cf. Matter of Great Western Mushroom Company and United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America , United Mushroom Workers Local Union No. 800, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 27 N: L. It. B., No. 79. "See National Labor Relations Board v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co., 120 F. (2d) 532 (C. C. A. 4) ; cf. Matter of Louis Kramer, et al. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 29 N. L. R. B., No. 135; Matter of ' Barry Biscuit Corp . and Cracker Biscuit Workers Union, Local 411 of the Bakery d Confectionery Workers International Union of America, affiliated with the A. F. of L., et al., 24 N. L. It. B., No. 117. 12 Cf. Phelps Dodge Corp v. National Labor Relations Board, 61 S. Ct. 685, where the Supreme Court stated : "Discrimination against union labor in the hiring of men is a dam to self-organization at the source of supply . The effect of such discrimination is not confined to the actual denial of employment ; it inevitably operates against the whole idea of the legitimacy of organization . In a word, it undermines the principle which, as we have seen , is recognized as basic to the attainment of industrial peace."' ABBOTT. WORSTED NIILLS, INC. 557 unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.13 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby- to mini- mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we must order the respondent to cease and desist from in any manner. infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We -shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We- have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate Wilfred Champagne because of his union activity. We shall order the respondent to offer Champagne imme- diate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position ,. without prejudice to his 'seniority or other rights and priv- ileges, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's unlawful discrimination against him, by payment to him -of a sum of money equal to -the amount he;w.ould nor- mally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge, Septem- ber 20, 1940, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings " during such period. We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily evicted Champagne from a dwelling owned by the respondent. Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to offer Champagne immediate occu- pancy of his former or substantially equivalent living quarters in a company-owned house or tenement on the same terms accorded other employees. We shall further order the respondent to make Cham- pagne whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of his dis- criminatory eviction by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he has had to pay as rental for a new dwelling from the date of the eviction to the date he is offered reinstatement and occu- pancy in the manner set forth above, plus such additional expenses as he may have incurred during said period as a direct result of his eviction, but less the amount he would normally have paid as rent for his company-owned home during said period." 13 See National Labor Relations Board v. 1,,1:rpress Publishing Co ., 312 U. S. 426. 34 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room and board, and moving expenses to and from Manchester, New Hampshire , incurred by him in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. Al. L. H. B., 311 U. S. 7. 15 The above-mentioned loss and expenses incurred as a result of the discriminatory eviction are, at least in part, the same as certain expenses deductible from earnings in 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL - LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the'entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America. (C. I. 0.) and Wilton Worsted Workers 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 employment and a term and condition of employment of Wilfred Champagne, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the respond- ent 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 7 spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting .commerce,.. within the meaning of Sectiop 2 (6) and (7). of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing 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 re- spondent, Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc., Wilton, New Ba.mpshire, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Alnerict (C. I. 0.), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis1 criminating in regard to their hire, tenure, terms, or conditions of employment; (b)-1n 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 activ' ities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : determining "net earnings ," as defined in footnote 14, supra. The above requirement to make Champagne whole for loss suffered•by reason of the eviction shall not be interpreted to require the respondent to pay Champagne any expenses deducted from his earnings in computing "net earnings" as thus ' defined. ABBOTT WORSTED MILLS, INC. 559 (a) Offer to Wilfretl Champagne immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Wilfred Champagne for any loss of pay he may have suffered by.reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he.normally would have earned as wages from September 20, 1940, the date of his discharge, to the date of offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period; (c) Offer Wilfred Champagne immediate occupancy of his former or substantially equivalent living quarters in. a company-owned house; (d) Make whole Wilfred Champagne for any loss he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory eviction of Cham- pagne from his living quarters, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he has had to pay as -rental for a new dwelling from the date of said eviction to the date he is offered reinstatement and occupancy in the manner set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (c) above, plus such additional expenses as he may have incurred during sail period as a direct result of-his eviction, but less the amount he would normally have paid as rent for his company-owned home during said period;" (e) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respond- ent's plant at Wilton, New Hampshire, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, notices to its em- ployees stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it has been ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2), that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c),:and (d) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees.are free to become or remain members of Textile Workers Union of America (C. I. 0.), and that the respond- ent will not discriminate against any employee because of his membership in or activity in'bdhalf of said-labor organization; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order What steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. Mn. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 16 See footnote 14, supra. See footnote 15, supra. -