The Greer Steel Co.

In the Matter of THE GREE* STEEL COMPANY and TUSCORA LODGE No. 173, AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA (C. I. 0.) Case No. C-1971.-Decided January 8, 1942 Jurisdiction : strip steel manufacturing industry. Unfair Labor Practices. Discrimination : refusal to recall or reinstate laid-off employee because of union membership and activity, induced by threat of rival union to call strike if such employee was recalled or reinstated. Remedial Orders : reinstatement, with back pay, of employee discriminated against; any employee with less seniority hired or reinstated since the dis- crimination to be dismissed, if necessary ; employee discriminated against to be placed on preferential list for employment, if no suitable work immediately available; period from date of Intermediate Report to date of Order herein excluded in computing back pay, since Trial ^ Examiner did not recommend reinstatement with back pay. Mr. Max W. Jo/tnstone, for the Board. Bowers, Stafford cQc Bowers, by Mr. Homer I. N. Stafford, of New Philadelphia, Ohio, for the respondent. Mr. Ward Walcott, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Amalgamated. Mr. Albert Weisbord, of Akron, Ohio, for the Federal Union. Mr. Louis Newman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed by Tuscora Lodge No. 173, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America (C. I. O.) ,1 herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Rela- i The respondent contends that on or about July 25, 1940, the Amalgamated surrendered its charter of affiliation with Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America and received a charter in place thereof from Steel Workers' Organizing Committee ; that the Amalgamated was therefore not in existence at the time the charge herein was filed on March 7, 1941 ; and that there was consequently no basis for issuance of the complaint . The record shows, as the Trial Examiner found, that the Amalgamated's charter was not surrendered. The question does not, in any event , affect the propriety of the issuance of the complaint . See Matter of Klamath Timber Company and Inter- 38 N. L. R. B. No. 17. 65 438861-42-vol. 38-6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio), issued its complaint dated June 24, 1941, against The Greer Steel Company, Dover, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) 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 thereon were duly served on the respondent and the Amalgamated, and on Federal Labor Union No. 21804, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Federal Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that on or about June 26, 1940, the respondent dis- charged7 or refused to reinstate employee Emmet L. True because of his membership in and activity for the Amalgamated and in order to discourage membership and activity in the Amalgamated, and that the respondent thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him. On July 3, 1941, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint, in which it admitted the allegations as to its business but denied having engaged in unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 10 and 11, 1941, at New Philadelphia, Ohio, before Edward G. Smith, the Trial Exam- iner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. A motion to intervene made by the Federal Union at the opening of the hearing was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection. The Board, the respondent, the Amalgamated, and the Federal Union were represented at and participated in the hearing. While the Fed- eral Union's intervention was limited to the extent that its interest might appear, full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case and again at the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to conform all pleadings and other formal documents to the proof, and the re- spondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof and for want of authority in the Amalgamated to file the charge and conse- quent absence of basis for issuance of the complaint by the Board. The Trial Examiner granted the motions made by counsel for the Board, except insofar as they contemplated substitution of the name national Woodworkers of America, Local No 6-12, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 35 N. L. R. B, No. 27, at p. 3; Matter of Universal Match Corporation and United Match Workers' Local Industrial Union #$ 180, affiliated with Committee for In- dustrial Organization, 23 N. L. R. B.,226, 227, note 1 ; Matter of Frederick R. Barrett and International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 978, 3 N. L. R. B. 513, 516. Cf. Matter of Blanton Company and United Oleomargarine Workers Local Industrial Union No. 489, 16 N. L. R. B. 951, mod. and enf'd N. L. R. B. V. The Blanton Company, 121 b' ( 2d) 564 (C. C. A. 8, 1941). THE GREER :STEEL COMPANY 67 of the S. W. O. C. for that of the Amalgamated, as to which he re- served decision. Decision was also reserved by the Trial Examiner on the respondent's motions to dismiss. The motions, or parts thereof, as to which the Trial Examiner thus reserved decision at the hearing were subsequently denied by him in the Intermediate Report. Rul- ings on other motions and on the admissibility 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. 4 Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report dated September 22, 1941, copies of which were duly served on the respondent, the Amalgamated, and the Federal Union. He found that the respondent had refused to reinstate True because of his membership in and activity for the Amalgamated, as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices in which it had thereby engaged and was engaging. Because he found that the respondent's refusal to re- instate True was induced by the Federal Union's threat to strike if True was reinstated, the Trial Examiner did not recommend the normal affirmative remedy of reinstatement with back pay. On No- vember 7, 1941, the respondent filed with the Board its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions, and on November 8, 1941, the Amalgamated filed with the Board its ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Federal Union filed no exceptions, and none of the parties requested leave to argue orally before the Board. The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief filed by the respondent, and finds the exceptions to be without merit insofar as they are inconsistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth below. The exceptions filed by the Amalgamated are hereby sustained. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT II. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Greer Steel Company is a West Virginia corporation engaged in the manufacture of various finished steel products. It maintains plants at Dover, Ohio; Anderson, Indiana; Detroit, Michigan; and Greer, West Virginia. The present proceeding involves only the Dover plant. The principal materials used by the respondent in the manu- facture of its finished products are various types and natures of steel. More than $200,000 worth of such raw materials are purchased and 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD used annually by the respondent in its operations, and approximately 30 per cent of these materials come from outside the State of Ohio. Finished products valued at more than $300,000 and consisting prin- cipally of cold rolled strip steel and other types of strip steel are produced annually by the respondent. Over 60 per cent of these finished products are sold and transported in interstate commerce out- side the State of Ohio. The respondent employs approximately 250 persons, exclusive of office employees, at its Dover plant. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Tuscora Lodge No. 173, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, is a labor organization affiliated wit' the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Federal Labor Union No. 21804 is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor. Both admit to membership employees of the respond- ent at its Dover plant. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Amalgamated was organized among employees at the respond- ent's Dover plant in 1933. Thereafter, the Federal Union was also organized among employees of the respondent at the same plant. On February 7, 1939, the respondent and the Federal Union entered into a written contract which recited that the Federal Union had submitted to the respondent for inspection authorization cards signed by more than 50 per cent of the employees, and in which the respondent recog- nized the Federal Union as sole collective bargaining agent for the employees, but which did not make membership in the Federal Union a condition of employment. This contract was to remain in effect for 1 year from its date, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of appropriate notice of termination by either party to the other; and it was, with certain minor amendments, still in effect at the time of the hearing herein. True was hired by the respondent in April 1923 as a carpenter, and he worked steadily as a carpenter and general handy man until he was laid off by the respondent on January 1, 1940. During this period, True worked under the supervision of Nyberg, master me- chanic or chief engineer in charger "of all construction and all main- tenance." Approximately 10 to 15 per cent of True's working time was devoted to carpentry : the rest of his working time was devoted to a variety of odd jobs, including many types of maintenance work. In June 1940, subsequent to True's lay-off by the respondent, H. C. Cappel, who is the respondent's treasurer and has charge of its Dover THE GREER STEEL COMPANY 69 plant, gave True work building a barn on Cappel's farm. True was thus employed when he was recalled to work by the respondent in the latter part of June 1940, as set forth below. True has been an active member and officer of the Amalgamated since its formation in 1933. He has been its financial secretary throughout its existence, was a member of its shop committee in 1938 and 1939, and has been active in soliciting members for it. In a prior proceeding against the respondent,2 True was named in the complaint as having been laid off on January 1, 1940, and having been thereafter refused reemployment because of his Amalgamated membership and activity, and he appeared as, a witness at the hearing in that proceed- ing held during February 1940.3 Thereafter, by letter dated June 8, 1940, Nyberg notified True to report for work on Monday, June 24. Subsequent to this notification, however, Cappel advised True not to report until June 26 because of delay in receipt by the respondent of materials necessary in the per- formance of the work for which True was being recalled, viz, the repair of a roof on one of the plant buildings. News of True's prospective reemployment apparently reached employees in the re- spondent's plant, including members of the grievance committee of the Federal Union, which was composed of the organization's president and six representatives from different departments of the plant. The president of the Federal Union, Walker, testified at the hearing with- out contradiction that, at a grievance committee meeting preceding the regular monthly meeting with the management on June 25, he was told by other members of the committee that men in the plant had told them that there would be trouble if True was brought back and that "they wouldn't tolerate it and would come out on a strike." Walker further testified that the committeemen "felt that it would be jeopardizing our contract" to permit True to return, and that they said that "we would have been having a strike again." The committee thereupon decided unanimously to protest True's reemployment. When Walker was asked at the hearing whether the protest thereafter submitted to the respondent as set forth below was made because of True's activity on behalf of the Amalgamated, he replied that "it more likely was"; he further testified that the protest was made in order "to keep peace and harmony in the plant" and more specifically be- cause the committee "didn't want any strikes or difficulty." On the evening of Tuesday, June 25, 1940, the grievance committee of the Federal Union had its regular monthly meeting with the e Matter of The Greer Steel Company and Steel Workers' Organizing Committee, 31 N. L R.'B., No. 58. 8 The Board there held that the evidence did not sustain the allegation that True was laid o8 and was refused reemployment because of'his union activity. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD management, represented by Cappel. Cappel testified, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the following occurred at this meeting : During the evening mention was made by someone on the [grievance] committee about the reef [of the plant] needing re- pairs . . . And I said, "Well, we will have two men out in the morning to fix the roof ... I have notified True and [Ira] Walters to come out in the morning. The committee-I can't tell you which one spoke up first-said, "You are not going to bring True back, are you?" I said, "Yes, I have called him." They said, "No, no, you are not going to bring him back, we won't work with him." I said, "This is just temporary work, probably will take a couple of weeks," and it got into a general discussion, and the committee all participated in the conversation, and declared themselves that they, and a lot of the men, wouldn't work with True if we brought him back. "Well," I said, "I don't know why they should object to True, he worked here before, and we want this work done." And they said, "Well, if you bring him back, you are sticking your neck out for trouble." Well, we argued the thing pro and con, and I insisted that they waive their protest, let the man come out and do the job. And in final conclusion, they said : "If you bring True out, you are going to have trouble." And I said, "Well, we don't want any trouble, we have had enough; we don't want any more," and I said, "I think you ought to forget about this, about your complaint." "But," I said, "however, I want you to reduce it to writing." And they said, "We will produce that in the morning, but Mr. True isn't going to start to work without trouble." Cappel further testified that the grievance committee of the Federal Union did not state, and that he did not inquire as to, the grounds for its objection to True's reinstatement, but that in his opinion the committee protested because "it was a jurisdictional fight" between the Amalgamated and the Federal Union. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Cappel construed what was said at the meeting as a threat to strike in the event that the committee's protest was disre- garded. On the morning of the following day, June 26, 1940, the committee submitted to Cappel a written statement consisting of the following sentence : "We the undersigned committee of Federal Labor Union No. 21804 vigorously oppose the reemployment bf Mr. Emmet True at this time." When True reported for work the same morning, he found a THE GREER STEEL COMPANY 71 note from Cappel on his time card stating that Cappel wanted to see him before he started work. True accordingly saw Cappel and was told by him that he was "very sorry," but that the grievance com- mittee of the Federal Union had made the protest above described. Cappel advised True to return to work at Cappel's farm, and said that "he would try to straighten matters out." In accordance with a provision in the contract between the respondent and the Federal Union, True was paid for 4 hours' work on June 26. On June 28, the respondent filed a separation report with the Ohio Bureau of Unem- ployment Compensation in which the reason stated for True's sep- aration from employment was : "laid off-pending outcome of labor protest." Cappel raised the question of True's reemployment at his next meet- ing with the Federal Union's committee, presumably in July 1940. The committee reiterated that "we won't work with him [True]." When asked at the hearing why True was not put to work after he had been called by the respondent, Cappel stated : The sole reason was that we did not want any labor trouble, we have had enough of it, and we don't want any more, and in older to keep peace and harmony I asked the committee to with- draw their objections, which they refused to do; consequently, when they refused to withdraw their objection, there was nothing else that I could do except what I did. In this connection, Cappel testified without contradiction that there had been four strikes at the respondent's Dover plant between 1933 and 1938, one in December 1933, one in August 1934, one in June 1936, and one in September 1938, and that each of them had been oc- casioned by the respondent's refusal to agree to union demands. He further testified that he had these strikes in mind when he acceded to the request of the Federal Union's committee that True not be reemployed. Upon the above stated facts, we believe and find that the Federal Union objected to True's reinstatement because of his membership in and activity for the Amalgamated, and that the respondent under- stood at the time why the Federal Union was making its objection. By acquiescing in and granting the Federal Union's request that True not be reinstated, the respondent in effect refused True reinstatement on June 26, 1940, because of his union membership and activity. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent discriminated in regard to True's hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated, encouraging membership in the Federal Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because discrimination as to an employee's hire and tenure of employment on account of his union affiliation ". . . goes to the very heart of the Act" and because it may be anticipated from the respond- ent's past conduct that it will engage in other violations of the Act, particularly if the Federal Union threatens economic reprisal for failure to do so, our cease and desist order will be issued in the usual form.4 0 Where an employee is denied employment because of his union mem- bership and activity, the policies of the Act are normally best ef- fectuated by directing the employer to give employment to the em- ployee and to reimburse him for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination. The Trial Examiner, however, has found that the respondent did not act in bad faith or in collusion with the Fed- eral Union, but that it refused employment to True because of the Federal Union's threat that a strike would take place if True was reemployed. He therefore did not recommend that True be rein- stated or that he be awarded back pay. In reaching this conclusion the Trial Examiner relied on our recent decision in the New York and Porto Rico Steamship case.5 We do not regard that case as decisive of the present proceeding, nor did we there hold that the policies of the Act will be effectuated by withholding the normally applicable affirmative remedy whenever an employer engages in unfair labor practices upon the insistence of a labor organization of his employees 4N. L. R. B v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F. (2d) 532 (C. C. A. 4, 1941), enf'g as mod . Matter of Entwistle Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Union of America, 23 N. L. R. B. 1058; Wilson & Co., Inc. v. N. L. R. B., decided November 17, 1941 (C. C. A. 7), enf'g Matter of Wilson & Co., Inc. and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 49, C. I. 0., 30 N. L R. B. 314. Cf. N. L R. B v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, 304 U. S. 333, enf'g Matter of Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, San Francisco Local No. 3, 1 N. L. R. B. 201. ,5Matter of The New York and Porto Rico Steamship Company and Commercial Tele- graphers' Union, Marine Division, A. F. of L., 34 N. L. R B., No. 114. TFLE GREER S'FEEL COMPANY 73 or because of the threat of economic pressure or hardship. In the Porto Rico case, the discharges which we found to be discriminatory were made only after effective sit-down strikes had occurred and had caused the employer considerable financial loss. The strikes there were called and took place immediately prior to the discriminatory discharges and for the express purpose of compelling them. We found that the employer's only alternative to discharging the em- ployees in question was to cease operations entirely, and that the em- ployer had "continuously and consistently exerted efforts," both directly and through outside persons and agencies, to settle the dispute between the rival unions and to protect the positions of the disputed employees. No similar showing is made in the present proceeding of actual exercise by a labor organization of its economic power to the demonstrated financial detriment of the respondent for the purpose of compelling the very action of which complaint has been made. The four strikes which took place in the respondent's plant between 1933 and 1938 had, so far as the record shows, no connection with the strike threatened by the Federal Union in June 1940 or with the respondent's proposal that True be reemployed. The record does not persuade us that the respondent was faced with the immediate alternative of com- plete cessation or even substantial interruption of operations. Under the circumstances, we sustain the Amalgamated's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to recommend that True be reinstated with back pay.6 To effectuate the policies of*the Act, we shall order the respondent to offer True immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to dismiss, if necessary, any em- ployee with less seniority than True who has been hired or reinstated by the respondent since June 26, 1940, to perform work for which True is qualified. In view, however, of the respondent's evidence that it had no carpentry or other suitable work available for True at the time of the hearing herein, we shall provide that, if the respond- ent has no.work available which True is qualified to perform, it shall place him on a preferential list for employment and shall reinstate him to his former or to a substantially equivalent position when such employment becomes available and before any person with less senior- ity is hired for such work.7 We shall further order the respondent e Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Star Publishing Company, 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9, 1938) ; McQuay- Norris Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (2d) 748 (C. C. A. 7, 1940) ; South Atlantic Steamship Company v. N. L. R. B., 116 F. (2d) 480 (C. C. A. 5, 1941) ; Wslson d Co., Inc. v. N. L. it. B., decided November 10, 1941 (C. C A. 8) ; Matter of Hudson Motor Car Company and International Union, United Automobile Workers o f America, A. F. L., 34 N. L. R. B., No. 100; Matter of Hicks Body Company and Federal Labor Union No. 22207, affiliated with the A. F. L., 33 N. L. R. B., No. 162. 7 Matter of New Idea, Inc. and Federal Labor Union No. 21218, affiliated with the A. F. of L., 31 N. L. R. B., No. 84. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to make True whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date on which the respondent offers him reinstatement or places him on a preferential list for em- ployment, less his net earnings during such period.' In accordance with our practice, the period from.the date of the Intermediate Re- port to the date of the Order herein will be excluded in computing the amount of whatever back pay True is entitled to have, since the Trial Examiner did not recommend his reinstatement with back pay.9 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 1. Tuscora Lodge No. 173, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America (C. I. 0.), and Federal Labor Union No. 21804, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of Emmet L. True, and thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated and encouraging membership in the Federal Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting 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 Relations 8 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the consequent necessity of 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. N. L. if. B., 311 U. S. 7. e Matter of E. R. Haffelfinger Company, Inc. and United Wall Paper Crafts of North America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L. R. B. 760. = GREER STEEL COMPANY 75 Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re- spondent, The Greer Steel Company, Dover, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Tuscora Lodge No. 173 (Amalga- mated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America (C. I. 0.), or in any other labor organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 21804, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organi- zation of its employees, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties 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: (a) Offer to Emmet L. True immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and dismiss, if neces- sary, any employee with less seniority than True who has been hired or reinstated by the respondent since June 26, 1940, to perform work for which True is qualified; provided that, if the respondent has no work available which True is qualified to perform, it shall place him on a preferential list of employment and shall reinstate him to his former or to a substantially equivalent position when such employ- ment becomes available and before any person with less seniority is hired for such work, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make Emmet L. True whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of such discrimination to the date of the Intermediate Report herein and during the period from the date of this Order to the date on which the respondent offers him reinstatemnet or places him on a preferential list of employment, less his net earnings during such periods; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Dover plant, and maintain 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 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Tuscora Lodge No. 173, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America (C. I. 0.), and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.