Union Drawn Steel Company, Republic Steel Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1938

10 N.L.R.B. 868 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of UNION DRAWN STEEL COMPANY, REPUBLIC STEEL
CORPORATION and STEEL WORiiERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C,397.Decided December 30, 1938
Steel Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: surveillance of union
meetings ; use of company-dominated union to combat growth of outside union ;
speech by official advocating independent union ; statements of ' foremen and
officials derogatory to outside union; participation of management in efforts to
form independent union ; distribution of anti-union pamphlets ; employment of
private police officer to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees-Company-
Dominated Union: domination of and interference with formation and adminis-
tration ; support ; participation of supervisory employees ; leadership by em-
ployees previously active carrying on anti-union activity on behalf of employer;
participation of employer's private police officer employed for purpose of inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees ; formation of substitute or-
ganization pending incorporation of company-dominated union ; identity of two
organizations; disestablishment of both organizations as agencies for collec-
tive bargaining-Discrimination: for union membership and activity; refusal
of reinstatement to employees following strike; charges of, not sustained as to
four employees-Reinstatement Ordered: employees discriminatorily denied
employment following stiikc-Back Pay: awarded, from date of discriminatory
denial of reinstatement until date of offer of reinstatement; monies received-by
employees for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
work-relief projects to be deducted and paid over to agency which supplied
funds for such project-Employer: responsibility of- parent corporation for
unfair labor practices carried on in plant of wholly owned subsidiary. opera-
tion of subsidiary in connection with other units of parent corporation's enter-
prise ; supplying of guards, police officer, tear gas, and anti-union literature by
parent corporation in connection with labor relations of subsidiary; joint re-
sponsibility of parent and subsidiary corporations for unfair labor practices;
transfer of assets of subsidiary to parent corporation : effect of ; continuing
responsibility of subsidiary for unfair labor practices; order issued embracing
both parent and subsidiary.
Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon and Mr. Francis V. Paone, for the Board.
Day, Young, Veac't & LeFever, by Mr. Thomas F. Veach, and Mr.
Thomas F. Patton, Mr. A. J. Gentholts, Mr. E. G. Magee, all of
Cleveland, Ohio, for Republic and Union Drawn.
Mr. Benjamin Sigal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Forest G. Moorhead, of Beaver, Pa., for the Association, and
for the Employees Union.
Mr. Sylvester Garrett, of counsel to the Board.
10 N. L. R. B., No. 76.
868
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
DECISION
AND
ORDER
869
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called the S. W. O. C., the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Charles T. Douds, Regional Director for
the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint,
.dated November 12, 1937, alleging that the Union Drawn Steel Com-
pany, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , herein called Union Drawn, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Steel Corporation, Cleveland,
Ohio, herein called Republic, had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 ( 1), (2), and ( 3) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint alleged, in substance , that Union Drawn had dom-
inated and interfered with the formation of a labor organization
known as Independent Protective Association of Employees of the
Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No . 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania , herein called the Association , and contributed support
to it; that Union Drawn had discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of nine persons , named in the complaint, and
thus discouraged membership in the S. W. O. C .; and that by these
and. other acts, Union Drawn had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection . On November 23, 1937, Union Drawn filed its answer,
traversing material allegations of the complaint and making certain
allegations by way of an affirmative defense thereto.
Pursuant -to notice a hearing on the complaint commenced in
Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania ,, on December 2, 1937 , before Tilford E.
Dudley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the
commencement of the hearing , counsel for the Board moved that
the complaint be amended to allege that Union Drawn had aided
and supported the formation of Employees of Union Drawn Steel
Company Plants No. 1 and No . 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , herein
called the Employees Union, which was declared to be in reality the
same organization as the Association . Counsel for the Board also
moved that the complaint be amended to delete the allegations
thereof that Union Drawn had discriminatorily discharged Perry
Farmer, Fred Frier, and Edward Little. Thereafter, counsel for
the Association and for the Employees Union filed a motion to inter-
vene in the proceeding . All of these motions were granted by the
Trial Examiner and his rulings are hereby affirmed.
147841-39-vol 10--56
870 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the first day of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved
that the complaint be further amended to name Republic Steel Cor-
poration as respondent jointly with Union Drawn. Counsel for
Union Drawn, after communicating with Republic, entered an ap-
pearance on its behalf, waived service on Republic of the amended
complaint and notice of hearing, and moved that the answer filed
and the motions and exceptions made on behalf of Union Drawn
be considered as filed and as made equally by and on behalf of
Republic. Both motions were granted by the Trial Examiner and
his rulings thereon are hereby affirmed. Union Drawn and Republic
are herein jointly called the respondents.
The hearing continued at Pittsburgh on December' 3 and 6; 1937,
and upon motion of counsel for the respondents was transferred to
Beaver, Pennsylvania, where it continued on December 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 13, 1937. The Board, the respondents, the S. W. 0. C., the Asso-
ciation and the Employees Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon
the issues of the case was afforded all parties. In the course of the
hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on various motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors.were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
It was stipulated at the close of the hearing that the respondents
would prepare an exhibit showing the names and occupations of all
employees who had returned to work subsequent to July 1, 1937, in the
No. 1 and No. 3 plants maintained by Union Drawn at Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania. It was understood by the parties that the exhibit,
although prepared by, the respondents after the hearing, should be
'part of the record in this case. Shortly after the hearing, the re-
spondents filed a motion to be allowed to introduce additional evi-
dence, stating that although they had no objection to furnishing the
evidence to have been contained in the agreed exhibit, they nonethe-
less felt that additional evidence bearing on the seniority and ability
of men employed after July 1, 1937, should be furnished also. The
motion was denied. Thereafter, counsel for the respondents filed a
second such motion, and subsequently during oral argument asserted
that it was originally understood that such additional evidence should
be included in the agreed exhibit. Although no language in the
record supports this contention, counsel argued that the stipulation
would have been meaningless if not so construed since it would have
included merely a list of employees identical with a list which al-
ready was in the record. Since the list already in the record covered
employees rehired subsequent to July 7, rather than July 1, 1937,
and applied merely to the No. 1 plant and not to the No. 3 plant,
DECISIONS AND. ORDERS 871
counsel 's argument does not accord with the facts. Neither • motion
of the respondents discloses any evidence discovered subsequent to
the hearing or which was not available at that time. Under the cir-
-cumstances , the second motion is hereby denied.'
On January 29, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding
-that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommeudilig that the re-
spondents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to c,ffer
reinstatement with back pay to five employees. Exceptions to the
Intermediate Report were filed thereafter by the respondents, by
the Association, and by the- S. W. 0. C. The Board has reviewed
the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and, save as consistent
with the findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter set forth, finds
them to be without merit.
On September 22, 1938, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was had before the Board at Washington, D. C. The respondents and
the Association appeared and were represented by counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Republic Steel Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal executive offices in Cleveland, Ohio.
Union Drawn Steel Company, wholly owned subsidiary of Republic,
was incorporated in Pennsylvania in 1889 and until October 31, 1937,
operated plants at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania ; Gary, Indiana ; Massil-
lon, Ohio; and Hartford, Connecticut. It maintained sales offices in
Los Angeles, California; Hartford, Connecticut; Chicago, Illinois;
Indianapolis, Indiana ; Boston,. .Massachusetts ; Detroit, Michigan ;
New York City; Buffalo and Syracuse, New York; Cleveland, Massil-
lon, and Dayton, Ohio; and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania. In addition, it utilized 'sales offices maintained by Republic
in Birmingham, Alabama; San Francisco, California; Denver, Colo-
rado; St. Paul, Minnesota; Tulsa,.Oklaholna; Houston, Texas; Salt
Lake City, Utah; and Seattle,, Washington. The volume of Union
Drawn's business exceeded $14,000,000 during 1936 and again during
the first 10 months of 1937.
The present proceeding involves two plants at Beaver Falls, Penn-
sylvania, which are known as No. 1 and No. 3 plants and which are
herein jointly called the Union Drawn plant. There is produced at the
Union Drawn plant an average of 3,000 tons of goods monthly, con-
sisting in large part of cold drawn steel, screw steel, axles, pump and
piston rods. Approximately 80 per cent of the goods, thus produced
872 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are shipped to destinations outside Pennsylvania, while about 90 per
cent of the raw materials used are derived from sources outside Penn-
sylvania.
On October 31, 1937, papers seeking dissolution of Union Drawn as
a corporation were filed with the State of Pennsylvania, but no action
had been taken thereon at the time of the hearing. On October 31 all
the properties and assets of Union Drawn were transferred to,Repub-
lic which itself thereafter conducted the business which prior thereto
had been carried on through Union Drawn, including the operation
of the Union Drawn plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is,a labor organization affili-
ated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, hereinafter
called the C. 1. 0., which represents Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel & Tin Workers of North America, also a labor organization affil-
iated with the C. I. O. On June 4, 1937, Amalgamated Association of
Iron, Steel & Tin Workers issued a charter to Lodge 1869, hereinafter
referred to as Lodge 1869, admitting to its membership employees at
the Union Drawn plant.
Independent Protective Association of Employees of the Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Penn-
sylvania, is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its mem-
bership employees at the Union Drawn plant, which is seeking to be
incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. Pending incorpora-
tion, the members of the Independent Protective Association of Em-
ployees of the Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3,
Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, have formed an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization known as Employees of Union Drawn Steel Company
Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The chronology of events
1. Events preceding the strike of May 27
In June 1936, representatives of the S.W. O. C. commenced organ-
izing among the employees of the Union, Drawn plant a,nd public
mass meetings were held under S. W. O. C. auspices from"time to.
time during the ensuing period of 11, months. On various occasions
officials of Union Drawn, including Superintendent Belles, Assistant
Superintendent Pfleghar, and Head Watchman Yokel attended these
meetings.,
' A S. W. 0 C member, Mike Capan, testified that following one meeting at which both
Pfleghar and he were present , a fellow employee named Eakin told him : "Listen, Mike,
Mr. Pfleghar told me to keep an eye on you, he seen you at the mass meeting " Neither-
Eakin nor Pfleghar testified.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 873
At the time the S. W. O. C. commenced organizing, there existed at
the Union Drawn plant an "Employees Representation Plan," as
a part of which annual elections of employee representatives were
held in the plant under the auspices of the management. Although
no meeting of the, employees as a group ever was held, the employee
representatives met with management representatives in order to
discuss grievances of the employees. No election of employee
representatives was held after June-1930.
On one occasion during the S. W. O. C. organizing campaign em-
ployee representatives Eakin and Steffens circulated through the
plant obtaining signatures to a petition expressing the employees'
satisfaction with the "Plan" and stating that those signing did so
of their "own free will." When an employee named Thomas refused
to sign, his foreman sent him to the office of the plant manager,
where he was asked why he had not signed. He was informed that
the petition was to be sent to the Massillon office of Union Drawn.
In this connection, the manager observed : "You know just about
what would happen if you don't sign it." Thereupon Thomas signed.
Following the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
upholding the constitutionality of the Act, the respondents decided
to alter their relations to the "Plan," and on or about May 1, 1937,
all of the employees were called together by their foremen at 3:15
p. in. in order to hear a speech by Creighton, vice president and
general manager of Union Drawn.2 Prior to the speech, men em-
ployed in the shift commencing, at 3:30 in the afternoon were per-
mitted to punch the time clock so that they would not interrupt the
proceedings, which continued until 3:45 p. m. Creighton told the
men that, although the "Plan" was a good thing, it was unlawful
under the Act. He pointed out that the men were free to join either
the A. F. of L. or the C. I. 0., but remarked that the "Plan" was
better than either of these. He defied any of his listeners to step
up and say that the C. I. O. could get more for them than the "Plan"
had, declared that there was no necessity for a "third party" in deal-
ings between employees and management and told the men that if
they wanted more wages they should obtain employment elsewhere.
Referring to the "Plan" specifically, he observed that it could go on
as before, save that the management would no longer participate
in it.
At approximately the time that Creighton made his speech, the
employee representatives attempted to form a new organization, to be
known as the "Security League." During working hours, employee
representatives Eakin and Steffens, aided, by an employee named Main,
systematically canvassed the employees to obtain signatures to a
2 At the time of the hearing Creighton was district manager of Republic 's "Union Drawn
Division."
874 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"League" petition. 'A foreman, Russell,'is shown to have observed
such activity by Eakin. Russell, moreover, told one employee that
he would like "to see everybody join" the "Security League" and
"to see the Security League go through" and that he "didn't want
to see the C. I. O. get in." The supervisor in charge of shipping
on they second shift, Klaar, told the same employee that he "had,
all of his men signed up and he thought that everybody ought to,
sign up, that he was not going to take and send any of his
dollars * * * td Lewis to make him a rich man."
2. The strike of May 27 and subsequent back-to-work movement
On May 27, 1937, a number of S. W. O. C. organizers circulated
among the employees at the Union Drawn plant to ascertain whether
they desired to.participate in a strike then in progress at other plants
of Republic. Although few of the employees at the Union Drawn
plant. were.at the time members of the S. W. O. C., a number of the-
employees indicated a desire to strike in order to support the strike,
at the other plants. The testimony indicates that the employees felt
that if a strike was called, there would be less chance of discrimina-
tion against employees joining the S. W. O. C. On May 27 a large-
number of employees accordingly went on strike and a picket line,
was formed outside the, Union Drawn plant. Simultaneously, a
number of employees joined the S. W. O. C.
In their exceptions, the respondents deny that any strike actually
took place on May 27 and contend that the stoppage of work resulted
instead from an unlawful conspiracy, entered into by the employees-
named in the complaint, by persons unknown to the respondents, and
by the S. W. O. C. In this connection, the respondents point to the
testimony of employees Sperling and Ward who stated that they did'
not wish to strike or to belong to the C. I. O. and to the stipulation that
if the respondents had called the other employees who did not testify
at the hearing they would have testified "substantially the same" as-
Sperling and Ward.3 It is to be noted, however, that employees named
in the complaint testified that they went on strike either to support
the strike at other plants of Republic or to protect themselves from
discrimination which might be occasioned by their joining the S. W.
O. C. In view of the entire record, we are convinced that a strike took
3In view of the evasive and contradictory nature of the testimony of these men at the,
hearing, neither can be regarded as a credible witness It is to be noted with respect to
the stipulation relating to the testimony of the employees not called as witnesses, that it
also was stipulated that the secretary of Lodge 1869 would testify that 68 employees joined
the S. W. 0. C. in the early stages of the strike . It was further stipulated that all the
employees who had not testified at the hearing would have testified "substantially the
same" as witnesses Stuernagel and Gruber as to why they withdrew from membership in
the S . W. 0. C following the stiike . Stuernagel stated that he was induced to withdraw
from the S W. 0. C. by Eakin , president of the Association which the evidence below
shows to have been formed in violation of the Act. Gruber testified that be withdrew
from the S . W. 0. C. after hearing Eakin tell other employees to do so.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 875
place on May 27, 1937, and that it constituted a labor dispute within
the meaning of the Act.
Shortly after the picket line was established, the mayor of Beaver
Falls informed S. W. O. C. organizers outside the plant that officials
of Union Drawn had agreed not to operate the plant during the
strike and also stated that two special policemen would be posted out-
side the plants if the S. W. O. C. would withdraw the picket line. Al-
though the respondents deny that any agreement was made respecting
discontinuance of operations during the strike, the evidence shows
both that the pickets were withdrawn and that the plants were closed
down for several weeks.
Closely following the commencement of the strike, the respondents
initiated efforts to induce the men to return to work. About June 2,
1937, there was mailed to the employees a pamphlet entitled "What the
Editors Are Saying About the Republic Strike." This was enclosed
in a letter bearing the return address of Union Drawn. Respecting
the C. I. 0., the pamphlet carried such headlines as : "Soviets Told
C. I. O. Leads to Bolshevism," "Chicagoans Led in Steel Strike by
Outsiders," and "Strike Victim's Widow Admits He Was a Red." A
reproduction of what appeared to be a news item quoted a woman as
saying :
I'm the wife of a steel worker who is now staying in the Corri-
gan-McKinney mills in spite of the strike. I feel the same as my
husband about the C. I. O. Why should an honest man have to
join a union to be able to work? A Communist union at that !
Another article discussing the C. I. O. was climaxed by the question :
Are free American workers to be allowed to remain free to earn
livings for themselves and their families-or are they to be intimi-
dated and coerced into surrendering their constitutional rights by
putting their necks into the yoke of a fascistic labor dictator-
ship, . . .
On about June 18, the respondents again circularized the employees
in the same manner as before. This time, the men received a second
edition of "What the Editors Are Saying About the Republic Strike,"
as well as a letter from Tom M. Girdler, chairman of Republic. In his
letter, Girdler referred with approval to a "hack-to-work" movement
which had been successful in reopening Republic's plant in Monroe,
Michigan. After accusing the C. I. O. of defying "all law and de-
cency," he asserted that a large majority of Republic's employees
wanted to go back to work, and concluded :
So when you get all through, the present controversy sums up
somewhat like this :
Must Republic and its men submit to the communistic dictates
and terrorism of the C. I. 0.?
If America is to remain a free country, the answer is NO.
876 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The pamphlet accompanying Girdler's letter expanded upon the
theme developed in its predecessor. One quotation stated that the
strikers simply wanted the C. I. O. to be recognized as "labor's dic-
tator." Another article lauded, as one who understood his "public
duties," the mayor of Monroe, Michigan, who had aided the "back-to-
work" movement at Republic's plant located in that town. A third
article stated :
An investigation will discover the existence of a regular revolu-
tionary military force, members of which are operating wherever
the C. I. O. strikes are called and strikers are incited to lawless-
ness and acts of violence.
During the period of this publicity campaign against the C. I. 0.,
Creighton, vice president of Union Drawn, held a number of confer-
ences with employees and foremen concerning getting the men back
to work. Creighton testified that some time after June 1.2 he talked
to Steffens and Eakin. Steffens' version was that he originally had
been approached by Eakin who stated that the plant would be reopened
on June 28. At Eakin's suggestion, he accompanied the latter to
Creighton's room at a local hotel where the three men discussed re-
opening the plant.4 As a result, the two employees agreed to "gather
the men together" and notify Creighton when this was done, and
Eakin, with Steffens' aid, then prepared lists of employees to be
interviewed. Thereafter, employees named Watkins, Burson, Klaar,
Milnes, Beaver, Ward, and Sperling aided in canvassing the em-
ployees to see if they would come back to work. Of this group,
Watirins and Burson are assistant foremen, Klaar is a shipping
supervisor, and Milnes, Eakin, and Steffens are former employee
representatives under the "Plan.'" Following the canvas, Eakin
took charge of the various lists, and a few days later a notice ap-
peared in the local press stating that the plant would be reopened
on June 28, as Eakin had informed both Steffens and Sperling prior
to the time the canvass was made 6
On the morning of June 28, approximately 125 persons returned to
work at the Union Drawn plant. By this time the S. W. O. C. had
established pickets outside the plants and about 25 men were on
the picket line on that day. The returning workers passed through
the picket line with little difficulty, however, and continued to do so
on the ensuing days. About this time, Creighton telephoned Repub-
lic's superintendent of police asking that men be sent to Beaver
I It is not clear whether of not other employees were present at this time.
6 As noted above, Eakin and Steffens previously had been active in circulating the peti-
tion expressing satisfaction with the "Plan," and in attempting to organize the "Security
League." In both of these previous endeavors, supervisory employees of the respondents
likewise had participated.
6 Steffens did not know where Eakin had obtained this information.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 877
Falls allegedly to protect the plant property. Creighton testified
that he took this action because of a report that the S. W. 0. C. was
recruiting men to make a determined effort to prevent employees
from entering the plant on June 30. In any event, Republic sent
about 25 men to Beaver Falls under the direction of James Meadows,
whose connection with the respondents is discussed in detail below.
On the morning, of June 30, the 25 men deployed along the streets
near the plant, while a supply of tear gas was inside the plant ready
for use. The crowd of S. W. 0. C. sympathizers which Creighton
testified was expected did not materialize, however, and no disturb-
ance arose. Towards the end of the day, most of the 25 men were
paid and sent home while two remained tinder Meadows' supervision
for a period of about 9 days. The record does not disclose what
services they performed.
About July 1, 1937, picketing by the S. W. 0. C. was discontinued,
and on July 8 the strike officially was terminated.
3. The formation of the Association and the Employees Union
Following the return to work, efforts were promptly begun to
form an unaffiliated organization of the employees, to be known as
Independent Protective Association of Employees of the Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3. A leading partici-
pant in these efforts was James Meadows.
An important initial step in the creation of the Association was
a meeting of the employees held on July 10, 1937, in the local Elks
Hall. Meadows procured the use of the hall and, with the aid of
Eakin, arranged to provide refreshments for employees attending
the meeting. Meadows described these activities as part of his job
of looking after the "welfare" of the respondents' employees. Aside
from Eakin, Meadows was the principal speaker at the meeting and
informed the men that he had had wide experience in labor prob-
lems. His own version of the speech included a statement that he:
talked on the point of getting together without any interference
by outsiders, that they should organize with the intentions of
creating a brotherly love, love for their fellowmen.
Remarking that he knew of several successful independent unions,
he pointed out that in such an organization dues "would be kept at
home," and the men would have "their own representatives." In
concluding his speech, Meadows suggested the men help themselves
to the refreshments.
Following the meeting, Meadows conferred with employees who
took leading parts in the organization of the Association. On vari-
ous occasions, Assistant Foreman Watkins, former Employee Reirre-
878- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives Eakin and Milnes, and an employee named Mate, partici-
pated in these conferences on "forming organizations." At a sec-
ond meeting of the Association on July 17, and at least one sub-
sequent meeting, Meadows took part in the proceedings, and ad-
ministered an oath, or "obligation," to various members of the
Association, including one of its "directors."
During this period of active participation by Meadows in the af-
fairs of the Association, details essential to its formal organization
were being perfected. By July 23, 1937, it had been decided that
the new organization should be a non-profit corporation. A board of
13 directors was named, including Assistant Foreman Watkins, and
former Employee Representatives Eakin, Steffens, and Milnes.
Among those selected as officers of the Association were : Eakin, presi-
dent; Assistant Foreman Watkins, financial secretary; and Mate,
recording secretary. One of the incorporators was Assistant Foreman
Burson.
At the hearing ostensible leaders of the Association seemed igno-
rant of important aspects of its affairs. Sperling, listed in the
proposed charter as a director of the Association, denied that he was
either an officer or director. Upon being shown the charter, he
changed his testimony on this point and twice thereafter he both
affirmed and denied that he was a director. He further testified that
he never had voted on whether Forest G. Moorhead should be re-
tained as counsel for the Association, or on how much Moorhead
was to be paid. Gruber, another director and one of the three mem-
bers of the Association's grievance committee, did not know how
many directors there were. Although the charter lists 13, Gruber
knew only 2 in addition to himself. He never had attended any of
the directors' meetings, never had received notice of any such meet-
ings, and did not know whether any ever had been held. He did
not remember whether the Association ever had voted to retain Moor-
- head, and had no idea what the latter's fee was, or whether the fee
' ever was discussed. Steffens claimed at the hearing that an Asso-
••ciation meeting had authorized the directors to hire counsel, and
that the whole group of directors went to Moorhead's office, dis-
cussed the size of his fee, and retained him. He further stated that
.this action was reported back to the Association members, who ap-
proved thereof. Stuernagel, "flag bearer" of the Association, testified
that he had attended all but one of the Association meetings, but
never had heard anything about hiring an attorney. Steffens' version
of Moorhead's hiring was considerably weakened by his own contra-
dictory testimony, since he first testified that he did not know Moor-
head until the latter was hired by the Association but later admitted
that he had consulted Moorhead during the strike with regard to a
letter written by the employee representatives attacking the C. I. 0.,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 879
"Which was published in a local paper. Under all of the evidence, it
may be inferred that neither the board of directors as a group, nor
the Association membership as a whole, had any. substantial connec-
tion with the retention of Moorhead as counsel.
According to Steffens, the main purpose of the Association was
to prevent the C. I. O. from gaining a foothold among the respond-
.ents' employees. Pursuant to this purpose, S. W. O. C. members
were advised to take an oath before a local alderman, stating that
they no longer wished to be represented by the S. W. O. C. Juhasz,
a director of the Association, told one returning striker that he
-would have to take such an oath before he could join the Association.
It is noteworthy that this occurred prior to the organizational meet-
ing of the Association on July 10. Eakin and Milnes likewise were
active in inducing men to "swear off" the S. W. O. C., the latter tell-
ing one returning striker "we can't trust you unless you signed off
the C. I. 0." At least 22 men thus were induced to withdraw from
the S. W. O. C., and 20 of them signed membership petitions for
the Association. Thereafter one of the group was asked by his
foremen during working hours if he still belonged to the C. I. O.
On September 8, 1937, Meadows wrote to the Industrial Defense
Association, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, identified himself as a
sergeant of police of Union Drawn and requested 1,000 copies of
literature discussing the C. I. O. In response to this request, he
received a pamphlet entitled "Does the C. I. O. Seek to Promote
Red Revolution?" Including pictures of Joseph Stalin and promi-
nent C. I. O. leaders, this paper stated :
The invisible driving force of the CIO, with John L. Lewis
as its ostensible head, is composed largely of revolutionary and
anarchistic outcasts from the slums and gutters of Europe and
Asia. They are of the same group who murdered upwards of
20,000,000 in Russia, confiscated all wealth, destroyed private
property and made workers slaves, of a merciless state machine.
They now seek to use our streets and factories for their battle-
ground against God, home, and country, and if they succeed
they will make America a vast grave for Christians and be-
lievers in our form of government.
Meadows first testified with respect to this pamphlet that he had
distributed copies of it wherever he could outside the plant, without
any assistance whatsoever. He then testified that others had helped
him, but could name only a local constable as having done so. Al-
though he professed inability to recall whether he had distributed the
,pamphlet to employees of Union Drawn, the undisputed evidence
shows that one of the pamphlets was attached to the time card of a
former striker who-had been induced to "swear off" the C. I. O.
880 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since Meadows could not remember giving pamphlets to anyone
who might have distributed them inside the plant, it is clear that he
must have done so himself. Having in mind Meadows' general lack
of credibility, manifest in his testimony at the hearing, his denial
that he distributed the pamphlet in this manner is not worthy of
credence. Distribution of such literature admittedly was pursuant
td his duty to see that the employees were not "interfered with."
After the formation of the Association, its grievance committee met
with the Union Drawn superintendent in the latter's office on three
occasions to discuss moving the time clock, obtaining more heat, and
changing shifts. The last such meeting was held during November
1937.
Following retention of counsel, the Association filed articles in a
local court seeking incorporation under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. Action by the court being deferred on Octo-
ber 9, 1937, however, it was decided on advice of counsel to form a new
unincorporated association, to be known as "Employees of Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsyl-
vania." The purpose of the Employees Union, as stated by counsel,
is to carry on until the Association, consisting of the same group, ob-
tains a corporate charter. Officers of the Association automatically
became officers of the Employees Union. The creation of the new
organization was accomplished with such ease that some of the mem-
bers of the Association were not aware that the Employees Union ex-
isted. For all purposes material to this proceeding, the Association
and the Employees Union may be regarded as the same organization.7
Between October 27, 1937, and the date of the hearing, the articles
of association of the Employees Union were circulated through the
plant during working hours, for signature by the men. One of the
respondents' witnesses testified that he and four others, including the
assistant foreman in charge of the department, signed the articles at
the same time. On this occasion, about 10 minutes were consumed in
explaining the purpose of the articles to the five men who signed.
Some of the signatures were obtained after the hearing in this case
had commenced.
B. The relation of James Meadows to the respondents
Prior to June 29, 1937, Meadows acted as sergeant of Republic's
police. On that date, he was sent to Beaver Falls together with 25
men allegedly to protect the Union Drawn property. Creighton, to
whom Meadows reported for duty on June 30, testified that Meadows'
7 A written motion to intervene , filed by the Employees Union, states : "The undersigned,
therefore, showing that it is a labor organization pending incorporation and also an unin-
corporated labor organization duly functioning , asks that the undersigned be permitted to
intervene...."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 881
job was "to report on activities in the plant" and "to keep the men in
a happy mood." At the hearing, Meadows described himself as Union
Drawn's "welfare man" and stated :
My duties are to assist the employees, to go out and see if any-
one has not reported to work, see what is the reason he didn't re-
port for work; find out whether he is sick, whether he has been
detained for some other reason; attend and assist in funerals;
make arrangements for cars and, in other words, look after the
welfare of the interest of the employees and of the company as
far as seeing that they are not interfered with in their rights as
ccitizens.8
The record of Meadows' past employment is significant in regard
to his testimony and that of Creighton. From about 1909 until 1912,
Meadows served as a policeman in a St. Louis store. From 1912 until
1918, he served in the army. From 1923 until 1927, he was employed
in the Pennsylvania soft-coal region by a large coal company as a po-
lice officer and, while in this employ, had as many as 75 policemen un-
der his direction during a coal strike. During the next few years, he
was employed as policeman by another coal company, and during 1929,
1930, and part of 1931, he served in the same capacity with a large
steel company. Thereafter, from 1933 until April of 1937, he was
again employed by a large coal company as a watchman." At some
time, allegedly during April 1937, he was hired at the Trotter Mines,
a subsidiary of Republic, and became a sergeant of Republic's police.
As we have noted in Section III, A, 3, above, Meadows began
immediately after the termination of the strike to advocate and par-
ticipate in the formation of the Association and the Employees'
Union. Under all the facts, we are satisfied that Meadows' relation
with the respondents is such that his acts in this connection are prop-
erly deemed to be the acts of the respondents.
C. Domination and interference as regards Association and Em-
ployees Union and other interference, restraint, and coercion
In view of the facts above set forth, it is clear that the respondents
have engaged in numerous acts of domination, interference, restraint,
and coercion. In its attempts to organize employees at the Union
Drawn plant, the S. W. O. C. was at all times faced with active
hostility on the part of officials and supervisory employees of Union
Drawn. At the time such organizational attempts began, there
was in existence an admittedly illegal Plan sponsored by the manage-
8 Italics supplied.
8 A "watchman" performs the same services as were formerly performed by company
policemen in the Pennsylvania coal regions, save that the former has no power to make
arrests.
882 1 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment. During the early months of 1937, the cooperation of officials
of Union Drawn in the circulation of a petition expressing satisfac-
tion with the Plan advertised to the employees the management's.
approval of the Plan and disapproval of the S. W. 0. C. as a labor
organization. Although Creighton, vice president and manager of
Union Drawn, informed the employees at a meeting held in May 1937,
that the Plan as then constituted was unlawful, he stated at such
time that there was no necessity for a "third party" in dealings be-
tween the employees and the management and advocated the forma-
tion of an inside organization. Thereafter, activity on behalf of the
"Security League" carried on with the support of supervisory em-
ployees served to further the policy thus expressed by Creighton.
In the course of the strike, the respondents' hostile attitude toward
the S. W. 0. C. and the C. I. 0. attained more concrete expression in
the form of Girdler's letter and the two issues of "What the Editors
are Saying About the Republic Strike." The manifest purpose be-
hind these attacks on the S. W. 0. C. and the C. I. 0., including the
use of such epithets as "communistic," "fascistic," and "revolution-
ary," was to discourage membership in these labor organizations.
Following the strike, the respondent's anti-union policy culminated
in the activities of Meadows. Although both Creighton and Mead-
ows' description of the latter's duties are ambiguous, all am-
biguity is dispelled by the evidence of Meadows' qualifications for his
job and by the work actually done by him. Meadows was employed
by the respondents largely for the purpose of interfering with the
rights guaranteed to their employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Through him, as well as through their other anti-union practices, the
respondents played a dominant role in the formation and administra-
tion of the Association, with the result that the latter organization is
a mere puppet of the respondents, officered by men servile to their
wishes and designed in large part to render effective the respondents'
hostility toward the C. I. 0. The respondents' continuing benevolent
attitude toward the Association is demonstrated by the free circu-
lation of the articles of association of the Employees Union through
the plant shortly before the hearing. As already noted, the Em-
ployees Union and the Association may be treated as the same
organization for all purposes material to this proceeding. Without
the Association, the Employees Union would not have existed. These
facts, coupled with the respondents' aid and support in the circu-
lation of its articles of association, sufficiently demonstrate that the
Employees Union is as fully the respondents' creature as is the
Association.
We find that the respondents have dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and of the-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 883
Employees Union and'contributed support thereto. We further find
that thereby and by their other acts set forth in this section the re-
spondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
D. Discrimination with regard to hire and tenure of employment
As already noted, employees commenced returning to work about
June 28, 1937. Creighton testified that at that time he instructed
supervisory employees to find jobs for all employees who returned.
He also testified that the work at the plants had been staggered since
the strike so as to give employment to as many men as possible.
At the time the strike began on May 27, approximately 229 men were
employed at the No. 1 plant. By July 3, 167 men had returned to
work at that plant and during the period from July 3 to August 30,
33 additional men were returned to their jobs.
Thomas Eurick, Wilfred Thomas, Mike Capan, Henry Lombardo,
Edward Veon, and William Erwin, whom the amended complaint al-
leges were discriminated against, attempted to return to work between
July 6 and July 24, but were refused reinstatement. These six em-
ployees include the vice president, the financial secretary, the record-
ing secretary, and the treasurer of Lodge 1869 of Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, which had
been chartered during the strike as a result of the activities of the
S. W. O. C.
Thomas Eurick. Originally employed in the Union Drawn plant
as a laborer in 1920, Eurick worked in the stockroom and also was used
occasionally in other departments. He joined the S. W. O. C. several
weeks before the strike and was active on the picket line. On applying
for reinstatement on July 6, 1937, and on subsequent occasions, Eurick
was told that no work was available but that he would be informed
when it was.
It was brought out on examination of Rhodes, foreman of the stock-
room, that four men had left his department since the strike terminated
and that on a number of occasions since Eurick's application for rein-
statement men had been transferred from other departments to the
stockroom to help out with the work. Rhodes testified in this connec-
tion that Eurick was "not a man that you could transfer from one
job to the other" and that, even if Eurick had been given work fol-
lowing the strike, it would have been necessary for this reason to lay
him off. The subsequent testimony of Rhodes showed, however, that
from January 1, 1937, to the time of the strike, Eurick had been
transferred from the stockroom to the shipping department on 21 dif-
ferent days. It appeared, moreover, that since Eurick's application
884 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for reinstatement, three men had been given work in the shipping-
department.
Regarding a conversation with Rhodes subsequent to Eurick's origi-
nal application for reinstatement, Eurick testified: "He (Rhodes)
says that is only mistake I made going down on the picket line * * *
he said the big boss see you, the superintendent see you, and all of us
see you, and that is the reason you cannot get on the job." With re-
gard to this incident Rhodes testified : "If I recall right, I told Mr.
Eurick he had no business around the picket line, a man of his age.";
In view of the various discrepancies which we have noted in Rhodes'
testimony, we do not credit his version of the conversation with
Eurick. We therefore accept Eurick's version.
Under all the facts, we think it clear that at the time of the refusal
to reinstate Eurick on July 6, 1937, and thereafter, work was available
for him and that the refusals were predicated upon his membership in
the S. W. 0. C. and his activities on its behalf.
We find that by the failure to reinstate Eurick on or about July 6,
1937, the respondents discriminated with regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in Lodge 1869 and
the S. W. 0. C.
Wilfred Thomas. During 15 years of continuous employment with
Union Drawn, Thomas had worked in all but two departments of the
No. 1 plant, and had operated a crane, a rotary cracker, a flat straight-
ener, and had been a helper on a flat straightener. Prior to 1930, lie
had been one of 10 foremen in the plant, but nn the course of a reorgani-
zation at the time Republic obtained control of Union Drawn the
number of foremen had been reduced to 2, so that Thomas, who was the
youngest of the foremen, lost his supervisory position. An outstanding
employee, with more seniority than most men in his department, he
often was relied on by his foreman to supervise operations during the
latter's absence.
Thomas was vice president of Lodge 1869 and was active on the
picket line. As noted above, he had refused to sign the petition ex-
pressing satisfaction with the plan until he was called to the mana-
ger's office and requested to sign. Thomas applied for work on July
9, 1937, but was told that none was available and that he would be
called when needed. His testimony that after July 9 men were taken
on for work which he could do was corroborated by the evidence that
on July 12 a crane operator named Farmer was recalled to work and
that on July 15 a helper on a flat straightener was reemployed.
Farmer, a less versatile employee with less seniority than Thomas,
had sought reinstatement on July 6, but was told that all the men had
not been placed yet and that he should come back later. At the sug-
gestion of Juhasz, director of the Association and leader in the back-to-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 885
work movement, Farmer then withdrew from the S. W. O. C. and on
July 10 joined the Association. After his reinstatement, Farmer was
questioned by a foreman as to whether he still belonged to the C. I. O.
and if C. I. O. men still visited his home.
Under the circumstances, Nye conclude that work was available on or
about July 9 which Thomas could do and that the failure of the re-
spondents to reinstate him was predicated upon his union membership
and activity.
We find that by the failure to reinstate Thomas on or about July 9,
1937, the respondents discriminated with regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in Lodge 1869 and
the S. W. O. C.
Mike Capan, Henry Lombardo, Edward Peon, and William Erwin.
Employed by Union Drawn since 1934, Capan had operated all of
the different types of machines in the No. 1 plant. At the time
of the strike, he was engaged in operating a drawing machine.
He joined the S. W. O. C. some time prior to the strike, became
treasurer of Lodge 1869, and was active on the picket line. Em-
ployed at the Union Drawn plant since September 1936, Lombardo
had operated a cold saw and also helped on a flat straightener. He
was selected secretary of Lodge 1869 and was active on the picket
line. During 8 months in the respondents' employ, Veon had oper-
ated a crane and helped operate a drawing machine. He joined
the S. W. O. C. and was active on the picket line. Erwin was
continuously employed at the Union Drawn plant for approximately
3 years prior to the strike, but the nature of the services performed
by him was not disclosed at the hearing. He joined the S. W. O. C.,
was selected financial secretary of Lodge 1869, and was active on
the picket line. Capan applied for work on July 14, Lombardo
and Veon applied on July 15, 1937, and Erwin applied on July 24,
1937. On the occasion of each application for work the four men
were informed that none was then available.
In view of the union membership and activity of the four men
and the various unfair labor practices in which we have found that
the respondents engaged, the refusal to give work to them gives rise
to considerable suspicion that they were discriminated against. How-
ever, there is no clear showing in the record that the respondents
subsequent to the date on which these men were refused work took
on any men to do work which the four men had done. We feel,
therefore, that no sufficient showing has been made that the respond-
ents discriminated against Capan, Lombardo, Veon, and Erwin in
regard to their, hire and tenure of employment. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the allegations of the,' amended complaint in so far as
it applies to Capan, Lombardo, Veon, and Erwin.
147841-39-vol. 10-57
886 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCF}
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents de-
scribed 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.
V. THE REMEDY
In their exceptions, the respondents contend that Republic is not
properly held chargeable for any unfair labor practices at the Union
Drawn plant prior to November 1, 1937, at which time it took over
the properties and assets of Union Drawn following the filing of
papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
seeking dissolution of Union Drawn as a corporation. Prior to No-
vember 1; 1937, Union Drawn, as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Republic; was operated by Republic in conjunction with other units
of its entire enterprise. The record shows that Union Drawn utilized
sales offices of Republic in a considerable number of States; that
a substantial amount of its product was delivered to Republic, which
shipped the product to the customer; that Republic furnished tear
gas and guards in connection with the strike at the Union Drawn
plant; that Republic assigned Meadows, its sergeant of police, to per-
form the functions already set forth;, and that Republic provided
the anti-C. I. 0. literature which was circulated among the employees
at the Union Drawn plant. Moreover, although the effects of the
unfair labor practices continued in effect following November 1, 1937,
there is no showing of any change in the labor relations policy at
the Union Drawn plant. Under all the circumstances, we conclude
that Republic must share responsibility for the unfair labor prac-
tices engaged in prior to November 1, 1937, as well as for any
subsequent unfair labor practices.
The respondents also contend that Union Drawn is not subject to
any order of the Board because of the transfer of its assets of Novem-
ber 1, 1937, to' Republic. We do not, however, find merit in this con-
tention. Thus such transfer of its assets does not negative responsi-
bility on the part of Union Drawn for the unfair labor practices.
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order them to cease 'and- desist from further
engaging in such practices. We shall also order the respondents to
take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondents have dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Association and
DECISIONS AND (3ItDERS 887
the Employees Union, and have contributed support thereto. Under
these circumstances, neither the Association nor the Employees Union
can offer to the employees the free repreiientation for collective bar-
gaining which is guaranteed by the Act. eWe shall, therefore, order
the respondents to withdraw both' from the Association and from the
Employees Union all recognition as representative of the respond-
ents' employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, and to
disestablish both the Association and the Employees Union as such
representative.
We have found that Thomas Eurick and Wilfred Thomas were
discriminatorily refused reinstatement upon their application there-
for. We shall, therefore, order the respondents to reinstate these
employees and make them whole for any loss of pay they have suf-
fered by reason of the respective discriminatory refusals to reinstate
them, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which
he normally would have earned as -wages from the date of the re-
fusal to reinstate him to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings 10 during said period, deducting, however, from
the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies
received by said employee during said period for work performed
upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects,
and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal
agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government
or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief
projects.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee; Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1869;
Independent Protective Association of Employees of the Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsyl-
vania; and Employees of Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No.
1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondents, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of Independent Protective Association of
-Employees of the Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No. ; 1 and
10 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the .consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett' Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
tce, Lumber and tiawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N., L R B. 440
I
888 T ATIONA R RELATIONS BOARD
No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and of Employees of Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania, and by contributing support to said organizations,
have engaged in and are- engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 r 2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Thomas Eurick and Wilfred Thomas and each of them,
thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of
Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1869, and
in Steel Workers Organizing Committee, the respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The respondents have not discriminated in regard to hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment of
Mike Capan, Edward Veon, William Erwin, and Henry Lombardo,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondents, Republic Steel Corporation and Union Drawn Steel
Company, and their officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Independent Protective Association of Employees of the
Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania, or with the administration of Employees of Union
Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsyl-
vania, or with the formation and administration of any other labor
organization of its employees, and from contributing support to said
Association or said Employees' Union, or to any other labor organi-
zation of their employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of
Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge 1869, or in
Steel Workers Organizing Committee, or in any other labor organiza-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 889
tion of their employees, by discriminating in regard to hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
their employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
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 Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition both from Independent Protective
Association of Employees of the Union Drawn Steel Company Plants
No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and from Employees of
Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania, as the representative or representatives of their employ-
ees for the purpose of dealing with the respondents concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish both said
Association and said Employees' Union as such representative or rep-
resentatives;
(b) Offer to Thomas Eurick and Wilfred Thomas immediate and
full reinstatement. without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, to their former or substantially equivalent
positions ;
(c) Make whole Thomas Eurick and Wilfred Thomas for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the refusal to reinstate
them, by payment to each of them respectively of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the discriminatory refusal to reinstate him until the date of
the offer of reinstatement to him, less the amount, if any, of his net
earnings during such period, deducting, however, from the amount
otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies received by said
employee during said period for work performed upon Federal, State,
county, municipal, or other work-relief projects; and pay over the
amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which
supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(d) Immediately post in conspicuous places in Union Drawn Plants
No. 1 and No. 3, at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania and maintain for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days notices stating: (1) that
the respondents will cease and desist as aforesaid, and (2) that the
respondents withdraw all recognition from Independent Protective
Association of Employees of the Union Drawn Steel Company Plants
No. 1 and No. 3. Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and from Employees of
890 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union Drawn Steel Company Plants No. 1 and No. 3, Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania, as the representative of any of their employees for the
purposes of dealing with the respondents concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and that said labor organizations are disestablished as
such representative;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing
within ten (10) day from the date of this Order what steps the re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint, in so far as
it alleges that the respondents have discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Mike Capan, Edward Veon,
William Erwin, and Henry Lombardo, be, and the same hereby is,
dismissed.