The Warfield Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 58 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE WARFIELD COMPANY , A CORPORATION FORMERLY
]KNOWN AS THE THOMSON & TAYLOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 399, AND INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL No. T.
Case No. C-80.--Decided March 18, 1938
Spice, Coffee , Tea, and Chocolate Industry-Interference, Restraint and
Coercion-Discrimination: discharge-Units Appropriate for Collective Bargain-
mg: skilled : occupational differences ; history of collective bargaining relations ;
desires of employees as evidenced by separate union memberships-Re present a-
tives: proof of choice : membership in union-Collective Bargaining: refusal to
negotiate with representatives-Strike-Reinstatement Ordered: employee dis-
charged : upon application to employees who struck-Back Pay: awarded to
discharged employee.
Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board.
Cassels, Potter ct Bentley, by Mr. Robert B. Johnstone, of Chicago,
Ill., for the respondent.
Mr. Louis L. Jaffe and Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, of counsel to the
Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local No. 399, and International Brotherhood of Fire-
men and Oilers, Local No. 7, herein collectively called the Unions,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
L. W. Beman, Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago,
Illinois), duly issued and served its complaint dated February 27,
1936, against The Warfield Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called
the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On March 5, 1936, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
in which it denied that it had engaged in or was engaging in the
unfair labor practices alleged therein. The answer also incorporated
a motion to dismiss the complaint.
58
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 59
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Chicago, Illinois, com-
mencing on March 11, 1936, before Leon M. Despres, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondent were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. The parties were granted a reasonable period for oral
argument at the close of the hearing, and counsel for the Board
and the respondent argued their cases orally.
At the inception of the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the Act is unconstitutional in
various respects. The motion was denied, without prejudice to the
respondent's rights upon a continuance of the hearing. At the close
of a portion of the Board's case, the respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that no evidence had been introduced to
prove that the respondent was engaged in interstate commerce. The
motion was taken under advisement. At the close of the Board's
full case, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the evidence did not sustain the allegations of the
complaint. The motion was taken under advisement, and later denied
by the Trial Examiner. His rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 9, 1936, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
The respondent filed various exceptions to the Intermediate Report
which the Board has considered. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Warfield Company is an Illinois corporation organized on
'March 27, 1909. It was originally known as The Thomson and Tay-
lor Spice Company. On April 21, 1920, its name was changed to
The Thomson and Taylor Company, and on January 25, 1935, it
assumed its present name. Its plant, office, and principal place of
business are in Chicago, Illinois, where it employs 250 persons.
Through one of its divisions, known as the Sterling Glass Company,
it operates a bottle factory in Lapel, Indiana. It owns or operates
a few storage places throughout the United States, no one of which
houses more than $1,000 worth of merchandise.
60 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent cleans and grinds spices, roasts and grinds coffee,
manufactures cocoa, chocolate, glass bottles, and extracts, and han-
dles tea. It packages and sells all of its products.
Exclusive of coal and oil, almost all of the respondent's products
used at the Chicago plant come from points outside of the State of
Illinois. The respondent buys spices from foreign exporters, prin-
cipally through American brokers, obtaining black and white pep=
pers from Singapore, cinnamon from China, red pepper from Mom-
bassa, cloves from Zanzibar, coffee from South America and Java,
allspice from Jamaica, ginger from Jamaica and Africa, paprika
from Spain, sage and mustard seed from States other than Illinois
and from foreign countries, vanilla beans from certain French colo-
nies, lemon oil from Sicily, alcohol from Illinois and other States,
cocoa beans from South America and Africa, and tea from China and
Japan.
Spices are prepared for sale simply by mechanical cleaning, grind-
ing, and packaging. Coffee is roasted and, in part, ground and
packaged. Tea is sold in the original packages imported from
Japan or China. Flavoring extracts are manufactured from alcohol,
vanilla beans, lemon oil, and water. Cocoa is manufactured by,
grinding the cocoa bean and removing the cocoa butter. Chocolate
is manufactured by grinding the cocoa bean, adding cream, cocoa
butter flavoring, and sugar, and making the product into half
pound cakes or into chocolate coating. Sales of chocolate coating,
which is the product of substantially all of the respondent's choco-
late division, are made to candy manufacturers. Chocolate coating
is a partly fabricated product. Two per cent of the product of
the glass factory (or 15 carloads a year) is used by the respondent;
the balance is sold to processors and manufacturers. Sales of other
commodities are made to wholesalers, packers, and retailers. The
respondent employs 28 salesmen who travel throughout the United
States.
During the period from December 4, 1934, to December 3, 1935,
the respondent's total purchases, by bulk, amounted to 46,367,728
pounds, of which 44,060,074 pounds were purchased outside Illinois
and 2,307,654 pounds were purchased in Illinois. During the same
period the respondent sold 24,347,820 pounds of the products, of
which 9,537,803 pounds were sold outside the State and 14,810,017
pounds were sold within the State.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7,
and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, are
both labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 61
of Labor. Each Local admits to membership workers in their re-
spective craft employed by various employers in and about the
Chicago area. Local 399 also admits to membership chief engineers.
III. TAE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Harry M. Booth
After some preliminary experience in the field, Booth, who at the
time of the hearing was 31 years of age, was first employed by
the respondent on November 27, 1924, as a refrigerator engineer in the
powerhouse. While holding this position, he satisfactorily put the
refrigerator machine in shape under difficult circumstances. In 1926
or 1927, Booth was licensed as an engineer by the city authorities,
and on two separate occasions was placed in charge of the engine
room for three weeks. After August 1927, Booth was assistant chief
engineer and on December 29, 1933, upon the respondent's initiative
and after a formal letter of application from Booth, he was made
chief engineer.
Shortly after Booth's appointment as chief engineer, and partly
upon his advice, the respondent changed several boilers from oil
burners to coal burners, with a consequent large saving in fuel costs.
The coal burner salesman testified that Booth's operation of the
plant was satisfactory. The respondent introduced the testimony of
the chief and assistant consulting engineers, under whom the origi-
nal oil burners had been installed and inspected, to the effect that
Booth's services as chief engineer were unsatisfactory. The opinions
of the last two were admittedly based on their observation of the
neatness of the powerhouse and not on any scientific tests. The chief
consulting engineer admitted that he never communicated his opin-
ion to the respondent until a casual mention in a telephone conversa-
tion in July 1935. His silence seems strange when it is considered
that he had charge of spending the greater part of $80,000 for the
respondent and admittedly owed the respondent a duty to communi-
cate his opinion. From all the evidence, it appears that Booth's
services as chief engineer were satisfactory.
Although it appears that before Booth's discharge on July 13,
1935, the respondent had been considering for many months the em-
ployment of a highly experienced and trained engineer to act as
power adviser and supervisor to the chief engineer, its varied conten-
tions that Booth was unsatisfactory are completely nullified by its
letter of June 12, 1935, notifying Booth of an increase in wages from
$48 to $60 a week, due to excellent work in the power plant. Booth
was one of the highest paid employees in the plant and except for
one complaint concerning the employment of his assistant, Bott,
62 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whom Booth considered satisfactory, the respondent never made any
oral or written complaint to him.
In April 1935 the respondent effected a general wage cut of all
its employees earning more than $20 a week. This was the third
cut in four years. After receiving the last cut, all but three of the
powerhouse employees congregated in the engine room and ex-
pressed their general dissatisfaction. The men decided, with Booth's
agreement, to choose unions to represent them. By the end of June,
five of the powerhouse employees had joined International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, and six had joined Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399. Booth joined
the latter Local on June 12, 1935.
It appears that in 1933 the respondent's powerhouse employees
had discussed joining the Unions, but refrained from doing so after
being told by the then chief engineer that he had been instructed to,
discharge any employee who joined a union.
On June 1, 1935, after the men had joined, representatives of the
Unions visited the respondent's executives to negotiate with them
concerning wages, hours, and employment conditions. For the first
time, the respondent learned that the powerhouse employees had
joined the Unions. Following this conference Warfield, Sr., the re-
spondent's president, called Booth to his office on June 12, 1935, the
day on which Booth joined Local No. 399, and Booth admitted to him
that he belonged to Local No. 399. Warfield, Sr. said that he was
surprised to hear him make that statement; that he did not think
Booth would do that sort of thing; and that he thought Booth had
been underhanded. After considerable discussion Warfield, Sr. told
Booth to leave, and then said : "I thought I told you to get out of
this office. Get out of here and I don't care if I never see you
again." He had never spoken so violently to Booth before. On the
same day, Booth had a conversation of an hour and a half with Avery,
the respondent's vice president. Avery remonstrated with him for
joining a union. Booth explained that he wanted security of tenure
in case he wanted a job elsewhere. Avery assured him that the
respondent gave its employees security of tenure so long as they were
faithful and did their best. As we have noted above, in spite of these
altercations, the respondent notified Booth that he was being given
a raise in wages. Clearly his services must have been satisfactory to
the respondent.
On June 12, letters were sent also to every powerhouse employee
restoring the April pay cut. In Booth's case only, his wages were
increased over and above his former scale to a point substantially
equivalent to the scale requested by Local No. 399. The general
increase was given, according to the testimony, of Warfield, Jr., to
prevent future "labor trouble".
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 63
After the Union representatives had visited the respondent's exec-
utives several times, Warfield, Jr., the respondent's senior vice presi=
dent, conferred with Booth-in the engine room on July 11. He told
Booth that he was disappointed because Booth had not presented the
employees'. grievances to the management, that he was ready and
willing to discuss the problem with him, and that Booth was free to
-come to anyone in the management to discuss compensation. Booth
answered that the matter was out of his hands and that he could not
discuss it. Warfield, Jr., correctly understood Booth to mean that
the Unions were charged with exclusive authority to engage in
collective bargaining with the respondent as defined in the Act.
Warfield, Jr., then made up has mind to discharge Booth, and Booth
was: discharged two days later.
The respondent contends that Booth, as chief engineer, was a rep-
resentative of the management and was expected to act as such. As
already stated, many chief engineers are members of Local No. 399.
The respondent apparently recognized that this custom was not in-
compatible with the responsibilities of the job, since it made arrange-
ments to replace Booth with another union man.
The respondent maintains that Booth, as chief engineer, should
have advised the management that the men under him were dissatis-
fied with conditions generally and should have acted to smooth out
difficulties between his men and the respondent. As a matter of fact,
Booth did state to the management that the men were dissatisfied
because of the April wage cut. It was because he received an unsatis-
factory answer that the men joined the Unions and put their case into
the hands of 'experienced union officials. Only after the respondent
had refused to bargain with these officials and had tried vainly
to shake off the Unions by raising wages, did it seek to approach its
employees through Booth. By this time it was clear to everyone that
only the issue of collective bargaining remained between the respond-
ent and its employees. It was not and never had been the function
of the chief engineer either to conduct or to hamper collective bar-
gaining. The respondent's purpose in attempting at that late date to
open up the subject with Booth was to eliminate the Unions, and it
resented his refusal to lend himself to that purpose.
The respondent contends that Booth's union affiliation did not affect
its decision. To a certain extent this is true. Had Booth refrained
from exercising his rights under the Act through his union affiliation,
the respondent would not have discharged him. Booth insisted,
however, upon exercising his right under the Act to designate Local
No. 399 as his exclusive agency for collective bargaining purposes.
For this reason the respondent discharged him.
To evidence its indifference to union membership, the respondent
cites its willingness to employ Julius Kopsa, a member of Local No.
64 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
399, who agreed to work for the respondent in replacement of Booth.
When Kopsa learned of the circumstances of Booth's discharge,
however, he declined to work for the respondent.
In the 85 days from July 14, 1935, to October 7, 1935, Booth had
no work for 50 days and worked, for 35 days at $42.50 per week.
From October 7, 1935, to the date of the hearing, he had been .work-
ing at $42.50 in a position procured through Local No. 399, pending
adjustment of the dispute. He desires reinstatement.
We find that Harry M. Booth was discharged by the respondent on
July 13, 1935, and has since been refused employment by the respond-
ent for the reason that he joined and assisted a labor organization
known as International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399,
and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective; bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection. By said discharge
and refusal to employ said Harry M. Booth, the respondent has dis-
criminated against him, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
B. The refusal to bargain collectively
1. The appropriate bargaining unit
The Trial Examiner recommended that the engineers and firemen
and oilers, together, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining under Section 9 (b) of the Act. The re-
spondent employs 13 powerhouse employees, and contends that it is
impractical for so few employees out of a total of more than 250 to
constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
Employees having special skills have long been organized into
unions upon the basis of those skills. Such unions are among the
oldest and among those having the most continuous experience of
collective bargaining with employers. Very often, too, because of
the highly specialized character of the skill there are but a few of
them in any one plant. The respondent does not consider it im-
practical to bargain with every single employee separately; it is
surely no more impractical to bargain collectively with a group of
13` as a unit. In its conferences with representatives of the Unions,
the respondent never objected that the bargaining unit was
inappropriate.
It appears that engineers are highly skilled employees who are
entrusted with greater responsibilities than most other employees
and are paid higher wages. This is true, though to a lesser extent,
of the firemen. The power plant is housed in a separate building
from the main plant. The employees' duties are radically different
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 65
from the duties of the production and office -workers. Within the
respondent's industry this differentiation of powerhouse employees
from other workers had been recognized, as is evidenced by the fact
that the Wholesale Grocery Code under the National Industrial
Recovery Act, which had been applicable to the respondent, made
separate provisions for powerhouse employees.
The complaint alleges that the engineers, on the one hand, and
the firemen and oilers, on the other, each constitute a unit. Each
group considers itself a separate and distinct unit; they have organ-
ized themselves into two unions, each a local of different interna-
tional unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
Their skills, though complementary, are different. We can find no
reason under the circumstances of this case for ignoring the organiza-
tional and vocational distinctions which these employees have them-
selves established. Consequently, we hold that the engineers as a
group and the firemen and oilers as a group each constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
A majority of each group in the powerhouse of the respondent
belonged to their respective Unions. Membership in a union, the
principal function of which is collective bargaining, is sufficient to
constitute the union as the agent of the member for collective bar-
gaining. We find that on and after July 5, 1935, Local No. 399 and
Local No. 7 were the exclusive collective bargaining agencies, re-
spectively, for the engineers, and the firemen and oilers in the power-
house.
2. The respondent's refusal to bargain collectively
On- June 1, 1935, Wood, business agent of Local No. 399, and
Imhahn, 3rd International Vice President of the International Union
of Operating Engineers, conferred with the respondent's vice presi-
dent, Avery, with reference to the Union wage scale for powerhouse
employees. The respondent then learned that the Unions were the
representatives designated and selected by a majority of the power-
house employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment. Pleading the absence of President Warfield, Sr.
from the city, Avery adjourned the conference. On June 12, 1935,
at another conference with Imhahn and Kennedy, business agent of
Local No. 7, Avery stated that Warfield was not enthusiastic about
dealing with the Unions. He made no counterproposals, but prom-
ised to talk again to Warfield, Sr.
On July 8, 1935, Imhahn, Wood, and Torney, president of Local
No. 7, conferred with Avery and asked him if an agreement could be
negotiated. Avery replied that the matter was out of his hands, that
66 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent would have nothing to do with any union , that wages
had been increased , that the men should be satisfied , and that if they
were not satisfied , Avery would discharge them.
On July 8, 1935, the Unions sent identical registered letters and
proposed written agreements to the respondent , who refused to ac-
cept them from the United States postal employees. -
On July 15, 1935, two days after Booth's discharge , Imhahn had
a telephone conversation with Warfield, Jr., in which he said he
wanted to discuss the discharge . Warfield, Jr. said the matter was
out of his hands and told Imhahn to talk to Avery. The call was
switched to Avery , and Avery said that Warfield, Jr., was handling
the matter , that Avery neither could nor would do anything about it.
Imhahn then said that if no conference was held -before July 16, 1935,
at noon, he would be compelled to order a strike.
On July 26, 1935, the Unions sent the respondent identical letters
with the same proposed agreements . The respondent accepted the
letters delivered by messenger , but mailed them and the enclosures
back to the Unions without comment.
The respondent contends that the purpose of the Unions was not
to bargain collectively but to consummate a closed shop . It is true
that after the respondent had refused absolutely to discuss any sub-
ject with the Union officials, the latter mailed to the respondent a
proposed form of agreement containing a closed-shop clause. But
t he respondent 's position was not that it would not consider the closed
shop, but rather that it would not discuss any term of the wage
contract with - an "outsider".
We find that on July 8, 15, and 26, 1935 , the respondent refused
to bargain collectively with the Unions as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees in appropriate units.
3. The strike of July 16, 1935
Following the respondent 's refusal to confer with the employees'
representatives on July 15 and following a unanimous strike ballot
by the employees, the powerhouse employees went on strike , taking
all necessary precautions before leaving the plant for the safety of
the property . This resulted in a complete cessation of production
until July 22. The respondent called a city inspector to the plant,
who testified at the hearing that there was no danger whatsoever and
that the safety valves on the boilers were operating properly. The
respondent called in a chief engineer from an adjoining plant, who
advised merely that the fires be banked . The situation was appar-
ently the same as it had been previously on numerous Saturdays and
Sundays, when the plant was not operating.
The respondent thereafter employed one Adams , an engineer of
academic and practical experience far superior to Booth's. Adams
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 67
inspected the powerhouse on July 19 and July 20 and started opera-
tions on July 22, having hired an entirely new powerhouse crew.
Adams testified that emery had been thrown into engines and that
a plate had been disastrously shifted, with no possible intent except
to damage the machinery. His testimony, however, is not convincing
on the issue of sabotage by the Union members. He is an interested
party, acting as power supervisor for the respondent at a higher
salary than Booth's. Neither he nor anyone else showed the slightest
connection between the acts and the Unions or their members. He
testified that chemical analyses were made showing certain sludge-
to contain emery, but did not produce the analyses. Thereupon, two
of the analyses were subpenaed, and they disclosed a finding of no
emery. Adams testified that he could discern fine emery in certain
sludge, but an impartial chemist testified that it is impossible by
unassisted natural vision to determine the existence of fine emery
in a sludge containing (as does all sludge from motors and engines)
iron oxides.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
with foreign countries, and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and-obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner recommended that Harry Booth be reinstated
to the position of first assistant to Adams. The respondent contends
that no such position exists, although Adams testified that he had
under him an assistant engineer in charge of operating. The record
does not disclose exactly the duties attached to the position named
by Adams. Consequently, we shall order that Booth be given the
position bearing the greatest equivalency possible, under the circum-
stances, to that from which he was illegally discharged.
The Trial Examiner, furthermore, recommended, and we shall so
order, that the respondent shall offer reinstatement to those who
struck because of the respondent's unfair labor practices. The re-
spondent complains that the effect of this rule may be to deprive of
employment those persons who took the place of the strikers. The
strikers struck in defense of the rights granted them by the Act,
and in protest against the unfair labor practices of the respondent.
We are entrusted with enforcing those rights and giving them effec-
tive application. The rule we apply does no more than that.
68 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, and
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, are
each labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. The respondent, by discharging and refusing to employ Harry
Al. Booth, and thereby discouraging membership in labor organiza-
tions, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. The engineers in the powerhouse of the respondent's plant, on
the one hand, and the firemen and oilers in the powerhouse of the
respondent's plant, on the other, respectively, constitute units ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. By virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, having been designated by a
majority of the engineers employed by the respondent, and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, having been
designated by a majority of the firemen and oilers employed by the
respondent, have been at all times since July 5, 1935, the exclusive
representatives, respectively, of all such engineers and all such fire-
men and oilers for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5. The respondent, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees in appropriate units, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Harry M. Booth, and by refusing to bar-
gain collectively with the representatives of its employees, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 69
the respondent, The Warfield Company, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner discouraging membership in Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, refusing to
reinstate, or otherwise discriminating against its employees in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment;
(b) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its ' employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act;
(c) From refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the engineers in the powerhouse and with International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, as the exclusive
representative of the firemen and oilers in the powerhouse, in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Harry M. Booth immediate and full reinstatement to
a position bearing the greatest equivalency possible, under the cir-
cumstances, to his former position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make whole said Booth for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned from
the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
computed at the wage rate at the time of discharge, less any amounts
earned by him during that period;
(b) Upon application, offer to all employees who struck on July
16, 1935, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
dismissing, if necessary, all persons hired for the first time since July
16, 1935, to perform the work of such employees, and place those for
whom employment is not available on a preferred list to be offered
employment as it arises, before any other persons are hired ;
(c) Make whole those employees entitled to reinstatement, pursu-
ant to section 2 (b) herein, for any losses.they may suffer by reason
70, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of any refusal of their application for reinstatement pursuant to
section 2 (b) by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum
equal to that which each would normally have earned as wages during
the period from the date of any such refusal of their application for
reinstatement to the date of reinstatement, less the amount, if any,
which each, respectively, may earn during said period;
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 399, as the exclusive representative of
the engineers in the powerhouse and with International Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7, as the exclusive representative of
the firemen and oilers in the powerhouse, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours-of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(e) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of thirty (30) consecu-
tive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist as afore-
said ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.