Idaho-Maryland Mines Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1938

4 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of IDAHO-MARYLAND MINES CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 283
Case No. C-260.-Decided January 10, 1938
dfininy Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coercion: expressed opposition
to outside labor organization ; threats of retaliatory action ; attempts to keep
outside union organizers out of district by public officials and members of civic
organization ; engendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and
activity; urging, persuading , and warning employees to join or remain members
of favored labor organization by paying required dues therein, and threatening
,them with discharge for non-compliance, permitting organizers and dues-col-
lectors of favored labor organization to carry on activities on company time and
property, and permitting deduction of initiation fees from employees' pay
checks in several instances ; shut-down of one shaft of mine to discourage and
cripple outside union membership and activity-DiSernniva-tlon: discharges of
and failure to reemploy active union members-Rernstatenient Ordered-Back
Pay: awarded from date of discharge to date of respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment.
Mr. Bertram Edises, for the Board.
Mr. Edgar T. Zook, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent.
Mr. Anthony Wayne Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the I. U. M.
Mr. J. Mark Jacobson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and supplementary charges duly filed by Interna-
-tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers of America, Local
No. 283, herein called the I. U. M., the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
"Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued its complaint
dated June 1, 1937, against Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation,
Grass Valley, California, herein called the respondent. The com-
plaint, notice of hearing thereon, and notices of postponement of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the
I.U.M.
At the hearing the complaint was amended by the inclusion of some
and the omission of other names, by corrections in names, and by
784
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 785
minor changes in the form of allegations. The respondent's answer
was accordingly amended also at the hearing. The complaint as
amended alleged that the respondent's gold mining operations have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to interstate and foreign
commerce; that on or about April 15, 1937, the respondent discharged
and locked out 72 production employees at its Old Brunswick shaft;
that on or about April 17 and May 14, 1937, the respondent dis-
charged Hugh Williams and W. H. Marshall, Sr., respectively; that
the respondent discharged and refused to reemploy these employees
because of their membership and activities in the I. U. M.; that the
respondent warned and intimidated its employees against becoming
,or remaining members of the I. U. M. and threatened them with dis-
charge if they did so ; that the respondent persuaded and coerced its
-employees to join the Mine Workers Protective League, herein called
the M. W. P. L.; that the respondent dominated, interfered with the,
administration of, and contributed support to the M. W. P. L.; and
that the foregoing activities of the respondent constituted unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) Of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The respondent's answer attacked the jurisdiction of the Board,
alleging that the respondent mines gold and silver which it sells and
delivers exclusively to the United States Mint at San Francisco,
California, and to the American Smelting and Refining Company at
Selby, California, which in turn sells and delivers the respondent's
refined ore to the San Francisco mint; that it purchases its supplies
and equipment within the State of California; and that its business
has no substantial relation to interstate or foreign commerce. Con-
-cerning the allegations of unfair labor practices, the respondent al-
leged that the Old Brunswick shaft was closed and the employees at
that mine were laid off as part of a reorganization of its activities
and for practical business reasons wholly disconnected with the mem-
bership of its employees in the I. U. M., and denied any threats or
intimidation of its employees against their becoming or remaining
-members of the I. U. M. The answer sets forth names of employees
listed in the complaint who had been reemployed by the respondent,
employees who had been offered reemployment by the respondent,
and employees who had voluntarily left the employ.of the respond-
.cnt. The respondent alleged that the great majority of the other
employees listed in the complaint had not applied to the respondent
for reemployment, that some of them are eligible for reemployment
when they make application therefor, and that the respondent deems
others ineligible for reemployment for reasons wholly disconnected
with any labor affiliations or activities. The respondent denied any
domination of or financial support to the M. W. P. L. or that it
-coerced its employees to join the M. W. P. L. The respondent al-
786 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leged that the M. W. P. L. is an independent labor organization
whose membership is composed of employees of all of the various
mines in the Grass Valley district and that the respondent has dealt
with it at arm's length on matters pertaining to the wages, hours, and
working conditions of its employees. The respondent admitted that
it discharged Hugh Williams and W. H. Marshall, Sr., but alleged
that the former was discharged because of his violation of company
rules, and the latter because of information secured as to his past
history which rendered him an undesirable employee.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Grass Valley, Cali-
fornia, on June 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 30, 1937, before Patrick
H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence,;bearing upon the issues was afforded, all parties.
At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the respondent objected to
the jurisdiction of the Board on the ground that the respondent was
not engaged in interstate commerce, that its operations are purely
intrastate, and that none of its activities affect or have any relation
to interstate commerce. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the
respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction
on the same grounds. The Trial Examiner denied the motion. Cer-
tain documents were submitted by stipulation following the hearing
and were admitted by the Trial Examiner.
Subsequently the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report
finding that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report were thereafter filed by the respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board on Octo-
ber 25, 1937, in Washington, for the purpose of oral argument. The
respondent and the I. U. M. appeared; they were represented by
counsel and participated in the oral argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on mo-
tions and on objections to the admission and exclusion of evidence
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. Those rulings
are hereby affirmed. The Board has also reviewed the exceptions to
the Intermediate Report, and except in one instance, as indicated
below, finds them without merit.
Upon the entire record:in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Nevada corporation having its main office at
San Francisco, California, and its mining property at Grass Valley,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 787
California. Its authorized capital stock.is„$3,000,000 and its issued
-capital stock between $1,750,000 and $1,800,000.
The respondent owns in fee the Idaho-Maryland and the Bruns-
wick mines which adjoin each other. Each of these mines has two
shafts. The Idaho-Maryland main shaft is the most westerly ; next
comes the Idaho-Maryland No. 2 shaft about 3,500 feet distant;
then at a distance of approximately one mile is the Old Brunswick
shaft; and about 1,000 feet away is the New Brunswick shaft. The
Idaho-Maryland mine has been producing gold continuously for the
past 11 years ; and the Brunswick mine for the past three years.
In addition to its own mines, the respondent has a lease or option
on a gold mine at Forbestown in Butte County, California, and op-
erates the Grass Valley Bullion Mines Company at Grass Valley,
California, under an agreement.
The respondent's production of gold is of the lode mining type.
The production operations are carried on through shafts and, at
various levels, mining operations are conducted from the shafts by
means of "drifts" or tunnels along the veins. In addition to its
extraction operations, the respondent engages in development opera-
tions, or mining in quest of new gold producing ore.
The underground employees of the respondent include the follow-
ing : the miners, who machine-drill holes in the rock, insert powder
therein, and blast the ore loose from the rock; the timbermen, who
brace the passageways or openings of the mine in place with timber
to prevent the rock from caving or falling, in; the mockers, who trans-
fer the loose ore into chutes and cars, from which it is transported by
the car men on narrow gauge railroads to the shaft; the skip tenders,
who transfer the ore at the shaft to large containers or skips in
which it is drawn to the surface for milling operations; and the
pumpmen, who keep water out of the mine. The underground super-
visory employees include the superintendent, foreman, shift bosses,
and jigger bosses. The latter go through the mine and collect high
grade -ore from the miners. An underground worker usually starts
working as a mucker and through experience works up to the job of
miner or timberman. In addition to the above employees, who are
paid on an hourly or daily basis, the respondent occasionally em-
ploys contract workers, who receive a regular daily wage and a bonus
calculated on a footage basis, and "leasors", who mine special sec-
tions of the respondent's property in return for a percentage of the
gold they produce and a portion of their operating expenses. The
record indicates that the contract workers and "leasors" are employees
of the respondent, rather than independent contractors ; and the re-
spondent did not object to the classification of these workers as its
employees.
When the ore is drawn to the surface of the mine, it goes to the head
frame, a wooden structure over the month of the shaft, whence it is
788 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dumped into a pocket. From there it passes through a crusher to
bins, from which it goes into the stamp or ball mills. As a result of
the milling operations the ore is transformed into bricks containing
gold 800 to 850 fine, silver 150 to 200 fine, and some non-commercial
quantities of copper and lead. The respondent does no smelting or
refining. From the time the rock is blasted until the ore is crushed
and processed and the bricks shipped to the buyer the respondent's
operations are practically continuous.
The record does not indicate the extent to which the respondent
shipped its product in interstate and foreign commerce prior to the
Gold Reserve Act of 1934. However, counsel for the respondent
admitted that during the summer of 1933 it shipped unrefined ore
in the form of amalgam to London, England, because at that time
the London market price for gold was higher than the American
price. Since then, because the United States Government has raised
the price of gold and has drastically restricted sales of gold to others,
than itself, the respondent has shipped the major portion of its prod-
uct by its own airplanes to San Francisco, California, and thence by
automobile to the United States Mint in that city. It also sells a
small portion of its product to the American Smelting and Refining
Company at Selby, California, for refining, and is paid the legal rater
fixed by the United States Government, less the refining charges.
The American Smelting and Refining Company, in turn, sells the
refined gold to the San Francisco mint.
During the year 1936 the respondent produced and sold to the,.
United States Mint at San Francisco in conformity with federal
regulations 95,756 fine ounces of gold, receiving in payment the sum
of $3,351,470.18, and 29,238 fine ounces of silver, receiving in payment
the sum of $22,680.54. During that same year the total production,
of gold in the United States amounted to $150,959,270 and the total
production of gold in the State of California to $36,502,025. From
January 1, 1937, through April 30, 1937, the respondent produced and
sold to the San Francisco mint 34,998 fine ounces of gold, receiving
in payment $1,224,930, and approximately 10,919 fine ounces of silver,
receiving in payment approximately $8,407.
Upon receipt by the mint, the respondent's bars are assayed and
paid for at the current price of $35 per ounce of gold and approxi-
mately $.77 per ounce for silver, less certain mint charges. For about
30 days the respondent's product is kept segregated by the mint,
and is thereafter refined, the gold and silver are separated, and each
transformed into bars. In this process the respondent's product is
commingled with that of various other producers and its identity is.
destroyed. Under the present policy of the United States Treasury
Department all bars of refined domestic gold, as they accumulate at
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 789'
the San Francisco mint are from time to time shipped to the mint at
Denver, Colorado. In addition, unrefined gold and silver bars, are
also shipped in substantial quantities to the Denver mint.
The respondent's officials testified that it purchases practically all'
of its supplies and equipment from sellers within the State of Cali-
fornia. However, an analysis of its purchases clearly indicates that
substantial amounts thereof originate outside the State of California.
During the year 1936 the respondent made the following purchases.
of equipment and supplies all of which were manufactured outside-
the State of California :
Pipes and pipe fittings------------------------------ $23,221.72
Rails----------------------------------------------- 13,382.95
Rail fittings---------------------------------------- 1,011.37
Drill steel------------------------------------------ 7,915.98
Drill bits------------------------------------------ 26, 833.82
Drill machines------------------------------------- 15,382 10
Drill machine parts-------------------------------- 22, 266.99
Total ---------------------------------------- $110,014.96
The respondent consumes large amounts of lumber for underground
timbering; its officials did not know the origin of its purchases, but
one item amounting to $17,883.53 was traced to the Pacific North-
west area.
Effect on Commerce
The evidence specifically discloses the following as the effects on
interstate and foreign commerce of the cessation or curtailment of
production by the respondent, such as might attend a labor dispute
between the Company and its employees :
1. Interstate shipment of supplies and equipment.-The record in-
dicates that the respondent annually purchases supplies and equip-
ment, produced in and transported from points outside the State of
California, to an amount in the neighborhood of $125,000. The gold
mines in the Grass Valley-Nevada City district purchase, exclusive
of electricity and fuel, supplies and equipment to an amount in
excess of $1,000,000 a year; and the mines throughout the State of
California, to an amount in excess of $5,800,000 a year. The major
portion of these supplies, as in the case of the respondent, are
shipped from points outside the State of California, and the record
indicates that the other gold mines in the Grass Valley-Nevada City
district and in other parts of California are operated in substantially
the same manner as that of the respondent.
2. Interstate shipment of respondent's product.-Prior to the Gold_
Reserve Act of 1934 the respondent shipped its gold ore in inter-
state and foreign commerce, and even under the emergency gold.
790 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regulations of 1933 it sent a substantial amount of gold amalgam
to England . At the present time, as indicated above, most of the
gold mined by the respondent is sent in the first instance to the
mint at San Francisco . The record clearly indicates , however, that
the San Francisco mint is merely a stopping -off point. Upon re-
fining the respondent 's gold and in some instances even prior thereto,
the San Francisco mint ships the gold in interstate commerce to
the mint at Denver, Colorado.
3. Effect of gold production on interstate and foreign commerce.-
Aii examination of the economic data introduced into the record of
this proceeding conclusively indicates that gold is an important basis
of the nation 's bank credit system which, in turn , is the keystone
of 'our commerce . The cessation of production of gold by the re-
spondent and other mining companies similarly situated , unless com-
pensating factors appeared , would produce significant reverberations
in the credit and monetary system, which shortly would affect the
flow of commodities in interstate and foreign commerce. The 1936
annual report of the Bank for International Settlements contains
the following comment on the relationship of gold production to
commerce :
In practice it may be difficult to follow the effects of the
newly-mined gold as it moves from the producers to the
various monetary centres, but the tendency that such gold
has to increase the demand for commodities cannot be
doubted.'
The importance of gold as a major influence in the national flow
of commerce was strikingly revealed in the March 1933, collapse of
the country's currency and banking system. The hoarding of gold
and the draining from the banks of- gold reserves precipitated the
crisis; and the resulting closing of the banks paralyzed commerce.
In fact, Congress decided that gold is so vital to the nation 's econo-
mic system that it established rigid control over the accumulation
of the already existing gold supply and over the disposition of newly-
mined gold.
In foreign commerce gold , by holding an important place in the
balancing of international accounts , clearly affects the flow of goods
to and from the United States. The United States Treasury De-
partment exercises rigid control over gold for the very reason that
that commodity affects commerce ; and it endeavors to utilize our
large gold supply in a manner to prevent extreme fluctuations in
foreign exchange rates and thus to promote a steady flow of com-
merce.
Boaid's Exhibit No 33.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 791
The evidence adduced in this proceeding demonstrates that the
respondent is engaged in producing the very lifeblood of commerce,
and that the cessation of its operations and those of other gold
mining companies similarly situated, as a result of industrial strife,
would have dire consequences on the flow of commerce among the
several states and with foreign countries.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The I. U. M. and its activities
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers of Amer-
ica, Twin Cities Local No. 283, herein called the I. U. M., is a labor
organization. The International was organized in 1893; subse-
quently it became part of the American Federation of Labor, and it
is now affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization.
It admits to membership all persons in a "non-executive" capacity
working in mines, mills, and smelters.
In the latter part of January or early part of February 1937, some
of the miners in the Grass Valley-Nevada City area became con-
vinced that a new labor organization was necessary to improve their
working conditions and raise their standards: They accordingly re-
quested the I. U. M. to send organizers into the district to assist in
the formation of a local union. During February 1937, active organ-
ization efforts were made among the employees of the various mining
companies in the area without, however, any attempt at publicity.
On March 1, 1937, the International chartered the Twin Cities Local
No. 283; and on that day the new local held a meeting at the Oddfel-
lows Hall in Nevada City open to anyone who might be interested.
Henceforth the fact that the I. U. M. was organizing the miners
of the district became the subject of very widespread discussion in
Grass Valley and Nevada City. Of the 13,000 persons residing in
those two communities, approximately 2,500 are employed in gold
mining and 8,000 to 10,000 are dependent upon that industry for their
livelihood.
During the first half of March 1937, the I. U. M. signed. up approxi-
mately 350 members. It was especially successful in organizing the
employees at the Old Brunswick shaft. Of the 85 underground
workers at that shaft, 72 joined the I. U. M.; and seven of the fifteen
local union officers were employees at that mine. A few days prior
to the shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft on April 15, the men
discussed a proposal that the I. U. M. make a demand upon the re-
spondent that it recognize that union as the bargaining representa-
tive for the Old Brunswick employees.
67573-38--vol. iv--51
792 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Soon, however, the I. U. M. met vigorous opposition in its organi-
zation efforts. On March 5, the Nevada County Citizens' Committee
of Five Thousand was organized for the expressed purpose of keep-
ing out of the district I. U. M. organizers. Invitations to the March
5th meeting were passed out by word of mouth ; and Loy ale Freeman,
president of the local Chamber of Commerce, became the leader of
the Committee. Just before Freeman addressed the March 5th meet-
ing he conferred on the speakers' platform with an official of the
respondent. The speakers at the meeting openly stated that they
were opposed to the, "importation into a peaceful county of outside,
radical disturbers" and pledged support to the M. W. P. L. as the
sole labor organization in the county. On the next morning the Com-
mittee inserted in the Morning Union, a Grass Valley and Nevada
City newspaper, an advertisement covering nearly a full page, which
declared that local labor leaders were fully capable of making de-
mands for better pay or working conditions and that "until these
negotiations are completed, it seems a poor time for outside agencies
to inflame a community." This advertisement carried an implied
threat against the I. U. M. leaders, declaring that "It not only is a
poor time, but it might also be said that Nevada County is a decidedly
poor place for agitators. History since the days of '49 tells how agi-
tators have fared here." And on March 11, the Morning Union car-
ried an announcement that the Committee had perfected plans for the
establishment of an "Emergency Patrol". This patrol was to consist
of a large force of volunteer peace officers organized along military,
lines, trained and armed, and sworn in as deputy sheriffs.
The March 6, 1937, edition of the Morning Union, in addition to
reporting the organization and meeting of the Committee, announced
that the local mine operators had entered into a bargaining agree-
ment with the M. W. P. L.
After these developments the I. U. M. experienced increasing diffi-
culties in its organization efforts. The I. U. M. had hired the same
hall for a meeting on March 7, that it had used on March 1; but
before the meeting the owner refused to allow it to use the hall. It
was unable to secure a hall for its meetings, despite the efforts of its
officers to secure every hall in the vicinity. The proprietors invari-
ably turned them down, some stating that their halls were previously
engaged and others frankly stating that because of pressure put upon
them by the local businessmen they were unable to rent their halls
to the I. U. M.
After the shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft on April 15,
attendance at the meetings of the I. U. M. dropped off noticeably.
The members felt that the Old Brunswick employees had been laid
off because of their union activities and they were afraid to partici-
pate openly in I. U. M. affairs. Some members paid their dues
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 793
secretly; public mass meetings were discontinued; the wearing of
union buttons ceased; the membership campaign had to be carried
on secretly ; and the signing of new members dropped off sharply.
In the latter part of April, the I. U. M. sent a letter to the re-
spondent listing the former Old Brunswick shaft employees and
requesting that they be given priority for new jobs. Although the
respondent received this letter, it entirely ignored the I. U. M. and
failed to reply or otherwise communicate with its officers.
B. Respondent's relations to M. W. P. L.
The Mine Workers Protective League, herein called the M. W. P. L.,
was organized in the Grass Valley-Nevada City area during a strike
in 1919 and was active during strikes in 1921 and 1924. All em-
ployees of the mine operators in the district below the rank of su-
perintendent are eligible for membership.
Supervisory employees appear to play a prominent role in the
activities of the M. W. P. L. The present president is employed at
the North Star mine in a capacity in which he has power to hire
and discharge other workers. The record indicates that after the
I. U. M. became active in the area a foreman of one of the mining
companies introduced a resolution at a meeting of the M. W. P. L.
providing for the expulsion of members who join other unions.
Since 1930, when the respondent violated an oral agreement with
the M. W. P. L., without serious objection by the latter, the rela-
tionship between the respondent and M. W. P. L. has been extremely
cordial.
After the I. U. Al. organizational efforts commenced, several of
the respondent's employees connected with the management-espe-
cially, Cliff Plant, the respondent's storekeeper, Ed Wall, a shift
boss, and Wills, a watchman-distributed M. W. P. L. membership
cards to the respondent's employees during working hours and urged
them to sign up with the Al. W. P. L. In many instances, the em-
ployees were warned by the supervisory employees of the respondent
that, if- they did not join the M. W. P. L., they would lose their
jobs. When employees complained that they did not have the neces-
sary $3 initiation fee, the respondent's supervisory employees told
them that the fee would be deducted from their pay checks ; and in
several instances this was actually done. In addition to thus solicit-
ing members for the M. W. P. L., the respondent compelled its em-
ployees to retain membership in that organization and to pay the
required dues. One witness testified that he had become delinquent
in his dues to the M. W. P. L., that the M. W. P. L. officers warned
him that if he did not pay up they would report him to his boss,
and that a short time thereafter the respondent's foreman or boss
794 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under whom this employee worked informed him that he had bet-
ter get his card "squared up." The record contains many instances
of persuasion, coercion, and intimidation by the respondent's super-
visory employees against its employees to compel them to join and
remain members of the M. W. P. L.
The respondent contributed support to M. W. P. L. by compelling
its employees to join that organization, by acting voluntarily as a
check-off agent for the League's initiation fees, and by dunning its
employees who fell behind in their M. W. P. L. dues, the respondent
directed a steady flow of funds from the pockets of its employees to
the coffers of the M. W. P. L. The record is clear that the em-
ployees did not desire to join the M. W. P. L., that they contributed
to its support only upon the insistence of the respondent's super-
visory employees, and that the primary cause of this flow of funds
to the M. W. P. L. was the coercion and intimidation of the re-
spondent and its agents. In addition, the respondent contributed
unspecified amounts of cash to the M. W. P. L. widows' and or-
phans' fund and prizes for the M. W. P. L.'s outings.
During the oral argument before the Board, the respondent's
counsel admitted that the respondent's supervisory employees had
been "overzealous" in fostering the M. W. P. L. among its employees;
and he agreed that, if the Board should be held to have jurisdiction
in this proceeding, the respondent would in the future discontinue
solicitation of membership in and financial support to the M. W. P. L.
So closely did the respondent and the M. W. P. L. work together
that during March 1937, after the I. U. M. had actively entered the
Grass Valley-Nevada City area and after the respondent had com-
pelled its employees to join the M. W. P. L., the respondent along
with other local mining companies approached the officers of the
M. W. P. L. and arranged a written collective bargaining agreement
with the M. W. P. L., effective April 1, 1937, wherein the respond-
ent recognized the M. W. P. L. as the bargaining agent for its
members.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the administration of the M. W. P. L. and contributed support to
it; and that by compelling its employees to join the M. W. P. L.
and by other acts recited above, it has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The shut-down, of the Old Brunswick shaft and the refusal to
reinstate
The record is clear that the respondent knew of the activities of
the I. U. M. and of the predominant position of that labor organiza-
tion among the underground employees of the Old Brunswick shaft.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 795
The men at the Old Brunswick shaft openly attended union meet-
ings and wore union buttons, in many instances upon their working
clothes. In the latter part of March, Weed, who was then a foreman
at the Old Brunswick shaft, and Superintendent Cowley talked for
about two hours with Jack Williams, then president of the I. U. M.
local, about the union. They had two further discussions with
Williams at great length during the next few days and secured con-
siderable information concerning the union's composition and plans.
Williams told Jigger Boss Fitch the names of the officers of the
I. U. M. Foreman Denton asked Williams questions about the union
and what it hoped or intended to accomplish. Shortly before the
shut-down, Morgan, vice-president of the local union, heard a con-
versation on the 800 foot level of the Old Brunswick shaft between
Foreman Weed and a shift boss; Morgan testified that Weed was
trying to ascertain how many union men there were in the mine
and that when he was told that there were only two or three non.
union men Weed said, "It wouldn't be so bad to replace a few men,
but it is pretty hard to replace a whole crew."
In view of these facts and in the light of subsequent events, it
is difficult to reach any other conclusion but that the shut-down of
the Old Brunswick shaft on April 15 was aimed primarily at smash-
ing the I. U. M. In fact, the discharges of that date actually did
cripple the Union, as has already been indicated.
On the afternoon of April 15, as the day shift of the underground
workers came out of the Old Brunswick shaft and the night shift
was reporting to work, the men were handed time slips carrying
the statement that the shaft was being closed. In answer to inquiries
of the men, Superintendent Cowley stated that he did not know why
the shaft was being shut down; in fact, at the hearing he himself
testified that he had not learned of the closing order until about
forty-five minutes beforehand.
Following the shut-down most of the employees of the Old Bruns-
wick shaft attempted to secure new employment with the respondent,
Sixteen of the men testified that they had personally applied for
reemployment and that they had seen about 40 or 50 other Old
Brunswick employees at the respondent's employment office simi-
larly attempting to secure work. The respondent stipulated at the
hearing that 37 men, other than those who testified, had also applied
for reemployment prior to June 1, 1937.
Within a month after the shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft,
the respondent expanded its activities in the New Brunswick shaft
and during May 1937, hired over 100 underground workers, of whom
18 were former employees of the Old Brunswick shaft. Among these
Old Brunswick employees who were rehired, twelve were members
of the I. U. M., but none of these were prominent in the Union's
796 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities. Not a single I. U. M. officer or active member was hired
by the respondent for its expanded New Brunswick shaft work.
Prior to the shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft, the Old
Brunswick and New Brunswick shafts had constituted interlocking
operations. At the 900-foot level the two shafts were connected with
each other. The ore bodies from the Old Brunswick shafts extended
to the New Brunswick shaft; and about half of the Old Brunswick
ore was taken out through the New Brunswick shaft. The Old
Brunswick ore was dumped into the same pockets or bins as that
from the New Brunswick shafts, and from these went through the
milling process with its identity lost. The record thus clearly indi-
cates the operations of the Old Brunswick shaft were closely related
to those of the New Brunswick shaft. Accordingly, it is significant
that the respondent shortly after closing the Old Brunswick shaft
expanded operations at the New Brunswick shaft and did not reem-
ploy its Old Brunswick employees.
At no time did the respondent or its agents tell its employees why
they had been discharged or why they were not being reemployed.
When the Old Brunswick employees went to the respondent's em-
ployment office, they were in many instances shunted from one official
to another and were told by each that someone else was determining
the respondent's employment policy. When Joseph E. Larghero
applied for work to Wolflin, the respondent's personnel manager,
the latter looked into a "little book" and then said that he could not
tell Larghero why he was not being reemployed. Similarly, when
Albert A. Garesio, the financial secretary of the I. U. M. applied
for reemployment, Wolflin checked his "little book" and said that
Garesio's chances for a job were very slim. When Garesio talked
to Top Superintendent Berman, the latter told him that he may have
talked too much. Tony Vithneik was told by Mooers of the re-
spondent's employment office that he had orders not to hire Old
Brunswick employees for a month or two. Frank H. Padgett was
told by Wolflin, "I don't like your look"; although Wolflin asked
him if he would take a job on the ranch at a substantial reduction in
wages, he failed to explain what type of complexion or features were
essential prerequisites for underground work. Some of the men
were told "to think hard" and they would know why they had been
discharged.
Neither before the shut-down nor at the time they applied for
reinstatement were any of the Old Brunswick employees told that
their work had been unsatisfactory. On the contrary, several of
the workers had been complimented by their superiors on the high
quality of their work.
At the hearing the respondent advanced two reasons for the shut-
down of the Old Brunswick shaft: (1) that it was uneconomical to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 797
continue operations there; and (2) that "high-grading," or stealing
of ore with a high gold content, was taking place at that shaft. An
analysis of the evidence con viuces us that neither explanation reveals
the true reason for the shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft, the
discharge of its underground employees, and the respondent's subse-
quent refusal to reemploy most of those employees.
During 1937, prior to the shut-down, the respondent had under-
taken extensive improvements in the Old Brunswick shaft. Thus
the respondent had sunk the main shaft about 60 feet deeper; had
installed new rails from the top to the bottom of the shaft; had
replaced the old skips of one and a quarter ton capacity with new
skips of two and one-half ton capacity; had installed larger trolley
motors, new hoisting cables, and an additional rock crusher at the
head frame. It does not appear convincing that after these extensive
improvements the respondent should suddenly decide that further
operations at the Old Brunswick shaft were economically impracti-
cable.
The evidence is clear that the respondent did not consult either
its superintendent or its mining geologist on the important question
whether the Old Brunswick shaft could be operated profitably. This
procedure is not that which would normally be expected, especially
inasmuch as the 1937 improvements at the shaft had been recom-
mended by Superintendent Cowley on the basis of a favorable report
by the respondent's geologist.
In support of its explanation that the Old Brunswick shaft opera-
tions were no longer profitable, the respondent's general manager,
Crase, testified that during January or February 1937, the develop-
ment work at that shaft had ceased yielding new ore. This testi-
mony, however, is hardly consistent with the respondent's intense
activity then and thereafter in increasing the shaft's equipment.
Business organizations do not engage in and continue costly improve-
ments after their officials have already determined that further opera-
tions could be continued only at a loss. In fact, this contradiction
between the respondent's statements that the Old Brunswick shaft
had become virtually exhausted and its actual improvements at that
shaft discredits entirely the respondent's statement that the Old
Brunswick shaft could be operated only at a loss.
Moreover, the alleged failure of the Old Brunswick development
activities does not conform with other evidence presented by the
respondent's own witnesses. Superintendent Cowley testified that-
in addition to the loose ore in the Old Brunswick shaft, of which
between 1,700 and 1,800 tons had actually been removed after the
shut-down-there is an ore reserve of about 56,000 tons and that of
this reserve 44,000 tons can be mined at a profit, prior to milling
costs, of about $1.50 per ton. Rollin Farmin, the respondent's mining
798 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
geologist went further; he testified that the Old Brunswick shaft has
an ore reserve of 100,000 tons which some day should be mined and
that to extract this ore and to carry on the concomitant development
excavations would require from 800 to 2,800 days' work.
In support of its contention that the Old Brunswick shaft could
not be operated profitably, General Manager Crase testified that in
1936 the recovered value from Old Brunswick ore was $5.99 per
ton; that the recovered value. for January and February 1937, was
only $5.72 per ton; that the cost to mine the ore was $5.40; and that
the narrow margin of profit would have been entirely wiped out by
the wage increases given to the respondent's employees on April 1,
1937. At first glance, this testimony appears convincing. However,
Crase failed to state, as the respondent's counsel admitted at the oral
argument before the Board, that that wage increase was a substitute
for the profit-sharing plan which the respondent had previously em-
ployed ; nor did he show that under the new wage increase the
respondent's annual pay roll would be any greater than under the
abandoned profit-sharing plan.
Finally, whatever weight to which the respondent's evidence may
otherwise carry is destroyed by General Manager Crase's indication
that he himself did not place any great reliance on this explanation
for the shut-down and by his emphasis, when pressed, upon the preva-
lence of "high-grading" as the real reason why he himself had ordered
the shut-down. Crase stated that he had advanced the explanation
of the respondent's inability to operate the Old Brunswick shaft prof-
itably in order to protect the employees of that unit from any sus-
picion of "high-grading". This shifting of ground together with
Crase's callous indifference to the well-being of the admittedly many
honest Old Brunswick employees who were thrown out of jobs and
later denied reinstatement, leads us to believe that both the unprofit-
able operation and the "high-grading" explanations for the shut-down
were made to disguise the true reason for the respondent's action-
that is, a desire to smash the I. U. Al. by discharging all and refusing
to reemploy its active members.
The respondent produced as a witness the oie buyer inspector for
the State of California, among whose duties it is to investigate "high-
grading". This witness presented merely a general background of
"high-grading", which undoubtedly is a concomitant of gold mining;
but he utterly failed to connect his testimony with any recent "high-
grading" at the Old Brunswick shaft so as to explain the closing of
that unionized unit rather than any of the respondent's other shafts.
He testified that the "high-grading" problem was acute throughout
all the mines and the district, and estimated from the reports of his
subordinates that between $400,000 and $500,000 of high-grade ore is
stolen annually from the Grass Valley-Nevada City district, but he
C
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 799
made no effort to estimate how much of that ore came from the Old
Brunswick shaft. He stated that in the past two years sixteen persons
had been arrested and four convicted in the Federal Court in San
Francisco, California, for illegal gold ore buying, but he did not
contend that any Old Brunswick employees were in any manner asso-
ciated with those illegal operations. He further testified that during
the two years prior to August 1936, he had reported to the respondent,
but had not prosecuted, about ten Old Brunswick employees for
"high-grading". However, on cross-examination his memory as to
those instances proved weak; he could not remember the number of
such reports and he could recall distinctly only one instance of Old
Brunswick "high-grading", and that about June 1936.
The respondent introduced no evidence that prior to the shut-down
there had been any increase in the amount of "high-grading" at the
Old Brunswick shaft. Rather in its efforts to justify the shut-down,
the respondent's general manager and head watchman both related a
"high-grading" incident at the Old Brunswcc, shaft on March 26,
1937. On that date Crase telephoned the head watchman that he had
received a tip that some "high-grading" was being attempted and the
latter rushed to the Old Brunswick shaft. Shortly after he arrived,
a car containing a man and a woman parked between the shaft collar
and the "dry" (hereinafter described) ; the man told the watchman
that he wanted a certain underground worker whose brother allegedly
had been injured; the employee went into the "dry" to change into
his street clothes before talking to the occupants of the car ; and the
watchman discovered high-grade ore under the worker's socks.
We do not believe that this unsuccessful attempt at "high-grading"
-can be honestly urged by the respondent as the reason for the closing
,of the shaft three weeks later and the discharge of all the Old Bruns-
wick employees.
The record is clear that better precautions against "high-grading"
existed at the Old Brunswick shaft than at other of the respondent's
units. From the moment the underground employees came out of the
collar of the Old Brunswick shaft until they left the "dry" and
departed from the premises, the respondent's watchmen kept them
under constant observation. The "dry" or change room is the place
where the underground workers change from their digging to their
street clothes. Whereas at the Idaho-Maryland shaft there was a
single "dry"-that is, the underground employees used only one room
for changing their clothes-the Old Brunswick had a double "dry".
There the miners coming off shift entered one room, removed all their
digging clothes, walked out nude into the shower room, "not even
being allowed to carry a towel or wash-rag," and then went to a
second room where they donned their street clothes. If at any time a
miner at work wanted anything from his street clothes, he had to se-
800 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cure permission to enter the "dry" from the watchman, who accom-
panied and carefully watched him. And in addition to the double
"dry" system, the watchman searched the clothes of miners working in
especially rich sections of the shaft.
Crase claimed that because the Old Brunswick "dry" was situated
on a hill the watchmen experienced difficulty in checking the "high-
grading"; the miners, he testified, had on their way to the "dry"
thrown "high-grade" down the hillside or into the drain tunnel, and
later returned to the premises to recover the ore. On cross-examina-
tion, however, Crase was vague and indefinite about such instances;
he had no recollection as to the date when someone had broken into
the drain tunnel, except that it had been sometime in 1936.
Crase conceded that "high-grading" was a traditional problem at
the gold mines in the district. He admitted that the situation at the
Old Brunswick shaft had not become appreciably worse at the time
of the shut-down.
Viewing the April 15 shut-down of the Old Brunswick shaft in con-
junction with the respondent's employment practices during the fol-
lowing month, we cannot escape the conclusion that the discharges
of and the failure to reemploy the Old Brunswick workers were due
to the union membership and activities of those employees.
The record indicates that none of the employees discharged by the
respondent have secured other regular or substantially equivalent em-
ployment since the date of their discharge. Inasmuch as their employ-
ment was terminated by an unfair labor practice, they at all times
thereafter retained their status as employees of the respondent within
the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
At the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding
as to George Sullivan on the ground that neither he, then twenty
years of age, nor his father, an employee of another local mining
company, had any desire to have the proceedings prosecuted on his
behalf. Neither George Sullivan nor his father made any request
to the Board, its Regional Director, or its Regional Attorney to have
his name dropped from the complaint and at the hearing, he testified
that, if the Board should order the respondent to reinstate him to his
former position, he would accept the job. Accordingly, the Trial
Examiner was correct in denying the respondent's motion; and we
find that George Sullivan has retained his status as an employee of
the respondent.
We find that the respondent shut down the Old Brunswick shaft on
April 15, 1937, and locked out its employees primarily, if not exclu-
sively, for the purpose of crushing the I. U. M. and that the respond-
ent thus interfered with, restrained and coerced 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
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 801
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. Discharge of W. H. Marshall, Sr.
On or about May 14, 1937, the respondent discharged W. H. Mar-
shall, Sr. Marshall had been engaged in mining for 26 years and
had been an employee of the respondent at the Idaho-Maryland mine
since May 6, 1935. He had never been reprimanded by the respondent
for unsatisfactory work or infractions of the rules. Marshall was a
member and trustee of the I. U. M. and served on a negotiating com-
mittee. His shift boss knew of these activities. Although Marshall
interviewed the respondent's officials, they refused to tell him why he
had been discharged. The respondent offered no explanation at the
hearing.
We find that W. H. Marshall, Sr., was discharged for the reason
that he had joined and assisted the I. U. M. He has secured no other
regular or substantially equivalent employment since his discharge.
Inasmuch as his employment was terminated by an unfair labor prac-
tice, he at all times thereafter retained his status as an employee of
the respondent within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
E. Discharge of Hugh Williams
On April 20, 1937, the respondent discharged Hugh Williams, an
employee at the Idaho-Maryland mines, for the alleged reason that
he had been absent from work on April 16 and 17, 1937, without re-
porting in advance that he was intending to take those days off.
Under the respondent's rules, a worker is required to report in advance
a lay-off of more than one clay; and the foremen are given discretion
to discharge a worker violating that rule.
On April 13, 1937, Williams and an employee, Jack Hewer, laid
off together; and when they returned to work Foreman Thomas Hart
reprimanded them for not reporting. Williams and Hewer claimed
that they had reported ; and thereupon Hart warned them that "after
this they had to report when they laid off." On April 16, 1937,
Williams and Hewer laid off in order to file a charge on behalf of
the I. U. M. with the Board at the San Francisco regional office.
Williams testified that the night before he had telephoned from the
Grass Valley telephone office to the hoisting engineer at the Idaho-
Maryland shaft and requested him to ask the watchman to report
him off work to Fred Pinch. Williams did not know the name of
the man to whom he talked, and relied on, that round-about method
of making his required report. Foreman Hart, on the other hand,
testified that he did not on either April 16 or 17, directly or indirectly,
802 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
receive any report from Williams that he would not be at work. Hart
stated that Williams did not return to work until April 19 and that
he immediately discharged Williams for violating the respondent's
rule about laying-off without reporting. Hart testified that Hewer,
who with Williams had gone to San Francisco to file the charge in
this proceeding, had telephoned on the morning of April 16-to
whom, Hart did not specify-that he would not be at work; and that
when Hewer returned to work nothing was said to him and he was
not discharged.
The evidence fails to sustain the allegation that the respondent
discharged Hugh Williams because of his union membership or
activities. The allegations of the complaint with respect to Hugh
Williams, will, therefore, be dismissed.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Upon the whole record, we find that the activities of the respond-
ent set forth in Section II above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, commerce,
and transportation among the several States and with foreign coun-
tries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
It is clear that the respondent compelled many of its employees,
contrary to their desires, to join the M. W. P. L. and that the respond-
ent has contributed support to the M. W. P. L. In order to remedy
its unlawful conduct therein, the respondent must cease requiring,
urging, coercing, or intimidating its employees to join the M. W.
P. L.; must cease contributing support to the M. W. P. L.; must
withdraw all recognition from the M. W. P. L. as an organization
representative of the respondent's employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work ;
and must give no effect to its agreement recognizing the M. W. P. L.
as the bargaining agent for its members.
As we have found that, with the exception of Hugh Williams,
all the employees enumerated in paragraph four of the amended
complaint were discharged because of the respondent's unfair labor
practices, we shall order the respondent to offer to reinstate them
and we shall award them back pay for the period from the dates of
their discharges to the dates of the respondent's offers of reinstate-
ment, less any amounts earned by them in the meantime.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 803
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers of
America, Local 283, is a labor organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Mine Workers Protective League is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. W. H. Marshall, Sr., and those employees of the Old Bruns-
wick shaft who were discharged on April 15, 1937, were at the time
of their discharges, and at all times thereafter have `been, employees
of the respondent within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of W. H. Marshall, Sr., and the employees of
the Old Brunswick shaft who were discharged on April 15, 1937,
and each of them, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the admin-
istration of the Mine Workers Protective League and by contributing
support to said organization, has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
8. The respondent, by discharging and, refusing to reinstate Hugh
Williams, has not discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of
employment and thereby discouraged membership in a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the 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,
Idaho-Maryland Mines Corporation, Grass Valley, California, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
804 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization, to.form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
2. Cease and desist from in any manner dominating or interfering
with the administration of Mine Workers Protective League or with
the formation or administration of any other labor organization
,of its employees and from contributing financial or other support
to Mine Workers Protective League or any other labor organization
of its employees.
3. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers of America, Local No.
283, or any other labor organization of its employees by discrimina-
tion in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of employment.
4. Cease and desist from giving effect to its agreement with the
Mine Workers Protective League recognizing it as the representa-
tive of its members.
5. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
a. Offer to the discharged employees who have not been reinstated,
listed in Appendix "A", immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges;
b. Make whole the discharged employees, listed in Appendix "B",
for any losses of pay they have suffered by reason of the respond-
ent's discriminatory acts, by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of the respondent's offer
of reinstatement, less any amount earned by him during that period;
the normal earnings of contract workers or "leasors", for the pur-
poses of computation under this paragraph, shall be arrived at by
averaging the total amount paid to each such employee by the re-
spondent for the sixty (60) days preceding his discharge, or as many
of said days as each such employee may have been employed by the
respondent;
c. Withdraw all recognition from Mine Workers Protective League
as a representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work;
d. Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its mines and plants stating: (1) that the respondent
will cease and desist as provided in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 805
Order; ( 2) that the respondent withdraws and will refrain from
all recognition of Mine Workers Protective League as a representa-
tive of its employees and completely disestablishes it as such repre-
sentative; (3) that the agreement signed with Mine Workers Pro-
tective League recognizing it as the bargaining agent for its members
is void and of no.effect ; ( 4) that to secure or retain employment a
person need not become a member of Mine Workers Protective
League; ( 5) that the respondent will not discharge or in any manner
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment be-
cause of his membership in International Union of Mine , Mill and
Smelter Workers of America, Local No. 283 or any other labor
organization of its employees, or because of his assisting such organi-
zation or engaging in union activity ; ( 6) that the respondent has
instructed its foremen and other supervisory officials to remain neu-
tral as between labor organizations and that any violations of this
instruction should be reported to it;
e. Maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty ( 30) con-
secutive days from the date of posting;
f. Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
The allegations in the amended complaint that the respondent
has engaged in unfair labor, practices , within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act, by discharging and refusing to reinstate Hugh
Williams are hereby dismissed.
APPENDIX
Arceneaux , Robert
Ashbaugh, R. P.
Atkinson, Frank
Berg, R. S.
Brandic, A. J.
Brown, L. L.
Brown, W. A.
Buckman, Roy
Burns, J. E.
Byrner, George
Carter, Roy A.
Church, Roy
Cozad, Harlen J.
Cozad, Tom
East, Wm. E.
Elmer, Frank
Fabek, Nick
«A»
Frint, J. R.
Garesio, A. A.
Garesio, Joseph
Gosvenor, Floyd
Gradezek , John E.
Green , Willis
Henry, W. W.
Hoffman, E. E.
Horan, Pete
Huntsman, Jack A.
Irvine, Carl
Jensen, Walter
Johnson, Leonard
Labrum, Dallas
Larghero, Joe
Lawler, J. L.
Marshall, W. H., Sr.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD806
Mattingly, C. L.
Mattingly, George
Mell, Hubert
Miller, Charles
Morgan, Ralph
Mulch, Herchell
Murphy, Joseph D.
Norris, C. E.
O'Farrell, Jack
Orzalli, F. J.
Padgett, F. H.
Page, A. J.
Page, David A.
Parker, James E.
Anderson, E. F.
Arceneaux, Robert
Ashbaugh, R. P.
Atkinson, Frank
Berg, R. S.
Brandic, A. J.
Brown, L. L.
Brown, W. A.
Buckman, Roy
Burns, J. E.
Byrner, George
Carter, Roy A.
Church, Roy
Colvin, Thomas
Cozad, Harlen J.
Cozad, Tom
DeLong, Luther
East, Wm. E.
Elmer, Frank
Fabek, Nick
Frint, J. R.
Garesio, A. A.
Garesio, Joseph
Gosvenor, Floyd
Gradezek, John E.
Green, Willis
Greer, H. B.
Price, Joe E.
Prine, Frank F.
Richmond, E. H.
Smith, James P.
Sproule, E. G.
Straczinski, A. J.
Sullivan, George R.
Supanich, Paul
Undhjen, W. F.
Vithneik, Tony
Vukovich, Roy
Wellington, John
Williams, Jack
APPENDIX "B"
Henry, W. W.
Hoffman, E. E.
Horan, Pete
Huntsman, Jack A.
Irvine, Carl
Jackson, C. L.
Jensen, Walter
Johnson, Leonard
Labrum, Dallas
Larghero, Joe
Lawler, J. L.
Lumpkin, John M.
Marshall, W. H., Sr.
Mattingly, C. L.
Mattingly, George
Mell, Hubert
Miller, Charles
Morgan, Ralph
Moule, Ben A.
Moule, William
Mulch, Herchell
Murphy, Joseph D.
Norris, C. E.
O'Farrell, Jack
Orzalli, F. J.
Padgett, F. H.
Page, A. J.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
Page, David A.
Parker, James E.
Popevich, L. M.
Price, Joe E.
Prine, Frank F.
Radich, Jack
Richmond, E. H.
Smith, James P.
Sproule, E. G.
Straczinski, A. J.
Sullivan, George R.
Supanich, Paul
Undhjen, W. F.
Vithneik, Tony
Vukovich, Roy
Waechter, Joseph
Wellington, John
Williams, Jack
Yunk, Ed J.
807
67573-38-vol iv-52