Clovis News-Journal (Formerly Evening News-Journal)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 1122 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of R. C. HOILES , C. H. HoHLES , HARRY HorLES, AND
MARY JANE Ho ES , DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME AND
STYLE OF CLOVIS NEWS-JOURNAL (FORMERLY EVENING NEWS-JOUR-
NAL) and PRYER C. SMITH
In the Matter of R. C. HOILES, C. H. HOILES , HARRY HOILES, AND
MARY JANE HoiLFs, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME AND
STYLE OF CLOVIS NEWS-JOURNAL (FORMERLY EVENING NEWS-JouR-
NAL) and DALLAS CLARK
Cases Nos. C-756 and C-7517, respectively.-Decided July 25, 1939
Newspaper Publishing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-
union speech by manager ; anti -union statements by a foreman ; antipathy to
union by refusal to embody agreement in written contract-Discrimination:
demotion of foreman for union membership , followed by his resignation , remedy
under Act not forfeited where employee refuses to submit to a discriminatory
demotion ; charges of discriminatory discharge , not sustained as to one em-
ployee-Reinstatement Ordered: as to demoted foreman-Back pay: awarded,
from date of the discriminatory act, to the date of the Intermediate Report,
and from the date of this Decision to the date of the offer of reinstatement.
Mr. Newell N. Fowler, for the Board.
Mr. Otto Smiith,, of Clovis, N. Mex., for the respondent.
Mr. Romani Beck, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Pryer C. Smith
and Dallas Clark, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by Aaron W. Warner, Regional Director for the Twenty-
second Region (Denver, Colorado), issued its complaint dated May
2, 1938, against R. C. Hoiles, C. H. Hoiles, Harry Hoiles, and Mary
Jane Hoiles, doing business under the trade name and style of
Clovis News-Journal (formerly Evening News-Journal), Clovis,
New Mexico, herein called the respondents, alleging that the re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
13 N. L . R. B.. No. 106.
1122
It. 0. HOILES 1123
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act.
On May 4, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section
37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended , ordered that the charges, and proceedings in-
stituted in respect thereto, be consolidated for the purpose of hearing.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondents demoted
Pryer C. Smith, thereby causing him to resign, and discharged
Dallas Clark, because they joined and assisted the International
Typographical Union, Local 985, herein called the Union, and in
other ways interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondents, Pryer C. Smith, and Dallas Clark.
The respondents thereafter filed an answer denying the material
averments of the complaint, and alleging affirmatively that Pryer C.
Smith had been demoted as foreman of the composing room because
of his inefficiency and that Dallas Clark had been discharged solely
for reasons of economy.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Clovis, New Mexico, on
May 24 and 25, 1938, before R. N. Denham, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded the parties.
During the hearing the respondents made a motion to dismiss the
complaint. Ruling on this motion was reserved by the Trial Exami-
ner, and in his Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner recommended
that the motion be granted. As indicated by our findings and order
below, the Board adopts that recommendation only in so far as it
relates to Dallas Clark. The Trial Examiner also made other rulings
or, motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the aforesaid rulings of the Trial Examiner
aiid finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, dated
July 5, 1938, in which he found that the respondents had not com-
mitted unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,,
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Pryer C. Smith
and Dallas Clark, respectively, filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings,
conclusions and order set forth below, finds them without merit.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
R. C. Hoiles, C. H. Hoiles, Harry Hoiles, and Mary Jane Hoiles
are partners and own and publish the Clovis News-Journal,' a daily
newspaper. The respondents also publish the Curry County Times,
a weekly newspaper, and are the proprietors of a job-printing plant.
All three enterprises are conducted in Clovis, New Mexico, which is
about 12 miles distant from the Texas-New Mexico boundary. Clovis,
having a population of about 12,500, is the county seat of Curry
County, New Mexico, which has about 18,000 inhabitants.
At the date of the hearing the Clovis News-Journal had 7,221 sub-
scribers of whom 1,642 were outside the State of New Mexico. In the
distribution of the Clovis News-Journal the respondents regularly
use the United States postal facilities and the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway. In 1937 approximately 18/2 per cent of the
total advertising linage published in the Clovis News-Journal was
that of-advertisers having their principal places of business in States
other than New Mexico. All of this national advertising was ob-
tained through an advertising agency in Dallas, Texas. The gross
revenue of the Clovis News-Journal during 1937 was $88,084.23, of
which $20,677.74 was derived from newspaper sales, and $67,406.49
from advertising.
During 1937 the respondents purchased 324,165 pounds of news-
print worth approximately $8,100 in the State of Washington. This
newsprint was transported by railway from the State of Washing-
ton to the respondents' plant in Clovis, New Mexico. In the same
period the respondents purchased in States other than New Mexico
other materials, machinery, and equipment worth approximately,
$5,450.
The respondents are members of the Associated Press, from which
they regularly receive for publication in the Clovis News-Journal
news gathered in all parts of the world. The respondents also collect
local news for the Associated Press which is distributed among its
member newspapers in other States. The respondents also subscribe
to the following newspaper feature services : N. E. A. Service of
Cleveland, Ohio; King Features Syndicate, Inc. of New York City;
and Chicago Tribune Service of New York City. The respondents
publish in the Clovis News-Journal photographs and a miscellany
of newspaper features , such as comic strips, cartoons, and feature
'Prior to March 19 , 1938, the Clovis News-Journal was called the Evening News-
Journal.
R. C. HOILES 1125
articles, most of which are transmitted to the Clovis News-Journa l
from States other than New Mexico by these feature services.
The respondents' answer admits the following allegations of the
complaint: (1) that the respondents regularly sell a substantial pro-
portion of the Clovis News-Journal in States other than New Mexico ;
(2) that they purchase in such other States almost all of the paper,
ink, machinery, and other materials used in their business; and (3)
that all of those purchases are transported into New Mexico from
such other States.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Although no labor organization is a party to this proceeding, the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint relate to International
Typographical Union, Local 985, which is a labor organization
admitting to membership the printers and working foremen in the
respondents' employ.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In September 1937 Richard Hindley, the general manager of the
Clovis News-Journal informed Pryer C. Smth, foreman of the print-
ing department, that he anticipated the early unionization of the
printers despite his opposition thereto, and told Smith to be certain
that all the printers were proficient enough to merit the higher union
wage rates.
Several weeks after this incident the printers in the respondents'
employ met in Smith's home and decided to organize the Union.
All printers in Clovis were invited to join the Union although the
initiative for its formation came from the respondents' employees.
Soon thereafter the Union obtained its charter, and Smith was elected
president. These steps in forming the Union were given publicity
in three local newspapers and occurred during the temporary absence
of Hindley from Clovis. When Hindley learned that the Union had
been organized, he called the printers of the Clovis News-Journal and
Curry County Times together and reproved them for having organ-
ized the Union. The gist of Hindley's remarks at this meeting,
which occurred on October 16, 1937, is contained in the excerpt
from Smith's testimony which follows :
He [Hindley] found that some underhanded work had
'been done behind his back apparently, and he wanted to know
why the men chose to organize this union . . . He stated that he
did not object to union membership by any of the workers there,
but he wanted no part in a union, that he did not desire . . . a
union organization locally, at least to have anything to do with it
187930-39-vol 13-72
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as far as the News-Journal was concerned. He said he had had
previous conflicts with the Union . . . He said apparently the
money we paid out to the Union was more or less a waste of
money. We could tike that same money and use it to buy other
things and that he would, if possible, raise the wages, and then
wanted to know if he did that why we would still want the
Union.
Several witnesses confirmed Smith's version of Hindley's talk.
When Hindley was asked at the hearing if the testimony of the Board
witnesses regarding his remarks was substantially correct, he replied,
"Yes, I would say it is."
Soon after Hindley's talk to the printers, the Union appointed a
committee to present its demand for a collective bargaining agreement
based on the minimum wage scale and maximum hour provision ap-
proved by the International Typographical Union. Smith was the
spokesman for the union committee which, on November 6, 1937, sub-
mitted to Hindley the aforesaid demands. Hindley promised to give
the committee the respondents' answer to its demands in about 10
days. The negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement con-
tinued, however, during a period of 3 months and on February 6, 1938,
culminated in an oral agreement. The respondents persisted in their
antipathy toward the Union by a refusal to embody the terms of that
agreement in a written contract'
On November 9, 1937, Hindley caused advertisements to be pub-
lished in trade newspapers inviting non-union linotype operators and
pressmen to apply for work. He explained at the hearing that this
was done as a precaution in the event a strike should occur.
On November 15, 1937, while the contract negotiations were still in
progress, the respondents demoted Smith as foreman of the composing
room of the Clovis News-Journal and hired a new foreman whose
name was Allen Hodges. Hodges immediately attempted to persuade
the printers to give up their membership in the Union. Russell
Whitehead, a former employee, gave the following testimony con-
cerning a conversation with Hodges shortly after Hodges became
foreman :
He [Hodges] said he would like to get all the boys together and
agree to a proposition.
Q. Where did that take place?
A. At the Standard Bar over a glass of beer after working
hours.
2 In other cases we have commented upon the anti-union bias evinced by an employer's
refusal to embody the terms of a collective agreement in a written contract . Matter of
Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee , et al., 9 N. L R B. 783,
797-804 ; Matter of Western Felt Works , a corporation and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, Western Felt Local , 10 N L R B 407.
R. C. HOILES 1127
Q. Did you invite him or he asked you?
A. He asked me . .. He continued to talk against it [the
Union].
Q. What did he say?
A. The town was too small for a union organization, and it
would not work. We could get along without it just fine.
Hodges did not deny having made the statements attributed to him
by Whitehead. Another employee, J. A. Brown, quoted Hodges as
having said that, "He did not think we would ever get a contract ...
There will never be a-contract here as long as I am around." Although
Hodges denied having made these statements to Brown, his denial is
not convincing in view of his attempt to induce the men to abandon
the Union. Hodges admitted, moreover, that he told two other em-
ployees, Lawson and O'Bryan, Jr., that he did not think a union
advisable in a community as small as Clovis. We find that Hodges
made the foregoing statements, and that the respondents are respon-
sible for his acts.'
We find that by the attempts set forth above to obstruct the
organization of the Union, and by the refusal to put the agreement
in writing, the respondents have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. Discriminatory demotion of Pryer C. Smith
Pryer C. Smith began to work for the respondents as a linotype
operator in March 1935. Upon the retirement of the foreman of the
composing room, Smith succeeded to the foremanship in March 1936
for a trial period of a month. Thereafter, he remained as foreman
of the composing room until his demotion.
On November 15, 1937, Smith was informed by Hindley that
Hodges had been engaged to supplant him as foreman of the com-
posing room. Hindley offered, however, to retain Smith as a printer
without reduction in pay, or to give him a week's salary if he desired
to leave the respondents' employ. On the same day Smith, being
unwilling to submit to the demotion, left the respondents' employ.
The respondents contend they demoted Smith for inefficiency which
had manifested itself in: (1) a frequent failure of the newspaper to
be printed in time to meet the deadline for distribution, (2) an in-
8 Cf. Swift & Company v. National Labor Relations Board, United States Circuit Court
of Appeals , Tenth Circuit , decided June 7, 1939, 106 F. (2d) 87 , wherein the Court said :
"Furthermore , with respect to the acts of supervisory foremen, the doctrine of respondent
superior applies, and petitioner is responsible for the actions of its supervisory foremen, even
though it had no actual participation therein "
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ordinate increase in the page-cost of the newspaper,4 (3) laxity'in
shop discipline, and (4) excessive overtime.
In all newspapers the composition and printing of •matter to be
published are subject to prescribed time limits called "deadlines'
in order to insure timely distribution of the paper. There is a dead-
line for the submission of copy to the composing room by the edito-
rial and advertising departments. The evidence shows that, in al-
most all newspapers, failure to observe this deadline for press copy
is a constant source of difficulty. The Clovis News-Journal was no
exception to this general rule. The respondents assert that while
Smith was in charge of the composing room timely issuance of the
newspaper had frequently been delayed because of his lack of firm-
ness in rejecting late copy. Smith testified that such delay had not
occurred on more than three occasions during the entire period that
he was foreman of the composing room. Moreover, he testified that
he had frequently complained to Hindley of the, failure of the edito-
rial and advertising departments to observe the deadline for press
copy, but that Hindley did nothing about the matter. J. W. Simp-
son, an employee of the respondents, testified that he was unable
to recall a single occasion when the paper. was issued too late for
delivery by the carriers. A certain means of determining whether or
not such delay had been frequent would have been to examine the
respondents' daily circulation records which recorded the exact time
that the paper left the press. Earl Grau, respondents' circulation
editor, was requested to produce those records for the 3 months
preceding Smith's demotion. Grau at first testified that he thought
the records were available and agreed to produce them if they were
still in respondents' possession. Subsequently, Grau testified that
he recalled that the records had been destroyed. The reason for
their destruction does not appear. In the absence of these records we
see no reason to disbelieve Smith's denial that the paper had fre-
quently been late in issuance.
During the period that Smith was foreman of the composing room,
several changes were made in the format and content of the news-
paper. Hindley admitted that these changes necessarily increased the
page-cost but testified that in his opinion the increase had been dis-
proportionate. In view of the lack of satisfactory evidence as to the
additional cost properly attributable to the changes, we are unable to
determine whether or not the increase in page-cost was excessive.
Several circumstances, however, indicate that the respondent did not
regard the increase as excessive. Smith testified without contradic-
tion that Hindley had not found fault with him because of the in-
4 In the testimony , the phrase page-cost is used to refer to the cost of printing each page
of the newspaper determined by a cost-finding method regularly employed by the
respondents
R. C. HOILES 1129
creased page-cost. In October 1937, shortly prior to his demotion,
Smith received a bonus because the page-cost during the preceding
month had been less, than an agreed standard. The record shows that
the page-cost continued to increase after Hodges took Smith's place
as foreman of the composing room. We are satisfied that the in-
crease in page-cost did not influence the respondents in demoting
Smith.
There was testimony that Smith occasionally permitted the men to
get refreshments during working hours. Employee Simpson testified
that this occurred only occasionally and not on company time. Simp-
son admitted that the men had sent for beer on a few Saturday after-
noons after the edition had gone to press. The respondents' book-
keeper, Mary Robbins, admitted that this practice had occurred only
after the edition had gone to press. The evidence as a whole reveals
that an informal atmosphere prevailed in the respondents' plant. On
one occasion, for example, Hindley himself treated the men to
whiskey. On another occasion, shortly before Christmas, Hodges
treated, the men to, eggnogs. There is evidence that Hindley repri-
manded two printers one morning for getting refreshments while on
duty. Smith, however, also reproved the men as soon as he learned
the facts. Smith denied that he had tolerated loafing on the job.
We do not think that Smith was lax in regard to shop discipline, or
that the respondents demoted him in the belief that he had been
remiss in that respect.
Hindley testified that he had requested Smith to hire additional
men because of too much overtime, but did not state whether or not
Smith had done so. Smith testified to only one such request by
Hindley, with which he promptly complied. Several months prior to
his demotion, Smith protested to Hindley his inability to continue as
foreman unless he was permitted to engage another man to relieve
him of certain other work. As soon as Hindley agreed to the em-
ployment of the new man, Smith hired him. Simpson, an employee,
testified that Smith took the initiative in engaging this additional
employee. There is no evidence that Smith ever refused a request by
Hindley to employ additional men. Nor did the respondents show
that Smith had any reason to favor overtime. We are convinced
that Smith complied with every request of Hindley to engage addi-
tional men, and that the matter of overtime did not enter into the
reasons for Smith's demotion.
Hindley testified that an incident occurring on October 1, 1937,
caused him to lose confidence in Smith. Smith informed Hindley
that Phillips, a printer, had requested permission to visit his ill
mother. Hindley did not object to, granting that request. Hindley
testified that a day, or two later he asked Smith the reason for
Phillips' continued absence, since Phillips had not returned to work,
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and was told by Smith, "I guess he is working at Hobbs." Hindley
stated at the hearing that Smith's failure promptly to replace
Phillips displeased him. Smith's version of the Phillips incident is
as follows :
At that time I questioned the employees in the back shop and
one of them said he had been told Mr. Phillips had an offer
... of a job in Hobbs, New Mexico. So I then immediately
approached Mr. Hindley and explained to him I believed he
must be working in Hobbs and asked him to try to verify that
by telephone or telegraph and if Mr. Phillips were employed
in Hobbs, so far as I was concerned, he was out. It would be
up to Mr. Hindley whether he should come back.
It is difficult to believe that Hindlev would have increased Smith's
wages on October 17, 1937, a few weeks after the Phillips incident,
if Smith's version of the matter were not correct. We are satisfied
that this incident did not influence the respondents in demoting
Smith.
Upon all the evidence we are not convinced that the respondents
demoted Smith because they considered him inefficient; We are per-
suaded to this conclusion by the fact that the respondents gave Smith
four separate wage increases while he was foreman. As has been
noted, the last of the wage increases occurred within a month of
his demotion. In addition he received a bonus for effecting a saving
in page-cost shortly prior to his demotion. This appreciation of
Smith's work strongly militates against the respondents' contention
that he had been inefficient. We must, then, look elsewhere for the
explanation of his demotion.
Several weeks prior to the formation of the Union, Hindley told
Smith of his fear that a union of the printers would soon be or-
ganized, and asked Smith whether in that event he would support
the union or remain loyal to him. Smith became the president of
the Union and spokesman of the committee that presented the Union's
bargaining demands to Hindley. He was demoted soon thereafter,
and less than a week after Hindley had advertised for non-union
printers. When we consider these circumstances in the light of the
interference by Hindley and later by Hodges, with the exercise by
the printers of their right to self-organization, we are satisfied that
the respondents' controlling motive in demoting Smith was resent-
ment of his union activity.
We find that the respondents, by demoting Smith and thereby
discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, and
the terms and conditions of his employment, discouraged membership
in the Union and interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
R. C. aoiLES 1131
At the hearing Smith testified that he desired reinstatement, and
that he was then employed in Amarillo, Texas, as a linotype opera-
tor, but as an extra man; that is, his employment depended upon
other employees being absent from work: Since leaving the re-
spondents' employ, Smith earned $776.45 to the date of the hearing.
C. Alleged discriminatory discharge of Dallas Clark
Dallas Clark, a printer, was discharged by the respondents on
November 23, 1937. The respondents contend that they dismissed
Clark solely, because he was no longer needed., Prior to Clark's dis-
charge, Hodges informed Hindley that Clark's services could be
dispensed with since his work could be divided between two other
employees, thereby reducing the respondents' operating expense.
Thereupon, the respondents discharged Clark. The evidence shows
that. Hodges' suggestion regarding the distribution of Clark's work
has been followed and that the respondents did not hire anyone to
do the work previously performed by Clark. Although Clark was a
member of the union negotiating committee, we are not convinced
that his union activity caused, his discharge.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondents described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, commerce, and communication
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 respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act we shall also order the
respondents to reinstate Pryer C. Smith to his former position as
foreman of the composing room, and to make him whole for any loss
of pay he has suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
In requiring the reinstatement with back pay of Smith we have not
overlooked the fact that he was afforded the opportunity to remain
as a printer. We have previously held that an employee need not
submit to a discriminatory demotion but may resign without thereby
forfeiting his remedy under the Act.' Inasmuch as the Trial Ex-
aminer recommended the dismissal of the complaint as to Pryer C.
5 See Matter of Waggoner Refining Company, Inc ., and W. T. Waggoner Estate and
International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of America,
6 N. L. R. B. 731.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smith, the respondents shall not be required to give him back pay
from July 5, 1938, the date of the Intermediate Report, to the date
of this Decision.6
The back pay awarded Smith will be ordered from November 15,
1937, the date of the discriminatory act, to July 5, 1938, the date of
the Intermediate Report, and from the date of this Decision to the
date of the offer of reinstatement. The amount of the back pay shall
be a sum of money equal to the amount which Smith normally would
have earned as wages during the aforesaid periods, less his net earn-
ings 7 during said periods.
Since we have found that Dallas Clark was discharged for reasons
of economy, the allegations of the complaint with respect to him will
be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. International Typographical Union, Local 985, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondents, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of employment
of Pryer C. Smith, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization of its employees, have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, have engaged in and are 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.
5. The respondents, by discharging Dallas Clark, have not engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
See Matter of Kuehne Manufacturing Company and Local No. 1791, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 7 N. L. R. B. 304
7 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 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.
R. C. HOILES 1133
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 R. C. Hoiles,
C. H. Hoiles, Harry Hoiles, and Mary Jane Hoiles, copartners doing
business under the trade name of Clovis News-Journal, and their
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Typographical
Union, Local 985, or any other labor organization of their employees,
by demoting employees or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions
of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, Wand coerc-
ing their employees in the exercise of their right 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 or 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 Pryer C. Smith immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position as foreman of the composing room without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights or privileges;
(b) Make whole Pryer C. Smith with back pay for the periods
indicated in Section V above, computed as therein set forth;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout their plant
notices stating that the respondents will cease and desist in the man-
ner set forth in 1 (a) and (b) and that they will take the affirmative
action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and maintain such
posted notices for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it
alleges that the respondents have engaged, in unfair labor practices
by discharging Dallas Clark be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.