St. Joseph Lead Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 439 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY AND MINE LAMOTTE COR-
PORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER
WORKERS, C. I. 0., FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 648
Case No. 14-C-910.-Decided January 15, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 28, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
St. Joseph Lead Company had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions
to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent and by the
attorney for the Board.' Oral argument before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., was not requested, and none was held. The Board has
reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the additions and exceptions noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner has found that the respondent engaged in
a course of conduct, fully described in the Intermediate Report, which
interfered with, restrained, and coerced. its employees, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We agree except insofar as the finding
is based on President Crane's speech of March 6, 1943, and Superin-
tendent Bain's warning to Arnoldi. In our opinion, Crane's speech,
viewed in,its context, and in the circumstances in which it was given,
was not violative of the Act. Nor do we find anything improper in the
warning given Arnoldi. The record shows that a rumor was circu-
lated in the plant by certain employees, including Arnoldi, that the
respondent had made no application to the War Labor Board for wage
increases. To clarify the situation, the respondent posted a public
notice that it had filed such an application. Thereafter, Arnoldi made
certain remarks impugning the "veracity of the notice," whereupon,
Bain warned Arnoldi to cease making such remarks.
65 N. L. R. B., No. 80.
439
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Trial Examiner has found (1) that the respondent "mani-
fested to its employees its opposition to the Union, by imposing
restraints on the employees' discussions of union matters while at
work and by, prohibiting them from posting or distributing union
literature after the Union began its open campaign early in 1943, in
contrast to its indifference to such activities in behalf of the Inde-
pendent and the Victory Club at the time when the Union's activities
were seemingly ineffectual"; (2) that supervisory employees ques-
tioned employees concerning the Union, and (3) that Foreman Basil
Thomas told employee Simmons, "if this Union don't go through, they
[leaders in the Union] won't have any more job than a rabbit...."
The Trial Examiner failed to find this conduct violative of the Act.
However, we are of the opinion, and find that by such conduct, the
respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Indeed, Foreman Thomas'
remark constituted a threat of economic reprisal against the union
leaders for their union activities, should the Union fail.to organize
the plant and this be in no position to protect them.'
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondent discharged
Snyder because of his union activity in violation of Section 8 (3) of
the Act, and not because he sought to obtain information as to the
number of persons employed by the respondent. In so agreeing with
the Trial Examiner, however, we do not adopt, or rely in any way,
upon his views set forth in footnote 55 of the Intermediate Report.
4. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that re-
spondent discriminatorily imposed close and critical supervision over
Ratley to discourage his activities in behalf of the Union and to dis-
courage union membership generally, and thereby discriminated with
respect to the conditions of his employment in violation of Section 8
(3) of the Act. However, we disagree with the Trial Examiner inso-
far as his findings imply that Ratley's resignation of June 13, 1943,
was other than voluntary. We are of the opinion that the discrimina-
tory supervision imposed by the respondent over Ratley was not of
such a character that its application -under the circumstances of this
case, should reasonably have been expected to result or, in fact, did
result in his resignation. Ratley's testimony to the effect that he
considered the conditions of his employment to be intolerable and
that such condition compelled him to resign was not, as found by the
Trial Examiner, entirely credible. Indeed, the fact that Ratley made
no such claim until about a year after he quit and 4 months after
the charge in behalf of Snyder was filed by the Union supports an
inference, and we find that he had not, at the time he resigned, con-
sidered the respondent's action to be the proximate reason for such
resignation. Accordingly, as further evidenced by the respondent's
1 See Matter of Reynolds Corporation , 61 N. L . R. B. 1446, 1456.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 441
refusal of a release and persistent efforts to persuade him not to quit,
we find that Ratley's separation on June 12, 1944, did not constitute
a violation by respondent of Section 8 (3) of the Act. In view of
the foregoing, we do not believe that in this case it would effectuate
the policies of the Act to order the respondent to reinstate Ratley
upon his application as recommended by the Trial Examiner.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has independently violated Sec-
tions 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pur-
suant to the mandate of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom.
The respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-
organization among its employees. For example, in the course of
union organization, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under
the Act by imposing restraints on the employees' discussions of union
matters while at work, by prohibiting them from posting or distribut-
ing union literature after the Union began its open campaign early
in 1943 in contrast to its indifference to such activities in behalf of
the Independent and the Victory Club, at the time when the Union's
activities were seemingly ineffectual; by disparaging the benefits to
be derived from union representation; by threatening economic re-
prisal, should the Union fail to organize the employees and thus be
in no position to protect them; by intimating to employees that their
jobs were endangered if they supported the Union; and by the treat-
ment accorded Ratley. Finally, the respondent actually penalized
employee Snyder for his concerted activities by discriminatorily
discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate him. Such dis-
crimination "goes to the very heart of the Act." 2 Because of the
respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, we are
convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively re-
lated to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger
of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the re-
spondent's conduct in the past.3 The preventive purposes of the Act
will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In
order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantee of
Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
,tnd thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respond-
2 AT L R B v Entwistle Mfg. Co , 120 F. (2d) 532. 536 (C. C. A. 4). See also,
N. L. R B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 116 F. (2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7),
where the Court observed : "No more effective form of intimidation nor one more violative
of the N. L. R. Act can be conceived than discharge of an employee because he joined
a union . . .
8 See N . L. R. B. V. Express Publishing Company , 312 U. S. 426.
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent to cease and desist from in any manner in fringing upon the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, St. Joseph Lead Company,
Bonne Terre, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Mine,
Mill, and Smelter Workers, C. I. 0., and Local Union 648 thereof,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join
or assist International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,
C. I. 0., and Local Union 648 thereof, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted 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 Wallace C. Snyder immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
-(b) Make whole Wallace C. Snyder for any loss of pay that he has
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned 'as wages during the period from the date of the respondent's
discrimination against him to the date of such offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Post at the respondent's mines and mills in St. Francois
County, Missouri, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Ap-
pendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 443
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges (a) that the St. Joseph Lead Company
discriminatorily discharged 'Otto Ratley, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (3) of the Act, and (b) that Mine LaMotte Corporation has
violated the Act.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, dissenting in part:
I do not concur in the majority's denial of reinstatement and back
pay in Employee Ratley's case. My colleagues have found that the
respondent discriminated against Ratley by imposing "close and criti-
cal supervision" over his work. The credible testimony, and there is
no countervailing proof, indicates that Ratley resigned because he
could no longer do his work properly under the conditions thus dis-
criminatorily imposed by the respondent. His resignation, in my
judgment, was directly caused by such discrimination. The factors
cited by the majority as supporting an inference that the resignation
was not proximately caused by the discrimination practiced against
Ratley, do not have controlling force in the face of affirmative evi-
dence to the contrary. Because I consider reinstatement and an
appropriate back-pay award as the only method by which the respond-
ent's discrimination can be corrected, I would so provide in our order
in this case.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of
Mine, Mill & Smelter \\Torkers, C. I. O. and Local Union 648 of
the same or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination.
Wallace C. Snyder
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the.
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY,
Employer
Dated --------------- By ------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the selective service act after dis-
charge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harry G. Carlson, for the Board.
Mr. Parkhurst Sleeth, of Bonne Terre, Mo., and Mr. Wallace Cooper, of St.
Louis, Mo., for the Respondents.
Mr. George Cole, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint
dated August 30, 1944, against St. Joseph Lead Company and Mine LaMotte
Corporation, herein called the Company and the Corporation respectively and
together called the Respondents. The complaint alleges that the Respondents
had engaged in, and were engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act ; and that it was issued on charges made by International Mine,
Mill and Smelter Workers, affiliated with the C I. 0., for itself and in behalf
of its Local Union 648, herein jointly referred to as the Union. Copies of the
complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon each of the
Respondents, and upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance alleges
that the Respondents: (1) discouraged membership in the Union by discrim-
inatorily discharging Otto Ratley on June 12, 1943, and Wallace C. Snyder on
September 9, 1943 ; (2) ,interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, from Jan-
uary 1942 to the date of the complaint ; (a) by the aforesaid discharge of Ratley
and Snyder; (b) by having urged, warned, and threatened their employees against
engaging in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 445
mutual aid and protection , and against their joining , remaining members of or
assisting the Union or any other labor organization; (c) by having questioned
them concerning their activities in and affiliation with the Union; (d) by having
made statements in disparagement and condemnation of the Union , its officers
and leaders ; (e) by having ridiculed and belittled the collective bargaining agree-
ment made with the Union; and (f ) by having promoted, aided, and assisted the
"Victory Club" in opposition to the Union.
With respect to the joinder of the Respondents , the complaint alleges that the
Company "manages and operates" the Corporation, and joins them in t'ae allega-
tions concerning their business operations and the unfair labor practices.
The Company and the Corporation each filed an answer to the complaint on
September 9, 1943. The Company admitted certain allegations of the complaint
relating to the nature of its business, and to its management and operation of the
Corporation; it admitted having discharged Ratley and Snyder on the given dates,
but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices The Corporation like-
wise admitted the allegations of the complaint relating to the nature of its busi-
ness, the management and operation of its business by the Company, but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices Pursuant to notice, a hearing was
held at Farmington, Missouri, beginning October 17 through October 20, 1944,
before Melton Boyd, the undersigned Trial Examiner designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondents were represented by counsel,
and the Union by its representative. All participated in the hearing, and each
party was afforded a full opportunity to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to be heard on matters, in issue
At the opening of the hearing, the Company moved to amend its answer to
allege that Otto Ratley voluntarily quit his employment on the stated date, instead
of being discharged This motion was granted, and thereafter the Company
filed its amended answer Both the Company and the Corporation by motion
requested the Board to specify the names of supervisory employees who com-
mitted the alleged unfair labor practices, with which request counsel for the
Board complied At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to formal matters. There was
no objection, and the motion was granted. The parties waived oral argument,
but reserved the privilege of filing briefs with the Trial Examiner. Briefs have
been received from counsel for the Respondents and for the Board.
At the close of the Board's case in the chief and again at the close of all evi-
dence, the Corporation moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety against it,
and the Company moved to dismiss the complaint against it alternatively on
failure of proof of any unfair labor practices arising from (a) discharge of Otto
Ratley, (b) discharge of Wallace C. Snyder, or (c) under any allegation of the
complaint. Rulings on these motions were then reserved by the Trial Examiner,
and are made herein.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:'
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
St. Joseph Lead Company is a New York corporation with its executive office in
New York City, and principal operating office in Bonne Terre, Missouri. In the
I Except where otherwise noted or where conflicts in testimony are discussed the following
findings of fact are made on evidence that was undisputed or that was at variance only in
immaterial details ; and the next following sections, I and If, are based on admissions in
Respondents ' answers , and on stipulations of the parties.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Missouri operations it is engaged in mining, milling and smelting of lead. The
mines and mills are located in St Francois County, and the smelter is located at
Herculaneum, Missouri. It produces annually, in its mines and mills, lead ore
valued in excess of $1,000,000. Approximately 95 percent of the lead extiacted
from this ore is shipped out of the State of Missouri. During the year 1943, the
cost of materials and equipment used in its operations was in excess of $100,000,
more than 50 percent of which was received through shipments from outside the
State of Missouri.
Mine LaMotte Corporation is a Missouri corporation with its principal office
with that of St. Joseph Lead Company in Bonne Terre, Missouri. It is engaged
in mining and milling lead ore. Its mines and mill are located in Madison
County, Missouri, adjoining St. Francois County, where it produces annually
lead ore valued in excess of $1,000,000 This ore is delivered to St. Joseph Lead
Company for smelting at its Herculaneum plant, where the product is com-
mingled with that of the Company and a substantial part is shipped out of the,
State of Missouri. From the opeiations in both St Francois County and Madi-
son County, the St. Joseph Lead Company produces about one-third of annual
production of lead in the United States.
The Company and the Corporation each concedes that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, and its Local 648,
are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondents' operations
Mining and milling operations of both the Company and the Corporation are
under a single management, with principal officers common to both corporation
entities, namely, the president, the secretary, the treasurer, and the general
manager. The common management purchases supplies and materials for both.
The Company determines the operating policy of the Corporation.
The mines and mills of the Company surround four geographical centers of
operations, referred to as divisions' Three of them, the Bonne Terre, the
Desloge, and the Leadwood divisions, are near towns of the same names in
the northern part of St. Francois County, and are operated under the general
supervision of C K. Bain, Division superintendent, who is directly accountable
to the general manager. The fourth, the Federal division, is near the town of
Flat River, farther south in St Francois County, and is under the general super-
vision of B F. Murphy, division superintendent. He likewise is directly account-
able to the general manager.
About twenty miles south of the Federal division, are located the mines and
the mill of the Corporation, near Frederickstown in Madison County, referred to
as the Mine LaMotte division. Murphy is superintendent over this division, as
well.
For purposes of collective bargaining, the Board has found that all hourly paid
employees of both the Company and the Corporation employed in these mining
and milling operations comprise a single appropriate unit. This determination
2 The underground workings of each division is separate from those of other divisions,
and each has a hoisting shaft through which the mined ore is raised for delivery and
concentration at the nearby mill of that division.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 447
was made in a representation proceeding instituted by the Union on its petition
filed August 23, in which the Decision and Direction of Election of the Board
issued on November 16, 1943.9 An election was conducted on December 9, 1943,
as a result of which the Union was certified on December 21, 1943, as the exclusive
bargaining representative for employees of both the Company and the Corpora-
tion in this unit. Thereafter, on March 13, 1944, the Company and the Corpo-
ration jointly entered into a single labor relations agreement with the Union
affecting these employees.
B. Interference, rests aint, and coercion
1. Columbia Park meeting
In relation to matter in issue in this proceeding, concerted action among
Respondents' employees began in January 1942 when about five hundred workers
from various divisions met at Columbia Park, a public park at the edge of the
town of Flat River near the operations of the Federal division" Apparently, the
employees had been dissatisfied with the Company's practice of hiring additional
men whose work limited senior employees to less than a full work-week. At the
Columbia Parl: meeting a committee of 15 or 16 workers were chosen and au-
thorized to present this grievance to the Company. A few days later this com-
mittee met, and elected as its spokesman an employee in the Federal division,
Otto Ratley. It then called on Murphy, superintendent of the Federal division,
on a Friday evening to discuss the grievance The record is silent about the
outcome of this conference
According to Ratley, on the following Monday evening before changing his
clothes to leave work, F. 0 Buxton, the assistant mill superintendent who was
his supervisor, asked him "what the god-damn-hell have you got over at Columbia
Park," upbraided him for seivmg on the coal niftee and being its spokesman,
then informed him he was to be transferred from his carpentry job in the mill
repair crew to the crusher room,' and added that others on the committee were
"going to get theirs, too." Ratley protested the transfer, declared he would quit.
The next day lie looked for employment elsewhere, and on that evening returned
to the mill to get his tools but was denied entiance to the premises on orders of
Buxton. This occasioned Ratley's protest to the management, at which time the
Company's employment agent and its attorney were appiised of the circum-
stances The attorney asked the division superintendent, 1llurphy, to re-employ
Ratley, and Murphy called Ratley to his office and offered to reinstate him. Like-
Nise, the employment agent Knowles oilercd Ratley reinstatement, after he and
division personnel manager Phillips endeavoied to see Ratley at his home Ratley
asked to be re-assigned as a caipentry to the construction department under
M N. Dunlap, construction foreman' instead of the mill repair gang where lie
had woiked tinder Buxton. Before the reinstatement was effected, ltatley talked
with Dunlap about working under his supervision, at which time Dunlap approved
Ratley's transfer but remarked "I want you to promise me you will not embar-
rass me like you did Mr Buxton . . by getting mixed up with committees,
3Matter of St John Lead Company and Mine Lainotte Corporation, 53 N L R. B 661.
The Trial Examiner takes official notice that in the Decision and Direction of Election the
Board found that the Company and the Corporation "agreed generally with the Union as
to the appropriateness of the unit sought" which was a single unit of hourly paid produc-
tion and maintenance workers in all divisions
"No evidence indicates that any employees of the Corporation attended this meeting.
The operation there is to crush lump ore and is described as a dusty, unpleasant job.
In September 1944, Dunlap was made assistant mill superintendent of the Federal
division, in place of Buxton who then became mill superintendent.
679100-46-vol 65-30
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or . . . organizations of any kind" Ratley responded by saying he did not know
he caused anyone embarrassment He then went back to work as a carpenter
under Dunlap, without any change in pay rate, after being off some seven days.
About three months later he received a "merit increase" of wages, given to
employees when the Company at regular intervals ie-rated those whose work
was satisfactory.
Buxton denied the statements attributed to him by Ratley, and testified that
^aatley quit when he was provoked by Buxton's refusal to grant him a wage
increase. He said a foreman had reprimanded Ratley without effect for loafing,
and thereafter the foreman asked him to admonish Ratley. Buxton said he had
seen Ratley "around the yard talking first to one man and then another . . . doing
quite a bit of loafing " According to Buxton, he talked with Ratley and told him
he was not taking an interest in his work and asked what was wrong, at which
time Ratley asked for a raise. Buxton said, "when you want to do the right
thing here and go ahead with your work like you should, why I will recom-
mend a raise for you," and testified that Ratley said "I am not going to do any
more work than I am doing, . . I have worked hard enough for this damned
company now, . . . to hell with you, . . . I will quit" He said that Ratley
then alluded to "trying to organize the union," to which he replied that he didn't
know anything about that, and told Ratley "that is none of my business and we
don't have any objections to that" but admonished him "do not try to organize
a union on the job."
Dunlap, while recalling Ratley's reinstatement, denied the statement Ratley
attributed to him Referring to the conversation about Ratley's behavior being
an embarrassment, he said "I told him I hoped he would not embarrass me by
not making good on the job if we took him back." 7
Superintendent Murphy testified that Ratley was transferred without any
break in his service to the construction department, and in this he is corrob-
orated by the personnel history appearing on the separation report introduced
in evidence, showing no termination or interruption of Ratley's employment in
January 1942. -
The versions of Buxton and Dunlap with reference to this incident, indicating
that Ratley was _an indolent worker whose principal interest was to get a
wage increase, are not in keeping with the efforts made by the Company's at-
torney, division superintendent, personnel manager and employment agent in
offering Ratley re-instatement, in recording his service as unbroken, and in
granting him a "merit increase" a short time later. Buxton's account of Bat-
ley's reference to organizing a union, and his own avowed neutrality, is not
convincing. Dunlap's account of his conversation with Ratley is discredited by
his later testimony," and by the admonition he received from Superintendent
Murphy. The Trial Examiner finds this episode occurred substantially as
described by Ratley.
2. Independent , C. I. 0., and Victory Club
In the spring of 1942, other employees' meetings were held. There emerged
from these meetings an organization known as the Independent Union, herein
called the Independent. In the fall of 1942 it had about 44 members enrolled.
A maintenance repairman in the Federal division, Paul Black, testified that late
7 Elsewhere in his testimony Dunlap said that following this Columbia Park meeting,
Division Superintendent 1furphy had occasion to tell him specifically he was "to have no
opinions as to whether the men should organize or should not organize . . . not to comment
one way or the other on it "
8 As hereinafter recounted , Dunlap later testified he criticized Ratley's work for the first
time "in the spring of 1943."
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 449
in 1942 an enrollment petition of the Independent was circulated on the job
by another repairman at a place that easily could be seen from his foreman's
office, without hindrance. On the other hand, a mine driller in the Federal
division, George S. Gilman, testified that one of the shift foreman, at about that
same time and with reference to enrollment of Independent members on the
job, warned him and others against such solicitation. Late in 1942 the mem-
bership of the Independent, discouraged by the activity of the Victory Club,'
decided to abandon the Independent and apparently it ceased to exist in January
1943.
Concurrent with the inception of the Independent in the spring of 1942, organ-
izing efforts began in behalf of the Union. Van Camp, an organizer for the
International Union affiliated with the C. I. 0., solicited membership among the
Company's employees, and enrolled about 20 from various divisions into an
organizing committee. The Union's initial efforts were "under cover." Meet-
ings were held "in the woods," and one such meeting was held in September at
Stoney Point, several miles from the Company's operations in what is known
as the Lead Belt. After January or February 1943, its meetings and activities
were publicly announced and openly conducted.
During the summer of 1942, following the initial activity of the Independent and
the Union, there was formed among certain workmen what was known as the
Victory Club 1° under the leadership of Ike Sumpter, an employee with sons in
military service. Its purpose was to induce workers to pledge themselves not to
join any union, and its members were enrolled on an application which read in
part "I will not, if in my power to prevent, join any labor union ; and . . . will
not directly or indirectly cause any dissension or anything that would be detri-
mental to defense production for the duration of the war". In the latter part of
the summer and in the fall of 1942, this organization held public meetings through-
out the Lead Belt. Notices of its meetings were posted at the places of work in
the Company's operations, and membership applications were solicited on the
job. The solicitation for members was conducted principally by ordinary em-
ployees. *It collected no dues, but defrayed its expenses from contributions.
Evidence was introduced with reference to the election of only one of its officers,
Jerry Cooper, uho apparently was its last president. Cooper was i tiack fore-
man in the Leadwood division, and as such a supervisoiy employee 13 He had
joined the organization in the fall of 1942 after participating in a conversation
among eight or ten men which took place in the town of Leadwood. Ellis Cillam"
then asked him to join, and later enrolled him. Cooper was elected president at a
meeting which he did not attend, on an occasion when he was visiting his s('u
at Fort Leonard Wood; he accepted the office and served for five or six months.
He presided at some of its meetings which were held publicly, helped to post
notices of the meetings,' and attempted to enroll members. Apparently, the
9 Hereinafter discussed
10 Its full name was United Victory Club
11 An excerpt from the Decision and Direction of Election Issued by the Board in the
representation proceeding, noted in footnote 3, was received in evidence, and provided in
part • "Track foremen, The Companies [Company and Corporation] seek the exclusion of
the employees engaged in this classification on the ground that they are supervisors . . .
each of these employees directs the work of approximately 10 men . . . have the power
to recommend disciplinary action with respect to those employees . . . are paid approxi-
mately $1 per day more . . . We are of the opinion that tiiese employees are super-
visors .. .
12 Cooper stated that Gillam at the time of the hearing was a roof man in the mine,
emplovedooccasionally as a substitute. foreman in the absence of;,a shift boss, but that
Cooper did not recall specifically Giilam's job in 1942 when he enrolled Cooper.
13 The places of posting were not specified.
i
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victory Club ceased to be of significance after the Union became openly active in
the early part of 1943.
3. Rule against union activity on job - anti-union statements
About July of 1942 B. F. Murphy, Federal division superintendent called to-
gether the department heads, told them of the rights that workers had under
the Wagner Act, admonished them against interference except to suppress argu-
ments on the job These instructions were repeated during the fall of 1942 by
Murphy to the foremen at safety meetings and in person as Murphy met them
on the job. These instructions were intended to guide the supervisors, in their
relations to the workmen in matters of union activity No general instructions
were given the employees, relating to their privileges. The instructions to
supervisors in the Federal division were not repeated after the fall of 1942, until
after the election in December 1943.
C. K. Bain, superintendent of the Bonne Terre, Desloge, and Leadwood di-
visions, testified that in the early summer of 1942 the general. manages of the
Company discussed with him the provisions of the Wagner Act, and directed
him to instruct all foremen "not to discuss union matters with any men," and
to maintain a noncommittal attitude to avert violation of the At. Bain then
called a meeting of all foremen in all divisions and gave them these instruc-
tions, and repeated them during meetings conducted during that fall. In meet-
ing the foremen personally, he would at times discuss these instructions with
them. There is no evidence that these instructions were repeated to super-
visors in these divisions following the fall of 1942', until the fall of 1943 when
again the general manager reminded Bain of the instructions, and Bain again
relayed the instructions to the department heads, and they in turn to the lesser
supervisors.
The Company had changing rooms at various operations which housed the
bulletin boards card-racks, and time clocks, and were places where the work-
men gathered to change clothes. It had been customary for interested persons
to use the bulletin boards for posting handbills and similar notices of picnics,
shooting matches, dances, public sales, and church revival meetings. During
the period when the Victory Club and the Independent were openly active, when
the Union was conducting its campaign "under cover", notices of meetings of
the Victory Club and the Independent were posted or given out in the changing
rooms without any company admonition Likewise, membership in both or-
ganizations was solicited in the changing rooms without repressive restraint.
During this period the Union continued its solicitation of membership" but did
not attempt to post notices of its meetings.
As noted above, the Union began its open campaign early in 1943, at which
time the Independent was abandoned and the Victory Club apparently became
inactive. In February the Union elected its temporary officers. At that time
It scheduled its first open meeting in the auditorium at Desloge to which an
important speaker was invited, and for the first time handbills were prepared
to publicize such a meeting A copy of this handbill was posted on the bulletin
board in a changing room of the Federal division, and thereafter was torn
down by the mine captain, Joe LeBruyere On the two following days copies
of this handbill were again posted, and in each instance the mine captain re-
moved it. On the last day LeBruyere went to Eli Hobaugh, an employee under
him with about 40 years' service, mho was prominent in the union campaigns, and
censured him for having repeatedly posted the notice. Hobaugh had not
is There is no evidence indicating how or where union solicitation was conducted at this
time, but presumably it was being carried on in the same manner and places as that being
carried on foi the other organizations.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 451
posted it, and denied having done so. In an extended argument about this mat-
ter, LeBruyere told Hobaugh that he could not distribute handbills or post them
anywhere on the properties of the Company, and was prohibited from having
such literature in his pockets when on the premises. About a half hour later
on a chance meeting in another part of the mine, LeBruyere and Hobaugh
again argued about the posting of the notices at which time, according to Ho-
baugh, LeBruyere told him "some of you old fellows are going to be let out
over this" and began a further remark with "that damn C. I 0." which he left
unfinished. A day or so following this incident, LeBruyere called the em-
ployees into a meeting and told them in substance that the Company prohibited
the posting or distribution of any kind of literature anywhere on its premises,
and prohibited any talk on the job about any organizations, and then added
"When I say organization I mean churches of all denominations". LeBruyere
was not called as a witness. The Trial Examiner finds these incidents occurred
as related, and that LeBruyere's admonition was intended to relate to labor
organizations.
Similar instructions against posting literature were given by C. B. Schmidt,
machine shop foreman in the Federal division, to T. W. Dempsey, a machine shop
employee, both before and after lie was elected temporary president of the Union.
During this same period there was increased activity on the part of the Union
in soliciting members, but the evidence is vague as to how much of this solicita-
tion occurred either in the changing rooms or at the places of work. Various
employees called as witnesses admitted their solicitation of members, but denied
they did it "on the job."
Paul Black, a maintenance repairman in the Federal mill, was a member of the
organizing committee of the Union in 1942. During that fall he was assigned
to some repair work on the table floor of the mill, near the office. Buxton, who
was then the assistant superintendent of the mill," asked Black about the meeting
that had been held the night before, "the meeting at Stoney Point ; the C. I O.
meeting," and asked how many men from that division attended the meeting.
Black avoided a discussion of it. Buxton remarked that the Company was not
afraid of the Union. Later, according to Black, in another conversation Buxton
told him "You could go places with the company if you would leave the Union
alone," and added that Van Camp and other organizers were trying to get the
men's money to run away with it. Black testified that he told Buxton he did
not think the organizers "were trying to do that because they aren't taking any
money" and that he would not withdraw from the Union. Prior to this incident
Buxton had been cordial with Black and talked freely with him on the job, and
said Black was a "good hand," and had not criticized his work. Following this
incident Buxton talked with him only seldom and only pertaining to work, and
was noticeably critical of his work. In January 1943, according to Black, when
he was working at the repair of a crusher, Buxton accused him of starting an
argument on the job with Thomas Wright because the latter refused to sign a
0 I. O. card. Black admitted he had had an argument with this employee, but
denied he had solicited him to sign a C. I 0 card, and stated the argument had
had no reference to such matter. Black quoted Buxton as saying that Division
Superintendent Murphy had given instructions to discipline Black "about solicit-
ing cards on the job," that the superintendent had heard "through sources" that
Black had been doing this and if he heard of it again Black would have no job.
Thereupon Buxton criticized Black for "laying down on the job" and said that Van
Camp "was trying to ruin you with that bunch of lies." Again in March, accord-
ing to Black, Buxton ordered him to stay out of the machine shop, and accused
15 Since September 1944, he has been the mill superintendent of the Federal division.
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him of stopping men at work there to get them to sign cards, on an occasion when
Black went through there to arrange for a truck to have some hauling done.
Black denied having attempted any solicitation while there, or at any other time
on the job Black testified that each employee about this time was admonished
against any solicitation while at work.
Buxton, called as a witness later in the hearing, gave his version of each of
these conversations. With reference to the conversation alluding to the Stoney
Point meeting, he said that Black told him of this meeting and "asked me what
I thought about the C. I. O. . . . and said he was kind of on the fence about
the thing and he didn't know just what be did think about it." 18 With reference
to the conversation which included the statement that "he could go places with
the Company," Buxton made no denial of having added "if he would leave the
Union alone" but explained "I told him he could really go places if he wanted to
do it and do the right thing," and that this was said in connection with his talk
with Black at that time "about the way he was loafing around so much." He
denied having made any reference to Van Camp, saying he had never heard of
the man at that time, but made no specific denial of the remark that organizers '
were trying to get the men's money and run away with it. He testified that
Black "had ability," but was inattentive to his job. Having observed the manner
of these witnesses in testifying to these incidents, and considering the plausibility
of their testimony when related to other findings made herein and when related
to the Company's attitude toward the Union which then was manifest, the Trial
Examiner finds the account of Black more credible, and finds these two incidents
occurred substantially as related by Black
With reference to Black's argument with Wright, Buxton testified that Wright
was the lead man in the crushing plant and he had requested Black, who did not
work under him, to call another employee to help in assembling a machine. Black
answered Wright, "I am not working for you" and an argument ensued. Buxton,
in questioning Black about the cause of this incident and not finding his expla-
nation plausible, said "Didn't you ask him to sign a union card or try to make
him do it?", to which Black replied "I asked him to sign it, but . . . didn't try
to make him do it," at which time Buxton said, "Well, don't you know you should
not do that on the job?" Buxton testified, "I told him that Mr. Murphy-that
the Company did not want them to solicit men to join the Union while they were
on the job But as far as telling him I was told to get on him, I did not tell
him that, and I wasn't told to get on him." The Trial Examiner finds that Buxton
did accuse Black of soliciting union members on the job, and was prompted to
do so by the circumstances as related by Buxton, and not on express orders from
Murphy at that time but in furtherance of a rule then being promulgated to
restrain union activity on the job during working hours The Trial Examiner
believes, and finds, that Buxton took this occasion to warn Black about his work,
and denounce the union organizers
With reference to the reprimand for solicitation in the machine shop, Buxton
testified "so far as saying anything to him about trying to get them to sign union
cards, I did not say that," but he did ask Black why he wanted to stop and talk
to the men there, to which Black responded that he had some business there, and
Buxton said "I wish you would quit that."
16 Buxton said he asked Black, "Do you think we need a union?" to which Black replied
"Well, I was just wondering about that. whether we do or not . . . We are being treated
pretty fine . . . I sometimes doubt if we do need a union . . . What do you think
about it?", and Buxton quoted himself as saying, "I don't know, it don't make any differ-
'nce to me one way or the other, whether we do or whether we don't . . that is your
business, and if you want to join a union there is nobody to keep you from it" and later
added, "I imagine I would if I was you, I believe I would because I think you want to
join."
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 453
The Trial Examiner finds that Buxton wrongfully attributed to Black an
infraction of the Company's rule against solicitation, ordered Black to stay
out of the ship, reprimanded him for having asked men to sign cards when such
had not then occurred, and did so to curb Black's union activities. This infer-
ence is supported by the similar treatment accorded Otto Ratley at about the
same time, hereinafter recounted, when both were prominent in the union cam-
paign, which then had been projected publicly and was commanding the atten-
tion of the employees and the antagonism of the Company."
On March 6, 1943, Clinton IT Crane of New York, president of the Company
and the Corporation, had a meeting in St. Francois County with the super-
visory personnel, delivered a speech to them, and followed his practice of
responding to questions submitted to him. A typewritten copy of his remarks,
filling ten pages, was identified at the hearing, and two excerpts were presented
in evidence Crane read the following question:
"Is it necessary to belong to a union to work for St. Joe? Union organ-
izers are telling us to join now when it costs only two dollars, whereas later
it will cost twenty-five dollars and we will be forced to join to hold our
jobs." is
Crane answered:
"It is not necessary for anyone to belong to a union to work for St.
Joseph Lead Company. It never has been and it never will be. The St.
Joseph Lead Company will never make an agreement which iiequires it to
force union membership on its men. On the other hand, the St. Joseph Lead
Company will never interfere with the right of a man to join a union. There
is no more reason why a man should join a union or why he should not join
a union anymore than why he should join a church or not join a church.
It would be just as reasonable to require a man to belong to the Catholic
Church or the Methodist Church or the Congregational Church as to require
him to be a union man to work for us. I have often heard of the saying,
`if you don't hurry up and get aboard now you never can'. Well, I have never
found any difficulty in, getting aboard later."
Crane then read the following question :
"Will my joining or not joining a labor union affect my job or chances for
advancement now or in the future?"
Crane answered:
"My answer to that is no."
These were the only parts of his remarks that referred to matters of labor rela-
tions. Crane's speech, together with these and other questions and answers,
were published in full in all local newspapers of general circulation in the Lead
Belt, where they could be read by the employees.
° The Company's policy, as translated in part to the workers, was to restrain
them from discussing union matters on the job, with the expressed qualification
"' Ratley, then emploved in the construction department, at times worked in and near
the mill He testified he had heard that "Buxton gave Paul Black a going-over . . . a
week before' and that Dunlap, the construction foieman who worked directly under
Buxton, told him "You know I was supposed to get on you when Buxton got on Paul
Black, but I neglected and hated to do it . . . I am getting it off niy chest now." Dunlap
then told Ratley that he was "not doing satisfactory work" on a saw mill job.
ii Division Superintendent Murphy, whom the Trial Examiner found to be a credible
witness, alludes to this question as having been "turned in " The Trial Examiner finds
that this and the following question was submitted in writing. There is no evidence
indicating who composed either question, nor is there any evidence indicating any union
was proposing to increase its initiation fees to $25.
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that they could discuss what they wish while "off the Company property." The
testimony of Thomas Glore, electrician at Leadwood, of Charles Bradley, car-
penter at Leadwood, of Rubert Arnoldi, electrician at Desloge, and that of Division
Superintendent Bain, and his assistant, E. L. Bilheimer, is mutually corroborative
that Bain admonished a number of workmen in his divisions against such talk,
when it became-as Bain characterized it-"obnoxious" to other employees. The
Company did not offer proof of specific instances of union solicitation, but only
that it had reports of such activity. It is not clear whether this talk in fact was
solicitation or did retard the work, although it is apparent from the evidence
and from the nature of the work done that casual conversations occurred normally
among the workmen. In the instance of admonishing Bradley, Bain told him
he was "talking too much", and when asked to what he referred Bain said, "about
anything . . . your religion, your politics, your family affairs.""
The admonition of Arnoldi was a reprimand and a warning. Bain, accompanied
by Arnoldi's immediate foreman and two other foremen, summoned Arnoldi to a
bulletin board where a clipped magazine article was posted, ascertained that
Arnoldi (lid not 20 post it but required him to remove it. Bain then told Arnoldi
it had been reported that Arnoldi "had been quite active in his Union", that Bain
learned Arnoldi was leaving his place of work "stopping men at their places,
talking Union and so forth," and reprimanded him for such activity on Company
time or property. Arnoldi testified, and the Trial Examiner finds him to be an
honest and accurate witness, that there was very little talking being done in his
department (luring working hours, with no one subject being discussed more than
others. Bain then alluded to a notice issued by President Crane, and volunteered
the statement that he knew it was a fact that the Company had filed the applica-
tion with the War Labor Board, referred to in the notice 21 According to Bain,
1' There were not previous, and no subsequent reprimands when either religion, politics
or family affairs were discussed A couple of days later, Bradley said to Bilheimer that
Bain should have told him outright "to quit talking about the Union . . . since that is
what lie meant", which Bilheimer admitted but said "he could not do that "
20 In the transcript, page 710, Bain testified ". . . I asked him if he placed that there.
He said he didn't" The Ti ml Examiner recalls Arnoldi testified he did not put it there,
although the transcript, page 323, misstates his testimony : " . . . he asked me if I put
that up there. I told him I did" [not].
21 In the following form :
BONNE TERRE, MO.,
August 3, 1943.
To All Employees of St. Joseph Lead Company,
Bonne Terre Farming & Cattle Company,
Lead Belt Water Company,
Bonne Terre Hospital Association, and
Mine La Motte Corporation
It has' been brought to my attention that there are stories in current circulation
in the Lead Belt to the effect that no one at Herculaneum is to receive an increase in
pay and vacation excepting members of the Union This is untrue . Everybody at
Herculaneum receiving less than $5,000 00 a year will receive the extra pay from
the retroactive date and each wil receive a vacation There are a few clerical, watch-'
men and supervisory employees at Herculaneum who can not be paid the increase
until the same has been approved by the War Labor Board.
Application was filed with the pi oper U S agencies on July 16 and July 19, 1943,
for the approval of the increase for all employees receiving less than the $5,000 00
per year. This is in conformity with my statement of April 27, 1943, wherein I
advised you that whatever increase was granted to Herculaneum, we would request
be made applicable to our employees here in the Lead Belt, and this will be put into
effect immedaitely upon receiving the approval of the War Labor Board.
I also want to remind you all that under the law no one can be required to belong
to a union as a condition of employment nor can be fired because he joins a union.
The St. Joseph Lead Company will never agree to a closed shop.
/8/ CLINTON W. CRANE,
President.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 455
"one of them [the notices] appeared by the drinking fountain which is to the right
of the north door of the machine shop as you walk in. It had been defaced by
penciling it to say `contradictory date'. So I asked Mr. Arnoldi and told him
that I had heard he had made some derogatory statements about the veracity of
the statement that Mr. Crane had signed. He said he had heard it wasn't
true . . . I told him that I could tell him personally and officially that was true
... and that if any further remarks about its truth were made I would just
consider it as agitation." 12
A month before the December election, Cornell Simmons, mine driller in the
Federal division was asked by his foreman, Basil Thomas, "what do you hope to
accomplish by the union?" 23 and with a slighting reference to employees who were
leaders in the Union, said "If this union don't go through, they won't have any
more job than a rabbit . . ." Thomas did not deny the material parts of this
testimony."
4. Collective bargaining agreement
Early in August, 1943, the Union notified Respondents verbally, and on August
16th by letters, that it represented a majority of the production and maintenance
employees at the lead mines and mills. On August 25th it filed its petition for
certification as the exclusive bargaining representative with the Regional Office
of the Board, pursuant to which the election was conducted on December 9, 1943,
and the Union was certified. Following that, in December, negotiations began
for a collective bargaining agreement and extended to March 13, 1944, when an
agreement was executed.35 There was no evidence that the agreement was being
violated in its specific provisions, and there was evidence that grievances were
being adjusted under its terms.
22 Later, on cross-examination, he testified that Arnold! "was the one man I heard had
made the statement they had not made the application," but did not recall who reported
this to hint. When asked what other steps were taken to inform employees that the
application had been made, other than speaking to Arnold!, he said "The statement was
signed by our president, stating so. It wasn't necessary ", but that he did believe there
was special cause to speak to Arnoldi. Further details of this incident are recounted
later, in the events leading up to the dischaige of Wallace C. Snyder.
2i Substantially this same argument had been used in this division in January, 1943,
when machine shop foreman Schmidt asked Dempsey why the men were organizing a
union and told Dempsey he was wasting his time, "that the company had been good to the
men and continued to be, and it was useless to organize a union" Dempsey's testimony
in this respect was unrefuted, Schmidt not having been called as a witness
24 The Trial Examiner finds other incidents, described at the hearing, are not significant
or are not so material that they require a resolution of conflicting testimony, such as the
remarks attributed by Hawkins to Mine Captain Jinkerson in the forepart of 1942, saying
"We don't want the CIO here" , the remarks attributed by Calvert and Mabery to Foreman
Armon about August 1942, saying he "would not work a CIO man" when arguing whether
John L Lewis was president of the CIO ; the remarks attributed to Mine Inspector Aslinger
early in 1943 by Strausser, saying "this union, if it got in, the men that worked in the
special service . . like [your] dad would not have no job" ; the remarks attributed by
Spear to Foreman Hargis about the first of December 1943, saying "When the union gets
in the company will quit paying bonuses" ; the remarks attributed by Meadows to Chief
Clerk Meadows, his brother, at an unfixed date, saying "it would not be wise for me to be
a member because he didn't think that Mr Bain would like the idea" ; the conversation
between Gilman, and foreman Gilman, his brother, when described as all "pooched up," or
between him and Assistant Superintendent Turley, in September 1942, saying "Lavell said
the Independent union would be more preferable than the C. I. O. union" ; and other
incidents not alluded to in the text of this report nor in this footnote
25 Shortly after these negotiations began, the Respondents invited the Union to join in
its application to the National War Labor Board which had been filed on July 15, 1943,
and then was pending in the Regional Office, seeking authorization to grant a wage increase
to classifications of employees represented by the Union. The Union joined in the applica-
tion, and on February 28, 1944, the increase was authorized.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At about the date when the agreement was executed, shop steward James
Forrester had criticized some underground employees in the Desloge division for
working between 10: 30 and 11: 00 a. m., the period fixed in the contract for-
lunch. Obedient to the protest, these employees suspended work at 10: 30 on the
following day, which prompted the Mine Captain, Paul Jmkerson, to censure For-
rester for "shutting down" operations. Nevertheless, the lunch period was
observed thereafter at the hours fixed in the agreement This circumstance was
later discussed by the union grievance committee with Superintendent Bain, at
which time Bain said in substance if the union committeeman insisted on "hewing
to the line" in this respect, the Company in turn would hold the committeeman
"responsible for eight hours work for every nian underground " 26
In April, on an occasion when John Calvert and Clifford Strausser, electricians
in the Desloge division, were working, with their foreman, Lewis Armon,
Strausser contended that he should be receiving a higher pay rate, notwith-
standing his term of service had not made him eligible for the top rate under
the "merit increase" system of the Company. The argument became somewhat
heated, and Strausser supported his contention with Armon by alluding to terms
of the contract Armon responded by saying, the "contract wasn't worth the
paper it was written on."
In midsummer of 1944 John Surina, shop steward in the Leadwood division,
received a complaint from a machine operator, whose job had been given to
another man by Mine Captain Pettus. Surina considered this transfer contrary
to the job-bidding clause of the contract and inquired of Pettus concerning his
action, although he did not present the matter formally as a grievance. Pettus
asserted he had the right to do it, and Surina told him he thought he could not
"according to the book"-alluding to the contract which was published in book-
let form. Pettus, apparently as an impatient exclamation, denounced "the book"
and told Surina if he didn't get away from there Pettus would pull his whiskers
out. Surina then presented Pettus' action as a grievance to Superintendent
Bain, requesting Bain to have Pettus brought before the grievance committee,
which Bain refused. This matter remained unsettled at the time of the hearing.
In a previous instance however, when discipline was imposed on another work-
man for some infraction, Pettus counselled with Surina concerning the intended
discipline and did so with apparent deference to Surina's position as shop
steward.
C. Discrimination to discourage union membership
1. Otto Ratley
Otto Ratley was first employed by the Company in 1910, and worked until
1922, when he quit to engage in business for himself 27 He again entered the
Company's employ in March 1937 as a laborer, and worked in a variety of jobs,
such as steel work, pipe fitting, concrete finishing, plastering, and later as
carpenter. In September 1937 the Company established the Construction De-
partment with Dunlap as its supervisor. At that time Ratley was assigned to
this department where he worked until 1941, when he was transferred to the
26 The grievance committee at about this time presented to Bain as a grievance the surly
attitude of Mine Captain Jinkerson it the time of his refusal to discuss with Forrester and
another steward, Rawson, a matter which they attempted to adjust with him (luring
January, prior to the execution of the agi cement which fixed the grievance procedure.
At that time Jinkerson was under instructions from the Company, then engaged in
negotiating with the Union for the agreement, not to deal with any union representatives.
27 One enterprise was improving real estate, the construction work of which he did
personally and also through building contractors.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 457
mill repair gang under Buxton and continued there until the episode of January
1942, related above.
Following his transfer at that time back to the construction department,
Ratley continued there until he quit on June 12, 1943, working either in the
carpentry shop under Foreman Lawrence Maurer or on the construction gang
under Foreman Arch Ketcherside, both under the general supervision of Con-
struction Foreman Dunlap.
In the early spring of 1942 he joined the Union. and was selected to represent
the Construction Department as one of its organizing committee. Ratley helped
in the distribution of membership applications, enrolled numerous members,
attended the Union's meetings, and participated generally in its activities, during
both its "under cover" period and its open campaign.
Before he received his "merit increase" in the spring of 1942, referred to above,
Ratley asked Carl Davis, an employee in the personnel section, why he was not
entitled to a raise when other employees were granted them According to Ratley,
Davis told him, "you do anything that is to be done, and get the work done and
do it by yourself," and promised Ratley that he would "find out what is the
matter." Two or three hours later Davis reported to Ratley he was retarded
because of the incident with Buxton, in January. Several weeks later Ratley
received his "merit increase," which was his last raise in pay.
Ratley testified that more than half the time he was employed in his car-
pentry assignments as a lead man. According to Ratley, the first complaint he
received about his work was early in 1943, when Dunlap asked him if he knew
he was failing to give satisfaction,-"Wasn't making a hand," and told him his
foreman had made complaint against him. Thereafter, Dunlap found occasion
repeatedly to criticize him. In March when working at a sawmill, as related
above, Ratley said that Dunlap told him "You are not doing satisfactory work,
you are not doing your work," and said, "You know I was supposed to get on
you when Buxton got on Paul Black, but I neglected and hated to do it . . . I
am getting it off my chest now." On another occasion in April, according to
Ratley, when finishing several days' work in building ladders for which his
immediate foreman complimented his fast work, Dunlap criticized him "for
letting down on the job." Later, when building racks in the core house, which
required the shaping of lumber and entailed some loss of time, Dunlap told
Ratley he was "doing an awful lot of standing around," and said he had loafed
on a previous job when he had erected partitions for a core inspection room.
According to Ratley, he had not been criticized by any of his immediate foremen
during this period or at any other time.
In the latter part of May, Dunlap assigned Ratley to work on a dam construc-
tion job under Foreman George Gibbons, and then told Ratley if he did not make
good on that job he would be terminated, since all his foremen had complained
about this work. On the second day of that assignment Dunlap appeared at the
job and took Ratley off in his car, when he told him "Gibbons is complaining"
and said "Now, I know you could do it. I want you to get in there and work."
A few days later, according to Ratley, Dunlap said that Gibbons had made further
complaint that Ratley "wasn't making good," had done everything but the right
thing, to which Dunlap added that Gibbons was the last foreman he could put
Ratley under and he was going to classify Ratley as a "helpers RB Ratley re-
sponded, "What you want me to do is quit . . . Why don't you fire me?", and
quoted Dunlap as saying, "I ain't no fool ... No, I don't want you to quit,
28 It appears from Ratley's testimony, carpenters were classified either as "leaders" or
"helpers " Elsewhere he testified that on his first day on the dam construction job Fore-
man Gibbons told him "I am supposed to be the leader here and you are supposed to be the
helper fiere."
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I want you to get in and do your work ," and refused Ratley's proposal to talk
with Gibbons about the complaints supposedly made by him . Ratley testified
that during this last week of work , Dunlap censured him on three different
occasions.
Two days before he quit, Ratley requested Foreman Gibbons to tell Dunlap
that he would quit if given a release . Gibbons refused to request the release
or see Dunlap, saying "No, you go ahead and work . . . You are making a good
hand here , and to the devil with him; you just stay down here and work.s°'
Ratley told Gibbons, "No , it is too unsatisfactory, and I figure he has demoted
me ; he has put me out in this darned mud and water as a helper , and I don't
think I am very important ." " On Saturday , June 12, Ratley again requested
Gibbons to report to Dunlap his intention to quit, and again Gibbons attempted
to dissuade him. At the close of wo --k that day , Ratley told Dunlap he was
quitting , and asked him to arrange for his release.
On the following Monday, June 14, Ratley again saw Dunlap who sent him to
the personnel office to get his separation papers. Phillips , the personnel manager,
asked what had provoked him, told him he imagined his abuse ,°i offered to
investigate the situation , urged there was no need to quit, referred him to the
employment agent, Knowles , who offered to transfer Ratley to a job underground
as a railroad maintenance man, which Ratley refused with the explanation that
was not his trade.
After leaving the Company's employ, Ratley registered with the U . S. Employ-
ment Service . About 30 days thereafter , Ratley applied for a job with a construc-
tion contractor, Pullem, who had a contract job for laying brick and tile around
the Federal Mill building on the Company 's property . Pullem later notified
Ratley to come to work on a Monday morning , and exacted from him a promise
that he be there on that day to work with a mortar mixer employed to help
Ratley. When Ratley went to work on the appointed Monday, he was denied
entrance to the place of work, and was told by Phillips, personnel manager of
the Company , that Dunlap phoned him on the preceding evening and told him
that he did not w.int Batley to work there under Pullem Following this incident,
Batley sought work elsewhere , and did find some occasional employment.
Dunlap testified that he first had complaints about Ratley 's work before he
was assigned to the mill under Buxton in 1941, at the time Ratley was working
under Dunlap , but did not then discuss these complaints with Ratley. He
testified that he had consented to the transfer of Ratley to his department, in
January 1942 , after he satisfied himself that the Company had approved of
Ratley being reinstated.
Dunlap testified that the first instance thereafter when it came to his attention
that Ratley was not satisfactory , was when Ratley was assigned as a helper,
to construct a core inspection room at River Mine. He had had no complaint
about Ratley, but observed that the job did not progress satisfactorily. This
prompted his investigation and he learned that Ratley was visiting with em-
ployees there and leaving the work to be done by the other man assigned to
29 Earlier in his testimony Ratley quoted Gibbons on this occasion as saying, "No, you
ain't going to quit. You are making a good hand here. If he [Dunlap] comes back and
bothers you again, you let me know and I will tell him to keep his nose out of my business,
and if this job isn't suiting him he can put somebody else on it You stay right here on
the job."
80 Ratley was paid at his regular rate for work done that week and customarily received
the same rate of pay in instances when he was assigned as a leader.
"'when told he was imagining that he was being abused by Dunlap, he reminded Phillips
of an instance when he, Ratley, had reported to the personnel office Dunlap's efforts to
make his work "look bad," by assigning him to do a job without providing materials that
were required, and to corroborate his complaint in that instance Ratley had taken Phillips
to the job and had shown him the situation.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 459
the job, Flannery. He said he corrected this situation, by taking " Flannery
off the job and gave Ratley a helper . . . made him [Ratley] responsible . . .
and we got the job done." He said Ratley worked better as a lead man, and
occasionally would be assigned as a lead man, but that he "didn't make a very
good subordinate . . . left the job rather frequently and talked to everyone
that he could find to talk to." He stated that Ketcherside, construction gang
foreman, complained about Ratley "about a half a dozen times ... from the
time he came back from the mill until he went to Gibbons .," although
Dunlap could recall no specific instance of such complaint a. He testified that
Maurer, carpenter shop foreman, complained several times, and recalled one
instance "on the form job for that addition to the Federal machine shop. . . .
Estes [a carpenter] complained to Maurer and Maurer spoke to me about it"
in the spring of 1943. He added that Maurer complained to him "practically
every time I asked him how Ratley was getting along" ; and said he was
prompted to make those inquiries because "I was suspicious of him ; after a
man falls down in one department he usually falls down in the next one";
and explained his suspicions were first aroused "before Ratley went to the
mill, he was failing before he went to the mill in 1941."
Dunlap testified, however, that the first time he talked with Ratley about his
work was in the spring of 1943, after Maurer made the complaint concerning
Ratley's work with Estes on the form job in the machine shop. He said he
had no recollection of the instance in March, described by Ratley, when "he was
supposed to get on him." He did recall Ratley' s assignment to build ladders,
and said "those ladders were built in record time" by Ratley and Estes "who
made Ratley put out on that ladder manufacturing job." He did not recall
having criticized Ratley then
He admitted having told Ratley, before assigning him to the dam construction
job, that he would terminate his service with the construction department if
he did not make good, "because he had to make good and we were giving him
the last chance." With reference to Ratley's work on this job Dunlap testified
"I drove down there one morning and I asked Gibbons how the job was going,
and he complained that Ratley was not making a hand down there . . . the
following day . . . I picked Ratley up in the car .'. . and I told him that
George had complained that he was not making a hand down there . . ." With
reference to the subsequent occasions described by Ratley, Dunlap said "I be-
lieve that there was only one conversation with him" the one when he picked
up Ratley in his car. He denied that he had said to Ratley that he was "not
a fool," when according to Ratley the latter asked why Dunlap did not fire him.
He denied that Ratley talked with him at all on Saturday, June 12, and said
he first learned that Ratley had quit on Monday morning , June 14th. He said
Ratley's period of employment on the dam construction job was from ten days
to two weeks.
With reference to the contract work of Pullem, Dunlap testified that Pullem
"came to me one morning and wanted to know about putting Ratley to work on
the job, and I told him I didn't want him." 33 He explained his disapproval of
Ratley "because Pullem was operating on a more or less cost-plus basis, and
I knew Ratley would not work and there wasn't any use of running up the expense
of the job," although testifying he did not know what Ratley was hired to do 04
s% Ketcherside was not called as a witness.
33 In locating the place of this fob, Dunlap said "our men were right with Pullem's
men, building scaffolding and things of that sort."
It Ratley testified that he read the contract between Pullem and the Company, and that
it provided for payment to Pullem at a fixed price per hundred for tile and per thousand
for brick laid.
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foreman Maurer, called as a witness by the Board, testified that Ratley had
worked for him before being assigned to the dam construction job, and that he
considered him an "average worker,"' and had made such report to Dunlap.
He said he had had only one occasion to complain to Dunlap about Ratley's
work, alluding to the occasion when Estes reported that Ratley was "loafing on
the job, and he had all the work to do."
Foreman Gibbons, called as a witness by the Board, testified that Ratley worked
for him on the dam construction job, and in shaft work, and that he "made a
good hand." 36 He testified that he had not volunteered a complaint about Ratley.'s
work at any time, but said that on the second clay of the dam construction job
he was called into Dunlap's office, when Dunlap asked him how "everything was
going." Gibbons asked if he meant the equipment, and Dunlap said "no, I mean
personnel," and then asked particularly about Ratley, to which Gibbons replied,
"Oh, there is room for improvement for all of us " He testified he made no
specific criticism other than this remark In his testimony he explained that on
"the first day he [Ratley] seemed to think there was a controversy or hard
feeling for him. He seemed to think I had it in for him . . He did not do much
the first day of anything" He testified that a few days later he reported to
his superior "he [Ratley] was now doing good work, and should be left alone,"
and stated, "he stayed on the job and made a good hand on that particular job."
He recalled, rather indefinitely, that Ratley told him he intended to quit, but
did not tell him for what reason The dam construction job continued after
Ratley quit, and some work was being done on it at the time of the heating
The Trial Examiner, upon his observations of Ratley and Dunlap and upon
consideration of their testimony, is unable to accord full credence to either of
them Ratley sometimes was vague in fixing the time and sequence of events,
was confusing by assigning the same detail to more than one incident, and was
prone to be argumentative instead of giving objective descriptions of what oc-
curred. Dunlap's testimony, while definite, in parts was discredited by inherent
inconsistencies and was contrary to other corroborated circumstances, and also
lacked that candor that accredits an intelligent witness Upon his appraisal of
all the evidence, the Trial Examiner believes and finds that Ratley had been
considered an acceptable-workman prior to 1942, and that his work did not
deteriorate thereafter either in quality or in the measure of diligence given it;
that Ratley was prominently active in behalf of the Union, a fact known to
Dunlap n who admitted his close supervision prompted by "suspicions" of Ratley ;
that Dunlap's suspicions were not excited by the indolence he attributed to Ratley,
and which he exaggerated and used as a pretext for his repeated criticisms of
Ratley; that Dunlap misrepresented the number and nature of complaints he
received against Riley, and falsely informed Ratley of his defection with his
foremen
35 Both Maurer and Gibbons were called as witnesses in August 1943 before the Unemploy-
ment Compensation Commission of Missouri in a proceeding brought by Ratley against the
Company, when they gave testimony in about the same words concerning the quality of
Ratley's work Maurer retains his position with the Company as a salaried foreman, and
Gibbons retains his position as a shaft foreman paid on a daily rate Gibbons is a member
of the Union, and is covered by the Union's bargaining agreement
S" See the next preceding footnote.
34 Ratley testified ehen working at the core house in March or April, Dunlap told him he
was "too busy organizing" and "handing-out" union cards On cross-examination he
admitted that Dunlap alluded to such activity on'company time, but contended Dunlap had
no opportunity to observe such activity on the core house job because his visits there were
short and infrequent Dunlap did not testify to any of his-criticisms being prompted by
Ratley's violation of the no-solicitation rule, if such occurred If that was Ratley ' s offen-
sive conduct , causing the harrassing treatment , Dunlap did not reveal it and the Company'
failed to urge it.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY
2. Wallace C. Snyder
461
Snyder entered the employ of the Company on February 22, 1943, as a stock clerk
in the supply house located above ground in the Desloge division. His immediate
foreman in the supply house was C P. Hill, Jr., working directly under Oscar
Meadows, chief clerk and assistant employment manager of the Desloge division.
Snyder's principal work was to issue supplies when requisitioned.38 He was one
of four stock clerks, until one was inducted in the military service, after which
Snyder and the other two did the work formerly done by the four. His work was
satisfactory, enough so that Meadows and Bain spoke well of it at the time of
Snyder's discharge.
Snyder joined the Union in April 1943, helped in soliciting members, attended
its meetings, and on one occasion raised the question whether stock clerks would
be included in the bargaining unit to be petitioned for.
On August 3, 1943, the Company's president issued the notice to the employees
of the Company and its subsidiaries, relating to its application to the War Labor
Beard for authority to increase wages, alluding to the employees' rights in joining
a union, and declaring the Company would never agree to a closed shop 39 On
that day Meadows brought a copy into the supply house and gave it to Hill,
Snyder's foreman, who in turn directed Snyder to post it there Reading it at that
moment, ShIder commented to Hill on the assertions contained therein, and told
his foreman that he was a member of the Union.
Prior to this time there had been talk among the employees concerning the
reported action of the Company in making application to the War Labor Board
for authority to increase their wages to a level equal to wages paid employees
in the Company's Herculaneum plant. Snyder testified, "We were hearing from
down at the union hall that the application had not yet been made." Crane's
notice caused further speculation on the part of some of the union members, and
was discussed between Snyder and Rubert Arnoldi, Desloge electrician, as they
rode home from a union meeting Arnoldi then was chairman of the legislative
committee of the Union, and later became its president. He and Arnoldi decided
to satisfy themselves on the matter, and Snyder wrote a letter to the War Labor
Board to ascertain if the application had been filed. Before mailing it he showed
the letter, dated August 18, 1943, to Arnoldi 40
Shortly thereafter, Claude Mabery, an electrician who worked in the shop with
Arnoldi, overheard a conversation between Mechanical Foreman Welland and
employee Waller concerning the notice that Crane had issued. A few minutes
later, according to Mabery, when he was talking with Foreman Welland, he told
Welland that "Mr. Arnoldi had told me that Mr Snyder had written a letter to
the War Labor Board to find out if the petition had been filed with the War Labor
38 Other duties required him to go to the places of various operations above ground, at
times in delivering supplies, in attending to the maintenance and replacement of miner's
lamps kept in the change house, in making a monthly inventory of certain supplies that
were stored near their place of use to avoid unnecessary handling.
30 It is set forth in footnote 21, above.
90 Snyder's letter was acknowledged on August 28 by the National War Labor Board,
which referred it to the Non-Ferrous Metals Commission of that Board in Denver, Colorado,
which in turn responded on September 3, saying, the " . Company sent copies of appli-
cations to S M Thompson, Industry Member of the Non-Ferrous Metals Commission
This office studied the transmittal letter signed by L T Sicka [General Manager] and
concluded the copies of applications were for the information of the Commission and were
not to be processed Accordingly, on July 27th we wrote Mr Sicka to this effect advising
him that we assumed the original copies of the applications were being filed nnith the Wage
and flour office. Department of Labor, and that they would he transmitted to the Regional
Office of the War Labor Board at Kansas City foi action . . Snyder testified he
received this letter on September 7, 2 days before his discharge
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board." He testified that Welland "started questioning me about it, and I told
him that he could find out about it from Mr. Arnold! , as Mr. Arnold! was sitting
about 8 or 10 feet from us ... So he told me he didn 't have time ..." 44
A few minutes later, Division Superintendent Bain, accompanied by Arnoldi's
immediate foremen and two other foremen, came into the electric shop where
Arnoldi was working.42 As related above, Bain led Arnoldi into the machine shop
to the bulletin board, asked him about the clipping that was there, reprimanded
Arnoldi for asserted violations of the Company's rule against discussing union
business on the job, alluded to President Crane's notice, and warned him that fur-
ther comments about it would be considered "as agitation."
As noted above, on August 25, the Union filed its petition for certification as
representative in the regional office of the Board, in St. Louis. Shortly thereafter
a conference was held in the regional office, in connection with this petition,
attended "by representatives of the Union and the Company. The Company did
not have with it at this conference data which the Board requested, relating to
the number of men employed in various operations. The Union undertook to
secure this information through its miembers 43 Its committeeman from the
Desloge division, Charles Adams, asked Snyder to get the number of employees
working above ground and below ground in that division. On Saturday, Septem-
ber 4, Snyder asked Carl French, a timekeeping clerk who then worked in the
Desloge division office, to give him the total number of men who worked in that
division. French said he did not know the figure, and suggested that Snyder ask
Dailey Goforth, an accounting clerk in the Desloge office who previously had been
a stock clerk in the supply house.44 Snyder then went to Goforth who told him
he did not have the information, but that he could get it from the number of time-
cards in the card racks 46
Snyder testified he followed this suggestion, and immediately thereafter went
to the card racks and got the total number of men working in the mill, shop, and
underground, by counting the card places in the rack and estimating the approxi-
mate number. He said he turned this information over to the Union on Saturday
evening. The Trial Examiner finds, on considering the mutual corroboration of
Snyder and French, the subsequent undisputed action of Snyder being consistent
with his version of Goforth's statement, and an undenied incident 98 in which
Goforth attempted at that time to shield Snyder, that Goforth did refer Snyder
41 Welland, called as a witness , testified he did not recall this incident , although he did
have occasional conversations with Mabery in the course of his work He did not recall
any conversation concerning Crane ' s notice , nor that he was told of Arnoldi's statement
concerning the inquiry made, nor that Snyder was the author of the letter.
42 Mabery corroborates Arnold! with reference to this incident
11 The evidence is clear that the Union sought the information at the request of a Board
agent , the evidence will not permit the inference that the Company wilfully refused to
produce the data , nor that Snyder 's subsequent discharge was a reprisal because he sought
that which the Company had refused.
44 French, later called as a witness by the Board , fully corroborated Snyder in his
account of this incident.
45 Goforth , called later as a witness by Respondents , confirmed that Snyder had asked
him for the number of employees , but stated " I told him I didn't know , and the informa-
tion-I had been told not to let out any information in here, " and later said it was
"because the information was supposed to be kept within the office." Snyder , when recalled,
testified that Goforth made no such statement to him, but on the contrary Goforth told him
the number of persons employed as telephone operators , watchmen , and in special services
in what was considered general work , and referred him to the card racks in the mill, shop,
and changing room for those working underground , to get the number of Pmplovees in
those operations
40 Snyder testified , without refutation , that on Wednesday at noon Goforth came and
told Snyder that Oscar Meadows had questioned him concerning his conversation with
Snyder on Saturday , and he told Meadows that Snyder "wanted him to go on a squirrel
hunting trip."
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 463
to the card racks for his requested information and did not tell Shyder he was
prohibited from giving out such information.
Snyder testified that on the following Tuesday, when going to work he was told
by Charley Adams that the Union was required to report to the Board 's Regional
Office the number of men in the various underground operations , and he suggested
to Snyder that he might get this information from Ben Weitzel , an accounting
clerk in the Desloge office who had expressed interest in being included in the
bargaining unit Late that afternoon Snyder went up to where Weitzel worked
in the office of the mine superintendent , and asked him how many men worked
in various underground operations . According to Snyder , Weitzel responded
by telling him the number that worked in the drift , and in the stopes , when their
conversation was interrupted by the approach of the safety engineer . Snyder
testified that Weitzel then told him he would give Snyder the information that
evening or the next morning , whereupon Snyder told him he would have Adams
get it from him that evening , since the information was wanted at a union meet-
ing that night . He testified further that he did not get to see Adams to make
this arrangement , nor did he see Weitzel that night As noted above, on that
evening Snyder received an answer to his letter to the War Labor Board. Accord-
ing to Snyder , when Weitzel passed the supply house on the nett day Snyder asked
for the information , at which time Weitzel said, "I am afraid to give it to you,
Wallace. I am afraid I will get in trouble ." Snyder told him then, "If you think
it will get you in tioub e we do not want it," and told him to let it go At noon
that day, as noted above , Goforth told Snyder that Oscar Meadows, the chief clerk
on that morning had questioned him about their conversation on Saturday. Dur-
ing the afternoon Snyder saw Superintendent Bain at the Desloge division, and
for the first time saw him down in the supply house.
Weitzel was called as a witness by the Board. He testified to having had two
conversations with Snyder before his discharge , when Snyder sought information
about the number of men employed underground at Desloge . Weitzel fixed the
first conversation as having occurred near the supply house , " two or three or four
weeks" before another that occurred in his office . He said in the,first conversa-
tion, Snyder told him "he wanted the number of men that were on the mine pay
roll and the breakdown of them by departments ," in response to which Weitzel
said, "I would see him later ." With reference to the second conversation,' he
said Snyder "asked the number of men in the mine organization and how they
were broken down by departments . I started to give it to him and then I decided
I wasn ' t supposed to and I didn ' t. With reference to this last statement, he later
testified , "I was going to, but I don ' t remember exactly whether I said a word
about anything or whether I didn ' t. I don ' t believe that I did " He did not recall
whether he told Snyder why he was refusing to give him the information, but he
said he refused to do so because he then remembered a general instruction he had
received from Oscar Meadows 15 years before to the effect that "everything in
the office was confidential , meaning mostly everything in the office ." He said
that afterwards-he was not sure whether it was the same day-he went to Oscar
Meadows ' office and told him that Snyder had been seeking this information. He
did not remember what Meadows said in response . Following that, and before
Snyder 's discharge which occurred on Thursday , September 9, he was called
to Meadows ' office where he related to both Bain and Meadows what he previously
had told the latter. Noting the nervous and confused manner of this witness
when testifying and his vague and unconvincing testimony, the Trial Examiner
does not credit any part of it that is inconsistent with the straightforward and
credible account given by Snyder , who was consistent in detailing what happened
through extended and repeated cross-examination.
"Weitzel said it occurred during the afternoon , but lie could not fix the day.
679100-46-vol. 65--31
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oscar Meadows, the chief clerk, called by the Company as a witness, testified
that Weitzel told him of Snyder's inquiry, whereupon Meadows interrogated
other clerks and was told by French and Goforth that Snyder had asked them
about the matter. Meadows said the information requested by Snyder was
confidential, and that he had given each of his clerks specific instructions when
each was hired, not to betray any information they learned in the office He said
Goforth told him 's that he had refused to disclose to Snyder the information
requested, explaining to Snyder that he had been instructed to keep office
information confidential and would not furnish it to him Meadows testified
that Superintendent Bain was at Desloge the day he talked with Weitzel, French,
and Goforth, and about midafternoon he told Bain what he had learned from
the three clerks. He said he had not inquired of the clerks for what purpose
Snyder had sought this information, and that Bain did not ask him the purpose
for which Snyder wanted it, that they considered only that the information
sought was confidential' He testified, in talking with Bain there was no
allusion to Snyder's activities in the Union, and that he knew nothing about
Snyder's activities. He said that neither he nor Bain tried to see Snyder that
day, but that Bain said he would think the matter over and talk with Meadows
on the following morning.
On the following morning, Thursday, Bain returned to the Desloge division
office, and questioned the three clerks to confirm what they had told Meadows.
Bain testified, concerning Snyder, "he had made four attempts to obtain some
information to which he was not entitled, two of those attempts were made after
he had been told by one of our employees that the information was confidential
[alluding to what Goforth had said]. I asked Mr. Meadows to call him over
to the office." Bain testified, "It has been one of the unwritten rules of the Com-
pany that anyone that was guilty of trying to obtain or give confidential informa-
tion would be no longer in our employ."' There was no evidence that the
"unwritten" rule against, trying to obtain information, in contrast to the instruc-
tions given clerks against giving out such information, was ever announced ; and
Bain testified he knew of no instructions being given to anyone other than clerks
in the division office. Snyder, in his testimony, stated he had never been so
instructed, and knew of no rule against making inquiry concerning employment
data.
Bain said he understood the information sought by Snyder to be "the total
number of men in the mine, broken down by job classifications into various depart-
ments underground " Bain characterized this as "confidential information,"
and said that Snyder "was trying to get some information we kept in the vault,
and the vaults are closed," and explained further "that data was part of the
record of the St. Joseph Lead Company and was not for publication," and "we
have all been instructed that even the smallest article written regarding St.
Joseph Lead Company's affairs is transmitted through the central office for
approval before publication." He described at length the restraints imposed
by the Plant Security Division of the War Department, applicable to the Com-
pany's operations, but failed to disclose that any of these regulations had appli-
cation to divulging the number of men engaged in mining operations. He said
he saw no possibility of sabotage in having this information disclosed When
9e Goforth did not testify that he told Meadows this
as Bain later testified it would have made no difference to him if he had known the
purpose for which the information was wanted
5° He was then asked by Company' s counsel , "Are you acquainted with any rule applying
to clerical employees with reference to confidential information ^ ' to which he replied.
"I am and I so instructed Mr. Meadows to give those instructions to his new clerks . . .
that the Company 's information and figures are confidential."
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 465
asked by the Trial Examiner what there was in the nature of the information
that made it confidential, his answer was "only that it was the St. Joseph Lead
Company's policy, and it is open to any authorized person." 6'
On that same morning, September 9, Snyder was called to Meadows' office, where
he met Bain personally for the first time. According to Snyder, Bain said to
him, "I called you up here to tell you we are going to let you go for attempting to
secure confidential information." Snyder answered by saying he regretted to
hear he was going to lose his job. After a moment's silence, according to Snyder,
Bain said , "Well, Snyder, don't you want to deny it," to which Snyder responded,
saying, "No, sir." This concluded his employment. He testified that Bain dill
not state explicitly what was meant by "confidential information," and that he
inferred it had, reference either to his efforts to ascertain whether the Company
had filed its application with the War Labor Board, or to his efforts to learn the
number of employees working in various operations at Desloge. He explained it
involved in each instance his dealings with other employees who were his friends,
and he was reluctant to implicate any of these people in his predicament. He
said he did not ask Bain to be explicit.
Meadows recounted the incident with the same detail described by Snyder, and
quoted Bain in saying, "We have information or reports that you have attempted
to secure confidential office information, and we will have to discharge you if this
is true."
Bain, testifying to this event, said, "I told Snyder that I had been informed
and I had verified personally the statement that he had sought confidential pay
roll information of the Company, and that if it was true I was going to have to
discharge him. I said, 'Is it true?' He said, 'yes.' He said 'but I didn't get the
information.s12 Bain testified it was his recollection that he specifically men-
tioned to Snyder that his offense was in seeking "payroll information" that was
confidential. Snyder, later called again as a witness, stated positively that Bain
did not specify the allegedly confidential information related to "payroll" data,
and at no time did Snyder remark to Bain that he had sought such information
but failed to get it.
Snyder was a credible, dependable, and accurate witness Insofar as there
is a conflict between his testimony and that of Bain, Snyder is corroborated by
Meadows. The Trial Examiner finds the occurrences were as related by Snyder ;
that Snyder violated no preexisting rule; that the previous instructions were a
restraint upon office clerks divulging information, and that this instruction was ,
not given to clerks in the supply house and was unknown to Snyder; that Bain's
explanation of company practices in releasing information had reference to di--
closures to the public, instead of to its employees, and related to matters of a
different character than the number of employees which ordinarily would'be
61 At the conclusion of the hearing the Trial Examiner Invited the Company to discuss
in its brief what made such information confidential , and in response it cited this answer
of Bain. The Company's brief states, "The Company has for years given instructions to
its office employees that all office information is considered to be confidential to the Com-
pany and that no information can be given out by any employee until clearance is had
through the central ofnce. This absolute rule applies to the most trivial as well as the
most important fact relating to the Company' s business . Violation of this rule subjects
the guilty employee to discharge."
5' Both Snyder and Meadows quoted Bain, in this remaik , as saying he would rather see
Snyder cart away a truck load of strategic supplies than to get information that was
confidential. Bain testified, however, that he said, "You have proven to me that you are
unworthy of trust in the position, and as far as your not getting the information, you
would be just as guilty as if you were loading your car with copper wire and we caught you
before you left the plant."
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commonly known or easily ascertainable by employees ; that such information
was not of the nature of a trade secret or data to be used in collective bargaining,
nor was its use likely to endanger the legitimate interests of the Company ; that
the professed "confidential" nature of the information was attributed it to give
an appearance of justification for the Company's actions; that the Company knew
the Union had an interest in securing the information, knew the purpose for
which Snyder sought it, aild knew he was acting in behalf of the Union in seeking
it; that it feigned a lack of knowledge and a lack of interest in the purposes for
which the information was sought ; and that it fixed upon Snyder's efforts to get
this information as a pretext for discharging him. '
D Findings in conclusion
The treatment of Otto Ratley, from early 1943 until he quit, was in marked
contrast to that which preceded 1943 Dunlap's assigned reasons for such treat-
ment, that Ratley was inefficient and indolent, is discredited by his own admis-
sions as to Batley's capabilities in his work and also by lack of corroboration of
the complaints against Ratley. On the contrary, the immediate foremen found
him to be an acceptable workman. Dunlap failed to substantiate such difference
in Ratley's conduct that would warrant the difterence in conditions of supervision
imposed upon him. Examined in relation to other events and Ratley's known
union activity, the asserted indolence of Ratley is found to be only a pretext and
a sham. Dunlap's attitude toward any concerted action of workmen was revealed
in his reproach to Ratley in January 1942, after which Dunlap was instructed by
his division superintendent not to comment on the men's efforts to organize ;
with the emergence of the open union campaign early in 1943, Dunlap found his
first occasion to censure Ratley ; thereafter he maintained close supervision over
Batley, engaged in repeated and unfounded criticisms of his work, and assigned
him to the dam construction job on "his last chance" ; the counterfeit of his criti-
cisms was transparent when in March he disclosed his action was the counterpart
of Buxton's efforts to curb Black; his true motive to restrain Ratley's union
activity is verified when he prevented Ratley's employment by Pullem 6' at a place
where he would have personal contact with other company employees.
Ratley quit on June 12, 1943 He discredited Superintendent Dunlap's pro-
fessed desire that he not quit, he disregaided the protestation of Foreman
Gibbons that he not quit, ignore Dunlap, and be content with his employment;
he:_discountenanced the efforts of Personnel Manager Phillips to dissuade him
from quitting and to persuade him instead to take a job in another branch of
,the Company's operations.
The Trial IExanriiner finds the close and critical supervision of Batley was a
change in th'e conditions of his employment, and was imposed to discourage his
activities in behalf of the Union and to discourage union membership generally.
Ratley was not ,discharged but, following his discriminatory ti eatment, and
Irritated and impelled by it, he quit" The Company, by its treatment of Ratley,
disc'riminnted in regard 'to the conditions of his employment, and thereby dis-
6,
The complaint' does not allege either blacklisting or discriminatory refusal of hire
through compulsions on Pullem Although there is sufficient evidence to raise such
inference, it cannot be said that such issue was fully developed by the evidence Cf Phelps
Dodge Corporation, 19'N L R B 547, enforced Phelps Dodge Corporation v N L. R B.,
313 T1 S 177
w An inference that Ratley considered that he quit without compulsion, can be drawn
tiom the fact that he first presented his case to the Board's Regional Office about a year
after he quit This was 4 monUii. after the charge in behalf of Snyder was filed by the
Union
J
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 467
couraged membership in a labor organization, and interfered' with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in,
Section 7 of the Act. Having found the Company did discriminate against Ratley
in this manner, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to
Ratley is denied
The discharge of'Wallace C. Snyder came at the tension point when Super-
intendent Bain considered the Union's persistent questioning of the Company's
wage policy as "agitation," and when the Union had instituted a representation
proceeding for the purpose of establishing its right as bargaining agent The
Company's course of conduct had been calculated to avert unionization of its
employees Snyder's action in trying to secure the required employment data
focused on him the resentment against the increasing threat of the Union's
success. The clerical staff, serving as infoi mers. were fully aware that Snyder
souglit the information for the Union; and the Company revealed its knowledge
of his purpose by its inexplicable failure to question hire concerning his motives.
Bain fixed upon the pretext cs of the "confidential" character of the information;
and an asserted violation of an inapplicable rule, to remove a union agent and
to curl) further union support The Trial Examiner finds the Company dis-
charged Wallace C Snyder on September 9, 17-13, to discourage union member-
ship and activity, and thereby discriminated with regard to his tenure of employ-
ment, and interfered with, restiamed, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of thew rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act Its motion to dismiss the
complaint with respect to Snyder is denied
The Trial Examiner finds that the Company manifested to its employees its
opposition to the Union, by imposing restraints on the employees' discussions of
union matters while at work and by prohibiting them from posting or distributing
ummon literature after the Union began its open campaign early in 1043, in contrast
to its indifference to such activities in behalf of the Independent and the Victory
Club at the time when the Union's activities were seemingly ineffectual. Although
not finding this in itself to be an unfair labor practice, this disparate treatment
in the critical stage of the Union's campaign did emphasize and implement other
practices of the Company which are found to have been unfair labor practices.
The Trial Examiner finds that the Company demonstrated its antagonism toward'
concerted action of its employees, and restrained them in their exercise of this
right, by reprimanding and threatening a reprisal against Batley for,acting as a
n
63 There is no evidence that the number of its employees previously had been declared
"confidential " Regardless , this is data ( to be distinguished in its character from that
used in bargaining negotiations ) which employees comprising a union have a right to
ascertain Without it they are unable to determine for themselves whether a statutory
exclusive bargaining agent has been designated. Section 9 ( a) of the Act If the Trial
Examiner credited the Company ' s version , that this information was considered confiden-
tial by the Company and the discovery ( or the effort to discover ) such information moti-
vated the discharge , then the Trial Examiner would still find that Snyder ' s discharge was
discriminatory tinder these circumstances Having found the, Company knew the informa-
tion was sought for proper union purposes , the Company could not privilege either its
refusal of the information or its discharge of an employee for seeking it on its decision
that the data was "confidential ," to thinly disguise the Company ' s purpose of interfering
with employees ' rights, or otherwise deny them access to facts which determines whether
its employees have attained the right to bargain through their union The contrary
holding would tend to encourage a type of labor dispute on the question of representation,
which the declared policy of the Act seeks to avoid If on the other hand, the Company
rested its discharge on the method Snyder used in trying to get the information, 1 e,
direct inquiry of office clerks ( a reasonable means as viewed by an employee who was not
apprised of company rules ), then the Trial Examiner believes the discipline to he dispro-
portionate to the offense , and would find the extreme penalty of discharge was discrimina-
tory when related to the Company ' s manifest opposition to the Union
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leader of such concerted action in January 1942; that the effect of this unfair
labor practice was not fully dissipated by his reemployment , in view of the
immediate reproach and subsequent treatment of Ratley ; and further finds that
the scattered and unrelated incidents in the latter part of 1942 are without
significance , except in disclosing the normal practices with which those of 1943
were in contrast ; and further finds that the Company engaged in a course of
conduct to restrain its employees from joining the Union and supporting its
activities ( a) by the discharge of Snyder and the treatment of Ratley set out
above, ( b) by Buston 's changed attitude toward Black after he failed tocteinpt
Black in his union loyalty with the lure of a better job, with more critical stand-
ards for his work, vigilant supervision of his conduct , and unwarranted reproval
of his behavior, (c) by disparaging the Union in attributing to it a purpose to
exact high initiation fees, postulated in Crane's widely publicized question-and-
answer policy statement which manifested the preference for no union in an
abstruse declaration of employees ' right to organize , when such statement would
he interpreted by its employees in the light of unfair labor practices in which the
Company then was engaging , ( d) by disparaging the benefits to be derived from
union representation , ( e) by intimating to Hobaugh and others that their jobs
were endangered if they supported the Union , ( f) and by warning Arnoldi against
any further discussion of a matter of legitimate interest to the Union It thereby
.interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The Trial Examiner finds no substantial evidence to support the specification
in the complaint that the Company discredited its collective bargaining agree-
ment with the Union, nor the specification that the Company promoted, aided
or assisted the United Victory Club in opposition to the Union . These allegations
are specifications of fact under the general allegation that the Company inter-
fered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8, para-
graph 1, of the Act, which is found to be sustained by substantial evidence in
other respects . The Company ' s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
is deified , but these allegations in the complaint should be dismissed`,
The Trial Examiner finds no evidence to support the complaint with reference
to Mine Lamotte Corporation , and the Corporation ' s motion to dismiss the com-
plaint in its entirety with reference to it, is granted 67
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in Section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in Section I, above , have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
' The Company contends in its brief that in widespread operations the occurrence of
isolated instances of anti-union remarks fails to sustain the accusation that the Company
is engaged in unfair labor practices This argument loses its force , however , when those
instances occur contemporaneous with persistent unfair labor practices , as in the treat-
ment of Ratley and Black , and those having continuing effect, as in the discharge of
Snyder Particularly because of the latter, the Company cannot justly claim either exon-
eration for these former practices , or condonation of them because of now according the
Union recognition through existing bargaining relations
"Cf. The Press Company , Inc. v N L. R. B., 118 F. ( 2d) 937; Matter of National
Linen Service Corp., United Linev Supply Co , Linen Service Corporation of Texas,
451N L. R. B. 171; Matter of Ronrico Corporation and Puerto Rico Distilling Company,
53 N L. R. B. 1137.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
469
Since it has been found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since also it has been found that the Company discriminated in regard to the
conditions of employment of Otto Ratley, to discourage union membership , it will
be recommended that it desist from this discriminatory treatment of its employees.
Recognizing that the effect of such discrimination will tend to decimate the sup-
port of the Union, by inducing employees to quit, as in the case of Ratley , it will
be recommended that upon his application the Company shall reinstate Ratley to
his former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
suffer following any such application , by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of such
application to the date of the Company's offer of reinstatement , less his net earn-
ings during such period.
Likewise , since it has been found that the Company discriminated in regard to
the tenure of employment of Wallace C. Snyder, it will be recommended that
the Company offer him immediate and full reinstatement unconditionally to his
former or substantially equivalent position ,' without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights or privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay he has suf-
fered by reason of such discrimination , by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his
discharge , September 9, 1943, to the date of the Company's offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings ' during such period.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned make the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAw
1. International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, C. I. 0., and its Local
Union 648, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section (2) (5) of the
Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the conditions of employment of Otto Ratley,
and by discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Wallace C. Sny-
der, to discourage membership in the International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, C. I. O. and its Local Union 648, the Company has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Corporation has not engaged in any unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
5913v "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
whcie than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Biotlierhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R. B 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects
shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L R. B.; 311 U. S. 7.
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the St. Joseph
Lead Company, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Aline, Mill and Smelter
Workers, C. I 0., and its Local Union 648, or in any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,
C I 0, and its Local Union 648, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Otto Ratley and Wallace C. Snyder, the former upon his application
and the latter unconditionally, immediate and full reinstatement, each to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Otto Ratley and Wallace C Snyder for any loss of pay each
may have suffered by reason of the Company's discrimination in regard to him,
by payment to Ratley of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned from the date when he first has made application for reinstatement
to the (late of the Company's offer of reinstatement, and by payment to Snyder
of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned from
September 9, 1943, the date of his discharge, to the (late of the Company's offer
of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during such period, as prescribed
above;
(c) Post in its mines and mills in St Francois County, Missouri, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A "• Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, after being signed
by the Company's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon the
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. , Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
Company has taken to comply herewith
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten' (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Company notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Company to take the action
aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint against Mine La\Iotte Corpora-
tion be dismissed in its entirety, and against St Joseph Lead Company be dis-
missed in the allegations relating (a) to its discrediting the Union's agreement
and (b ) to its assisting the Victory Club in opposing the Union.
ST. JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY 471
As provided in Section 33 of Article 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1914,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to, any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement or exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy
thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to
the Board.
MELTON BOYD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 28, 1945
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to joint or assist International Union of Mane, Mill & Smelter Workers,
C. I O. and Local Union 648 of the same or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and fnake
them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Otto Ratley, upon his application ;
Wallace C Snyder, unconditionally.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
ST JOSEPH LEAD COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated-------------- By-----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE -Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material