Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 28, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and LucK- ENBACH GULF STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and MARITIME OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WVAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 1-25 Case No. 0-505-Decided September 08, 1938 Water Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint and Coercion : inter- rogation of employee concerning attendance at union meeting and union activi- ties ; distribution of anti-union propaganda to employee , by supervisory offlcials- Discrtimination : discharges, of known union leaders, possessing qualifications for available positions , in preference to unknown rank and file union members and non-union employees , in connection with legitimate reduction in force-Reinstate- ment Ordered : discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded. Mr. Daniel Baker and Mr. Thomas P. Graham, for the Board. Mr. Gunther F. Krause, of Portland, Oreg., and Brobeck, Phleger and Harrison by Mr. Gregory C. Harrison, of San Francisco , Calif., for the respondents. Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Maritime Office Employees Interna- tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 1-25, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles W. Hope, Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint, dated December 17, 1937, against Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., and Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Company, Inc., Portland, Oregon, herein called the respondents. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents and the Union. The complaint alleged that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondents discharged C. K. Collier and George 8 N. L. R. B., No. 158. 1280 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1281 Cron on July 26, 1937, and George Kell on September 8, 1937, from their joint employ, and have since refused to reinstate them, because they, and each of them, joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees of respondents for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. In addition the complaint alleged that the respondents had interfered with, coerced, intimidated, and restrained, and are continuing to in- terfere with, coerce, intimidate, and restrain their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by the making of statements, indicating hostility of the respondents toward labor organizations, and by interrogating individual employees in regard to their union affiliation and making derogatory comments concerning the Union to discourage their employees from joining it. The respondents filed a joint answer to the complaint in which they admitted the*allegations concerning their business, admitted that they discharged the employees named in the complaint, but denied all other material allegations concerning the alleged unfair labor practices. - Pursuant to notice; a hearing was held at Portland, Oregon, from January 10 to 14, 1938, both inclusive, before Madison Hill, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re- spondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hear- ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to all parties. At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondents moved that the complaint be dismissed for want of evidence showing that the respondents discriminatorily discharged the employees named in the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied the motion. His ruling is hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof ad- duced at the hearing. Counsel for the respondents similarly moved with respect to their answer. The Trial Examiner granted both motions. On January 29, 1938, counsel for the respondents filed a brief, pursuant to permission granted by the Trial Examiner. On Febru- ary 28, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, find- ing that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practice affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the Board issue a cease and desist order and require the respondents to reinstate the employees named in the complaint with back pay and to take certain other specified affirmative action. Exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a brief in support of the Exceptions were there- after filed by the respondents. On May 6, 1938, the Board notified 1282 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondents and the Union that they were entitled to request oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., but they did not avail themselves of this opportunity. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence made during the course of the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the briefs filed by the respondents. As hereinafter indicated, the exceptions to the conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner are without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The respondents are corporations organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and have their principal office, which they main- tain jointly, in New York City. The stock of the corporations is almost wholly owned or controlled by members of the Luckenbach family. The respondents are jointly engaged in the transportation of passengers, and freight, operating a fleet of approximately 22 vessels, in the intercoastal trade and between the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and Pacific ports. The vessels sail upon regular schedules and make scheduled stops to take on and discharge cargo and pas- sengers in substantially all of the major coastal ports in the United States. The respondents also have joint offices in New Orleans, Louisiana, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California, and in Seattle, Washington. They jointly operate waterfront freight terminals at the major ports. At the hearing counsel for the re= spondents conceded that the respondents are engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, and that the employees involved in this pro- ceeding perform work in interstate commerce. The present proceed- ing concerns only the office workers at the respondents' Portland, Oregon, port. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza- tion. It chartered Maritime Office Employees, Local No. 1-25, on or about June 1, 1937. The Local admits to membership all men and women employed as clerks in steamship, steamship brokers', dock, terminal, flour mill and other offices connected with the waterfront industry. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1283 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discharges The Union was organized about April 15, 1937. Its first officers were C. K. Collier, president, and George Kell, secretary; George Cron was named chairman of the Union's bargaining committee. The Union applied for a charter on April 19. Cecil Evans, a member of the Union, who was employed by the respondents as an assistant in the timekeeper's and paymaster's office, was discharged on April 23 for alleged inefficiency.' On June 22, 1937, the Union sent a letter to C. K. Piper, the respondents' district manager stationed at their Port- land office, advising that the Union had selected a negotiating com- mittee to bargain with the respondents on behalf of employee members, and requesting an appointment for a conference. The letter specifi- cally' named the members of the committee, all employees of the respondents, and bore Collier's signature as president of the Union.' The Oregonian, a local newspaper, of June 26, 1937, reported the organization of the Union with Collier as temporary chairman, and Kell acting as temporary secretary-treasurer, and identified them as Luckenbach employees. No reply having been received from the respondents, the Union again wrote on July 14, reminding the respond- ents of the Union's unanswered letter, and advising that its committee stood prepared to bargain for the entire office personnel. On July 22, Piper replied acknowledging receipt of both letters and inquiring whether the Union represented a majority of the respondents' office employees. On July 23, the Union mailed mimeographed circulars to persons employed as office workers in the waterfront industry in and around Portland, including ordinary office employees of the respond- ents and members of their supervisory staff who were eligible to join the Union. In the circulars, the Union urged them to join the organi- zation and invited prospective members to attend a Union meeting on the night of July 27. 1 Since neither the charge nor the complaint contains any allegation relating to Evans' discharge , we make no findings with respect to him. The letter read : The Maritime Office Employees , I. L A. Local 38-149, representing Portland steam- ship clerks has appointed a negotiating Committees to negotiate with the Luckenbach Steamship Company on behalf of employees who are members of this union The members of this committee are as follows : Mr. George Cron, Chairman. Mr. George Kell. Mr. Harold Arnold. Mr. C K. Collier This committee desires that you advise when convenient for you to meet with them and open negotiations. Awaiting your pleasure, we are very truly Yours, I [7213-39-vol 8--82 MARITIME OFFICE EMPLOYEES, ILA Local S8--1i9 C K COLLIN711, PreFidP,it. 1284 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 26 Collier and Cron were discharged. Collier was notified of the termination of his employment under the following circum- stances : About 2: 15 that afternoon, William R. Landis, Collier's immediate superior, motioned Collier into Piper's office. Piper in- formed Collier that the respondents found it necessary to curtail per- sonnel owing to a contemplated change in the sailing schedule of their vessels and asked Collier for his resignation. Piper also stated that, inasmuch as Collier had not yet taken his vacation, he would receive his vacation money and 2 weeks' advance notice of the cessa- tion of his employment. Collier pointed out to Piper that it was not customary for a resigning employee to receive such notice. Collier insisted that lie was being "fired." Piper replied : "Well if (you) wanted to put it that way. I thought it would look a little better on your Social Security report if I put it down resigned . . ." Col- lier further testified that he understood Piper to say that Collier could take the money for his vacation period and also have the 2 weeks' notice, with or without work; that he stated to Piper that he preferred "to work the time out." Piper, however, then objected: "No, I am offering you the money." Collier accepted the money and did not work after July 26. Piper, unsolicited, gave Collier a letter of recommendation stating that "his work has been quite satisfactory and his leaving our service was brought about by a retrenchment program on account of change in our shipping schedule." Cron's discharge occurred at about 2 p. in. on July 26. At that time all dock office employees were summoned by messenger to the desk of Roy R. Steele, pier superintendent. Steele showed the gath- ered employees two letters, one from J. C. Euson, the respondent's Pacific Coast manager stationed at San Francisco, to Piper, dated July 10, 1937, stating that it was necessary to reduce the office force coincident with the inauguration of a weekly sailing schedule, effec- tive July 30, because the change involved a resulting estimated 18- per cent decrease in revenue and a decrease in the amount of avail- able work. The other letter, from Piper to Steele, dated July 23, 1937, referred to Euson's letter and called Steele's attention to Euson's in- sistence that a reduction in force be made at the dock as well as in the respondents' uptown office. Steele announced to the assembled employees that inasmuch as lie needed the services of all dock em- ployees, except Cron, lie planned to place Harold Arnold,'the O._ S. & D.3 clerk, in Cron's position as dock typist and to combine C. A. Nelson's duties as car desk man with the O. S. & D. clerkship. Al- though the change in Arnold's position carried no reduction in salary, his new duties as dock typist did not involve the use of judgment a Ovei age, Shoi tage, and Damage DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1285 exercised by the O. S. & D. clerk, nor did they entail the responsibility which the O. S. & D. clerk bore.4 On August 12, Collier and Cron picketed the respondents' dock office to protest against their discharges. They maintained the picket line about 4 or 5 hours, thereby delaying the sailing of a vessel. Two days later, on August 14, Piper ordered Kell, the cashier's assistant in the uptown office, to confine himself to general office work and to discontinue his over-the-counter and telephone duties.. Piper claimed that he had received complaints from the public with respect to Kell's abrupt manner in addressing customers. Under date of August 17, 1937, Piper received a communication from Euson which made refer- ence to the picketing incident and advised Piper of a need for further reduction in force in the cashier's department and dock clerical staff. On the morning of August 17, Piper told Kell that someone was being laid off at the dock office and instructed him to report to the dock the following morning to replace that person.5 Piper refused to reveal to Kell the name of the individual being displaced. Kell worked at the dock until September 8. On that day Steele told him that his services were no longer needed because of lack of work. The respondents justify the discharges on the ground that a con- templated change in the eastbound sailing schedule from a 5- to a 7-day schedule necessarily involved a reduction in the number of sailings and a decrease in the amount of cargo with the result that less office work would be available for the clerical and other personnel. Piper testified that he estimated, on the basis of 24 fewer sailings a year figured at 1,500 tons capacity per ship, that the change in schedule would result in a loss of tonnage of approximately 40,000 tons for the Portland port. In his testimony, Piper explained the change in sched- ule as a device to lower overhead costs. Prior to July 30, 1937, the respondents' lines operated on a 5-day eastbound and a 7-day west- bound schedule. In order to maintain the 5-day eastbound schedule, the respondents found it necessary to return many vessels without cargo from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast. In the early spring of 1937 the respondents decided to change to the 7-day eastbound sched- ule thereby obviating the operation of vessels in ballast, to avoid the payment of Panama Canal tolls, crew hire, and other expenses incident to trips without cargo. The respondents introduced in evi- dence figures which indicated a substantial decrease in the amount of handled cargo and the number of man-hours worked for the 5-month 4 Since neither the charge nor the complaint contains any allegation that the respond- ents' change of Arnold's position constituted a demotion, we make no finding with respect thereto. 5 The respondents utilized teletype facilities in their interoffice and other communica- tions, making it possible for Euson' s message to reach Portland prior to Piper's issuance of employment instructions to Kell that day. • 1286 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD period immediately following the change in schedule when compared with similar data for the 5-month period immediately preceding July 30._ A comparison of pertinent figures for the last half of 1935 6 with those for the last half of 1937 also reveals a decrease in cargo, except lumber, and in the number of hours worked 7 during the period after the change. The respondents contend that the elimination of Collier, Cron, and Kell, the Union's leaders, was a mere coincidence. To understand the selection of these employees for discharge we now consider the respondents' form of organization in the Portland port. The re- spondents operated two offices in Portland, one called the uptown office, with Piper in complete charge, and the other, the dock office, under the supervision of Steele as pier superintendent. The uptown office was divided into three departments: (1) claims, (2) cashier's, (3) traffic. The eastbound department, where Collier was employed as a billing clerk, constituted a division of the traffic department. The claims department consisted of the claim agent and Strowger, his- assistant, who was not a member of the Union. The cashier's de- partment consisted of H. C. Chadbourne, head cashier, Kell, a clerk, and two girls, Gertrude Gorham and a Miss Meinman, who acted as stenographer-clerks. In addition to Kell only Gorham, in the cash- ier's department, belonged to the Union. In the traffic department, other than the eastbound division, the respondents employed Hermes Wrightson, traffic manager, Earl F. Waller, rate clerk, and two out- side freight solicitors, Stoneberg and Shute. All employees in the traffic department, as so defined, were non-members of the Union. Landis headed the eastbound division with Collier, billing clerk, and two girls, one a comptometer operator and the other a stenog- rapher, under his supervision. Of this group only Collier belonged to the Union. The dock office personnel consisted of Steele, pier superintendent, C. B. Barr, timekeeper and paymaster, R. J. Wigg and Lawrence Kretzmeier, Barr's assistants, C. A. Nelson, car desk man, Burl C. Burdick, head checker, Jesse C. Stranahan, whose employment duties are not disclosed in the record, Arnold, the O. S. & D. clerk, Harris, the delivery clerk, and Cron, the dock typist. In addition to Cron and Arnold, Barr and Wigg were members of the Union. Nelson, Burdick and Stranahan, belonged to the Supercargo and Checker's Union, affiliated with the International Longshoremen's and Ware- housemen's Union. The record does not definitely show whether Har- ris or Kretzmeier belonged to any labor organization. The evidence 6 Since the longshoremen 's strike occurred in 1936, the respondents regarded that period as not affording a fair basis for comparison and for that reason did not submit data for 1936. T The respondents ' data relating to man-hours in all periods includes ship and dock hourly employees , including dock office employees but excluding uptown office workers. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1287 discloses, however, that all the dock office employees, except one, who was unnamed, belonged to a labor union. Collier was first employed by the respondents as dock typist on' February 6, 1928. When the O. S. & D. clerk was discharged 8 months later, Collier assumed his duties in addition to those of dock. typist. Sometime thereafter the respondents hired a typist to assist him, when the combined duties became too burdensome, and Collier confined himself to the O. S. & D. clerkship. About 2 weeks before the May 1934 longshoremen's strike, the claim agent in the uptown office died; the dock paymaster was promoted to the position of claim agent and Collier was assigned to the paymaster's position. Upon the termination of the strike in August 1934, Piper transferred Collier from the dock to the uptown office as billing clerk, which position he retained until his discharge on July 26, 1937. At the time of the hearing Waller held both the rate and billing clerkships. In the uptown office Collier had seniority over Kell, Strowger, Waller, and Shute. None, except Kell, were members of the Union. Collier testified that he felt qualified to fill their positions, except that of Waller suite he lacked knowledge of rates. Shute had served as traffic solicitor for the respondents for 5 years. Strowger's employ- ment in the claims department, however, dated only from February 1937. Previous to that his experience had been limited to general office work during two summer vacation periods in the respondents' uptown Portland office. Collier had seniority over Arnold, the O. S. & D. clerk, Barr, and Wigg and Kretzmeier, Barr's assistants, at the clock. The respondents had notice of Arnold's position as member of the Union's negotiating committee. Barr and Wigg also belonged to the Union but the record is barren of any evidence which indicates that the respondents knew of their union affiliation prior to the hear- ing. Kretzmeier's experience in the paymaster and timekeeper's office dated only from April 23, 1937. - Before that he was engaged in general clerical work in the dock office. George Kell's employment with the respondents began on August 1, 1934, as an assistant in the cashier's department, the position which he retained until August 17, 1937, when he was transferred to the dock office for a period of 3 weeks. He was discharged on September 8, 1937. According to Piper, Kell's duties since August 17 have been divided between the two stenographer-clerks in the cashier's office. Piper testified that at the time he transferred Kell to the dock he wished to retain Kell in the employ of the respondents, because Kell had a wife and child, planning to place him in Wigg's job, but that he later changed his mind when he ascertained that Wigg had ability as a stenographer, which Kell lacked. The evidence is plain, how- ever, that a stenographer's services were rarely used at the dock. Over a period of many years it had long been the practice at the dock 0 0 1288 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the typist to take dictation for transcription directly on the type- writer or to copy from manuscript. Kell had seniority over Strowger, whose tenure in the claims department had been brief, in the uptown office. Kell testified that from inspectors' reports, which had come to his attention in the course of his work in the cashier's office, he learned the type of information which was required in the inspection of damaged cargo. He felt qualified to fill Strowger's position. In the dock office Kell had seniority over Barr and Kretzmeier. Before his employment with the respondents Kell served for approximately 1 year as head night timekeeper for the Long Bell Lumber Company, Longview, Washington. George Cron was first employed by the respondents on August 7, 1934, as dock typist, the position which he retained until his discharge on July 26, 1937. At the uptown office Cron had seniority over Strowger. Cron testified that he felt qualified to fill Strowger's place. In the dock office, Cron had seniority over Barr and Kretzmeier. Shortly before Evans' discharge, which occurred on April 23, 1937, Steele offered Cron Evans' position, as assistant in the paymaster's and timekeeper's office, but Cron did not accept Steele's proposal because Cron feared that he might make errors in the new position which could be used as a pretext for his discharge for union activities. Instead Kretzmeier was given Evans' position. Although Piper testified that he consulted with the department heads in making his selections, at another point in his testimony he admitted that he planned to eliminate Collier, Cron, and Kell a "considerable" period before they were discharged. According to Piper the respondents did not regard seniority as controlling in the matter of discharges, lay-off s, and promotions, but rather were governed by considerations of ability, experience, and the marital or dependency status of their employees. In any case it is difficult to believe that Collier-with a record of almost 10 years' serv- ice with the respondents in the capacity of dock typist, paymaster and timekeeper, and billing clerk, did not possess the requisite ability and experience with the available clerical work, thereby compelling the respondents, as they contend, to release Collier from their employ in deference to other clerical assistants with shorter employment rec- ords. Further, when Steele offered Cron a position as assistant in the paymaster and timekeeper's office, he made no inquiry as to Cron's previous experience to qualify him for that position. Indeed, when Steele interviewed Cron with reference to employment, Steele stated that he "picked some of his best men off the streets." More- over, in making selections for discharge, the respondents disregarded Kell's prior experience as chief timekeeper with another company, which qualified him for positions retained by two dock employees with less seniority. Again, the respondents did not adopt a natural course DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1289 of conduct when they selected Cron for elimination and retained all three employees in the paymaster and timekeeper's office in the face of Cron's greater seniority over two of them, and especially in view of the fact that the change in schedule decreased, in accordance with the respondents' estimate, the number of man-hours worked by ship and dock hourly employees and thus resulted in less available work for the paymaster and timekeeper's office. In fact, Steele's selection of Cron is somewhat inconsistent with a statement Steele made to Cron in the spring of 1937. At that time Steele stated to Cron that he was "a darn good man" and that Steele did not "want to lose" Cron. As a result of the discharges of its officers, the Union was almost completely disorganized. It surrendered its regular meeting hall. Union meetings thereafter were irregularly held and infrequently attended by those members who remained in the respondents' employ. Under the circumstances, and especially in view of the respondents' dismissal of qualified employees known to them to be Union officers, and of no other employees, following closely, in the case of Collier and Cron, upon the heels of the Union's demand for collective bar- gaining, and coming shortly, in the case of Kell, after the Union picketed the respondents' dock, we are convinced that the respondents utilized the opportunity which the change in sailing schedule afforded to select Collier, Cron, and Kell for discharge in order to lessen the membership of the Union among their employees and to weaken the Union's strength as a collective bargaining agency by depriving the organization of office workers of the leadership which its officers provided. In our decision we are supported by the findings and con- clusions of the Trial Examiner who saw and heard the witnesses. Accordingly, we find that the respondents discharged C. K. Collier and George Cron on July 26, 1937, and transferred George Kell from the uptown to the dock office on August 17, 1937, and discharged him on September 8, 1937, because of their membership and activities in the Union. We further find that the respondents have discriminated against their employees in regard to hire and tenure of -employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. Since his discharge Collier has not been employed elsewhere. Cron worked for a period of 16 weeks until December 18, 1937, under a temporary permit as a stevedore at the respondents' dock. He was employed for the job through the longshoremen's hiring hall. He testified that his 30-day permit, which had previously been renewed on several occasions, was not likely to be again renewed since the amount of work had fallen off. Kell has been employed since October 1, 1937, as an advertising solicitor for a labor publication on a com- mission basis. From the date of the commencement of such employment to the time of the hearing, he earned approximately $70. 1290 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Immediately following the longshoremen's strike, which terminated in August 1934, Burdick, head checker at the respondents' dock, requested Collier, who, not being a checker, was ineligible to vote, to cast a ballot in an old Labor Board election in the name of another employee who was absent from the dock. Collier told Burdick that he did not know how the absent employee desired to vote. Burdick replied : "Well, we are going to vote for Luckenbach as a collective bargaining agency." Collier protested that the respondents could not with propriety act as an agency to deal with themselves, but Burdick replied : "Well, that is all settled, and that is what they are going to do." This incident, which occurred prior to the effective date of the Act, reflects the respondents' attitude toward labor organi- zations and the processes of genuine collective bargaining. During 1936, Wrightson, the respondents' traffic manager, placed each week on Collier's desk printed propaganda purporting to show that the maritime strike was "communistic and controlled from Moscow." Shortly after the formation of the Union, Steele questioned Arnold concerning his attendance at a Union meeting: When he learned from Arnold that he had attended, Steele further sought to learn what had transpired at the meeting. Accordingly we find that the respondents, by the interrogation of their employee as to his Union activities and by making or bringing to the attention of their employee remarks derogatory to labor organ- izations, thereby discouraging membership therein, have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. THE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondents discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of C. K. Collier, George Cron, and George Kell, we will require the respondents to offer each of said persons full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, with back pay. The respondents contend that they cannot reinstate Collier, Cron, and Kell to their former or equivalent positions because their former positions have been abolished and equivalent positions do not exist. The argument, however, does not bear inspection. The record abun- dantly,discloses that the prior duties of each of said persons at the time of his discharge or at the time of the respondents' reorganization of the office personnel were being performed by other employees at the time of the hearing as hereinabove indicated in Section III, A. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1291 We shall order the respondents to make each of the discharged employees whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 8 during said period. We will further order the respondents to cease and desist from their unfair labor practices. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Maritime Office Employees International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 1-25, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondents, by discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of C. K. Collier, George Cron, and George Kell, and thereby discouraging membership in the Union, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, have engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are- unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond- ents, Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., and Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Company, Inc., and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, respectively, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership or activity in Maritime Office Em- ployees International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 1-25, or any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees or in 8 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 elsewhere than for the respondents , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local No. 2590, 8 N. L R B 440. 1292 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition, of employment; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con- certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to C. K. Collier and George Cron immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions which each of them held with the respondents prior to their discharge on July 26, 1937, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, respectively; (b) Offer to George Kell immediate and full reinstatement to the position which he formerly. held with the respondents on or about August 17, 1937, prior to his transfer from his position as assistant in the cashier's department at the respondents' uptown office to the position as general clerical assistant at the respondents' dock office, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges; (c) Make whole the said C. K. Collier and George Cron for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by pay- mnent to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he nor- mally would have earned as wages from July 26, 1937, the date of their discharge, to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each of them during that period, respectively; (d) Make whole the said George Kell for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge, September 8, 1937, to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period; (e) Post immediately, and keep posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to their employees in conspicuous places at their uptown and dock offices, Portland, Oregon, stating that the respondents will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1 of this order ; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the respondents have taken to comply herewith. MR. EDWIN S. SMITII took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.