Albert J. Bartson

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 666 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of ALBERT J. BARTSON and TEXTILE WORKERS'
ORGANIZING Coi nIITTEE
Case No. C-997.-Decided May 8, 1940
Textile Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union speech by
plant superintendent; discharge for union membership (not alleged as 8 (3))-
Discrimination: discharge for union membership and activity, charge of sus-
tained ; lay-off for union membership and activity, charge of dismissed ; refusal
to reinstate for filing charges under Act following lay-off, charge of sustained-
Reinstatement Ordered: discharged employee and employee refused reinstate-
ment-Back Pay: ordered from dates of discrimination to offers of reinstatement.
Mr. Samuel M. Spencer, for the Board.
Mr. Frank K. Sims, Jr., and Mr. William A. Mason, of Charlotte,
N. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Robert D. Allen, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers'
Organizing Committee,' herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint
dated August 19, 1938, and its amended complaint dated September
10, 1938, against Albert J. Bartson, Charlotte, North Carolina, 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. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended
complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent terminated the
employment of Henry C. Kirby and Hoyt M. Atkins on or about
January 17, 1938, and April 5, 1938, respectively, and has since re-
fused to reemploy them because of their membership in and affiliation
1 Now the Textile Workers Union of America.
23 N. L. R. B., No. 58.
666
ALBERT J. BARTSON 667
with the Union, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and
that by the foregoing acts and refusals to act, by advising his em-
ployees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
Union, and by other acts, the respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The amended complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent. The respondent filed his answer
to the complaint,2 objecting to the Board's jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter and denying that he had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged.
Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on September 19 and
20, 1938, at Charlotte, North Carolina, before D. Lacy McBryde,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the respondent 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 course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
and hereby affirmed.
On October 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were served upon the parties, in which he
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recom-
mended thL,t the respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor
practices found and offer full reinstatement with back pay to Henry
C. Kirby and Hoyt M. Atkins. In his Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint made at the hearing. His ruling in this regard
is hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief in support of said exceptions.
On December 29, 1939, Textile Workers Union of America, as suc-
cessor to the Union, filed amended charges alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) of the Act. It appearing
that the allegations of the amended complaint did not conform in
certain respects to the evidence offered and received at the hearing,
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act and Article
2 It was stipulated that the respondent's answer to the complaint should stand as his
answer to the amended complaint.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II, Section 7, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, did on March 25, 1940, issue and cause
to be served upon the parties its amendment to amended complaint
pursuant to which the complaint was amended by adding allegations
that on and after about July 18, 1938, the respondent refused and still
refuses to reinstate Hoyt M. Atkins for the further reason that
he had filed charges under the Act, thereby discriminating against
him, and that such discrimination constitutes an unfair labor prac-
tice within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act. At the time
of the service of said amendment to the amended complaint, notice
was given to the respondent that he would be allowed ten (10) days
from receipt of such notice in which to file with the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., an answer to the amended complaint, as thus amended,
and that with such answer he might submit a request for hearing
on the amended complaint, as amended. Neither an answer nor a
request for such hearing has been filed by the respondent.
The Board has fully considered the respondent's exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
findings, conclusions of law, 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, a resident of Midland Park, New Jersey, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of upholstery and decorative tapestry.
He owns and operates plants in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Mid-
land Park, New Jersey. Only the North Carolina plant, hereinafter
referred to as the plant, is involved in this proceeding. Approxi-
mately 10 per cent of the raw materials used at the plant originate
in States other than North Carolina. During the 12 months' period
preceding the hearing herein, finished products valued at approxi-
mately $100,000 were manufactured at the plant. Of such products
95 per cent were sold and shipped to purchasers in States other than
North Carolina. The respondent maintains a selling agent in New
York City and leases a teletype connecting the plant with his office
in Midland Park, New Jersey.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers' Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.3 It ad-
Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
ALBERT J. BARTSON 669
I mits to membership employees of the respondent at his Charlotte,
North Carolina, plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Early in April 1937 a large number of the respondent's employees
applied for membership in the Union. Shortly thereafter, Henry C.
Kirby and two other employees approached the respondent and,
stating that they represented the union members in the plant, re-
quested a raise in pay and certain changes in working conditions of
the weavers. At that time the respondent granted a pay increase
acceptable to the weavers. Subsequently, in August 1937, all of the
weavers left their work, went into the office, and through Kirby as
their spokesman asked Bane, the superintendent of the plant, for an
increase in pay. Bane protested that he had no authority to grant
the request. However, upon the insistence of the employees that their
.demands be met before they resumed work, Bane wired the respond-
ent, who was then in Midland Park, New Jersey, asking instructions
in the matter. The record does not reveal the nature of the respond-
ent's reply. However, Bane granted certain minimum wage increases
and the employees thereupon returned to work.
During the week following this occurrence the respondent and
Bane carried on an extensive correspondence relative to the above-
mentioned activities of the employees. In,the course of that corre-
spondence the respondent asked Bane to give him the names of the
"head ones . . . that was causing the trouble there." Bane replied
that they were Kirby, W. R. Lefler, Ralph Wilson, and another whose
name he was unable to recall at the hearing. The respondent there-
upon instructed Bane to "ease out the ones that was ring leaders by
the easiest way." Thereafter Bane discharged Wilson for the ostensi-
ble reason that he had made "bad cloth." 4 Bane testified, however,
that in making the discharge he was motivated by the respondent's
instructions. His explanation for the failure to discharge Kirby was
that Kirby "was giving . . . satisfaction."
. On November 15, 1937, the respondent discharged Bane, who had
,experienced considerable "trouble with the weavers," and hired J. M.
Gayle as superintendent of the plant. Early in 1938, having decided
to initiate a new policy governing division of work among the weav-
ers, Gayle posted a notice of a meeting of all the employees. Pur-
suant to the notice, the employees assembled in the plant where Gayle
addressed them. He opened his remarks by telling the employees of
the new policy concerning the division of work. He then began to
• The complaint does not allege that this discharge was an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discuss matters pertaining to the Union. He thanked the employees
for their "cooperation," stating that prior to assuming his duties at
the plant he had been advised that "the plant was about 90 per cent
union," that "there was quite a bit of trouble down here," and that
the employees were a "hard bunch to handle," but that, contrary to
his expectations, he "had never run across a more cooperative bunch
of help." Although declaring that it made no difference to him
.whether or not the employees belonged to a union, he said, "I don't
see where a union would be necessary in a small plant like this as I
think you all are intelligent and can thrash out your own problems
any time they might arise," that "little matters that would come up
would be thrashed out among ourselves in the office."
It is clear that Gayle's speech was inspired by his desire to accom-
plish the respondent's previously expressed purpose to rid the plant
of union activity, and that his reference to "trouble down here" made
in connection with a discussion of the Union and his admonition
that a union in the plant was unnecessary were calculated to and
did discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the Union.
We find that by discharging Wilson and by Gayle's speech to, the
assembled employees, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The discharge, lay-off, and refusals to reinstate
Henry C. Kirby was employed by the respondent in October 1936,
being one of the first weavers employed when operation of the plant
commenced. He joined the Union in April 1937, was for a short
time secretary of its North Charlotte Local, and was its most active
member in the plant from the inception of efforts to organize the
respondent's employees. He solicited applications for membership
in the Union from a number of the respondent's employees and was
one of the spokesmen on all occasions when collective demands of
the employees were presented to the respondent. Bane and Gayle
each- testified that they were aware of union activity among the
respondent's employees and Kirby's participation therein.
On Friday, January 14, 1938, Kirby was called to the cloth-
inspection table where Gayle showed him some defects in a roll of
cloth upon which he had worked. Gayle told Kirby that "cloth like
that could not go through, that we could not have it made here like
that, and that was all there was to it." He said nothing, however,
to indicate that he considered the defects for which Kirby was re-
sponsible sufficiently serious to necessitate discharging him. Kirby
was discharged at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon on Monday, Janu-
ary 17, the next regular workday following the foregoing incident.
ALBERT J. BARTSON 671
At the hearing the respondent assigned two reasons for Kirby's
discharge , namely, "bad cloth" and "failure to cooperate."
With reference to the charge that Kirby had made "bad cloth,"
Gayle stated that the cloth which he inspected on January 14 was
the worst roll of cloth he had seen since coming to the plant. John
F. Crews, one of the respondent 's cloth inspectors , and R. P. Morris,
a weaver, stated that the cloth was "worse than average ." However,
Atkins, who also saw Kirby's work at the inspection table , testified
that "there wasn 't much difference" between it and work done on
the same roll of cloth by Harry Holmes, another weaver.
Although Crews testified that it is impossible to determine the
seriousness of defects in cloth by mere examination of the records
made at the time of inspection , we think it significant that, according
to those records , there were fewer defects in the "bad cloth" for which
Kirby was discharged than ixi several pieces made by other weavers
during the period immediately preceding the discharge . As stated
above, Gayle told Kirby that "cloth like that could not go through."
Nevertheless , it was shipped on the afternoon of January 14.
On the question of Kirby's general ability as a weaver , Bane stated
that " if anything , he was just a little better cloth weaver than the
rest of them were, some of the rest of them." Although Gayle testi-
fied that prior to the January 14 incident he had had occasion to
call Kirby to the cloth -inspection table at least three times for the
purpose of pointing out defects in cloth that Kirby had made, the
respondent did not contend that serious defects in cloth were in-
volved on these occasions . The evidence establishes and the respond-
ent admitted that frequent calls to the inspection table to examine
defective cloth were not unusual . James B. Hurt, a weaver who was
in the respondent 's employ at the time of the hearing , testified that
he had been called five or six times since Gayle had become superin-
tendent of the plant.
The charge of failure to cooperate is based upon the fact that for
a week Kirby failed to comply with a notice posted by Gayle re-
quiring the employees to punch a time-clock upon arriving at and
leaving work . The respondent 's weavers are paid on a piece-work
basis and it was not claimed by the respondent that Kirby had been
irregular in his hours of work.
At 11 o 'clock in the morning of the day that Kirby was discharged,
S. P. Brewer , Carolina 's administrator of the Union, called Gayle by
telephone and arranged a conference for 3 o'clock that afternoon to
discuss a union proposal . It will be noted that Kirby was dis-
charged between the time of ,the telephone call and that appointed
for the conference . At the hearing Gayle testified that after in-
specting Kirby's roll of cloth on January 14 he decided to discharge
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kirby "right away, you might say, as soon as I went back into the
office and realized that the cloth was,-in other words, that it
looked like that was the only thing that I was going to be able to
do." Gayle testified that he delayed discharging Kirby until the
afternoon of January 17, in the meantime permitting him to continue
his work, so that he would have time to get Kirby's check from the
respondent's office in Midland Park, New Jersey.
In a statement prepared for the North Carolina Unemployment
Compensation Commission the respondent stated that the reason for
Kirby's dismissal was "no work available." Gayle testified that by
that the respondent meant "no work available for Kirby." He stated
that he assigned that reason so that Kirby would be eligible for un-
,employment compensation, of which he would be deprived, accord-
ing to • Gayle's understanding, if the discharge were for cause.
While we have no reason to doubt Qayle's sincerity in criticizing
Kirby's work on January 14, under all the circumstances we cannot
'believe that Kirby's mistakes on that occasion were the real cause of
his discharge. Nor do we think that Kirby's alleged failure to co-
operate was the motivating factor. Rather, we are of the opinion that
when confronted with the prospect of meeting actual demands by the
Union, Gayle seized upon the January 14 incident as an ostensible
reason for ridding the plant of the man whom he knew to be the
leader of the union movement among the employees, and that the
charge of failure to cooperate was an afterthought, employed to sup-
port the respondent's contention that the discharge was for cause.
We find that the respondent discharged Kirby, not for the reasons
assigned by him, but because Kirby had joined and assisted the
Union.
We find that the respondent in discharging Kirby discriminated
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, and interfering with, restraining, and
coercing his employees in the' exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Hoyt M. Atkins, a weaver, was employed by the respondent in De-
cember 1936. He joined the Union in April 1937. On December 28,
1937, he accompanied Kirby when the latter presented a proposal
concerning working conditions to Gayle. With this one exception,
there is no evidence that he was active in the affairs of the Union, or
that his activity, if any, was brought to the attention of the
respondent.
On April 5, 1938, Atkins, along with 8 of the 27 weavers then em-
ployed by the respondent, was laid off. In determining those who
were to be laid off, Gayle followed a policy of seniority based upon
last continuous employment by the respondent. Although Atkins
ALBERT J. BARTSON 673
was one of the first-weavers-hired by the respondent after the opening
of the plant in the latter part of 1936, he had been absent from work
from August 7 to September 4, 1937. During part of his absence he
was employed at another -plant. Computing his length of service
from'the date of his return to work on September 4; 1937, as was dons,
he was one of the lowest in seniority among the weavers.
When Gayle notified him that he was to be laid off and explained
the basis of computing his seniority, Atkins protested that he had ob-
tained a leave of absence for the period in question from Bane, who
was then plant superintendent, and that, therefore, his seniority
should be based upon his original employment by the respondent.
While it is true' that Bane -did grant Atkins a' leave of absence,
it is not clear from the record whether or not it was granted prior
to the time that Atkins left the plant. It is established that Bane
was not, at least at first, aware that Atkins was working elsewhere
during his absence. At the hearing Bonda Perry, who works in the
plant office, testified that no leave was granted prior to the time that
Atkins absented himself from the plant, and that at no time did,
Atkins receive permission to work for another employer. It is not
necessary, under the circumstances, to decide whether Perry was
correct in her statement. We think it reasonable to assume, how-
ever, that she gave the same version of the matter to Gayle in the
course of his investigation of Atkins' case.
Inasmuch as Atkins was in no sense a leader in the union movement
among the respondent's employees and since Gayle may well have
believed that Atkins had, without permission, left the respondent's
employ to work elsewhere, thereby losing his seniority, we do not
think that the respondent discriminated against him in laying him off.
The respondent commenced to reinstate the laid-off weavers in
July 1938. On or about July 18 charges were filed with the Regional
Director alleging that the respondent had discriminated with regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of Atkins, and the respondent
was notified of the fact. By July 30 all the laid-off weavers except
Atkins, who had repeatedly requested reinstatement, had either re-
turned to work or had been offered reinstatement, and on that date
the respondent hired three weavers who had not theretofore worked
at the plant. The respondent's reason for failing to reinstate Atkins
is clearly established by Gayle's testimony on the subject:
Trial Examiner McBRYDE. Mr. Gayle, I would like for you
to explain your last answer there, that is, that all the nine laid-off
weavers have been offered reemployment, have been either re-
employed or offered reemployment with the exception of Mr.
Atkins.
* * * * *, +^ *•
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GAYLE. We have had work for all of them, we have called
the all back in except Mr. Atkins.
Trial Examiner McBRYDE. Yes. Now, why is it that you
called all of them back except Atkins?
GAYLE. Because before it became time for Atkins to come back,
we took these men back as nearly as possible on a seniority basis.
Before it came time for Atkins to come back, we had been told
that he had a case against us.
Trial Examiner MCBRYDE. And that, I take it, is the reason
you did not offer him employment?
GAYLE. That is the reason, that was before we had that-and
I do not know, I say I do not know whether we were going to
take him back or not, it hadn't been his time to come back, but
before knowing whether or not we were going to take him back,
he filed charges against is, and for that reason I didn't take him
back when his time came.
We find that the respondent refused to reinstate Atkins on and
after July 30, 1938, for the reason that he had filed charges against
the respondent under the Act, and that the respondent thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced his 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 set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, 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 him to cease and desist therefrom.
We shall order the respondent, moreover, to take certain affirmative
action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the respondent to reinstate Kirby and Atkins to
the positions which they formerly held and to make diem whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of such discrimination to the „date , of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 5 during said period.
' By ^'S'net earninfis " is meant earnings , less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
ALBERT J. BARTSON 675
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the ease, the -Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers' Organizing Committee is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Henry C. Kirby, thereby discouraging membership in Tex-
tile Workers' Organizing Committee, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of
Section- 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against Hoyt M. Atkins, because he had filed
charges under the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing his 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. By laying off Hoyt M. Atkins on April 5, 1938, the respondent
has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) 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
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Albert J. Bartson, Charlotte, North Carolina, his agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease, and desist from :
(a) 'Discouraging membership in Textile Workers' Organizing
Committee, or any other labor organization of his employees, by
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. 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.
Monica received for work performed upon Federal , State , county, municipal , or other work-
relief projects are not considered as earnings, but; as provided below in the Order , shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county ,' municipal , or other government or
governments which supplied the funds for'said work-relief projects.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or, any
term or condition of employment;
(b) Discharging, refusing to reinstate, or otherwise "discriminating
against any of his employees because they have filed charges or given
testimony under the National Labor. Relations Act;
(c) In any -other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
his employees in the -exercise of their rights to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and -to engage in con
certed activities for the purposes of collective -bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
- 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Henry C. Kirby and Hoyt M. Atkins, respectively,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without,
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges:
(b) Make whole the said Henry C. Kirby and Hoyt M. Atkins for
any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them, re
spectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against him to the date of respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 6 during said period; deducting, however, from
the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies re-
ceived by him during said period for work performed upon Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over
the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at his Charlotte, North
Carolina, plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to his employees,
stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which he is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), •(b),
and (c) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirma-
tive 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 Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, or any other -
labor organization, and the respondent will not discriminate against
any employees because of membership or activity in that organiza-
tion, or any other such organization;
9 See footnote 5, supra.
ALBERT J. BARTSON 677
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint in so far
as it alleges that in laying off Hoyt M. Atkins on or about April 5,
1938, the respondent discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
r,r
283034-41-vol. 23-44