Indianapolis Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1940

25 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and UTILITY
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, LOCAL 120, AFFILIATED WITH THE
CONGRESS FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and ASSOCIATED BROADCAST
TECHNICIANS
Cases Nos. C-1./19 and C-1420.-Decided July 6, 19110
Jurisdiction : electric utility industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; interrogation con-
cerning union membership ; encouragement of and support to "inside" union ;
charges of, by surveillance of employees and meetings of one of complainant
unions, dismissed.
The granting of a raise in wages to employees just prior to date on which
an employee meeting to consider grievances was scheduled held an attempt
to forestall concerted employee activity.
Discrmnnation: discharges for union membership and activity ; charges of, as
to three persons dismissed
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Award of back pay to victim of discrimination, not desiring reinstate-
ment, from date of discharge to date he secured other employment held not
affected by company's sale, subsequent to time said victim secured other
employment, of part of business where said victim had been employed
prior to his discharge.
Respondent ordered to cease encouragement in or otherwise supporting
an "inside" union.
Mr. Colonel C. Sawyer and Cllr. Robert D. Malarne y, for, the
Board.
.
Mr. Arthur L. Gilliom, Mr. Elbert R. Gilliom, and Mr. Karl J.
Stipher, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the respondent.
Mr. Orval Kincaid, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the U. W. O. C.
Mr. Francis O'Rourke, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Mr. Lawson
}Vimberiy, of Washington, D. C., for the A. B. T'.
Mr. Arnold R. Cutler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 19, 1937, United Electric and Radio Workers of
America, Local 1008, a labor organization now known as Utility
25 N. L It B., No. 21 193
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, herein called the
U. W. O. C., and on January 26, 1938, Associated Broadcast Tech-
nicians, a labor organization now known as Associated Broadcast
Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers,' herein called the A. B. T., respectively filed charges with
the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indi-
ana), charging that Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Indian-
apolis, Indiana, herein called the respondent, had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Thereafter, the U. W. O. C. and the A. B. T. respectively filed
amended charges. On July 11, 1939, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Sec-
tion 37 (b) of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered that the cases thus instituted
by the U. W. O. C. and the A. B. T. be consolidated for all purposes
and that one record be made of the hearing to be held.
Upon the amended charges the Board by the Regional Director
issued a complaint dated July 17, 1939, against the respondent alleg-
ing that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce. within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. A copy of the.
complaint, together with notice of hearing and a copy of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, Was duly
served upon the respondent, upon the U. W. O. C., upon the A. B. T.,
and upon Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Associa-
tion, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association,
herein called the Association, a labor organization alleged in the
complaint to be supported and encouraged by the respondent. On
July 18, 1939, an amended notice of hearing was duly served on these
parties. Thereafter, at the hearing mentioned below, the complaint
was amended.
The complaint, as amended, alleged in substance, so far as here
material, that the respondent (1) discharged Roy Payton and Harry
Wilkins on or about July 24, 1937, and May 24, 1938, respectively,
from its C. C. Perry plant; Thomas Elbreg and Sidney Collier on or
about January 6, 1938, from its Harding Street plant, and Dewey
Logsdon 2 on or about. January 6, 1938, from its Mill Street plant, be-
cause they assisted the U. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection; (2) discharged Russell Rennaker
1 At the oral argument the respondent agreed that the name "Assocnited Bi oadcast
Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers." be substituted
for that of "Associated Broadcast Technicians," for the pin poses of the iecoid
2 Also referred to in the record as Logston.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 195
on or about January 15, 1938, from its WFBM radio-broadcasting
station because he assisted the A. B. T. and engaged in concerted activi-
ties-with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection; (3) urged, persuaded, and
warned its employees in the city of Indianapolis to refrain from be-
coming or remaining members of the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T.,
threatened said employees with discharge and other reprisals if they
became or remained members of the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T., and
put under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of employee
members of said labor organizations; (4) rendered support and en-
couragement to the Association by allowing the solicitation of mem-
bership for that organization during working hours and on the re-
spondent's property and permitting supervisory employees to encour-
age and solicit membership in said organization while refusing such
privileges to the U. W. O. C. or the A. B. T., and by coercing As
employees to join or assist the Association; and (5)• by the foregoing
and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced 'its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On July 31, 1939, the respondent filed a written motion to dismiss
the complaint for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter, and also
filed an answer to the complaint. In its answer the respondent denied,
the material allegations of the complaint, and averred, among other
things, that Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, Thomas Elbreg, Sidney
Collier, and Dewey Logsdon, the persons mentioned'in the complaint,
as amended, were laid off by the respondent, and not discharged, solely
because of "lack of work brouglit about by'general economic conditions
iresulting in reduced demand on the part of respondent's customers for
electricity and steam, and in part clue to the fact-that improvements
in plant made by respondent resulted in reduction in operating forces" ;
t hat Russell Rennaker, the employee mentioned in the complaint, Was
laid off and not discharged "because of the general economic recession
then prevalent compelling a reduction in the technician force"; and
that the respondent has recognized the Association as the representative
of its employees for purposes of collective bargaining.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held of Indianapolis, Indiana, from
July 31 to August 4,1939, before Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board.! The Board and the respondent ap-
peared and were represented by counsel, the U. W. O. C. and the
A.'B. T. by their representatives, and all participated in the hearing.
Full-opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
'aud to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the respondent's
motion, above mentioned, to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdic-
tion, and upon other motions of the respondent made at the hearing
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to dismiss the complaint for other reasons. These motions were denied
by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report, mentioned below.
He granted a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the plead-
ings to the proof. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various other rulings on motions and objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the above rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 24, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which was duly served upon the respondent, upon
the A. B. T., and upon the U. W. O. C., in which he found that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act; and recommended that the respond-
ent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices which he found
and that it take certain specified affirmative action, including rein-
statement of Collier and Elbreg, the persons named in the complaint,
and payment of compensation to them and to Rennaker, also named
in the complaint, in order to remedy the situation brought about by
such practices. The Trial Examiner also recommended that the com-
plaint, in so far as it related to Payton, Wilkins, and Logsdon, and in
so far as it averred or may be taken to have averred that the respondent
kept under surveillance its employees and meetings of the A. B. T. and
U. W. O. C. and encouraged the formation of the Association, be
dismissed.,
On December 13, 1939, the respondent filed its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and to the record, and on January 15, 1940,
submitted a brief in support thereof. On January 10, 1940, Logsdon
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report in so far as the findings
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner related to him.
Pursuant to notice a hearing for the purpose of oral argument on the
exceptions and record was held before the Board on March 5, 1940, in
Washington, D. C. The respondent and the A. B. T. appeared by
counsel or by a representative and presented argument to the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent to the
Intermediate Report and to the record and, in so far as they are in-
consistent with the findings, conclusions of law, and order below, finds
them to be without merit. The Board also has considered the excep-
tions of Logsdon to the Intermediate Report, and in that connection
has reviewed the entire record relating to his allegedly discriminatory
discharge. The Board is of the opinion that the recommendations of
the Trial Examiner relating to this individual should be followed,
and accordingly will dismiss the allegations of the complaint, as
amended, in respect to Logsdon. Although no exceptions have been
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 197
filed to the Trial Examiner's findings and recommendations regard-
ing Payton and Wilkins, the Board, nevertheless, has reviewed the
record bearing upon their discharges and concurs in the recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner .3 The order will so provide.
Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, the Board makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Indianapolis Power & Light Company is a public utility corpora-
tion, organized under the laws of Indiana and having its principal
office and place of business at Indianapolis, Indiana. It is engaged
chiefly in the generation, transmission, sale, and distribution of elec-
tricity and steam, and in connection therewith serves some 400,000
persons resident in Marion County and in certain counties immedi-
ately adjacent thereto within the State of Indiana. It is the sole
supplier of electricity to all users, except one,' in this area, and
has approximately 125,000 customers for its electricity and steam.
The respondent also is engaged' in the business of selling retail elec-
trical appliances and, until August 8, 1939, was engaged in commercial
radio broadcasting.
In connection with its generation of electricity and steam, the re-
spondent operates three generating plants located in the city of In-
dianapolis, known as the C. C. Perry plant, the Harding Street plant,
and the Mill Street plant. The C. C. Perry plant comprises two sub-
divisions, Perry W. and Perry K. The respondent's broadcasting
enterprise was carried on through a radio-broadcasting station which
it owned and operated in that city, known as Station WFBM. At
the time of the hearing the respondent employed approximately 1,26Q
workers, including 270 at the three generating plants and 39 at Station
WFBM.
During 1938 the respondent in the course of generating steam and
electricity at the generating plants used 565,870 tons of coal of which
2,879 tons were shipped to the plants from points outside the State of
Indiana. Also in that year 1,522 transmission-line poles having a
value of $23,208, $12,074 worth of raw materials, and $1,302,829 5
worth of power equipment were shipped to the respondent at various
places in Indiana from without the State. Also during that year
approximately $249,968 worth of electrical appliances for resale and
3 Cf Matter of National Supply Company and Steel Workers Oiganszing Comrnittee, 16
N L. R B 304
4 The transportation system at Indianapolis
5 The figures for 1937 are similar to those of 1938 except that a substantially larger
amount was expended for power equipment during 1938 because of certain extensive im-
provements made during that year.
283036-42-vol 25-14
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distribution at retail by the respondent were shipped to it in Indiana
from sources outside the State.
In 1936 the respondent generated 368,667,283 kilowatt hours of
electrical energy, and its total revenue therefor from sales to custom-
ers was $9,728 ,959. During that year 1 ,642,506 kilowatt hours, or
approximately .446 per cent of the total output, was furnished to the
United States for its post office and other -purposes at Indianapolis, and
7,970,586 kilowatt hours or 2.162 per cent of the total output was
furnished to various interstate railroads and other instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, hereinbelow described . In 1937 and 193'9 the
percentage of total output of kilowatt hours furnished to the United
States for the above -mentioned purposes and to the mentioned inter-
state railroads and other instrumentalities of commerce was approxi-
mately the same as in 1936.
The respondent furnishes electrical energy to the following inter-
state railroads, Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company ; Chicago,
Indianapolis and Louisville Railway Company , Illinois Central; New
York Central ,Railroad; New York, Chicago, and St. Louis Railroad
Company; and Pennsylvania Railroad. These railroads all have lines
extending in and through the State of Indiana and into other States,
and are engaged in hauling interstate and local traffic . The respondent
also furnishes electrical energy to Indianapolis Union Railway Com-
pany, a local belt railroad , which owns and operates switching facilities
and the only terminal in Indianapolis . All the mentioned interstate
railroads must use the switching facilities and terminal of the In-
dianapolis Union Railway Company . The electricity purchased from
the respondent is used by the railroads for lighting , for operating
train-control equipment , signals, interlocking equipment , flasher lights,
and miscellaneous power applications.
The respondent supplies electrical energy to Indiana Bell Telephone
Company, Western Union Telegraph Company , and Postal Telegraph
Company for the operation of equipment utilized by these companies in
the receipt and transmission of interstate telephonic and telegraphic
messages . The respondent also furnishes the electrical energy used
in operating the following radio -broadcasting stations , Station
WFBM, Station WIRE, and Station WIBC, all of which stations are
engaged in interstate broadcasting , communications , and commerce.
The respondent transmit s electrical energy to the Indianapolis
Municipal Airport, an airport for commercial and other airplanes
engaging in flights from points within the State of Indiana to States
other than the State of Indiana and from such other States to points
within the State of Indiana. The electricity purchased from the re-
spondent is used by the airport to operate its beacons, its radio equip-
ment. its field , building, flood , flush, and boundary lights, and the blind-
landing equipment.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 199
Cessation of the flow of electrical energy from the respondent would
completely stop the operations of a number of these instrumentalities.
The others have auxiliary devices to which they could resort, as gas
engines, batteries, hand equipment, and similar devices. Considerable
time,would be required before the railroads could effectively utilize
their auxiliary equipment and its use would thereafter entail a great
amount of delay in the arrival and departure of trains. Reliance on
auxiliary equipment by the other instrumentalities which have such
equipment available would create an increased break-down hazard and
necessitate continued periodic replacement of makeshift equipment. It
is evident that resort to auxiliary equipment on an emergency basis in
itself would involve a burden upon and obstruction of the operations
of these instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
The foregoing facts show, and we find, that a stoppage in the re-
spondent's business and operations occasioned by a labor dispute with
its employees would naturally and necessarily impose substantial
burdens upon, obstruct, and directly affect interstate trade, traffic, com-
merce, transportation, and communication., In the event of such
stoppage the flow of large quantities of transmission-line poles, power
equipment, electrical appliances, and merchandise, as well as other
commodities, in interstate commerce to the respondent's place of busi-
ness or other points in Indiana from outside Indiana would be dis-
rupted or cease,' and the operations and services of various instrumen-
talities of interstate transportation, communication, and commerce
dependent for their functioning upon electrical energy furnished by
the respondent would be hampered seriously or terminated because of
the inability of such instrumentalities to obtain power.
The respondent contends that a stoppage of operations at its gener-
ating plants occasioned by a labor dispute would have no substantial
effect upon interstate commerce because of an arrangement which it
has with another producer of electrical energy located in Indiana,
for an interchange of electricity in "emergencies or unusual operating
periods." The respondent asserts that under this arrangement and
in the event of such stoppage it could acquire the necessary electrical
energy to supply the various interstate instrumentalities which it
serves. The arrangement in question is evidenced by a written so-
called Declaration of Intent, and a written extension thereof.
°Consumers Power Company v N L R B, 113 F (2d) 38 (C C A 6), enf'g Matter of
Consumers Power Company, a corporation and Local No 740, United Electoical, Radio &
Machine TPorkers of America, 9 N L R B 701 , Southern Colorado Power Company, a cor-
poration v N L R B., 111 F (2d) 539 (C C. A 10), enf'g Matter of Southern Colorado
Power Co, a corporation and II M Stcwait and I L Watkins, indio.duals, 13 N. L R B
699; Consolidated Edison Co v N L R B, 305 U S 197
S Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co et at v N L R B, 101 F (2d) 841
(C C A 4) iev'd on other grounds 60 S Ct 203, enf'g Matter of Nev,port News Ship
building and Dig Dock Company and Industi ial Union of Maiine and Eliipbaild.ng Worleis
of America, 8 N L R B 866
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is apparent from the provisions of these documents that they are
non-contractual in character and impose no legal obligation upon
either party thereto to furnish the other with emergency electricity.
Among other things, they provide that "nothing herein contained
shall give rise to any claim for damages for any reason whatever,
and that the only obligation incurred by either party hereto on
account of this Declaration of Intent, shall be to pay for electrical
energy delivered. . . ." 8 The record does not show whether the
producer of electrical energy with whom this arrangement exists
could in fact supply the respondent with all the energy it would
need in the event of a complete cessation of the generation of elec-
tricity at the respondent's plants or whether it could maintain such
transmission for any length of time. Nor are we satisfied from the
record that the respondent could transmit electrical energy from this
emergency source without preparation therefor or continuing opera-
tions on its part. We are unable to find, therefore, upon the record
presented, especially in view of the non-contractual character of the
arrangement in question; that such arrangement removes the possible
occurrence of a substantial effect upon interstate commerce in the
event of a disruption of the respondent's generating operations by a
labor dispute.9 Finally, even if the respondent could rely com-
pletely upon this source of emergency energy, and transmit the power
to all its consumers for any period without action on its part, we
would consider that fact immaterial. The necessity for resort to
emergency energy in case of a stoppage resulting from a labor dis-
pute, in itself involves an interruption to and impairment or cessa-
tion of regular and normal essential services to instrumentalities
engaged in interstate trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, and
communication, and in consequence, a substantial burden and obstruc-
tion to such trade, traffic, commerce, transportation and communica-
tion.lo
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, formerly
known as United Electric and Radio Workers of America, Local
1008, is a local of Utility Workers Organizing Committee, a labor
organization affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations,
formerly known as Committee for Industrial Organization. The
U. W. O. C. admits to membership all production and maintenance
8 They also provide that "the party called on to deliver additional electricity shall be the
sole judge of its ability to make such delivery "
arouthern. Colorado Power Company , a corporation v N L R. B, ill F (2d) 539
(C. C A 10), enf'g Matter of Southern Colorado Power Co, a corporation and H H
Stewart and I L Watkins, individuals , 13 N L R B, 699 See also footnote 6, supra
10 See North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v N L R B, 109 F (2d) 76 (C C. A. 9).
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 201
workers employed by the respondent at its generating plants, exclud-
ing clerical and supervisory employees.
Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organization formerly known
as Associated Broadcast Technicians and now affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a labor organization
affiliated with American Federation of Labor. The A. B. T. admits
to membership radio operators and technicians employed at Station
WFBM.
Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Association,
also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association, is a
labor organization unaffiliated with any national or other labor organ-
ization, admitting to membership employees of the respondent, exclu-
sively.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, coercion in connection with the radio-sta-
tion employees, and the discriminatory discharge of Rennaker
Prior to March 1937 no labor organization existed among the work-
ers employed by the respondent at Station WFBM, nor had these
employees, so far as the record shows, ever engaged in concerted activ-
ity to advance their employee interests. In that month two of the
workers employed in the technical, department of the station, Russell
Rennaker, the person named in the complaint, as amended, and one
Winter, called a meeting of all employees in their department, for
the purpose of discussing various grievances which the employees
had respecting working conditions. The meeting was arranged to
be held on March 19 after working hours in a room, which the
respondent had made generally available to employees at the station.
On the day preceding the meeting the wages of all the employees
in the technical department were raised, and each was notified of
his respective increase. On the following day, shortly before the
time for the meeting, Rennaker was visited at his home by one Wil-
liams, the, chief engineer of the technical department, and interro-
gated about the meeting: Williams inquired whether the meeting
would be held. Rennaker stated that it would and explained that Wil-
liams had not been invited because his presence would prevent a free
discussion by the employees of their problems. Williams continued
his inquiry, asking the names of the employees who would attend,
whether the representatives of any labor organization would be pres-
ent, and what Rennaker's own interest in union organization was.
Rennaker stated that he believed in unionization and had been inter-
ested in membership in the A. B. T. Williams stated that the respond-
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent's station employees should "beware of union organizations that
were organizing broadcast technicians," and concluded the conver-
sation with a statement that he would not be present at the meeting.
On March 19, after working hours, the employees met. As they,
gathered together Williams and his superior, one Blossom, the man-
ager of the station, entered the meeting place. In consequence; none
of the employees spoke. Blossom assumed charge of the meeting and
addressed those present. He stated, among other things, that he was
"surprised" and "disheartened" to find that the employees considered
it necessary "to get together in the manner that [they] had apparently
done that evening;" that there was no reason for them to "meet and
discuss working conditions;" that it was not "good for the department
or for the company to hold general meetings where everyone was
present;" and that it was the policy of the respondent to discuss
grievances with its employees on an individual basis. He invited
those present to submit what grievances they had to him for individu-zl
adjustment. Upon completing his statement Blossom suggested that
the meeting adjourn and the employees "think this over." One of the
employees asked whether it was not the essence of Blossom's state-
ment that the respondent opposed collective bargaining by its em-
ployees. Blossom replied that it was the policy of the respondent
not to bargain collectively "with groups," and admonished those
present never to hold a similar meeting at the station. The meeting
thus ended.
Section 8. (1) of the Act provides that employers shall not interfere
with, restrain, or coerce their 'employees in the exercise of the funda-
mental rights which the Act in Section 7 secures to employees. Sec-
tion 7 pronounces as a basic right of employees the right "to engage
in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection." We have had occasion to point out
that "in enacting these provisions it was the- intent of the Congress
that employees, irrespective of whether they are or are not members
of a labor organization, have full freedom 'and liberty to enjoy the
advantages of concerted action lawfully designed and engaged in to
advance their economic and other interests as employees." Section
7 also guarantees to employees the right of self-organization. Of
this provision we have observed that employer conduct which dis-
courages employees from engaging in concerted activities for purposes
of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, where no labor
organization exists, also "has the effect of discouraging the formation
of and membership in a labor organization, which is the customary
"Matter of Servel, Inc and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local No. 1002, 11 N L. R B 1295, 1325-1326 . See also Matter of Pittsburgh Standard
Envelope Company and Pittsburgh Prrnting Pressmen and Assistants Union . No 64, 20
N L R B 516, 524.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 203
instrument utilized by employees to achieve collective bargaining." 12
Under these sections of the Act employees in the technical depart-
ment of the station were secure in their right to arrange for the con-
duct of a meeting where grievances regarding working conditions
could be discussed and a course of action, including collective bar-
gaining, determined upon. There is no contention that the employees
were without license to use at that time the respondent's property for
such a meeting.
The foregoing facts show that the respondent, through its agents,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced these employees in the exer-
cise of their afore-mentioned right. The rise in wages which it ac-
corded them on the day preceding the meeting plainly was intended,
as these employees necessarily understood, to express employer oppo-
sition to and forestall a species of joint action which the respondent
feared would result in collective action and in the formation of a
labor organization at the station. The Board and the courts re-
peatedly have recognized as intimidatory in its effect upon employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act and as violative of
the statute, the grant'of a wage increase by the employer under cir-
cumstances calculated to and which does disclose to employees the
employer's hostility to organization or to other concerted activity pro-
tected by the Act.13 Similarly, Williams' interrogation of and state-
ments to Rennaker on March 19 were intended to avert the holding
of the meeting and the initiation of concerted activity. The use by
Williams of his authority as Rennaker's superior and of the respond-
ent's economic power vested in him, to-pry into the circumstances
surrounding the meeting, the names of employees who would attend;
and Rennaker's own interest in the matter was a particularly intoler-
able assault upon the right guaranteed by the Act, for it singled out
the leader of the movement to require of him a breach of trust.
Finally, the attendance without invitation of Williams and Blossom at
the meeting, and the statements of Blossom there made demonstrated
the respondent's determined opposition to concerted activities by its
employees. Indeed, Blossom's statement that it was the respondent's
policy to discuss grievances with its employees on an individual basis,
like Williams' comment to Rennaker that the employees should "be-
ware of union organizations" was intended to reveal to the station
"Matter of Stehli and Co , Inc and Textile Workers Union of Lancaster , Pennsylvania
and Vicinity , Local # 133, 11 N L R . B. 1397, 1451.
11 The M H Ritzwoller Company v N. L R B , 114 F (2d) 432.(C C A 7), aff'g as mod
Matter of the M H Ritzwoller Company and Coopers ' International Union of North America,
Local No 28, 15 N. L R B 15 ; N L R. B. v. The Falk Corporation, 102 F. (2d) 383, (C C A
7) enf'g Matter of The Falk Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and
Tin Workcrs of North America, Lodge 1528, 6 N L R B 654 ; N L R B v American Potash
and Chemical Corporation, 98 F. (2d ) 448 (C C A 9), cert den 306 U S 643, enfg
Matter of Ameii,can Potash and Chemical Corporation and Bronx & Potash Workers' Union
No. 20181, 3 N. L R. B 140.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees that the respondent was not merely opposing their conduct
of a meeting such as that of March 19 or engaging in other concerted
activity, but their taking the next logical step, viz, their forming or
becoming affiliated with a labor organization for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. Blossom's words were not mere casual expressions
or comments . Considered in the light of the respondent 's control over
the livelihood of its employees, they constituted clear threats of un-
favorable consequences should the employees discuss in a group their
work grievances or attempt collective bargaining or other concerted
action.
Following the March 19 meeting and continuing through January
1938, the respondent 's opposition to its station employees ' engaging
in concerted activity, within the meaning of the Act, or becoming
affiliated with a labor organization , continued unabated . In the lat-
ter part of June 1937, at the time the U. W. 0. C., as more particu-
larly set forth below, was attempting to organize workers employed
in the respondent 's generating plants, Williams questioned several
employees at the station as to whether any "outside " union was en-
rolling members among the station force, and requested one such em-
ployee to inform him if and when a labor organizer for an outside
union approached any of these workers . Shortly after Rennaker's
discharge by Blossom on January 15 , 1938, as stated below, Blossom
approached one of the oldest employees in the technical department
and requested him to inform Blossom of any union activity that
might thereafter take place at the station . Blossom confided that
while the respondent was not so much concerned with being required
to increase the wages of its station employees as a result of organiza-
tion, it was concerned with the encouragement which successful or-
ganization in the station would give to employees in other depart-
ments of the respondent to organize.
In many cases we have held it to be an unfair labor practice under
Section 8 ( 1) for an employer to interrogate employees about organi-
zation activities . 14 We have said, "attempts to elicit information of
this character . . . necessarily would intimidate , restrain , and coerce
[employees] . . . in the exercise of their right to organize . Such in-
1a See Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and
Professional Workers of America, No 24, 14 N . L R. B. 1045 , 1054; Matter of Planters
Manufacturing Company , Inc and United Veneer Box and Barrel Workers Union, C I O.
10 N. L R. B. 735 , 753, enf 'd N. L R B. v. Planters Manufacturing Company, Inc, 105
F. (2d) 750 (C. C. A. 4) ; Matter of Harry Schwartz Yarn Co. and Textile Workers Organ-
izing Committee, 12 N. L. R. B. 1339, 1146 , 1151; Matter of The Boss Manufacturing Com-
pany and International Glove Workers ' Union of America , Local No 85, 3 N L R B 400,
405, enf'd as mod, N. L It. B. v. The Boss Manufacturing Company, 107 F (2d) 574
(C. C.' A. 7 ) ; Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines Inc , Greyhound Management Coin=
pang, corporations and Local Diiision No 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, 1. N L. R B. 1, 18, enf'd
N. L R. B . v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc , et al , 303 U S 261 , rev'g 91 F. ( 2d) 178
(C. C. A. 3).
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 205
terrogation constitutes a threat that the employer's economic power
and superior position may be used to the disadvantage of the individual
employees disclosed to be members of or active in the union." 15 We
also have held, and the courts have affirmed our holding, that at-
tempts of employers to persuade and urge upon employees that they
become informers and report the organization activities of their
fellow workers violates Section 8 (1)." Such anti-union conduct is
but one step removed from industrial espionage."
We find that the respondent by attempting to use an increase in,
wages to forestall concerted activity of employees in connection
with the meeting to consider employee grievances ; by attempting to
avert the initiation of such activity through interrogation of and
statements to an employee leader regarding the same and his interest
therein; by attending without invitation such meeting for the same
purpose and there making statements opposing concerted activity,
collective bargaining, and unionization; by interrogating employees
about unionization ; by requesting employees to become informers in
respect to unionization; and by other and each of said acts, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On January 15, 1938, the respondent, through Blossom, dismissed
Rennaker. Rennaker had been employed as an operator at Station
WFBM for 4 years and ranked third in seniority among the seven
operators in the station. There is no doubt of his competence as
a workman.
Rennaker's interest in unionization and in obtaining an ameliora-
tion of working conditions at the station through concerted activities
of the station employees was known to the respondent. Reference
already has been made to his part in arranging for the March 19
meeting and to the respondent's concern therewith. In November
1937, when dissatisfaction with working conditions again arose among
the station employees, Rennaker advised Blossom that the dissatis-
faction might be avoided if the respondent paid wages and compen-
sation for overtime work commensurate with what employees at
unionized radio stations were being paid under collective wage
16 Matter of Foote Brothers Gear and Machine Corporation and United Office and Pro-
fessional Workers of America, No 24, 14 N L R . B 1045, 1054
10 See Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America , Local 66 , 5 N L R B 930 , enf'd as mod N L R B
V. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation , 306 U S 240 , aff'g as mod , 98 F. (2d ) 375 (C. C. A.
7) ; Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc, et al and United Electrical
and Radio Workers of America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization,
4 N L. It. B. 71, enf 'd as mod . Consolidated Edison Company of New York , Inc, et al.
v. N. L. R. B. at al., 305 U S. 197, aff'g as mod 95 F. (2d) 390 (C. C A 2) ; Matter of
Fruehauf Trailer Company and United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No 19375,
1 N L R. B 68, enf'd N. L. R B. v. Fruehauf Trailer Company, 301 U. S 49, rev'g 85 F.
(2d) 391 (C. C. A. 7).
11 See footnote 16, supra
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreements. In that same month Rennaker disclosed to Williams a
communication he received from the A. B. T. stating that in conse-
quence of a liberalizing of its membership requirements employees
of Station WFBM were eligible to membership in its organization.
On that occasion Williams advised Rennaker to inform the A. B. T.
that the station employees were members of and satisfied with the
Association'18 and were not interested in nor was there need for "any
outside connection." Rennaker did not follow this advice.
In December 1937 the A. B. T. began organization activities among
the station employees. One Knight, an official of the union, came
to Indianapolis from Chicago, and conferred with Rennaker and other
employees about establishing a local. of the A. B. T. at the station.
Rennaker was entrusted with carrying on this work. On January 14,
1938, upon receiving from the A. B. T. form application cards for
membership in the union, Rennaker took these cards to the station
and told the various employees that the cards were available for
those who wished to sign them. On the following day, January 15,
Blossom dismissed Rennaker, as above mentioned. Blossom told Ren-
naker that the reason for the dismissal was poor business conditions,
that Rennaker rather than one of the other operators had been
selected for dismissal because he apparently was "dissatisfied" with
working at Station WFBM, had sought employment at other stations
and his work had been affected thereby.
As already stated, the respondent in its answer denies that it dis-
charged Rennaker, and alleges that it laid him off "because of the
general economic recession then prevalent compelling a reduction in
the technician force" at the station. We are convinced, as herein-
after set forth, that Rennaker was discharged and not merely laid
off. We also are convinced, and find, that the reason for his dis-
charge was not business conditions. While the respondent at the
hearing introduced proof of a diminution in operations at its gen-
erating plants in consequence of a decreased load, it offered no evi-
dence to show, and the record does not establish, the existence of
a need for reducing operations at Station WFBM during the period
under review or that in fact such a reduction took place. The sta-
tion operators continued to perform a substantial amount of over-
time work after January 15, 1938. Four months later one employee
was transferred from another departinent to the station to perform
radio-operation work and some time thereafter an additional new
worker was hired for similar work. No real economy would have
resulted from Rennaker's discharge, for immediately thereafter the
respondent began to pay the operators time and a half for their
to The formation of the Association and the respondent 's assistance to that organization
are set forth below. See Section III C, anja a.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 207
overtime work, which it had not previously done. It is significant -
that in dismissing Rennaker the respondent ignored any considera-
tion of his seniority and departed from its general policy of pre-
ferring married to unmarried workers in laying off employees for
slack work.
We also find that Rennaker was not discharged because he sought
employment elsewhere or because his work was affected thereby. The
record is bare of proof supporting such a position. At least three
other station operators had applied for work elsewhere without being
discharged. As heretofore found, Rennaker was a competent work-
man, and there is no proof of any deviation prior to his discharge
in the quality of his work.
The foregoing facts, considered in the fight of the entire record,
show that the respondent discharged Rennaker on January 15, 1938,
because of his undertaking to form a local of the A. B. T. among
the station employees. The respondent, through its agents, had made
clear prior to the discharge its opposition to these employees affiliat-
ing themselves with an outside labor organization. Although follow-
ing the establishment of the Association, an "inside union," at the
plant," the respondent was ready to accept the Association as a bar-
gaining representative for its employees, it never receded from its
position of determined hostility to their affiliation with a labor
organization not restricted in its membership to such employees.
Rennaker's interest in unionization and concerted activity was well
known to the respondent, and when he converted that interest into
action, the respondent promptly proceeded to rid itself of him. We
are satisfied that in so doing it did not intend a termination merely
of his work but of his employment status. The conversation above
set forth of Blossom with one of the operators following the dis-
charge confirms our finding that Rennaker was discriminatorily
discharged.
We find that the respondent discharged Russell Rennaker on
January 15, 1937, because he assisted the A. B. T. and engaged in
concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby dis-
criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of said
employee and discouraging membership "in a labor organization ; that
by said discharge the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
On February 1, 1939, Rennaker obtained employment with an-
other radio station. He does not desire reinstatement to employment
io Upon its formation, the Association , as found below , was illegally supported by the
respondent and membership of employees in it was encouraged by the respondent. See
Section III C, infra.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the respondent. On August 8, 1939, the respondent sold Station
WFBM and no longer owns or operates it. This fact is advanced by
the respondent as affecting the validity of any finding by the Board
of unfair labor practices in connection with either the station or
Rennaker, and of any order which otherwise might be validly made
in that connection. As regards Rennaker there is no question here
of his reinstatement to his former position at the station, but merely
one of back pay to February 1, 1939. We are of the opinion that
the sale of the station is without relevance either to the validity of
the findings mentioned or to the portion of the order below based
thereon.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion in connection with the gener-
ating-plant employees and the discriminatory discharges of Collier
and Elbreg
In February 1937 the six operators 20 employed by the respondent
in the condenser pit at the Harding Street plant decided to make a
collective request of the employer for an increase in wages. The men
were not at that time members of any labor organization. Before
such action was taken, however, the chief engineer of the plant, one
Goodrich, learned of the matter and forthwith interrogated the
individual operators about it. He told,them in the course thereof
that they "were absolutely wrong to try to approach [the respondent]
cellectively," "that one voice speaks louder than many," and that
while the respondent would confer with individual operators about
working conditions it would not "meet [with them] as a group." In
consequence, the operators refrained from presenting the joint request.
The right of these employees to determine upon and make a col-
lective request for an increase in wages was secured to them by
Section 7 of the Act, as part of their rights to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection, and to self-organization.21 In preventing the oper-
ators from taking the action which they desired, and in cautioning
them against concerted activity, the respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced these employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7, and engaged in an unfair labor practice,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1).
In May 1937 the Committee for Industrial Organization 22 under-
took to organize persons employed at the generating plants of the
respondent. In June it held an organizational meeting, attended by
20 Among the six were Collier and Elbreg , the employees whose dismissals are hereinafter
discussed.
21 See Section III A, and cases cited in footnote 11, supra.
2z As stated above this labor organization is now known as Congress of Industrial
Organizations.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 209
some 50 of these workers, where the formation of the U. W. 0. C.
as a local union for production and maintenance employees, of the
plants was begun. In August organization of the U. W. 0. C. was
perfected and officers were elected.23 Collier and Elbreg, the em-
ployees whose dismissals are hereinafter discussed, became president
and secretary, respectively, of the U. W. 0. C.
Throughout this period the management of the respondent, by
questioning of and statements to plant employees, sought to prevent
and discourage enrollment in and affiliation with the U. W. 0. C.
Chief Engineer Goodrich summoned Collier to his office, and told
Collier that he should "feel just a little better towards the com-
pany, ... that [the U. W. 0. C.] . . . would not be very satis-
factory among the employees, because some would join and some
would not, ... [that he, Collier] ought to be more considerate" of
the respondent. Goodrich on another occasion summoned another
employee, spoke to him about "outside" unions and warned him "to
be careful where [he] went," that "if things didn't turn up right
[he] may slip later on." The assistant chief engineer at the Harding
Street plant, one Humphrey, questioned Elbreg during working
hours about the U. W. 0. C. and stated that the respondent desired
no "violence and bloodshed" in its plants, that "violence and blood-
shed" would accompany organization of the plants by' the U. W.
0. C., and that the plants would close down for a long period.
Humphrey also questioned Collier about the U. W. 0. C. and told
him that while the respondent knew that the U. W. 0. C. was "corn-
ing in," it would "try to keep it out as long as" it could. In his
interrogation of another employee about the U. W. 0. C., Humphrey
was unsuccessful, for the employee refused to speak because of a
fear of losing his position. The assistant chief engineer of the Perry
W. subdivision, one McKay, told an employee that a union would
result in "strikes and everything" and that the employees would
lose their jobs. Foreman Houston of this same subdivision ques-
tioned at least one employee as to whether he was a member of the
U. W. 0. C.
Plainly the foregoing action by persons of responsibility and au-
thority associated with the respondent's management was intended
by the respondent to be and was intimidatory in its effect upon affilia-
tion of the plant employees with the U. W. 0. C. It was conduct
contrived to discourage membership in the U. W. 0. C. by making
.apparent to the plant employees, as no doubt they understood, The
employer's hostility to that union and the implicit threat to their
tenure of employment if that attitude was not respected. We find
23 The number of employees who became members of the U W 0 C is not shown by the
record.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that by such action and conduct the respondent interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act . The record shows that in September
or October 1937 the U. W. O. C. ceased holding meetings . Elbreg,
the union secretary , testified that by that time "the attendance had
dwindled so that no one was present but the officers."
On January 6, 1938, the respondent dismissed Collier and Elbreg.
The two men worked as operators in the condenser pit of the Hard-
ing Street plant along with four other operators . Both , were com-
petent workmen and had been employed by the respondent for many
years.
The respondent contends that it dismissed Collier and Elbreg
solely because of business conditions , that a decline in the consump-
tion of its electrical energy made imperative a dismissal of two,
of the six persons employed as condenser -pit operators at the Hard-
ing Street plant, and that it selected the two men in question for
such purpose upon ordinary business considerations and not for
seasons related to their participation in the concerted activity of
the condenser-pit operators in February 1937 or the activities of
the two men , and their leadership , in connection with the U. W. O. C.
The record shows that in December 1937 the respondent's sale of
electrical energy decreased in volume and the load at the Harding
Street plant correspondingly declined. However , as we have said
of a similar situation , "it does not necessarily follow that the afore-
mentioned dismissals , or any of them , were occasioned thereby ... .
The question remains whether the termination of the employment
of those persons was in whole or in part caused by their union
affiliation and activity." 24
In support of its contention the respondent asserts that it selected
and dismissed Collier and Elbreg as the logical two of the six con-
denser pit operators , to be dismissed , because of their comparative
seniority, efficiency , experience , and special qualifications , and their
personalities . The record shows that Collier and Elbreg each had
greater seniority than two of the remaining four operators, one Cogill
and one Schorn . 25 Collier was hired on September 10, 1931, Elbreg,
on May 1, 1931; whereas Cogill was hired on November 25, 1931, and
Schorn more than 2 years later, on March 29, 1934. As regards
efficiency , there is nothing in the record to show, and the respondent did
24Mlatter of Walter Stover, doing businees under the trade name and stifle of Stover
Bedding Company and Upholsterers Allied Crafts Local Union No 501, 15 N L R B 635,
642
zc Seniority was measured by length of seivice with the respondent However, even if
'measured by Iength-of employment In the condenser pit, the seniority of Collier and Elbreg
,was greater than that of Cogill and Schorn Elbreg also had greater seniority than one
other pit operator, Bates However we find it unnecessary to consider whether Bates rather
than Elbreg was the more logical per son to be dismissed
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 211
not establish,- that Collier and Elbreg were less efficient in the per-
formance of their work as condenser-pit operators than Cogill and
Schorn. Collier and Elbreg both were competent operators. In re-
spect of "experience" and "special qualifications," the respondent
states that Cogill had had previous "practical mechanical experience";
that Seliorn, some 11 years prior to his employment in 1934, had
-worked 3 years with the respondent on a repair gang at one of its
plants; that neither Collier nor Elbreg had had such experience or
qualifications, and, therefore, they were logical persons for it to dis-
miss.2' However, Collier and Elbreg were at least as experienced as
Cogill and Schorn in the performance of the work required of the
condenser-pit operators. Indeed, Collier had much more experience.
He worked in the respondent's pit for 6 years, while Cogill and Schorn
each had been employed there only 111,2 years.''? We are not convinced
of the importance which the respondent would ascribe to Schorn's
work 11 years previous on the repair gang. It is not established that
Schorn at the time of the dismissals was qualified for this work. It is
not shown that following his employment by the respondent in March
1934 Schorn worked as a member of the repair gang. There was no
*need at the time of the discharges for another employee to work on
this gang, for the respondent retained for this purpose its full con-
tingent of seven repair men. Finally, as to Collier's and Elbreg's
"personality," Goodrich testified that Collier was "grumpy and
grouchy" and had had arguments with his foreman, and that Elbreg
was talkative. However, concerning Elbreg, Goodrich also testified
that his talking "never interfered with his work," and that the em-
ployee had never, been "in trouble or anything." Collier's alleged
"grumpiness and grouchiness" apparently became of consequence only
immediately preceding the dismissal. His arguments with his fore-
man involved chiefly a heated controversy that had occurred 2 years
before the dismissal. That controversy was then settled amicably, and
Collier and his foreman thereafter enjoyed friendly relations.
We are convinced, and we find, that Collier and Elbreg were selected
for dismissal and were dismissed by the respondent on January 6,
1938, in furtherance of the same anti-union policy which theretofore
had induced the conduct of its management, already considered, and
which resulted in Rennaker's discharge at Station WFBM. We find
nothing by way of efficiency, experience, special qualifications, per-
sonality, or other matter which satisfactorily explains the respondent's
ignoring of the seniority right of Collier and Elbreg tb their jobs.
The emphasis placed by the respondent upon Collier's allegedly poor
" As stated above , the hearing herein was begun on July 31, 1939.
r Elbreg's experience in the respondent ' s pit was about a month more than that of either
Cogill or Schorn.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personality is particularly unconvincing. We find it difficult to be-
lieve that after more than 6 years' employment with the respondent
Collier should then have his personality loom as so important a con-
sideration. The foregoing facts, viewed in the light of the entire
record, establish that Collier's and Elbreg's general interest in unioni-
zation of the respondent's plant employees by an "outside" labor or-
ganization, their willingness to assume direction of such an organiza-
tion, and, more especially, their participation in the abortive collective
request for a wage increase of the condenser-pit operators and their
union leadership as president and secretary, respectively, of the
U.W.O.C., were the determining factors which resulted in their being
selected, rather than other employees of lesser seniority, for dismissal.
Some question has arisen as to whether they were laid off or dis-
charged. The issue is without substance, for in either event the re-
spondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
within the meaning of the Act.2$ Upon the circumstances presented,
especially the reasons which induced their dismissals, we are of the
opinion, and find, that the respondent intended to rid itself permanent-
ly of the two men and, accordingly, that it discharged them.
We find that the respondent discharged Sidney Collier and Thomas
Elbreg on January 6, 1938, because they assisted the U. W. O. C. and
engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of said employees and
discouraging membership in a labor organization; that by said dis-
charges, and each of them, the respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Support of and encouragement of membership in the Association
As heretofore set forth, the Association is a labor organization unaf-
filiated with any national or other labor organization, and confined in
its membership to employees of the respondent. It is an "inside"
union. Although formation of the Association was begun by some of
the plant employees early in 1937, the Association attracted no substan-
tial membership and enjoyed no prominent role in the labor relations
of the respondent until July 1937, after the U. W. O. C. was formed and
had begun its campaign for members. On July 6, 1937, the Association
held its first organizational meeting, and within 3 weeks thereafter
28 Matter of Ansley Radio Corporation and Local 1221, United Electrical d Radio Workers
of America, C 1 0, 18 N L R B 1028; Matter of Precision Castings Company, Inc
and Iron Molders Union of North America, Local 80, 8 N L R B 879 ; Matter of Servel,
Inc and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 1002, 11
N L R B. 1295 1 .1
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 213
elected officers, obtained a majority of the employees as members, and
was granted recognition by the respondent as sole bargaining agency
for all employees. Shortly thereafter, it entered into a collective labor
.Agreement with the respondent.
The evidence shows that the Association was favored and actively
supported by the respondent. Solicitation of membership in that
organization proceeded on company time and property, with the tacit
acquiescence if not the express assent of the respondent's mapagement.
We have no doubt that the respondent knew of this use of its time
and facilities. Li July Williams told Rennaker that the respondent
felt the Association "was a move in the right direction for the em-
ployees" and "would consider it the right thing if an employee would
join" it. In the same period Foreman Houston at the. C. C. Perry
plant asked an employee whether he bad been invited to join the
Association, and when the employee answered in the negative, told him
that "somebody Will." 29
The marked contrast between the respondent's attitude and corre-
sponding action When its employees sought to join the U. W.. 0. C. and
its attitude when the Association bid for their affiliation would have
but one meaning to the employees, viz, that the respondent desired
them to join the Association. Support to and encouragement of
membership in the Association was another of the tactics which the
respondent utilized to prevent unionization of its employees by an out-
svde labor organization. We are satisfied, and we find, that in conse-
fluence of the respondent's favoritism to the Association and its hos-
tility toward outside unions, the Association has never been a freely
chosen labor organization and collective bargaining representative of
its members.
We find that by its support to and encouragement of membership
in the Association, the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice,
,xithin the meaning of Section 8 (1).
IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICFS UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, and
communication among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing such trade, traffic, commerce,
transportation, and communication, and the free flow thereof.
2D Some time later, in November 1937, one Deems, a supervisor in the addressograph
,department, after continually urging Rennaker to join the Association, and after telling
him that be was holding up the works by virtue of . , not having signed a card,"
finally compelled Rennaker to loin the Association.
28303G-42-N of 25- -1 5
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
It is essential to an effectuation of the purposes and policies of the
Act that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from certain
unfair labor practices in which we have found it to have engaged, and,
in aid of such order and as a means of removing and avoiding the
consequences of such practices, that the respondent be ordered to take
certain action, more particularly described below.
We have found that the respondent by various acts, including sup-
port to and encouragement of membership in the Association, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the Act. The respondent must cease and desist
from these practices, and we shall so order.
We also have found that the respondent discharged Russell Ren-
naker on January 15, 1938, and ' Sidney Collier and Thomas Elbreg
on January 6, 1938, in contravention of the Act. To effectuate the
policies of the Act we shall order that these employees be made whole
for any loss of wages they have sustained by reason of their respective
discharges. Moreover, we shall order the respondent to offer Collier
and Elbreg reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions. As heretofore mentioned, Rennaker is, and since February
1, 1939, has been, regularly employed at other work and does not desire
reinstatement. Accordingly, we shall not order his reinstatement.
Our order also will direct certain other action which we deem neces-
sary to remedy the situation brought about by the unfair labor prac-
tices which we have found.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findiilgs of fact and upon the entire
record in the cases, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120; Associated
Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers ; and Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Pro-
tective Association, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective
Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Russell Rennaker, Sidney Collier, and Thomas Elbreg, and
each of them, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organ-
ization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 215
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or to any term or condition of employment
of Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, or Dewey Logsdon, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, nor has it engaged in any other un-
fair labor practice with respect to any of said persons, as alleged in
the complaint, as amended.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the. above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Indianapolis.
Indiana, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Utility Workers Organizing
Committee, Local 120, affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, in Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with American
Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discharging or by laying off any of its employees or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term, or condition of their employment;
(b) Encouraging membership in or otherwise supporting or assist-
ing Indianapolis Power & Light Employees' Protective Association,
also known as I. P.-and L. Employees Protective Association, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discrimination in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment, by urging, persuading, warning, or coercing employees to join
such labor organization and/or to resign from. or refuse to join
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with
Congress of Industrial Organizations; Associated Broadcast Tech-
nicians Unit of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, affiliated with American Federation' of Labor, or any other labor
organization of its employees;,or by any'other act or acts;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form.
join, or assist labor organizations, to- bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or'protection.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Russell Rennaker for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discriminatory termina-
tion of his employment, by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from January
15, 1938, until February 1, 1939, less his net earnings during that
period; 30 deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to him,
monies received by him during said period for work performed upon
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and
pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said projects;
(b) Offer to Sidney Collier and Thomas Elbreg, and to each of
them, immediate and full reinstatement to the positions which they
formerly occupied at the Harding Street plant or to positions sub-
stantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges; and make them, and each of them,
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discriminatory termination of their employment, by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from January 6, 1938, to
the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 31 during
such period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due
to each of said employees monies received by him during said period
for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects, and pay over the amount so deducted to the appro-
priate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which. supplied the funds for said
projects ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout all its
plants and offices at Indianapolis, Indiana, and keep posted for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, notices to its employees, stating (1) that the respondent will
not engage in the conduct which it is ordered to cease and desist in
30 By "net earnings " Is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
termination of his employment 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 It B. 440
Monies received for work performed upon Federal State, county, municipal, or othet work-
relief projects are not considered as earnings , but, as provided , are to be deducted from
the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof 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
31 See footnote 30, supra.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 217
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of the Order, and in that respect
describing such conduct with particularity as in said paragraphs set
forth, (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, (3) that its em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of Utility Workers
Organizing Committee, Local 120, affiliated with Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations; Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor; or'any other labor organization, and
(4) that it will not discriminate against any employee because of
membership in or activity in behalf of such labor organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region ins
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , as amended,'in so
far as it alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
in connection with Roy Payton, Harry Wilkins, and Dewey Logsdon,
or in connection with surveillance of its employees and meetings
of • Associated Broadcast Technicians Unit of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, or in connection , with the forma-
tion of Indianapolis Power & Light Employees ' Protective Associa-
tion, also known as I. P. and L. Employees Protective Association,
be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.