Lone Star Bag and Bagging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 244 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of LONE STAR BAG AND BAGGING COMPANY and TEXTILE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Cases Nos. C-379 and R-538.-Decided July 13, 1938
Bu)-lap Bag Manufacturing Industry-Notice and Hearing: lack of 5-day
notice for filing answer, and fact that copies of charge were not affixed to
complaint, held nonprejudicial technical irregularities-Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion: expressed opposition to labor organization-Company-Dom-
inated Union: domination of and interference with formation and administration ;
support ; urging employees to join ; solicitation of membership and other ac-
tivities on company time and property ; disestablished, as agency for collective
bargaining-Check-Off: agreement for, with company-dominated union ; em-
ployer ordered to reimburse employees for amounts deducted from wages as
dues for company-dominated union-Discrimination: discharges, for union
membership and activities ; lay-offs, for union membership ; refusal to re-
employ, for union membership; charges of, not sustained as to four persons-
Condition of Employment: membership in company-dominated union-Rein-
statement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded ; union unemployment benefit pay-
ments not to be deducted from-Investigation of Representatives: controversy
concerning representation of employees : majority status disputed by employer-
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees, exclusive of clerks,
office help, foremen and supervisors, salesmen, and truck drivers ; stipulation
as to-Election Ordered: date of, to be determined in future ; company-dom-
inated union excluded from ballot.
Mr. Earl R. Cross, for the Board.
Mr. R. F. Peden, of Houston, Tex., for the Employees Union.
Mr. Chas. A. Perlitz, Jr., and Mr. Harry Dow, of Houston, Tex.,
for the respondent.
Mandell cC Coombs, by Mr. Arthur Mandell of Houston, Tex., for
the T. W. O. C.
Air. Melvin S. Frazier, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the T. W. O. C., the National
S N. L R. B., No. 30.
244
0
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 245
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Edwin A. Elliott,
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas)
issued its complaint, dated August 12, 1937, against Lone Star Bag
and Bagging Company, Houston, Texas, herein called the respond-
ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2),
and (3) and Section-2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint and notice
of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the T. W. O. C.,
and the Employees' Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Com-
pany, herein called the Employees Union. The respondent filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that (1) the Board
was without jurisdiction over the respondent, and (2) the complaint
was defective.' The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion,
but subsequently denied it. His ruling is hereby affirmed.
Subject to a reservation of its legal rights, the respondent filed an
answer in which it denied that it had committed any of the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The Employees Union, pursuant to authority granted by the
Regional Director, intervened and filed a pleading in the nature of an
answer in which it denied that the respondent had dominated or
interfered with its formation or administration or had contributed
support to it.
On or about July 30, 1937, the T. W. O. C. filed a petition with
the Regional Director alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respondent
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On August 17, 1937, the Board
directed the Regional Director to conduct an investigation and pro.
vide for an appropriate hearing on the question concerning represen-
tation and, pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), and Article
II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the consolidation of the
complaint and representation cases for purposes of hearing. A notice
of hearing in the representation proceedings was issued on August
'The respondent contended that the complaint was defective because ( 1) the notice of
hearing issued and dated August 12, 1937, was actually served by registered mail on the
respondent on August 16, 1937, and required that an answer be filed by August 19, 1937,
which was less than the 5 days' notice provided by the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, and
(2) the complaint did not have a copy of the original charges and the last two pages of
the three-page amended charges attached thereto as provided in the Board ' s Rules and
Regulations.
As to the first contention, the respondent actually filed its answer by August 19, 1937,
and under the Board 's Rules and Regulations , if it had been necessary , could have moved
for an extension of time to answer , which it did not do As to the second contention,
the issues were based upon the allegations of the complaint rather than those of the
original and amended charges. We conclude that the respondent was in no way prej-
udiced by the technical irregularities upon which the motion to dismiss was predicated.
246 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
19, 1937, and was duly served upon the T. W. O. C., the respondent
and the Employees Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held
in Houston, Texas, on August 26, 1937, through September 13, 1937,
before William Griffin, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the opening of the hearing counsel for the Board, over the re-
spondent's objection, moved to amend the complaint by correcting
the names of three of the persons alleged in the complaint to have
been discriminatorily discharged and' by adding six new allegedly
discriminatory discharges. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on
the amendment but allowed it in his Intermediate Report after both
parties had been permitted to introduce evidence on the issues raised
by the amendment. During the course of the hearing and in the
Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner made several rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. We
have reviewed all such rulings and find that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 17, 1938, an Intermediate Report was filed by the
Trial Examiner in which lie found that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint,
as amended. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by
the respondent. Thereafter the respondent requested oral argument.
Pursuant to this request, upon due notice to all parties, oral argu-
ment was set for May 31, 1938, at Washington, D. C. None of the
parties appeared, but in lieu thereof the respondent submitted a letter,
dated May 28, 1938, restating its exceptions and arguments in support
thereof. We have considered the exceptions and find them to be
without merit.
The respondent has requested that the case be reopened to enable
it to introduce additional evidence to show the reinstatement, subse-
quent to the hearing, of certain of the discharged employees named
in the complaint. Such evidence, if included in the record, would
not be material to the issues and would in no way alter our decision.
The request is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The respondent, a corporation organized under the laws of Texas
with its office and plant in Houston, Texas, is engaged in the manu-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 247
facture of new bags, renovation of second-hand bags, the manufac-
ture of burlap covering for cotton bales, and in the sale of iron ties
for use in cotton baling.
The new bags are made from burlap, over 90 per cent of which
comes from India and European countries . Second-hand bags, which
are used to make the burlap covers for cotton bales or are renovated
and resold , come not only from Texas but also from California,
New York, Cuba, European countries , and Canada . The materials
to make the patches used on the second -hand bags come wholly from
Canada, European countries , and Japan . The iron ties are manu-
factured in States other than the State of Texas. The respondent's
total sales for the calendar year 1936 amounted to approximately
$2,070,000 of which amount approximately $495,000 represented sales
and shipments to customers outside of Texas.
The number of employees fluctuates between 150 and 270, depend-
ing upon the supply of raw materials , demand for the respondent's
products , and the season of the year . On June 2, 1937, the re-
spondent had approximately 241 and on August 27 , 1937, approxi-
mately 248 production employees.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for. Industrial Organization . It admits
to membership all employees of the respondent except truck drivers,
clerks, foremen , and supervisory employees.
Employees ' Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company is a
labor organization without outside affiliation . It admits to member-
ship all employees of the respondent except executives , foremen, and
other employees who "hire and fire."
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion , and the Employees Union
In February or March 1937 Lucille Allison, Beulah Kindahl, and
three or four other employees discussed among themselves the possi-
bility of forming a labor organization . No action was taken at the
time, according to Lucille Allison, because Beulah Kindahl laid off
work and because the funds necessary to organize were not available.
Feld, president of the respondent, admitted that he heard of this
incipient employee organization movement and that he issued instruc-
tions to his foremen to discourage union activity and instructed the
foremen to "keep this place clean of union activity of any kind."
Feld attributed the termination of this movement to his instructions.
In April another group of employees , led by Margaret Florez, an
248 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee who was dissatisfied with her wage of $1 per day for a
9-hour day, became interested in forming an organization of em-
ployees for collective bargaining. This group conferred with officers
of Oil Workers Local 227, a C. I. O. affiliate, to obtain information
and assistance in organizing the respondent's, employees. Through
the efforts of Oil Workers Local 227, R. R. Tisdale, an organizer for
the- T. W. O. C. appeared in Houston on or about May 15, 1937.
Floret and Josephine Finnell, another employee, met with Tisdale
shortly after he arrived and undertook to persuade some of their
fellow workers to visit Tisdale.
About May 18, 1937, Feld saw Florez, Finnell, and several other
unidentified girls soliciting membership in the plant and issued
orders that it must be stopped. On May 21 Florez was discharged.
The discharge of Florez did not dissuade Finnell from her activities
and she persisted in her efforts to persuade employees to visit Tisdale.
Mainly through the efforts of Finnell and Florez, who after her
discharge was temporarily engaged to assist the T. W. O. C., a num-
ber of employees were induced to visit Tisdale and by June 1
approximately 35 employees had joined the T. W. O. C.
On the morning of June 2 Allison revived her dormant interest
in labor organizations and, without funds or the services of Kindahl,
decided to see if an inside union could be formed. She enlisted the
assistance of a floorlady and three or four other employees. They
visited the employees at their machines or called them into the rest
rooms and urged them to join an "inside union."
During the morning of June 2 Tony Barraso, foreman of the bag-
ging department, met with a group of employees in a dressing room.
Barraso testified that some of the employees had come to him and
asked him which union they should join, that he told them he could
not decide for them but as there was so much noise from the ma-
chines it was suggested they go into the rest room, that pursuant
to such suggestion they went into the rest room, and that he told
them that he did not care which union they joined but that he wanted
them to get back to work. Several `other witnesses testified, however,
that when Barraso came into the dressing room he asked which of
the girls present were members of the Union, meaning the T. W. O. C.,
and that when the members answered, Barraso told them that he did
not care which union they belonged to but that he did not want
to talk to them. Thereupon the T. W. O. C. members left the room.
There is credible testimony to the effect that after the T. W. O. C.
members left Barraso told the remaining employees that he wanted
to form a union of his own. In any event it is clear that at the con-
clusion of Barraso's talk two of the employees began to solicit the
signatures of the other employees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 249
During the morning of June 2, Florez telephoned Tisdale and
told him that she had learned that the respondent was attempting
to force the employees to join a company union. Tisdale immediately
went to the plant and during the noon hour he and his assistants
solicited membership for the T. W. 0. C. in front of the plant. R. C.
Fuller, another of the respondent's foremen, was present and, after
listening for a few minutes to the speeches of the T. W. 0. C.
organizers, injected himself into the proceedings and became
involved in a brief argument with one of the T. W. 0. C. organ-
izers. Fuller then turned and told the employees present that if
they "wanted to go with the outsiders, to go ahead and let the out-
siders give (them) their bread and butter." A few minutes later,
as the bell rang and the employees were returning to work, he told
one of the employees he had seen sign a T. W. 0. C. card, "I see
you are coming back for your bread and butter."
During the same noon hour Raymond Joachim, the other foreman,
was busy in another quarter. At the request of some of the em-
ployees Joachim made a speech during the lunch hour in a boxcar
which was standing on the railroad siding on the opposite side of
the plant from the T. W. 0. C. organizers. The testimony regard-
ing what was said and what was done in the boxcar is conflicting.
Several witnesses testified that Joachim told them that it would be
best to form "an inside union because that was Mr. Feld's idea, that
Mr. Feld did not want any outsider to come in and interfere." Sev-
eral witnesses also testified that Joachim had brought a piece of
paper with him and at his request some of the employees began to
sign it. Another witness, who could speak both English and Spanish,
testified that at the conclusion of Joachim's speech, he asked one of
the employees to translate it into Spanish and that the translator
incorrectly told the employees that Joachim had said "We want a
union of our own; whatever you want, a raise or better wages, we
will vote and get us a president and then our president will ask
Mr. Feld." Joachim testified that he told the employees "that as far
as I understood there was an independent union being formed among
the workers iii the plant and as far as I knew they could be rec-
ognized and receive just as much benefits from their own independ-
ent union as they could from any union." At the conclusion of his
speech the floorlady in his department asked him "Mr. Joachim,
do you mind if I get some signatures on this pad?" He told her
she was on her dinner hour and could do as she pleased about it.
She immediately solicited the signatures of the employees present.
Under all the circumstances, we are satisfied that Joachim did advo-
cate membership in an inside union in his speech.
250 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That afternoon Tisdale visited Feld. Tisdale testified that he told
Feld that he had heard Feld was going to have a general meeting of
the employees for the purpose of forming a company union and if
that were true he (Tisdale) wanted an opportunity to address the
employees at the same time. Tisdale claims that Feld told him that
he "didn't want a damn thing to do with the C. I. 0." and that if he
had to have a union at all he preferred a union of his own employees,
next to that an A. F. of L. union, and lastly a C. I. O. union. Tisdale
further testified that while he was present the foremen were called
in and Feld canceled a general meeting of employees which had been
scheduled for that afternoon. Feld's testimony regarding what
transpired at this meeting with Tisdale is vague and as a consequence
is unreliable. Feld admitted that he canceled a general meeting of
employees but did not know whether it was that clay or another day
when Tisdale was present. In view of the fact that the June 2 meet-
ing was the only meeting between Feld and Tisdale until June 9,
1937, when Feld and Tisdale met at a conference attended by the
Board's Regional Director, it must have been on June 2 that Feld
canceled a general meeting of employees. Moreover, Feld did not
deny that he expressed his animosity towards the T. W. O. C. on this
occasion,-in fact, Feld made no attempt at the hearing to conceal
his hostility to organized labor in general. As Tisdale was leaving,
Feld asked him for a T. W. O. C. application card and, pursuant to
such request, Tisdale gave Feld an application card which bore the
number G-179153.
At closing time -that afternoon Fuller found a large group of em-
ployees assembled in his department. Inasmuch as employees from
all three departments were present it is not at all unlikely that this
was the general meeting which was supposed to have been canceled.
Regardless of whether it was or not, Fuller took advantage of this
circumstance to give a speech. There are marked variances in the
evidence regarding what was said by Fuller on this occasion. Sev-
eral witnesses testified that Fuller told them that Feld wanted an
inside union and that if they joined an outside union Feld would
close the plant and they would starve. On the other hand Fuller
testified that he told the employees present that neither he nor the
respondent cared which union they joined. However, his conduct to-
ward the T. W. O. C. and his admission that he did tell the employees
that they should be particular which union they joined because "we
didn't want strikes here and if we did have strikes we will be the ones
to suffer and not Mr. Feld," leads us to believe that he did in fact
advocate employee membership in the inside union.
While the respondent was engaged in the activities described above,
Allison and her associates continued their campaign in behalf of an
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 251
inside union. She testified that on June 2, during the noon hour and
after work , she and her associates secured 178 signers to blank papers
which they were circulating. Although Allison testified that the cir-
culation of these papers took place during the noon hour and after
work, the evidence is conclusive that employees were solicited not
only during the noon hour and after work but during working hours.
Moreover, although the papers were blank the employees were aware
that by signing , they were considered members of an "inside union."
It was these blanks which were circulated in the rest room at the con-
clusion of Barraso's speech and by Joachim 's floorlady at the conclu-
sion of his speech.
On the morning of June 3, 1937 , Allison engaged an attorney and
ordered membership cards printed for the "Employees' Union of
Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company." She sent with the order
for membership cards, a blank T. W. O. C. card. Allison testified
that she obtained the card from a T. W. O . C. organizer on June 2,
1937. However, the card, which was secured from the printer and
introduced in evidence , bears the same number as the blank card
which Tisdale gave Feld on June 2, 1937. As Feld did not deny that
he had given Allison the card, we find that Feld furnished Allison
with the T. W. O. C. application card obtained from Tisdale for use
as a model for the new inside union 's application card.
During the noon hour on June 3 the attorney whom Allison had
engaged came to the plant and at a meeting of the employees on a
vacant lot owned by the respondent , explained the Act to them and
their right to organize an inside union . That same afternoon Alli-
son met a Mr. Joseph in a cafe which is located near the plant.
Joseph has charge of the respondent 's trucks but operates as an inde-
pendent contractor . She requested that he lend her $75 for organi-
zation purposes . Joseph did not give her an immediate answer, but
left the cafe . A few minutes later he returned and made Allison a
$75 personal , unsecured , loan. That afternoon , after work, a mass
meeting of the employees was held. Temporary officers for the Em-
ployees Union were elected and the attorney was given the $75 to
secure a charter for the Employees Union.
On June 4 the Employees Union membership cards were received
and Allison and her assistants put on an intensive membership cam-
paign. Witness after witness testified that Allison and her assistants,
including at least one of the floorladies , either visited them at their
machines or called them into the rest rooms and told reluctant signers
that they would lose their jobs or would be deported to Mexico if
they did not join the Employees Union. Several witnesses testified
that the foremen of the departments were present and made no effort
252 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to stop such activities; in fact there is credible testimony to the effect
that at least one of the foremen "suggested" to employees that they
"see Mrs. Allison." That such activities did take place during work-
ing hours cannot be doubted because Fannie Gonzales, a witness called
by the respondent, frankly testified that she gave a speech in favor of
the Employees Union during working hours. Although she claimed
the foreman of the department was absent at the time, she admitted
the floorlady for the department was present and made no objection.
Indeed, the record shows that the floorlady either cut off the power
or ordered someone else to cut it off so Gonzales could give the speech.
The following day, June 5, Allison and others continued their
activities on behalf of the Employees Union during working hours and
on the respondent's time without loss of pay. During the noon hour
a meeting of the Employees Union members was held on the respond-
ent's property and the Employees Union attorney advised them that
the charter had been obtained.
On June 7 or 8 Allison and her assistants circulated a paper which
was headed "I hereby accept membership in the Employees Union of
the Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company of Houston, Texas. I
reaffirm my membership in this union * * * Of my own free will
I authorize the committee of this union to act for me, as a collected
(sic) bargaining agency * * *." This document was also circu-
lated during working hours.
On June 9 Feld read a written speech to the employees. A copy
of the speech is in evidence and reads in part as follows :
I know there has been a lot of agitation and trouble made from
the outside by people who do not work with you. Now I have a
date for two o'clock this evening with a government man and I
am going to see him about all this trouble. * * * People
might come out here trying to get you to quit your jobs. Of
course, if you want to quit you can quit and if you want to work
you can work-whatever you want to do. 'k * Now, I want
to know how many of you want to go on working if you do raise
your hand. We want to know who will go on and work with us
and if you do not want to raise your hand, of course, you do not
have to. Now most of you have raised your hands but if the
others do not want to go on working they can quit, of course.
If they want to keep on working they can. It looks to me like
the thing to do is keep on working and make your money (your
dinero) but if you quit and goon strike you do not make any
money-nobody makes any when you do that. We do not want
to close our factory down but if you don't want to work we can't
make you. * * *
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 253
There is no evidence that either the T. W. O. C. organizers or
the respondent's employees were contemplating or preparing for a
strike as Feld sought to indicate in his speech. _
During the afternoon of June 9 the Board's Regional Director,
Tisdale, Feld, and the respective attorneys for the Employees Union,
the respondent, and the T. W. O. C. held a conference regarding the
charges of unfair labor practices which the T. W. O. C. had filed
against the respondent. Tisdale took advantage of the occasion and,
claiming that the T. W. O. C. represented a majority of the produc-
tion employees, demanded collective bargaining rights. Feld ques-
tioned- Tisdale's claims and demanded proof. Tisdale permitted the
signed T. W. O. C. application cards which he had with him to be
counted by a committee including the respondent's vice president, but
as he only had 114 cards available he was unable to prove a majority.
He claimed that he had additional cards at the T. W. O. C. head-
quarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The attorney for the Employees Union
thereupon submitted the membership list of the Employees Union,
which contained 203 signatures, and demanded bargaining rights for
the Employees Union. The conference was adjourned to the follow-
ing day. The following day Feld asked the Regional Director if the
Act did not require the respondent to deal with the union representing
a majority of his employees. The Regional Director assured him
that the Act imposed that requirement providing the union had not
been chosen because of unfair labor practices on the part of the
respondent. Feld denied that the respondent was guilty of any un-
fair labor practices and requested the Regional Director to hold an
immediate election to determine the bargaining representative. A
sharp controversy arose at the hearing as to whether the attorney for
the T. W. O. C. refused to consent to an election or whether he
merely requested time to consult with Tisdale, who was not present.
In any event the T. W. O. C. did not consent to an election.
On June 12 the attorney for the Employees Union wrote Feld a
letter demanding bargaining rights for the Employees Union. Feld
promptly acceded to the request and on June 17, 1937, entered into
a contract with the Employees Union recognizing it as the sole bar-
gaining agent for the respondent's employees. About 2 weeks later
the respondent entered into a supplemental agreement with the Em-
ployees Union which provided that the respondent would "deduct
from the pay of each employee now a member of the Employees'
Union, the monthly dues of each of said members * * * and to
pay same to the President and Treasurer of said Employees'
Union. * * *"
254 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is plain from the foregoing that the respondent waged an ag-
gressive and effective campaign to defeat its employees' free choice
of representatives for collective bargaining. In the absence of a
militant outside union Feld's direction to his foremen "to keep this
place clean of union activity of any kind" was adequate to end em-
ployee organization activities in February or March 1937. How-
ever, with the advent of the T. W. O. C., even the respondent's
expressed hostility to labor organizations coupled with the discharge
of Florez, the most active proponent of an outside employee union,
was not sufficient to deter the employees from organizing. To meet
the new employee militancy, the respondent not only maintained its
outspoken opposition to the T. W. 0. C. but also created and fos-
tered the Employees Union. The respondent's active participation
in the formation of the Employees Union is established by the fact
that Allison used as a model for the Employees Union's application
cards, the particular T. W. 0. C. card, which Feld had obtained
from Tisdale on the previous day. The close relationship between
the respondent and Joseph, who provided the necessary funds to
launch the Employees Union, and the circumstances under which
the loan was made, raise serious doubts concerning the absence of
direct financial assistance from the respondent, but since the record
is not clear on the exact nature of the relationship between Joseph
and the respondent and since no.direct agency was shown we will
make no specific finding in-that respect.
The respondent made it perfectly clear to the employees that it
desired an inside organization by the statements and activities of
Feld, Fuller, Joachim, Barraso, and the floorladies. Moreover, the
respondent failed to take any steps to prevent Allison and her as-
sistants from engaging in Employees Union activities on the re-
spondent's property and on the respondent's time while the two
most active workers in behalf of the T. W. 0. C. were discharged
for similar activities, which is hereinafter discussed. After the re-
spondent's coercive pressure had propelled a number of its em-
ployees into the Employees Union, the respondent readily recog-
nized that organization, entered into a contract with it, and after
2 weeks added a check-off arrangement to provide funds to per-
petuate it.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Employees Union and has
contributed support to it and has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS .255
B. Discrimination in regard to tenure of employment
Introduction
The respondent's plant is divided into three departments : the
new-bag department, the second-hand bag department, and the bag-
ging department. Due to the fact that a finished product is manu-
factured in each of such departments, the number of employees in
any one of the departments may and usually does fluctuate without
a corresponding fluctuation in the other departments, depending
upon the supply of raw materials, the number of orders on hand,
and the season of the year.
Each department is under the general supervision of a foreman
and when it is necessary to increase or decrease personnel within a
department the foreman in charge of such department hires or lays
off such employees as he desires. It is not the policy of the re-
spondent to transfer employees from one department to another
when a lay-off in one department is necessary, even though another
department may need additional employees. Thus each department
is operated as a separate enterprise in so far as hire and tenure of
employment is concerned.
In each of the departments there is at least one employee to whom
the foreman has delegated some of his authority. Such employees,
among other duties, instruct new employees how to do the work as-
signed them, supervise the work of the other employees, and deliver
the foreman's instructions to the other employees. The respondent
contends such employees are not supervisory employees. The record
clearly shows, however, that such employees have been given super-
visory powers by the respondent, and as a result are considered "floor-
ladies" or supervisors by the other employees. We find that such
floorladies are supervisory employees.
Margaret Floret had worked for the respondent for about 2 years
prior to her discharge on May 21, 1937. Although Florez did not
actually join the T. W. 0. C. until May 23, 1937, she had been, to-
gether with Josephine Finnell, the most active worker in behalf of
the T. W. 0. C. in the respondent's employ and for several days
prior to her discharge she had been endeavoring to persuade other
employees to visit Tisdale.
Feld knew that she was engaging in such activities and he resented
it. He testified that he saw her and several other girls, including
Josephine Finnell, soliciting membership in the plant at. hours when
they were supposed to be working and that he issued orders that it
must be stopped. A day or two later Florez received word not to
return to work on the following day but to wait until her foreman
256
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called her. She waited for about a week and then called Fuller, her
foreman, and asked him if he had any work for her. Fuller told her
that he had none. Florez testified that she then asked Fuller if the
reason no work was available for her was because she had joined the
T. W. O. C. and that he replied "Yes." Fuller denied that he told
Floret that she had been discharged because of her union affiliation
and activities although he admitted that he told her that he had no
work for her. In the light of his conduct and attitude toward the
T. W. O. C. as revealed by the record, we cannot credit his denial.
Florez did not deny that she solicited membership during working
hours but the respondent's subsequent toleration of similar Employees
Union activities clearly indicates that it condoned such conduct.if en-
gaged in on behalf of an organization which it approved.
Feld testified that Florez was laid off because a reduction in pro-
duction forces was necessary. However, the record shows that the
following week there was an increase in the number of employees
in the department in which Floret worked. On the other hand
Fuller testified that he discharged Floret because she was lazy and
spent too much time in the rest rooms. Inasmuch as Florez had
worked for the respondent for approximately 2 years without being
reprimanded for laziness or for spending too much time in the rest
rooms we think it improbable that the respondent would have dis-
regarded its usual practice and discharged Floret without a previous
warning.
In view of the respondent's militant hostility toward an outside
union and the inconsistency in the reasons advanced by the respond-
ent, we are satisfied that Florez was discharged because of her ac-
tivities in behalf of the T. W. O. C. We find that the respondent
discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Margaret
Florez to discourage membership in the T. W. O. C.
Josephine Finnell had worked for the respondent about 6 years.
She, like Margaret Florez, had been active in persuading employees
to visit Tisdale. A short time after Feld saw her engaging in such
activities her foreman, Fuller, advised Finnell and her mother, who
also worked for the respondent, that Josephine "had too much union
in the head" and that as a consequence her production was decreas-
ing. A few days later she was again warned but she continued her
activities in behalf of the T. W. O. C. On June 2 she joined the
T. W. O. C. in the presence of her foreman. That afternoon Lucille
Allison solicited her to sign a paper in favor of the "inside union."
Although Finnell at first refused to sign the paper she did sign it
later in the afternoon. However, her foreman did not know that
she had signed the inside union paper. On the morning of June,3,
1937, she was discharged, ostensibly because of her "inefficiency."
The respondent in an attempt to justify the discharge of Finnell
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 257
introduced her Social Security cards from January 1 to June 3,
1937, to prove that her production decreased during the last 2 weeks
she worked. - The cards show that Finnell received $3.78 for 3 days'
work for the week ending February 17, 1937, and that she received
an identical amount for 3 days' work for the week ending May 26,
1937. The cards also show that she received only $6.37 for 6 days'
work for the week ending June 2, 1937, which was about $1.50 less
per week than she had been earning for 6 days' work in April 1937.
However, this decrease in earnings may be accounted for by the fact
that the piece-work rate for her type of piece work had been reduced
from 20 cents to 15 cents per bale. Furthermore, the last week she
worked she was transferred from piece work to day work at $1.00
per day for 2 or 3 of the days of that week. The cards, therefore,
do not prove that Finnell's production decreased during the last 2
weeks that she worked. Moreover, the record clearly shows that
Allison and her assistants did little else than engage in union activi-
ties in behalf of the Employees Union from June 2 to June 8, 1937.
As a consequence, their production must have suffered severely. Yet
none of them was discharged.
It is apparent that the real reason Finnell was discharged was be-
cause she had been active in behalf of the T. W. O. C.
We find that to discourage membership in the T. W. O. 'C. the
respondent discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of
Josephine Finnell.
Lay-offs
On June 9 and on June 16, 1937, the respondent reduced its pro-
duction force in the bagging and second-hand departments respec-
tively, and approximately 56 employees were temporarily laid off.
The respondent maintains that the reduction was for business reasons
and that in selecting the particular employees to be laid off the rela-
tive efficiency of the employee was the only factor considered. How-
ever, on June 9, 1937, Lucy Salas and Santos Guarardo, two em-
ployees, heard Barraso tell his floorlady, Rosa Giacona, to lay off
the outside union members first. Barraso denied that he had made
such a statement but in view of the fact that at the time the em-
ployees were laid off it is undenied that Rosa told some of them that
Barraso had said that all "who belonged to the outside union would
be laid off," we are satisfied that Barraso did make the statement to
his floorlady.
Furthermore, the record clearly shows that a number of the
T. W. O. C. members who were among those laid off on June 9 and
June 16, 1937, had been considered, prior to the time that they
joined the T. W. O. C., among the most efficient employees in their
258 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respective departments. This is evidenced by the fact that they
had worked through one or more previous lay-offs in their depart-
ments in which the number of employees in such department did not
exceed the number at the conclusion of these lay-offs.
Lucy Salas, Josefa Rodriquez, Rosie Gomez, Lupe Rubio, Dora
Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez, Celia Salas, Annie Cordenas, Mecalla
Gonzales, Florence Guerrero, and Esper Coronado are the T. W. O. C.
members who had worked through such previous lay-offs. Each had
revealed her membership in the T. W. O. C. to her foreman, or floor-
lady, or had joined the T. W. O. C. in front of the plant in full view
of Foreman Fuller.
1 We are satisfied that those employees were selected to be laid off
because they had joined the T. W. O. C. and we, therefore, find that
the respondent has discriminated in regard to the tenure of employ-
ment of each of such employees because they had joined the
T. W. 0. C.
Approximately 30 other T. W. O. C. members were laid off on
June 9 and June 16. Although there is a prima facie showing that
the occasion for these extensive lay-offs was used in part as a vehicle
for discrimination against T. W. O. C. members, we are of the
opinion, after examining the evidence, that these employees would
have been and were laid off regardless of whether or not they had
joined the T. W. O. C. and we, therefore, find that they were not laid
off because of their union membership.
The complaint, as amended, alleged that certain other named em-
ployees, who the record shows were discharged or laid off and
denied reinstatement on dates other than June 9 and June 16, 1937,
were discriminatorily laid off, discharged, or denied reinstatement
because of, their T. W. O. C. affiliations and activities. We shall
proceed to a consideration of those individual cases.
Lucy Williams had worked for the respondent for about 13 years.
She had been absent because of illness from June 1 to June 16, 1937.
On June 16 she returned to the plant and asked her foreman, Fuller,
if she could go to work. He told her -that she could if she was the
"right one." She then went to the timekeeper's office where Alli-
son, the timekeeper, and Lesser, vice president of the respondent,
were present. Allison immediately attempted to persuade her to
join the Employees Union. Williams had joined the T. W. O. C.
on June 3 and consequently she refused to join the Employees
Union. Allison demanded that Lesser make her sign the application
card. Lesser refused, saying that Williams had been working for
the respondent longer than he had, but added that he was surprised
to find that she had joined the T. W. O. C. and that she "ought to
know better." She was not given a time card and she went home.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 259
About a month later she returned to the plant and again talked to
Fuller. She again asked him if she could go back to work and he
said "maybe." Allison was standing nearby and took her to the
timekeeper's office where Williams signed the Employees Union card
and was immediately reinstated.
The respondent contends Williams could have gone to work at
any time and that it did not refuse to allow her to resume her
position.
The statement of her foreman that she could work if she was the
"right one," Allison's efforts to force her to sign an Employees Union
application card in the presence and with the apparent approval of a
high official of the respondent as soon as she arrived at the time-
keeper's office, and Lesser's comment that she ought to have known
better than to sign a T. W. O. C. card, indicated to Williams that
she had to join the'Employees Union or go home. That she was
correct in such assumption appears clear because neither her fore-
man nor Lesser told her that she could go to work without joining
the Employees Union and allowed her to leave the plant without
protest. Furthermore, the fact that she was immediately reinstated
after she signed the Employees Union card indicates clearly that
the respondent was imposing upon this employee membership in the
Employees Union as a condition of employment.
We find that the respondent refused to allow Lucy Williams to
resume her position because she refused to resign her membership in
the T. W. O. C. and join the Employees Union and did, thereby, dis-
criminate in regard to the hire and tenure of her employment to
discourage membership in the T. W. O. C. and encourage member-
ship in the Employees Union.
Antonio De Leon had worked in all three departments a total of
about 8 years. She was one of the group who had sought the aid
of the officers of the Oil Workers Local to organize the respondent's
employees. She had joined the T. W. O. C. on June 2, 1937, and had
refused to join the Employees Union despite threats by Allison that
she would lose her job if she did not. On July 22, 1937, Fuller
discharged her.
The respondent contends that she was discharged because she
was inefficient in that she would not keep her machine oiled and
consequently had on several occasions burned the bearings out of
her machine. Fuller testified that the day he discharged her she
"burnt" another machine and he discharged her for such cause.
De Leon denied that she had "burned" her machine and claimed
that immediately after she left the machine it was assigned to another
employee who began to use it. As it would have taken at least 5
minutes to replace the burned machine with a new one, it is evident
11 7 2 1 3-39-vol. 8-18
260 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the testimony of Fuller and De Leon is in irreconcilable con-
flict. The Trial Examiner , who had an opportunity to observe both
witnesses , stated in his Intermediate Report that he was impressed
with De Leon's veracity and he adopted her testimony as to what
happened on this occasion . We accept the Trial Examiner 's finding.
Furthermore , considering that the respondent had kept De Leon in
its employ for 8 years regardless of any propensity ' she may have
had to "burn" machines and that T. W. O. C. members were being
discriminatorily discharged and laid off , we believe this employee
was discharged because she refused to resign from the T . W. O. C.
and join the Employees Union , and we so find.
Joe Martinez had worked irregularly for the respondent for about
8 months. For a major part of that time he worked in Joachim's
department . However, it appears that in March or April Joachim
laid him off and about a month later Fuller hired him. He joined
the T. W. O. C. on June 2, 1937. About June 18, 1937 , Martinez
signed an Employees Union application card. However, he did not
drop his T . W. O. C. affiliation and attended a T. W. O . C. meeting
on June 20 , 1937. On June 22 one of the Employees Union or-
ganizers asked him to return the Employees Union card and told him
she would "fix everything up so (he) wouldn't get a job in any
other factory." That evening Fuller laid him off.
Fuller testified that Martinez and two other employees who worked
with him on a machine were laid off because of lack of material.
Fuller further testified that Martinez was not attentive to his work
and that, although he had warned him several times, he would not
stay on his machine. Martinez did not deny that he had been warned
of his delinquencies and admitted that the other employees who were
laid off at the same time were members of the Employees Union.
As it appears that the machine that Martinez was working on was
discontinued and that the other employees laid off with Martinez
were Employees Union members , we find that Martinez 's services were
not terminated because of his union affiliations or activities . The com-
plaint will therefore be dismissed in so far as it alleges he was dis-
criminatorily discharged.
Otila De Leon had worked for the respondent irregularly since
1933. Her services were terminated on May 9, 1937 . The record is
devoid of any evidence that she had engaged in any concerted activi-
ties with other employees prior to her discharge and as she did not
join the T. W. O. C. until June 16, 1937 , it is apparent that this
employee could not have been discharged because of her union affilia-
tions or activities.
Esther Navarro was employed by the respondent the last week in
April 1937 and was laid off about May 25, 1937 . She did not join
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 261
the T. W. 0. C. until June 8, 1937. She admitted that she had not
attended a T. W. 0. C. meeting or been active in the T. W. 0. C.
until after she joined the organization 2 weeks subsequent to her
discharge. Under such circumstances, we find that this employee was
not discriminatorily laid off. -
Isabella Boinez had worked for Fuller in the new-bag department
for a short time in February 1937. About May 12 Joachim engaged
her to work in his department. Her testimony is vague but it appears
that she was discharged again about June 2, 1937, the date she joined
the T. W. 0. C., which she claimed she did secretly.
The record shows that when Joachim engaged her she was put on
day work for the first 2 weeks at $1 per day in accordance with the
respondent's usual custom. The, third week she was put on piece
work and only earned $1.49 for the week. The respondent claims that
she was inefficient and that she was discharged for such cause. Her
weekly earning of $1.49 would indicate she was not a productive
worker and it is our opinion that she was laid off for that reason.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Employees Union and
contributed support to it. In order to remedy this unlawful conduct
we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from such conduct
and to withdraw all recognition from the Employees Union as rep-
resentative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with
the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
Furthermore, the record discloses-that the respondent entered into
the supplemental contract providing for the check-off of dues from
the wages of Employees Union members on the basis of authoriza-
tions secured from employees under the same coercive circumstances
as their membership in the organization. It is our duty to restore
the status quo existing prior to the respondent's unfair labor practices
and we will, therefore, order that the respondent reimburse its em-
262 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees for amounts deducted from their wages as dues for the
Employees Union .2
We have also found that the respondent has discriminated in re-
gard to the tenure of employment of Margaret Florez, Josephine
Finnell; Lucy Salas, Josefa Rodriquez, Rosie Gomez, Lupe Rubio,
Dora Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez, Lucy Williams, Celia Salas,
Annie Cordenas, Mecalla Gonzales, Florence Guerrero, Esper Coro-
nado, and Antonio De Leon thereby discouraging membership in the
T. W. O. C.
It appears that the respondent reinstated Esper Coronado on July
3, 1937, and Lucy Williams on July 26, 1937, after they had joined
the Employees Union. However, Esper Coronado was illegally de-
prived of employment from June 16, 1937, to July 3, 1937, and Lucy
Williams from June 16, 1937, to July 26, 1937. The respondent must
make Lucy Williams and Esper Coronado whole for any loss of pay
they suffered by reason of the respondent's unlawful conduct by pay-
ment to each of them, respectively, a sum of money equal to the
amount which each would normally have earned during the period
each was illegally deprived of employment less any amount each
may have earned during such period.
The respondent contends, in its exceptions to the Intermediate
Report, that it has reinstated 8 of the 13 other employees we have
found were discriminatorily discharged or laid off. It appears that
during the months of September and October 1937 such employees
were given temporary employment. As they were only given tem-
porary employment the respondent did not give them full reinstate-
ment. We shall, therefore, order the respondent to offer immediately
to Josephine Finnell, Margaret Florez, Lucy Salas, Josefa Rodri-
quez, Rosie Gomez, Lupe Rubio, Dora Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez,
Celia Salas, Annie Cordenas, Mecalla Gonzales, Florence Guerrero,
and Antonio De Leon full reinstatement to their former positions
with back pay from the date they were illegally discharged or laid
off to the date reinstatement is offered, less any amount each of them
may have earned, respectively, during such time.
Practically all of the above-named employees were paid on a piece-
work basis. The amount of back pay to be paid such employees shall,
therefore, be computed at the rate each earned for the 2-week period
immediately prior to June 2, 1937, subject to any modification in
the pay rate which has been instituted since June 2, 1937.
It was urged by the respondent that in the computation of any
back pay awarded, unemployment benefit payments from the T. W.
O. C. should be deducted. Unemployment benefit payments which
2 See Matter of The Heller Brothers Company of Newcomerstown and International
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers, and Helpers, 7 N. L. R. B. 646.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 263
some of such employees have received from the T. W. 0. C. are in no
sense earnings and are not to be deducted in computing the amount of
back pay to be paid such employees.-,
VI. QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The T. W. 0. C. claims that it has been designated as the bargain-
ing representative by a majority of the respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit. The respondent denies that the T. W. 0. C. has
been designated as the bargaining agency of a majority of the em-
ployees in such unit.
We find that a question concerning representation of employees of
the respondent has arisen.
VII. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
with foreign countries, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VIII. APPROPRIATE UNIT
All parties to the hearing stipulated that an appropriate unit for
bargaining purposes is all the respondent's employees, except clerks,
office help, foremen and supervisors, salesmen, and truck drivers.
Since all parties are in agreement as to the classes of employees con-
stituting an appropriate unit, and since the record supports their
conclusion that such a unit is appropriate, we see no reason for
finding otherwise.
We find that all employees of the respondent, exclusive of clerks,
office help, foremen and supervisors, salesmen, and truck drivers,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and will insure to employees the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
IX. DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
It appears that on June 2, 1937, there were 241 and on August 27,
1937, there were 248 employees in the appropriate unit.
8 See Matter of Vegetable Oil Products Company, Inc., a corporation and Soap and Ed4ble
Oil Workers Union, Local No. 18409, 1 N. L. R . B. 989 and 5 N. L. R B. 52.
264 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The T. W. O. C. introduced in evidence a list of names copied from
its application cards. At the hearing, the list and cards were checked
with the respondent's records by one of its representatives. It appears
that no more than 114 of the employees in the unit we have found
appropriate had joined the T. W. O. C. by June 9, 1937, the date
the respondent discriminatorily laid off a large number of T. W. O. C.
members.
Subsequent to June 9, 1937, approximately 22 additional employees
joined the T. W. O. C. but its gains in membership were more than
offset by its losses as several T. W. O. C. members voluntarily left
the respondent's employ ; others were laid off in the bagging and
second-hand bag departments; and several nonunion employees were
hired in the new-bag department. Thus by August 27, 1937, the
T. W. O. C. represented only 73 of the 248 employees then working.
Including the 13 T. W. O. C. members who we have found were dis-
criminatorily discharged or laid off and who had not been reinstated
prior to August 27, the T. W. O. C. represented only 86 of the respond-
ent's employees on that date.
Although Tisdale claimed that employees other than those set forth
on the T. W. O. C. list had signed its application cards, the evidence
introduced was insufficient to prove his claims.
As we cannot determine that the T. W. O. C. represented a major-
ity of the employees in the appropriate unit at any definite date, we
shall, in accordance with our usual custom, order that an election
be held among the employees in the above-described unit to determine
the question of representation which has arisen. Since we shall order
the respondent to disestablish the Employees Union as a collective
bargaining agency we shall make no provision for designation of the
Employees Union on the ballot.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceedings, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee and Employees' Union
of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company are labor -organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the Employees' Union of
Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company and by contributing support
thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment
of Lucy Salas, Josefa Rodriquez, Rosie Gomez, Lupe Rubio, Dora
Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez, Lucy Williams, Celia Salas, Annie
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 265
Cordenas, Mecalla Gonzales, Florence Guerrero, Antonio De Leon,
Esper Coronado, Josephine Finnell, and Margaret Florez, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondent has not discriminated in the hire and tenure of
employment of any of the employees named in the complaint, as
amended, except those named in subsection 3 hereof.
7. All employees of the respondent, exclusive of clerks, office help,
foremen and supervisors, salesmen, and truck drivers, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the respondent within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company, Houston,
Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Organizing
Committee or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating
against its employees in regard to hire and tenure of- employment or
any term or condition of employment because of membership in or
activity in behalf of the Textile Workers Organizing Committee or
any other labor organization;
(b) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the
Employees' Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company, or
with the formation and administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, and from contributing support to the Em-
ployees' Union of the Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company, or to
any other labor organization of its employees;
266 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Recognizing the Employees' Union of Lone Star Bag and
Bagging Company as the representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment;
(d) Giving effect to any contracts it may have with the Employees'
Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment, the reten-
tion of union dues from the earnings of members of the Employees
Union, or other conditions of employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing 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 as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act;
and
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Lucy, Salas, Josefa Rodriquez, Rosie Gomez, Lupe Ru-
bio, Dora Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez, Celia Salas, Annie Cordenas,
Mecalla Gonzales, Florence Guerrero, Margaret Florez, Josephine
Finnell and Antonio De Leon immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Lucy Salas, Josefa Rodriquez, Rosie Gomez,
Lupe Rubio, Dora Flores, Concepcion Rodriquez, Celia Salas, Annie
Cordenas, Mecalla Gonzales, Florence Guerrero, Margaret Florez,
Josephine Finnell and Antonio De Leon for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in re-
gard to hire and tenure of employment, by payment to each of them,
respectively, a sum of money, computed as provided in the section
entitled "Remedy," equal to that which each of them would normally
have earned during the period from the date of such discrimination
to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less any amount which each
earned during such period; -
(c) Make whole Esper Coronado for any loss of earnings she suf-
fered by reason of being laid off by payment to her of a sum of
money equal to that which she would normally have earned from the
date she was laid off to July 3, 1937, the date she was reinstated,
less the amount earned by her during such period;
(d) Make whole Lucy Williams for any loss of earnings she suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to hire and
tenure of employment by payment to her of a sum of money equal
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 267
to that which she would normally have earned from June 16, 1937,
the date the respondent refused to allow her to resume her position,
to July 26, 1937, the date she was reinstated, less the amount earned
by her during such period;
(e) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees' Union of Lone
Star Bag and Bagging Company as a representative of any of the
respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with the respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or conditions of work; and completely disestablish said
labor organization as such representative;
(f) Reimburse the employees who were members of the Employees'
Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company for the dues it has
deducted from their wages on behalf of Employees' Union of Lone
Star Bag and Bagging Company;
(g) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout
its plant and maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30) con-
secutive days, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist
as aforesaid, and (2) that the respondent withdraws all recognition
from the Employees' Union of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company
as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of
pay, hours of employment; and conditions of employment, and com-
pletely disestablishes it as such representative;
(h) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further ordered that the complaint, as amended, be and here-
by is dismissed in so far as it alleges the respondent, by the lay-off
or discharge of any other persons than those named in paragraph
3 of the Conclusions of Law hereof, has violated Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as
amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation directed by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company, Houston, Texas, an
election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Board
may hereinafter direct, under the direction and supervision of the
268 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the em-
ployees of the respondent who were employed by the respondent
within a period to be determined by the Board in the future, ex-
clusive of clerks, office help, foremen and supervisors, salesmen, truck
drivers, and those who have since voluntarily quit or been discharged
for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Textile Workers Organizing Committee for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.