R. A. Blount

In the Matter of R. A. BLOUNT, HEARST B. BLOUNT, LONNIE FLINN, AND EUNICE SIMPSON and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL, AND SMELTER WORKERS, LOCAL 113, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O. Case 'No. C-1817.-Decided December 16, 1941 Jurisdiction : tiff mining industry. Unfair Labor Practices Discrimination: charges of, dismissed; dispossessing 8 employees out of about 35 permitted to live on the respondents' land, following the commencement of picketing by all the employees, found not discriminatory under all the circumstances. Collective Bargaining: union's majority established by cards designating the union ; resumption of work by majority of employees despite union's strike, particularly where not shown to precede the refusal to bargain, found under circumstances not to rebut the presumption of continuance of union's earlier majority-respondents' refusal to bargain with majority union, held to violate Section 8 (5), since contention that unit was inappropriate was found without merit. Remedial Orders : respondents ordered to bargain with union on request. Definitions : miners and haulers whom respondents engage to carry on their busi- ness of mining tiff from their land and transporting it to selling points are employees of the respondents ; lack of necessity for direct supervision does not preclude the existence of an employment status, where the nature of the respondents' business and the function of the workers clearly show that the workers are employees and not independent contractors. - Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees engaging in mining or hauling tiff at certain tract of land operated by respondents. Mr. Wallace Cooper, for the Board. Mr. Harry 0. Smith, of Farmington, Mo., Mr. Samuel Richeson, of Potosi, Mo., and Mr. Louis H. Breuer, of Rolla, Mo., for the respondents. Mr. Ben Riskin, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. Mr. Milton E. Harris, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, Local 113, affiliated with the Congress of Indus- 37 N. L R B., No. 107. 662 R: A. BLOUNT 663 trial Organizations, herein called the Union,' the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Acting Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated October 21, 1940, against R. A. Blount, Hearst B. Blount, Lonnie Flinn, and Eunice Simpson, Potosi, Missouri, herein called the respondents, alleging that the resopndents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, containing notice of hearing thereon, were duly served on each of the respondents and on the Union. With reference to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that the respondents (1) during October 1939 terminated the employment of 10 named employees and at all -times thereafter refused to reinstate them, by evicting them from their homes on a tract of land known as the Paw Paw Patch and refusing to permit them to work there for the reason that said employees had joined and assisted the Union, thereby discouraging membership in the Union; (2) about January 23, 1940,. and at all times thereafter refused upon request to bargain I col- lectively with the Union, which on such dates represented a majority of the respondents' employees in an appropriate unit; and (3) by these and other acts since about June 1939 interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On November 7, 1940, the respondents filed their joint answer, denying the Board's jurisdiction and the alleged unfair labor practices. - Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from November 18 to 22, 1940, in Potosi, Missouri, before Josef L. Hektoen, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board -and the respondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing and in his Inter- mediate Report the Trial Examiner made rulings on various motions and on objections to the admisison of evidence. The Board has. reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 1 The Union was incompletely designated in the complaint as International Union of- Mine, Mill and Smelter workers, affiliated with the' C. I. 0., but this designation vas- amended at the hearing. The Union is also known as Richwoods Tip Workers' Union No_ 113 of the International Union. 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD On December 23 and 26, 1940, the respondents and Board counsel, respectively, filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. On January 17, 1941, the respondents filed a reply brief with the Trial Examiner. On January 18, 1941, a stipulation correcting the transcript was entered into by the parties, and the stipulated corrections were there- upon made, pursuant to an order of the Trial Examiner on January 22, 1941. On February 10, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter- mediate Report, copies of which were duly served on each of the respondents and on the Union. In his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner found that the respondents had refused to bargain collec- tively with the Union, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but had not engaged in any other unfair labor practices; and he recommended that the respondents cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action. On March 26, 1941, the respondents and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and other parts of the record. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on April 8, 1911. The respondents, by counsel, and the Union, by a representative, appeared and presented oral argument. On April 10, 1941, the respondents filed a brief with the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs, and insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, finds them fo be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents own and operate a tract of approximately 640 acres of land located near Richwoods, Washington County, Missouri, com- monly known as the Paw Paw Patch. The Patch is managed by one of the respondents, R. A. Blount,' who engages miners and haulers to mine tiff 3 from the Patch and transport it to various selling points, collects royalty on the tiff sold, and accounts to his co-owners therefor. During the calendar year 1939 a total of approximately 3800 tons of tiff, valued at approximately $24,000, were mined at the Patch and sold to buyers who transported it to points outside the State of Mis- 3 Hereinafter referred to as Blount. 3 Tiff is used in the drilling of deep oil wells and as a filler in the manufacture of paint, glass , rubber, paper , oilcloth , linoleum , and other products R. A. BLOUNT - 665 souri.4 During the calendar year 1940 the amount of tiff produced at the Patch and its disposition in interstate commerce were substan- tially the same as in 1939. II. THE RESPONDENTS AS EMPLOYERS OF THE MINERS AND HAULERS Tiff is found on the Patch in veins, solutions, and residual deposits close to the surface of the land. Pits or shallow shafts, 3 to 5 feet in diameter, are sunk by miners to a depth of from 4 to 30 feet, the average depth being 8 to 12 feet. Deep veins may be laterally followed 8 to 10 feet beneath the surface. The mining is done by pick and shovel, and if the pit is too deep to permit throwing tiff to the surface by shovel, then bucket, rope, and windlass are employed. The miners furnish their own tools and equipment and work alone or in small groups. The miners are free to sink shafts where they please, and to mine when and how they will. No one directly super- vises their work and they, are free to work their own hours. On the average, the miners can work only 4 full days a week because of weather conditions. Before entering and mining on the Patch, a miner obtains a permit from Blount. These permits are revocable at will. The mined tiff, when cleaned and dried by the miners, is hauled at Blount's instructions to nearby selling points by haulers using their own trucks and serving between 4 and 12 miners. Like a miner, a hauler obtains a permit from Blount before he hauls tiff from the Patch. The miner's permit indicates the name of his hauler, but although a hauler customarily hauls tiff for several miners, he need obtain but one permit from Blount. One person may both mine and haul. When the tiff is hauled to a selling point, the miners and haulers involved receive a portion of the selling price as pay for their work. The miners average not more than $5 to $7 a week, for which they must work strenuously for about 10 hours a day. The record does not disclose the average amount of a .hauler's earnings. At the time of the hearing, about 75 or 100 persons were mining or hauling tiff at the Patch, and about half of them lived on the property in houses built by themselves or their predecessors. They paid no rent to the respondents for such accommodations, except for two houses owned and rented by the respondents; and they could move,. rent, or sell . the houses so far as .the .,respondents were concerned. I Blount Individually, and not as agent for the other respondents, buys most of the tiff produced at the Patch , for the purpose of resale. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondents admit that the haulers are employees, but con- tend that they are employees of the miners and that the miners are independent contractors and not employees of the respondents. The respondents rely on Sections 13593-6 of the Missouri Revised Statutes of 1929. However, these statutes specifically state that they apply only to miners other than the landowner's "servants, agents, or employes," and thus furnish no assistance in determining whether any particular miner is or is not an employee. In further support of their contention, the respondents point to the case of Woodruff v. Superior Mineral Company,5 which held that one Woodruff, a -miner similar to those here involved, came within the scope of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act. The lower court based its holding on the ground that Woodruff was an "independent contractor" with respect to the Mineral Company, but that the Compensation Act specifically provided that all independent contractor, while performing work in the usual operation of any person's business, was deemed to be in the same category as an em- ployee of that person. This provision seems to indicate that the Missouri legislature considered persons such as tiff miners to be employees within the policy of the Compensation Act without regard to their common-law status. Similarly, in determining whether the miners and haulers are employees of the respondents within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and (3) of the Act, we seek to apply the policy and provisions of the Act, and in such inquiry to take into consideration but not to be rigidly bound by common-law or local statutory conceptions.° In the instant case, the respondents operate the Patch for the purpose of obtaining a money income from the mining and sale of the tiff located there. The miners and haulers engage in the manual 5 230 Mo. App. 616, appeal dismissed on certiorari in 337 Mo. 718. *Matter of Seattle Post-Intelligencer Department of Hearst Publications, Inc. and Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No. 82, 9 N. L. R. B 1262, at 1274; Matter of Interstate Granite Corporation and Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte Branch, 11 N. L. R. B. 1046; Matter of Trawler Marie Stella, Inc. and American Com- munications Association (C. I. 0.), 12 N. L. R. B. 415; Matter of the Washington Branch of the Sun Life Insurance Company of America and Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council No. 213115, Industrial and Ordinary Insurance Agents Council, 15 N. L. R. B. 817; Matter of The Park Floral Company and United Greenhouse and Floral Workers Union No. 510 of the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 19 N. L R B. 404; Matter of Hearst Publications, Incorporated, a corporation (Los Angeles Examiner Department) and Newspaper Circulators, Wholesale Distributors, and Miscellaneous Employees Union No. 21666, American Federation of Labor, 25 N. L. R. B. 621; Matter of Federal Ice it Cold Storage Company and Produce Drivers and Employees Union, Local No. 630, 18 N. L. It. B. 161; Matter of America Scale Company and Frank Davenport and Local No. 149, International Molders Union of North America, etc, 19 N. L. It. B. 124;-Matter-of Veta Mines,Incorporated and International, Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter,. Workers, 36 N L R B 288. R. A. BLOUNT 667 labor of mining and hauling the respondents' tiff, and receive there- for particularly small earnings. The respondents exercise all the control over the miners and haulers that is required for the purpose of their business and the protection of their property interests. Moreover, it is Blount rather than the miners or haulers who' ar- ranges for the disposition of the tiff. Finally, the miners and haulers herein involved have applied for membership- and have joined a labor organization, which admits to membership various categories of employees, and have engaged in traditional concerted activity of employees. Upon the entire record we find, as did the Trial Exam- iner, that in the operation of the Paw Paw Patch the miners and haulers are employees of the respondents, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and (3) of the Act. III. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 113, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership miners and haulers working on the Patch. IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The alleged diserimin atory discharges The complaint, as amended, alleged that the respondent in October 1939 discharged Jake Colter, Curtiss Colter, Fred Clinton, Dan McGee, Floyd Brown, Ernest DeClue, Tom Williams, Charley Fann, Ben Graham, and Harry Stroup, by evicting such employees from their homes situated on the Patch and thereafter refusing to permit them to mine or haul from the Patch, for the reason that they had joined and assisted the Union. On July 15, 1939, Blount notified the miners and haulers that begin- ning August 15, 1939, he would reduce the price paid for tiff from the current quotation of $6 per ton to $5.30 per ton.' This announcement immediately resulted in a strike by the miners and haulers, accom- panied by picketing of the Patch. Picketing was also extended to the place of business of A. E. Stocking, a tiff buyer, at De Soto, Mis- souri. Five days later, on July 20, Blount sent to the 10 miners and haulers allegedly discriminated against a notice stating that, as agent for the respondents, he wanted possession on-or before August 21, 1939, of the "house and premises you are ,now occupying" on the Patch.8 On September. 19, 1939, the respondents began proceedings * Blount had not been buying tiff since June 24, 1939. 8 At the same time Blount also sent notices to some but not all of the persons allegedly discriminated against, cancelling their mining or hauling permits. A total-of about 30 miners and haulers occupied houses on'the Patch ., I- , ^ - I • ' -^ ill 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD against each of the 10 persons in a State court for damages, the value of the rents and profits, and restitution of possession. During the same month, the picketing ceased, and the tiff at the Patch which had been previously mined but had lain unsold because of the strike and picketing was sold by the respondents to A. E. Stocking and hauled away to him at De Soto, Missouri, pursuant to Blount's instructions. On October 3, 1939, judgments for restitution of possession were ob- tained against each of the 10 persons; and later in. the same month 8 of the 10 persons surrendered possession, pursuant to the judgments, while the remaining 2 were permitted to continue living on the property.9- As to the respondents' motive for the selection of the 10 miners and haulers who received dispossess notices about July 20, and for the court proceedings subsequently started against them in Septem- ber, and for the dispossessing of 8 of them in October, Blount testified that such steps were taken "in the regular course of business"; and he amplified this assertion by the following testimony : Our plan was to clear off the whole place and let the land lie there and no one living there; there had been two men killed there within a year, and there were complaints from Richwoods and State Patrol about conditions that were going on there. Blount, in substance, denied knowledge of the union membership or concerted activity of any of the persons sued at the time he sell[ ,the 10 dispossess notices. It wil ]be noted that in the summer of 1939 there were 75 to 100 miners and haulers working at the Patch, about half of whom lived there; that substantially all of them participated in the picketing; and that there is no evidence that Blount was in the vicinity of the Patch or observed the picketing. Under all the circumstances we are of the opinion, as was the Trial Examiner, that no sufficient showing was made to warrant a finding that the actions of the respondents were discriminatory. We find that the respondents did not unlawfully discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of the 10 named employees. B. The refusal to bargain '1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleged that the respondents' employees engaged in mining on or hauling from the Patch constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The respondents did not contest the appropriateness of this unit except on the ground, here- 'The record does not disclose why these two individuals were permitted to remain. R. A. BLOUNT 669 inbefore rejected, that the miners and haulers were independent contractors and not their employees. Upon the entire record, we find, as (lid the Trial Examiner, that the respondents' employees engaged in mining on or hauling from the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods, Missouri, at all times material herein constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit insures to employees of the respondents the full benefit of their right to self- organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the unit Between September 30 and October 21, 1939, cards designating the Union as the collective bargaining representative had been signed by 60 of the miners and haulers employed at the Patch.10 As of January 23, 1940, the date of the meeting, hereinbelow discussed, between. the Union and the respondents, 53 of these miners and haulers were employed by the respondents, according to a list of employees prepared by Blount.', As of the sane date, there were 79 employees in the unit, according to the same list.12 About a week earlier, on January 17, 1940, Blount had resumed buying tiff mined at the Patch, but at the reduced price announced on July 15, 1939. The record is not clear as to whether by this time the Union had terminated the strike against the price reduction. Although a majority of the employees participated in the resumption of work, the record does not disclose that they returned to work before January 23, 1940, the date on which, as we find below, the respond- ents refused to bargain with the Union. Moreover, we find, upon the entire record, that the employees, by returning to work, did not revoke their authorization of the Union as their collective bar- gaining representative.,' Under such circumstances, we find that the 10 In addition , the record discloses that one of the employees whose discharge is herein- before discussed had also joined the Union by this time. it This figure does not include the 8 employees whose discharges are hereinbefore dis- cussed . Only one of the 53 employees ever notified the Union of his withdrawal, and the notification was given "in January 1940 ," without further specification of the date. 13 Ibid. 13 See International Assn of Bridge, Structural if Ornamental Iron Workers et al v. Paulin Jail Bldq Co. et al, 118 . P. (2d) 615 (C C A 8), cert den., October 20, 1941, rev'g and rem'g 29 F. Supp 15, where the Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the company's contention that the union had ceased to be the representative of the employees upon the return to work of a majority of the union 's members during the pendency of a strike called by'the union , saying at p 618 "It cannot therefore be held that a . . . return to work by individual employees constituted a revocation , as a matter of law , of the union's right to act as the collective bargaining agency." 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD presumption is not rebutted that the Union's clear majority of October 1939 continued until January 23, 1940.14 We find, as did the' Trial Examiner, that at all times material herein the Union was and now is the duly designated representative of a majority of the respondents' employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit and, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, was and now is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours ofemployment, and other conditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain Jack Sullivan, as president of the Union, called on Blount, as agent of the respondents, at the latter's store in Potosi, on January 8, 1940. Ile testified that on behalf of the Union he asked Blount to bargain collectively regarding seniority rights, rates of pay, reinstatement of evicted miners, and a "check-off system"; that Blount stated that seniority would be a good thing because "that would keep the out- siders out"; and that a bargaining conference was arranged for Jan- uary 23. Blount denied that Sullivan spoke to him regarding the matters mentioned, stating that Sullivan merely informed him that "he would see me there on the '23rd of January, 1940." We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Sullivan made the purpose of the sched- uled January 23 meeting clear to Blount, and that the conversation respecting seniority took place on January 8 substantially as testified to by Sullivan." On January 23, 1940, Sullivan, George Bourbon- (the acting record- ing secretary of the Union), and two other union representatives met with Blount at the latter's store. Sullivan announced to Blount that the committee had "come to bargain" and that the Union represented a majority of the miners and haulers at the Patch. Blount replied that there was "nothing to bargain for," since the miners and haulers were independent contractors and not employees of the respondents. Blount' further advised Sullivan that "the case was in the Labor Board's hands and let them settle it.. .. 716 The meeting ended 14 The respondents admit that on January 23, 1940 , they did not base their refusal to bargain on any asserted lack of majority . N L. R B . v. National Motor Bearing Co., 105 P ( 2d) 652 (C. C. A. 9). 's The Trial Examiner found Blount "less than frank" where clear issues of fact were raised ; but Sullivan, though somewhat inarticulate, Ni as found to be a reliable witness. '- The Union's original charge had been filed 6 months before, and conferences had been held with Blount between that time and January 23 , 1940. However, the Union's action in filing charges with the Board cannot serve to justify the respondents ' refusal to bargain. See Matter of Stonewall Cotton Mills and Textile Workers Federal Local Union 21723, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, 36 N L. R B 240 It. A'. BLOUNT ' 671 without further colloquy. Blount did not question the Union's ma- jority, and no mention was made of the appropriateness of the unit sought by the Union other than Blount's assertion that the miners and haulers were independent contractors and not employees of the respondents. Since the Union was the exclusive representative of the respondents' employees in an appropriate unit at the time it requested the re- spondents to bargain, the respondents were clearly under a duty to bargain collectively. Although the respondents admit in their answer that they refused to bargain collectively with "the said Jack Sullivan, George Bourbon, and another," they assert therein as well as in their brief before the Board that they had no knowledge of the authority of these persons to speak for the Union, and therefore deny that they refused to bargain with the Union or its duly authorized representa- tives.l' But Blount knew that Sullivan was the Union's president and business representative, and in his point-blank refusal to bargain Blount raised no question concerning the representatives' authority to act in.behalf of the Union. The respondents therefore cannot escape the consequences of their refusal to bargain with the Union by now questioning the authority of the Union's representatives. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on January 23, 1940, and at all times thereafter, the respondents refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and, other conditions of employment. We further find that the respondents thereby interfered with, restrained, and, coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section IV above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondents set forth in Sections I and II above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondents engaged in unfair labor prac- tices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. 14 In their brief filed with the Trial Examiner, however , the respondents admit that they "did refuse to bargain with the Union." 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Having found that the respondents on January 23, 1940, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in the aforesaid appro- priate unit, we shall order them to do so upon request. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, Local 113, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The miners and haulers working with the respondents' permis- sion on the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods, Missouri, are employees of the respondents, and the respondents are their employers, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) and (3) of the Act. 3. The employees of the respondents engaged in mining and haul- ing at the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods, Missouri, at all times material herein constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of colective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, Local 113, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, at all times material herein was, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all their employees in said unit, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean- ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices, other than by their refusal to bargain collectively with the Union. 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- R. A. BLOUNT 673 spondents, R. A. Blount, Hearst B. Blount, Lonnie Flinn, and Eunice Simpson, 'Potosi, Missouri , their agents, successors, and assigns , shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, Local 113, .affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of all their employees engaged in mining and hauling at the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods, Missouri; (b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action , which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers , Local 113, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , as the exclusive representative of all their employees engaged in mining and hauling at the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods, Missouri ; (b) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places on the Paw Paw Patch, Richwoods , Missouri, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating: (1) that the respondents will not engage in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) hereof; and (2) that they will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof; (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. - AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , insofar as it alleges, that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices other than by refusing to bargain collectively, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.