Atlanta Flour and Grain Co., Inc..

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1942

41 N.L.R.B. 409 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of ATLANTA FLOUR AND GRAIN COMPANY, INC. and
BAKERY AND CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 42
Case No: C-2139.-Decided May 928, 1912
Jurisdiction : flour, feed products manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: surveillance of union activities.
Disci cmination: discharges for union activities; employees who signed a paper
indicating their desire to join the union and were active in behalf of the
union, held to be engaged in activities protected by the Act; Act protects
employees engaged in concerted nactivities even.when such, employees-are not,
members of any labor organization and are only attempting to form a labor
organization.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded; back pay awarded
employee reinstated from date of discrimination to date of reinstatement.
Practice and Procedure : motion to dismiss complaint as to discharged employees
who failed to appear and testify at the hearing in their own behalf, denied.
Mr. John C. McRee, for the Board.
Mr. I. T. Cohen, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. Curtis R. Sims, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. George J. Hadjinoff, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE,
Upon a charge duly filed on December 9, 1941, by Bakery and
Confectionery Workers International Union of America, Local 42,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the
Union, the National'Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia),
issued its complaint, dated February 13, 1942, against Atlanta Flour
and Grain Company, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the-respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging 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.
41 N. L. R. B., No. 88.
409
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in
substance ( 1) that at various times since November 1, 1941, the
'respondent warned its employees not to become or remain members of
the Union ; threatened its employees with discharge , loss of work,
or other disciplinary action, if they joined or remained members of
the Union ; urged its employees to withdraw from the Union; spied
upon meetingsaof the Union and activities of, members of the Union;
and interrogated its employees concerning their membership in the
Union; ( 2) that on or about December 8, 1941, the respondent dis-
charged or laid off Sam Cantrell, Willie Wilson, and Wade Marks,
and since that date has refused to reinstate them, because of their
membership in and activity on behalf of the Union ; (3) that by these
acts the respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and
'interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On February 23, 1942, the respondent filed its answer, admitting
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, but
denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Atlanta, Georgia, on
March 2, 1942, before William F. Guffey , Jr., the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and- the
respondent were represented by counsel, the Union by its represent-
ative, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evi-
dence bearing upon the issues was,afforded all parties . During the
hearing counsel for the Board moved to'amend the pleadings to
conform to the proof. This motion was granted without objection.
During the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint with respect to the alleged discriminatory discharges on
the ground that the employees named were not members of the
Union at the time of their discharge . This motion was denied. At
the close of the Board 's case, counsel for the respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint with respect to the alleged discriminatory dis-
charge of Willie Wilson and Wade Marks on the ground that the
Board had failed to produce these employees to testify in their own
behalf. Decision having been reserved on this motion , it was denied
by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that , no prej-
udicial errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 19 , 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
,Report, copies of which were served upon the parties.: He found that
'ATLANTA_ FLOUR AND GRAIIT COMPANY, INC. '411
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 recommended that
the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirm-
ative action. On April 21, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report together with a brief in support of its ex-
ceptions. No request for oral argument was made by any of the
parties. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and
brief and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the-entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Atlanta Flour and Grain Company, Inc., the respondent herein,
is a Georgia corporation having its principal place-of business and
operating its only plant in Atlanta, Georgia, where it is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of flour and feeds. Of the
approximately $900,000 worth of raw materials, consisting of various
grains and similar products, used by the respondent during the year
1941, approximately 90 percent was imported by the respondent front
points outside the State of Georgia. During the same period, the
respondent's finished products amounted in value to about $1,200,000,
of which approximately 25 percent was sold and shipped to customers
located outside the State of Georgia. For the purposes of this pro-
ceeding, the respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of Amer-
ica, Local 42, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor. It admits to membership, among others, em=
ployees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Early in December 1941, George Campbell, a member of the Union
temporarily employed at the respondent's plant, discussed organiza-
tion of employees of the respondent with Sam Cantrell, an employee.
Cantrell asked Campbell to send a union representative to discuss the
matter with him. On December 4, 1941, during the lunch hour, Otis
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. Taylor, business agent of the Union, appeared at the respondent's
plant, discussed the Union with Cantrell, and arranged to call upon
Cantrell at his home that same evening for the purpose of learning
the employees' reaction to the proposed organization. During the
remainder of the day, Cantrell discussed the Union with most of the
respondent's employees. That evening Cantrell informed Taylor that
the employees were interested in organizing a local and arranged with
Taylor to conduct a meeting the following day at 5:30 in the after-
noon, after working hours, at the employees' dressing room near the
plant. During the lunch hour on December 5, Cantrell informed the
other employees of the meeting that was to be held late that afternoon.
The meeting was held as planned and almost all the rspondent's 25
mill employees attended. Curtis R. Sims, the Union's international
representative, and Taylor were present; Sims conducted the meeting
and explained the benefits of union membership. The employees then
decided to hold another meeting on Sunday, December 7, at the =home
of Willie Wilson, another of the respondent's employees.
At the meeting of December 7, which was attended by Taylor,
about 22 of the respondent's employees signed a paper signifying their
desire to join the Union. Those present elected officers; Wade Marks,
an employee, being elected "chairman" of the proposed local union.,-
Before the conclusion of the meeting, John Lee Clark, one of the 22
employees who had signed the paper referred to above, and his
brother, Levi Clark, who had refused to sign, left the meeting. At
the conclusion of the meeting, some of the employees who had left the
meeting place returned and announced that Hugh Starr, who was at
the time superintendent of the respondent's plant, was outside the
house where-the meeting had been held. John Lee Clark returned
and requested permission to erase his name from the paper signifying
his desire to join the Union. Cantrell and other employees upon leav-
ing saw Superintendent Starr in a car parked near the meeting place
at a point which afforded him a clear view of all those who attended
the meeting, and also saw John Lee Clark and his brother, Levi Clark,
get into the car with Starr and drive away with him 2
The respondent made no effort to explain Starr's presence near
the house where the Union was conducting a meeting on this Sunday
afternoon or evening, some 12 or 13 miles from Starr's residence.
It is significant, moreover, that the respondent, without explanation,
failed to call Starr as a witness to deny this accusation or to relate
'Cantrell was not certain whether Marks was elected chairman of the local to be
organized , or merely chairman of the one meeting . In view of Cantrell 's testimony,
however, that Willie Wilson took charge of the meeting and conducted it throughout, it
may be reasonably inferred that Marks was elected chairman of the proposed local
organization
2 The foregoing findings are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Board witnesses,
which we credit.
ATLANTA `F'LOUR AND GRAIN 'COMPAN'Y, INC. 413.
his version of the incident. We find,-as did the Trial Examiner, that
Superintendent Starr stationed himself near the Union's meeting place
on the"afternoon or evening of- December 7, and remained ,there until
those in attendance at the meeting had left, for the purpose of inform-
ing himself concerning the union activities of the respondent's em-
ployees, and that by this conduct of its highest ranking supervisory,
employee,3 the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.' ' -
We find further, as did the Trial Examiner that the evidence does
not support the allegations of the complaint which allege that the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their rights by warning them not to become or remain
members of the Union; by threatening discharge, loss of work, or
other disciplinary action if its employees joined or'remained mem-
bers of the Union; by urging its employees to withdraw their mem-
bership from the Union;, or by interrogating its employees concerning
their membership in the Union. '
B. The discharges
On the morning of December 8, following the organizational meet-
ing of December 7, Cantrell and Wilson found that their time cards
had been removed from the rack. Shortly thereafter, Superintendent
Starr called Cantrell and Wilson to his office and stated : "I am going
to let you boys go. I don't need you all any longer on account of
shortage of work." At the close of the working day on December 8,
Superintendent Starr also discharged Wade Marks. Wilson was
reinstated on January 5, 1942, but Cantrell and Marks have never been
reinstated.5
The respondent contended that the above-named employees were
laid off and not discharged on December 8, 1941, and that the "lay-
offs" were required by the/seasonal depression of its business.' Grant
3 The respondents, responsibility for Superintendent Starr 's conduct is beyond question.
Starr had the power to hire and discharge employees . He was charged with responsi-
bility for the proper operation of the entire plant , over which he had complete supervision.
4 Attached to the respondent's answer as "Exhibit A" is a copy of a notice posted by
the respondent on December 11, 1941, pursuant to the request of the Board's Regional
Attorney . The respondent makes no claim, nor could such a claim be sustained, that
the posting of the notice , declaring the employees ' rights under the Act, constitutes
a settlement of the issues herein or a bar to the present proceeding.
5 These findings are based upon uncontradicted testimony which we credit, as did the
Trial Examiner.
6 The record shows that the respondent 's production load is at its peak during the
spring and summer months, that it is slack from September "and until after the first
of the, year," and that from three to five additional employees are required during the
peak period . There is a constant - turn -over of employees , during both busy and slack
- periods As a result , employment is often terminated and additional employees are hired
at all times despite the fluctuations in business volume.
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
Card, the respondent's vice president and general manager, and Theo
Stivers, head of the respondent' s sales department , testified that on
December 1, 1941, Card informed Superintendent Starr that he had
too many 'employees and that he should lay off Cantrell, Marks, and
Wilson, because Cantrell, during a previous period of employment,
was guilty of "joy riding" in the respondent's delivery truck and
"talking back" to the respondent' s customers , that Marks ' wages had
been garnisheed on several occasions , causing the respondent much
trouble, and that Wilson was a relatively new employee whose services
were no longer needed.
The respondent's contention that its decision to lay off these em-
ployees was reached on December 1, and that the lay-offs were war-
ranted on the stated grounds, must be rejected for several reasons.
Had the respondent, on December 1, reached a decision to make the
discharges because of an already noticeable seasonal depression,, it is
Ieasonable to suppose that the discharges would have become effective
on December 3, the end of that workweek, rather than on December
8, the very middle of the following workweek, or that a notice of,
the discharges would have been, given on Saturday December 6, pay
day. Furthermore, these asserted reasons, except for the slack pro-
duction load, were not stated to the employees at the time they were
discharged. Nor were they stated to the Union's representatives or
the Board's Regional Attorney during conferences concerning the
discharges. Moreover, Cantrell was discharged in September 1941,
because of the "joy riding" incident' and was reemployed in October
1941,$ not as a truck driver, but as a warehouse employee, which work
he performed continuously until his discharge on December 8, Can-
trell's work in- the warehouse Was never criticized by any of his
s The respondent also gave as a reason for the September discharge alleged reports
received,-from customers that Cantrell, while driving the truck, had "talked back" to
them The respondent wasp unable to give the names of any complainants or identify
any specific instances of such conduct. In any event , the findings and discussion herein
relative to the "joy riding" incident are equally applicable to the "talking back"
complaints
8 The respondent contended that Cantrell was reemployed on a temporary basis to
replace an employee who was absent because of illness Grant Card , vice president and
general manager of the respondent, who' reemployed Cantrell,' was unable to name the
employee who was ill and on examination by Board's counsel stated that there could
have been an employee who was ill but that he did not remember whether these was
or not Cantrell denied that lie-was informed that his ieemployxnent was on a tem-
porary basis The Board credits, as the Trial Examiner did, Cantiell 's denial
P .During this last period of employment and about 5 weeks prior to his discharge
on Decembei 8, Cantrell made one emergency truck delivery, at which time he was
fined for blowing his horn The 'respondent contended at the heating that this was
another reason for selecting Cantrell for discharge The-respondent in fact advanced
wages' to Cantrell 'in order that he might pay the fine The incident was not mentioned ,
& the time by any of Cantrell's supervisors, and 'at no time prior to the hearing'did'
Vie -respondent mention the incident as a reason , for the discharge we find , as did the
Trial Examiner , that this incident did not motivate the respondent in discharging
Cantrell.
ATLANTA F'LOUR AND GRAIN COMPANY, INC. 415.
superiors. His previous conduct as a truck driver had no relation to
his ability properly to discharge the duties of a warehouse employee.
Had the respondent held the contrary view, which it now urges, it
is inconceivable that it would have reemployed Cantrell in October,
a month during which it laid off seven. employees. or that it would
have retained Cantrell in November, when it laid off eight employees.
The respondent's asserted reason for selecting Marks for discharge
is equally unconvincing. It is true that three garnishment proceed-
ings had been brought against Marks within a 3-month period. But
the respondent had no definite rule requiring discharge after a stated
number of garnishments. Nor had; the respondent ever warned
Marks that recurring garnishments would result in discharge. More-
over, the last of three garnishment proceedings was brought qn
October 1, 1941. Had the respondent viewed these proceedings as
so troublesome as to require discharge, it is reasonable to suppose that
the respondent would have included Marks among the seven employ-
ees who were laid off in October, or among the eight employees who
were laid off in November.
The only reason advaniced by the respondent for its selection of
Wilson for discharge is that he was a relatively new employee who
was not needed during the slack season. Wilson was employed by
the respondent in October 1941. The respondent did not explain
why Wilson was discharged instead of one of the other 10 persons
who .were employed in October, or one of the 4 persons who were
employed in • November. The respondent's failure to explain its
action is particularly significant in view of its admissions that Wil-
son's work had been satisfactory, and that it was common practice
to shift employees from one job to another, since most of the work
in the plant required only unskilled labor and the employees could
easily be shifted.
The respondent also contends that the lay-offs could not have been
discriminatory because at the time they were made the respondent
had no knowledge of its employees' union membership or' activity.
We do not credit the respondent's claimed ignorance. The respond-
ent's plant is small; its employees are few. In these circumstances.
it,is unlikely that Cantrell's open activity at the plant on December
4 and 5, and the employees' meeting near the plant on December
5, could have gone unnoticed -by, ,the respondent. In any event, we
have found that Starr had under surveillance the meeting of the
employees on December 7, and that at the close of the meeting two
of the employees who mere present drove away with' Starr in the
latter's car. Starr's knowledge alone is sufficient to charge the
respondent with knowledge.
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sam Cantrell, Willie Wilson, and Wade Marks were the three most
outstanding participants in the Union's organizational drive. Can-
trell instigated the formation of the Union ; he discussed the matter
with the Union's business agent near the plant; he canvassed the
employees concerning their desires to organize; he arranged for the
meeting held-near the plant on December 5; and he notified the em-
ployees that this meeting would be held. Wilson, gave his home as
a meeting place on December 7. Marks was elected "chairman" of
the Union. The concurrent discharge of these individual's just 4 days
after the employees began to organize, and the day following the
crystallization of the organization, unmistakably reveals, in the ab-
sence of a convincing explanation for the discharges, the discrimina-
tory nature of the respondent's action against them.10
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the reasons assigned by
the respondent were not motivating causes of the discharges and that
the respondent discharged Sam Cantrell, Wade Marks, and Willie
Wilson on December 8, 1941, because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union. We further find that by such
discharges the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of said employees, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act."
1° No application or membership cards in the Union were signed by the discharged
employees until after their discharge . The respondent ' s motion to dismiss the com-
plaint with respect to the employees named on the ground that they were not members
of the Union at the time they were discharged was properly denied by the Trial Examiner
By signing the paper on December 7, indicating their desire to Join the Union and
by their activity in behalf of the Union , these employees were engaging in activities pro-
tected by the Act . Moreover , the Act protects employees engaged in concerted activities
even when such employees are not members of any labor organization . Discharge of
employees because they assist in an attempt to form a labor organization constitutes inter-
ference, restraint , and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and also discrimination
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act Matter of Genes at Industries Company , a Corporation and Hobart Flenner, at at.,
1 N L R B 678 ; Matter of Stylecraft Leather Goods Company, Inc. and Benjanune
Marsala, 3 N L. R. B. 920.
u The respondent ' s motion to dismiss the complaint as to Marks and Wilson on the
ground that they did not appear and testify in their own behalf is without merit
The proceeding authorized by the Act " is not for adjudication of private rights -It
has few of the indicia of a private litigation and makes no requirement for the
presence in it of any private party other than the employer charged with an unfair
labor practice The Board acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared policy
of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by encouiaging
collective 'bargaining-. The immediate object of the proceeding is to prevent unfair
labor practices which , as defined in §§ 7, 8, are practices tending to thwart the declared
policy of the Act." National Licorice Company v . National Labor Relations Board, 309
U. S. 350, 362.
If, as in this case, the record sustains the allegations of unlawful discrimination against
discharged employees , their testimony is not a sine qua non of relief under the Act.
See also Matter of Kuehne Manufacturing Company and Local No. 1791 , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners - of America, 7 N L R B 304; and Matter of Ford
Motor Company and International Union United Automobile Workers of America, Local
Union Np 2119, 31 N. L. R B 994
ATLANTA FLOUR AND GRAIN 'COMPANY, INC.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
41T
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed 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 certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the respondent discharged Sam Cantrell, Willie
Wilson,'and Wade Marks for the reason that they, and each of them,
assisted in the formation of a labor organization and engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection, we shall order the respondent to
offer to Sam Cantrell and Wade Marks immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. Since the
respondent, on January 5, 1942, reinstated Willie Wilson to his former
or substantially equivalent position, an order requiring his reinstate-
ment is unnecessary. We shall also order the respondent to make
Sam Cantrell and Wade Marks whole for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them
of a sum equivalent to the amount each would normally have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings, during said period.12
We shall also order the respondent to make Willie Wilson whole for
any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of -the respondent's•dis-
crimination against him by payment to him of a sum equivalent to
the amount which he would ' normally have earned as wages from
December 8, 1941, to the date of his reinstatement on January 5, 1942,
less his net earnings, during said period.13
"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 his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lumber * and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
311 U. S. 7.
is Sff tee oo note 12 above.
. ei
463892-42-vol. 41-27
418 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
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. Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, Local 42, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,'
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 Sam Cantrell, Willie Wilson, and Wade Marks, thereby
discouraging membership in the Union, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent 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
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Atlanta Flour and Grain Company, Inc., Atlanta, Geor-
gia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Engaging in surveillance of the meetings of Bakery and Con-
fectionery Workers International Union of America, Local 42,' or
any other labor organization of its employees, or any other union
activity of any of its employees;
(b) Discouraging' membership in Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union of America, Local 42, or in any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to
reinstate or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure, of employment or any term or condition of employment
of any of its employees;, .
(c) 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
representatives of, their own' choosing and, to engage, ,in concerted
activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other • mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the"Act.
ATLA1 PA FLOUR AND GRAIN COMPANY, INC. 419
2. Take the following affiimative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Sam Cantrell and Wade Marks immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;,
(b) Make whole Sam Cantrell and Wade Marks for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against them by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the
amount each would normally have earned as wages from the date
of the respondent's discrimination against him to • the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement less his net earnings, during
said period;
(c) Make whole Willie Wilson for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned as wages from December 8, 1941, to the date of
his reinstatement on January 5, 1942, less his net earnings during said
period ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Atlanta,
Georgia, 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), (b), and (c) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) of this Order; and (3) that
the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members
of Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of Amer-
ica, Local 42, and that the respondent will not discriminate against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that
organization ; and ,
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.,