Cowell Portland Cement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1020 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of COWELL PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL #356
Case No. C-390.Decided September 6, 1938
Cement Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion:
urging, persuading , and warning employees to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of union ; threat to close plant-Lock-Out-Company-Favored Union:
signing contract with ; soliciting membership in, by supervisory employees ;
urging , persuading , and warning employees to join-Contract : closed-shop, with
company-favored union which received its members as a result of employer's
unfair labor practices and at no time represented a majority of the employees,
void and of no effect; employer ordered to cease giving effect to-Condition of
Employment : membership in company -favored union-Boycott-Strike-Discrim-
ination: discharges ; refusal to reinstate ; for union membership and to discour-
age membership in union-Reinstatement Ordered: employees discharged and
refused reinstatement , dismissing newly hired employees , if necessary ; prefer-
ential list ordered ; to be followed in further reinstatement-Back Pay: awarded,
to date of offer of reinstatement or placement on preferential list, except for
period of seasonal shut-down-Collective Bargaining : employer 's refusal to bar-
gain collectively with union as exclusive representative of employees ; employer
ordered to recognize union as exclusive representative.
Mr. John T. McTernan, for the Board.
Thelen (& Marrin , by Mr. Max Thelen and Mr. Gordon Johnson, of
San Francisco , Calif., for the respondent.
Gladstein, Grossman & Margolis, by Mr. Aubrey Grossman and
Mr. Benjamin Margolis, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Anthony
Wayne Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the Smelter Workers Union.
Mr. Victor A. Pascal, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and supplemental charges filed by International
Union, Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America, Local #356, herein
called the Smelter Workers Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twen-
tieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued a complaint, dated
August 20, 1937, against Cowell Portland-Cement Company, a Cali-
8 N. L. R. B., No. 126.
1020
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1021
fornia corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat..449, herein called the Act. Copies of
'the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served
upon the respondent, the Smelter Workers Union, and the California
State Federation, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
The complaint was twice amended at the hearing over the objection of
the respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as
amended alleged in substance (a) that the respondent discriminated
in regard to the hire and tenure of 177 employees at its Cowell,
California, plant, who were members of or affiliated with the Smelter
Workers Union, by discharging and locking them out on July 16,
1937, and thereafter refusing to reemploy them unless they renounced
their affiliation with the Smelter Workers Union; (b) that during
June and July 1937 and thereafter, the respondent urged; persuaded,
and warned its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the Smelter Workers Union; (c) that on and after July
16, 1937, the respondent refused to bargain with the Smelter Workers
Union, which had been designated by a majority of the employees
in an appropriate unit as their bargaining representative; and (d)
that by these and other acts and conduct the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for
their mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Concord, Califoi•ni'a,
commencing Auanst 30, 1937, before Henrv Eickhoff, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent,
and the Smelter Workers Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing,
the respondent appeared specially and moved to dismiss the com-
plaint upon several grounds, which in substance are that the nature
of the business operations of the respondent does not bring it within
the jurisdiction of the Board, that the Act is not applicable to the
respondent, and that if the Act is applicable to the respondent
it is unconstitutional as applied to the respondent. Testimony con-
cerning the nature of the respondent's business was presented on
August 30 and 31. 1937, after which the hearing was adjourned until
September 7, 1937. By notice duly served upon the parties, the
hearing was postponed until further notice.
Pursuant to a notice duly served upon the parties, the hearing was
continued on September 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, October 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
1022 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11, 1937, before Clifford D. O'Brien, whom the Board had duly desig-
nated as Trial Examiner in place and stead of Henry Eickhoff.
During the hearing the respondent, reserving its objections, filed an
answer which was twice amended. As finally amended, the answer
in substance again objected to the jurisdiction of the Board, denied
that the respondent had committed the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and set forth affirmatively that on August 27, 1937,
the respondent had entered into a contract with a labor organiza-
tion known as Lime and Cement Employees Union of Contra Costa
County, No. 21,074, herein called the Lime Union, which had been
designated as their bargaining representative by a majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit, which contract required member-
ship in the Lime Union as a condition of employment.
Prior to filing its answer, the respondent moved to strike out the
portions of the complaint alleging unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act upon the ground that the
charges and supplemental charges filed by the Smelter Workers
Union did not specifically mention Section 8 (5) of the Act. Trial
Examiner O'Brien denied the motion. Thereafter and during the
hearing, Trial Examiner O'Brien, over the objection of the respond-
ent, permitted the filing of an amended charge specifically alleging
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act and the filing of an amended
complaint, in all respects similar to the original complaint. Trial
Examiner O'Brien denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the
complaint and to strike out all the evidence on jurisdictional grounds
and also denied its motion to strike out certain portions of the testi-
mony. During the course of the hearings, the Trial Examiners made
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminers and finds that ,no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing Trial Ex-
aminer O'Brien granted the parties opportunity to present oral argu-
ment and to file briefs. The parties did not avail themselves of this
opportunity.
On January 29, 1938, Trial Examiner O'Brien filed an Intermedi-
ate Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, deny-
ing the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, finding that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(3), and (5) and Section 2-(6) and (7) of the Act, and recommend-
ing that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and. affirmatively,
bargain collectively with the Smelter Workers Union upon request
and offer full reinstatement with back pay to the persons who were in
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1023
its employ on July 16, 1937. On February 7, 1938, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with the Board. The
Board has reviewed the exceptions and, save to the extent that the
findings below depart from those of the Trial Examiner, finds that
the exceptions are without merit. On April 5, 1938, the Board .duly
served upon the parties notice of oral argument to be held before the
Board on May 5, 1938. Neither the respondent nor the Smelter
Workers Union appeared to participate in the oral argument before
the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Cowell Portland Cement Company, is a Cali-
fornia corporation engaged primarily in the manufacture of Portland
cement at its plant in Cowell, Contra Costa County, California. The
respondent's operations are conducted on a tract of land of about
900 acres, upon which are situated the respondent's plant and its
quarries from which some of the raw materials used in the re-
spondent's manufacturing operations are obtained. Also situated on
the 900-acre tract are a boarding house and houses in which many
of the employees reside, a store and a hospital which are owned and
operated by the respondent, and other buildings. All the respond-
ent's products are sold by Henry Cowell Lime & Cement Company, a
corporation herein called the Lime Company, which owns most of
the respondent's capital stock. The respondent's products are'shipped
from the plant by trucks and by the Bay Point and Clayton Rail-
road Company, a corporation herein called the Railroad Company,
most of whose capital stock is also- owned by the Lime Company.
The railroad is about 81/2 miles in length and extends from the re-
spondent's plant to Port Chicago, California, where it connects with
the Santa Fe Railroad which, in turn, connects with the Southern
Pacific Railroad. Although the Railroad Company serves the gen-
eral public as a common carrier of passengers and freight and its
rates are regulated by both the Interstate Commerce Commission and
the California Railroad Commission, its chief business consists of
hauling the products manufactured by the respondent. The Railroad
Company and the respondent each own a locomotive, which they use
interchangeably, the respondent using one to haul raw material from
its quarries to the plant. A few of the respondent's employees also
spend part of their time working for the Railroad Company and
their salaries are paid by two checks of the respondent, which acts as
paymaster for the Railroad Company. The three corporations jointly
occupy an office in San Francisco, California, where their business
1024 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations are directed by W. H. George, who owns part of the out-
standing capital stock of the three corporations and serves as their
secretary and general manager. The balance of the outstanding
capital stock of the Lime Company is owned by S. H. Cowell and
I. M. Cowell, brother and sister, who also-are officers of the three
corporations. By reason of their management, stock ownership, and
operations, the three corporations act as one integrated business
enterprise.
Most of the materials used by the respondent in its manufacturing
operations consist of lime rock, clay, and sand obtained from quar-
ries on its property in Cowell. It also uses pantheon, celite, and
gypsum in the manufacture of the cement. In 1935, it used 2,184.05
tons of gypsum, 2,358.07 tons in 1936, and 1,668.16 tons from
January 1 to July 31, 1937. All the gypsum was shipped to the re-
spondent in Cowell from the State of Nevada. The respondent sells
white or Medusa cement, all of which it receives from York, Penn-
sylvania. In 1936, 1,329 75 barrels of this cement were shipped to
the respondent from York, Pennsylvania, and 1,113.75 barrels dur-
ing the period from January 1 to July 31, 1937. The respondent
purchases spare parts and replacements to its machinery which it
receives from sources within and outside the State of California,
although no evidence was presented as to the quantity or value of
these products.
During 1935, the respondent sold 304,113.50 barrels of Portland
cement, 30,273.75 barrels of which were shipped in interstate com-
merce ; during 1936 it sold 388,076.50 barrels of Portland cement,
49.346.75 barrels of which were shipped in interstate commerce; and
from January 1 to September 15, 1937, it sold 283,360.75 barrels of
Portland cement, 40,859.50 barrels of which were shipped in inter-
state commerce.
On July 16, 1937, there were 195 workers at the respondent's
Cowell plant exclusive of supervisory employees.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America,
Local #356, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for
Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. O. It admits to
membership all employees at the respondent's Cowell plant except
executives, persons having the power to hire and discharge, and
supervisory employees of the rank of foreman and above.
Lime and Cement Employees Union of Contra Costa County, No.
21,074, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L. Its eligibility to mem-
bership is similar to that of the Smelter Workers Union.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1025
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collectively; interference, restraint, and
coercion; the lock-out; and the strike
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that all the employees at the respondent's
Cowell plant, with the exception of executives, supervisory em-
ployees of the rank of foreman and above, and persons having the
power to hire and discharge, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. This unit accords with the claim
of the Smelter Workers Union as to the appropriate unit and its
actual organization among the respondent's employees. In its an-
swer, the respondent states affirmatively that the unit described in
the complaint is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. On August 27, 1937, the respondent entered into a contract
with the Lime Union in which the latter purported to bargain on
behalf of the employees in the unit described in the complaint. We
see no reason for deviating from the unit described in the complaint
and agreed to by all the parties.
We find that all the employees at the respondent's Cowell plant,
excluding executives, supervisory employees of the rank of foreman
and above, and persons having the power to hire and discharge,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that said unit insures to employees of the respondent the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Smelter Workers Union of the majority in
the appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that on and after July 16, 1937, the respond-
ent refused to bargain with the Smelter Workers Union which had
been designated as their bargaining representative by a majority of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
On July 15, 1937, the last day the respondent's plant operated nor-
mally, there were 195 employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.
The Smelter Workers Union's membership records were produced
at the hearing and were available for inspection and cross-examina-
tion by the respondent. The financial secretary of the Smelter
Workers Union prepared from its membership records a list of its
members on July 16, 1937, which was introduced in evidence and
checked with the respondent's July 15, 1937, pay roll. Although
the respondent objected to the introduction of the list, we find that
it was properly introduced in evidence and that it correctly sets forth
1026 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Smelter Workers Union's membership on July 16, 1937. We
find that, of the 195 employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
oil that day , 148 were members of the Smelter Workers Union and
that an additional 29 had applied for membership therein, indicating
that 177 employees had' designated the Smelter Workers Union as
their bargaining representative.
The respondent contended that nine employees who had signed
application blanks bearing the name of a union other than the Smelter
Workers Union could not be regarded as having designated the
Smelter Workers Union as their representative . It appears that at
the time the Smelter Workers Union was being organized there was
not a sufficient number of its membership application blanks on hand
for the use of all who desired to sign them , with the result that in
some cases different blanks were employed . It is clear that in signing
the blanks the applicants intended to join the Smelter Workers
Union . In any event, even if these nine application cards are dis-
counted , the Smelter Workers Union's majority is clearly established.
The respondent also contended that, after July 16, 1937, these
177 employees had lost their status as employees because it had laid
them off on that day and that thereafter the Smelter Workers Union
was no longer the bargaining representative of a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit. The respondent 's contention is
without merit . As we find below , the respondent discriminatorily
discharged the employees on July 16, 1937, and refused to reemploy
them because of their affiliation with the Smelter Workers Union.
These employees retained their status as employees for the purposes
of the Act and the designation of the Smelter Workers Union by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their bargaining
agent was not unpaired by,the respondent 's unfair labor practices.
We find that on July 15, 1937, and at all times thereafter the Smel-
ter Workers Union was the duly designated representative of a ma-
jority of the employees in the appropriate unit and, pursuant to
Section 9 ( a) of the Act, was the exclusive representative of all the
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of work, and other conditions of
employment.
3. The refusal to bargain; interference, restraint, and coercion; the
lock-out; and the strike
None of the respondent's employees appear to have been members
of a labor organization prior to the latter part of May 1937, when
the Smelter Workers Union began its organizational activities among
the employees at the respondent's plant. By June 1, 1937, about 150
employees had applied for membership in the Smelter Workers
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1027
Union. Thereafter, the Smelter Workers Union requested the re-
spondent to confer with it for the purpose of negotiating a contract.
A committee of the Smelter Workers Union and E. D. Barnett, the
respondent's superintendent, met on June 23, 1937, and discussed gen-
erally a proposed contract which the committee submitted to Barnett.
Barnett stated that an agreement with reference to wages could
not be concluded until after the respondent had ascertained its
financial condition by an audit of its books, although he indicated
that eventually they would be able to reach an agreement as to
.working conditions.
Mathew Mogus, the financial secretary of the Smelter Workers
Union and a member of the committee, testified that at this meeting
Barnett'told the committee that they "ought to keep away from hav-
ing anything to do with Mr. George (the respondent's secretary and
general manager) because if Mr. George got into the picture every-
1 ping would go up in smoke." In view of George's activities dis-
cussed below, we deem this testimony worthy of belief.
By a letter dated June 25, 1937, I. M. Cowell and S. H. Cowell
appointed Barnett as their representative in all matters relating to
an agreement with the employees, subject to approval by the Cow-
ells. Thereafter, meetings were held on June 30, July 7 and July
14, 1937, at which the Smelter Workers Union was represented by
the committee and at least one representative of the international
organization, and the respondent by Barnett and Gordon Johnson,
one of its attorneys. At these meetings, the respondent's agents
orally recognized the Smelter Workers Union as being the repre-
sentative of all the employees. The respondent insisted that an
agreement as to wages be reached before attempting to resolve their
differences as to the remaining provisions of the contract. The
Smelter Workers Union, however, maintained that the question of
wages should be considered together with the other clauses in the
contract and also requested the respondent to submit written coun-
terproposals to the parts of the contract which were objectionable
to it.. At the meeting held July 7, 1937, Barnett indicated that he
might bring the respondent's definite proposal to the next meeting,
which was to be held a week later. Instead of submitting a coun-
terproposal at the meeting held July 14, 1937, the respondent only
proposed a wage increase affecting approximately 25 per cent of
the employees and stated that it would try to observe a 40-hour
week, but submitted nothing in writing. The Smelter Workers
Union continued to insist that the respondent submit counterpro-
posals in writing so that they might be discussed at the Union's
next meeting, which had been fixed for the evening of July 16, 1937.
Johnson finally agreed to deliver copies of the counterproposals to
117213-39-vol. 8--.-66
1028 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mogus and to Chase J. Powers, a representative of the international
organization of the Smelter Workers Union, by the afternoon of
July 16, 1937, and left the meeting, although the other parties con-
tinued their conversations.
Thereafter Powers told Barnett that he had heard that George,
the respondent's general manager and Barnett's superior, was trying
to induce the employees to become members of a union other than
the Smelter Workers Union and that he did not want to report this
fact to the National Labor Relations Board because of the pending
negotiations between the Smelter Workers Union and the respond-
ent. Barnett answered, "If I were you, I would go the limit as far
as Mr. George was concerned."
While these negotiations were being conducted George was engaged
in a course of conduct calculated and intended to stultify the very
purposes for which the parties were meeting and to prevent them
from concluding an agreement.
George testified that in February 1937, he had been approached by
a group of A. F. of L. officials who insisted that the respondent's
employees become members of a union affiliated with their organiza-
tion. Commencing about May 1937, George was in communication
with various State and National officials of the A. F. of L. and was
eventually assured by Vandeleur, secretary of the California Federa-
tion of Labor, that a federal charter would be procured for the em-
ployees at the plant. On July 12, 1937, George received from Von
Tellrop, one of the vice presidents of the State Federation of Labor,
several applications for membership in a federal union to be signed
by employees. The next day, according to Victor Sayers, a chemist
at the plant, George questioned him concerning his membership in
the Smelter Workers Union, told him that "the C. I. O. is purely com-
munistic," and asked him to become a charter member of the pro-
posed union, saying that "we could have a little company union of
our own here." About 2 days later, upon being called to George's
office, Sayers refused to accede to George's prior request. Sayers
further testified that, in answer to George's characterization of the
Smelter Workers Union as "communistic" in the discussion which
followed, he asked George why the respondent was conducting nego-
tiations with an organization of that type and that George answered
"there has been a great mistake made. However, that has all been
fixed up." Frank E. Francis, one of the re'spondent's chauffeurs,
testified that on July 14, 1937, George asked him if. he belonged to
the C. I. 0., stating that the organization was "red and communist."
In testifying concerning the conversation, Francis also stated that
"then he said they wanted me to sign up with the A. F. of L., that it
would be a better union for me to sign up with . . . and I told
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1029
him my answer was `No'." We credit Sayers and Francis' testi-
mony, which was not denied by George. Despite these rebuffs
George testified that seven or eight employees, the minimum neces-
sary to procure the federal union's charter, signed the membership
application blanks which Von Tellrop had given him.
The respondent sought to divert membership from the Smelter
Workers Union by other means. Mogus testified that about May 27,
1937, he was called into George's office and that during their conver-
sation George questioned him about the C. I. 0., said the organiza-
tion was "run by a bunch of racketeers," asked him the names of
the members of the Smelter Workers Union, told him "that he didn't
think I (Mogus) was a very loyal employee by running off with the
C. I. 0." and that "if it was necessary, they would close down the
plant before they would deal with a labor organization." Mogus
further testified that after he left George's office his foreman, H. R.
Brandenburg, asked him why the employees did not organize with
the A. F. of L. instead of the C. I. O. and told him that if he "went
on with the crazy idea that the stigma of my being associated with-
the reds, communists, would not only follow me but that it would be
carried on to all my relatives and probably, if I so happened to have
any children, it would follow them." Although George admitted
having had a conversation with Mogus, he denied that he made the
statements attributed to him by Mogus. We deem Mogus' testimony.
worthy of belief. Brandenburg did not testify at the hearing.
On July 16, 1937, the truckmen, all of whom were members of a
union affiliated with the A. F. of L., failed to appear at the plant to
cart away the respondent's products after 10: 30 a. m. and two pickets,
bearing placards stating that the respondent was unfair to the Contra
Costa Building Trades Council affiliated with the A. F. of L., were
stationed at entrances to the respondent's premises at Cowell. Ac-
cording to Barnett, at about noon that day, he was visited by a com-
mittee of officials affiliated with the A. F. of L. who told him that
they had previously informed George that "unless the employees were
organized 100 per cent in the Buildings Trades" before July 15, 1937,
the plant would be declared unfair to organized labor, a picket lime
would be established, and the respondent's products would be placed
on the unfair list of the A. F. of L.; and since their demands had not
been met, the threatened sanctions had been invoked, the pickets being
posted, and the truckmen refusing to cart the respondent's products.
Barrett told the committee that he was in complete ignorance as to
the subject of their demands and suggested that they see George.
At the hearing, the respondent made no attempt to reconcile the
presence of the A. F. of L. committee and pickets at its plant and the
truckmen's refusal to cart its products on July 16, 1937, with the
1030 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact that there had been no interruption in the amicable negotiations
which were then being conducted between George and the A. F. of L.
officials to install a local of that organization at the plant. Indeed,
it is significant that Johnson, the respondent's attorney, had prom-
ised to deliver the respondent's written counterproposals to the
Smelter Workers Union during the afternoon of that day. Barnett
testified that he telephoned Johnson, related the events which had
occurred, that Johnson told him "that until the. situation cleared up
a bit, he would have to defer sending up the proposal," and to notify
Mogus and Powers of his decision. The same afternoon, Barnett
told Mogus to inform Powers that the respondent would not sub-
mit its counterproposals as "Hell broke loose in San Francisco and
Mr. Johnson was in the thick of it." The bargaining negotiations
between the Smelter Workers Union and the respondent were not
resumed thereafter.
The same day, July 16, 1937, the respondent shut down its plant
and, as we find below, discriminatorily locked out the employees
listed on appendix A' and unlawfully endeavored to coerce them
into becoming members of the Lime Union.
The lock-out and strike
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that on July 16, 1937,
the respondent discharged and locked out the employees whose names
are set forth in appendix A because of their affiliation with the
Smelter Workers Union.
George testified that on July 9, 1937, Barnett had -told him that
the plant would be ready for a seasonal shut-down at any time within
the next 2 weeks. The term, seasonal shut-down, as applied to the re-
spondent's business denotes a period of suspension of the plant's pro-
duction operations due to weather conditions or an oversupply of
clinker and cement. George further testified that when he left the
respondent's San Francisco office on July 16, 1937, he had decided to
cause the plant to be closed for a -seasonal shut-down on July 17, 1937,
for business reasons. When he arrived at the respondent's premises in
Cowell at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, one of the,
pickets told him that he had been stationed there by the business
agent of the Contra Costa Building Trades Council. George fur-
ther testified that, upon arriving at the plant and discovering that no
trucks had been there since 10: 30 o'clock that morning, he instructed
Barnett to close all the departments in the plant, except the pumps,
as quickly as possible. The plant' shut down the same day.
'The names of,some of the individuals listed on appendix A are spelled incorrectly,
but their identity is clear,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1031
The respondent contends that the'shut-down of July 16, 1937, was
not a lock-out, but was occasioned by a decrease in the amount of
orders for its products and the accumulation of a sufficient supply
of materials on hand for its needs. Apart from general oral testi-
mony, no evidence was presented from which we can determine
whether or not the number of orders for the respondent's products
had decreased. Although the respondent maintained that nearly all
its bins containing cement for general use were full on that day,
Barnett testified that the plant could have operated for 2 weeks
more; and Mogus testified that it could have operated for 2 months
more.
George testified that he had intended instituting on July 19, 1937,
the operations which were normally conducted at the plant during
a shut-down period, but that the presence of the pickets caused him
to change his mind on July 18, as he feared that violence might
result. After the shut-down of July 16, 1937, although some main-
tenance operations were conducted, the plant did not resume its pro-
duction activities or ship out cement until about October 1, 1937.
During this period, the respondent purchased cement from other
concerns to fill its orders.
The manner in which the plant shut down on July 16, 1937, dif-
fered greatly from the circumstances attendant upon the respond-
ent's previous seasonal shut-downs. Barnett testified that, if he
received prior notice of a contemplated shut-down, he would "pass
the word around", to the employees and that, prior to July 16,
1937, he had never been told at 3: 30 o'clock in the afternoon to close
the plant the same afternoon. No prior notice of the contemplated
shut-down on July 16, 1937, was given to the employees. In fact,
Farel C. Snavley was hired by Barnett on July 15, 1937, as a mill
laborer and was not told of a contemplated shut-down. During
prior shut-downs, a full crew was maintained at the packing house,
so as to attend to orders shipped out during these periods. All
the employees in the packing house were given lay-off slips by the
respondent on July 16, 1937. Contrary to the respondent's previous
practice, the various departments did not close down a portion at
a time, but on July 16, 1937, there was an abrupt cessation of work
at the termination of each shift. Although, during prior shut-down
periods, a crew was retained at the plant to attend to repairs and
replacements to machinery, lay-off slips were also given to these
employees on July 16, 1937. Barnett testified that he had instructed
the,foremen of the various departments to. give all the employees
lay-off slips (with the exception of Gonzales who received a dis-
charge slip) and it appears that his instructions were carried out.
1032 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A meeting of the Smelter Workers Union was called for the night
of July 16, 1937, to consider the counterproposals which the re-
spondent had promised to submit to it that day. At a meeting held
the next day, the Smelter Workers Union voted to strike, established
a picket line at the respondent's premises the same day, and the
strike became effective.
The events which occurred immediately after the shut-down was
effected reveal that it was the respondent's plan to avoid bargaining
with the Smelter Workers Union by locking out the employees and
installing the Lime Union as the labor organization at its plant. As
early as Saturday, July 17, 1937, Harry Albee, a foreman, told Emil
Butzer, an electrician, and Tom Robbins, another employee, "If you
want to sign as a member of the A. F. of L. you can go back to
work on Monday." This and similar efforts of the respondent to
compel the employees to join the A. F. of L. are of especial signifi-
cance, in view of the fact that, as is noted below, the respondent did
not enter into a closed-shop agreement with the Lime Union until
August 27, 1937, 6 weeks after the shut-down. Three or four days
after the shut-down, V. J. Henden, foreman of the carpenter shop,
visited Dominic Bariani, one of his subordinates and a member of
the Smelter Workers Union, and told him that he could return to
work if he "didn't carry no button" with him. About a week and
a half after the shut-down, George visited the home of three em-
ployees named Rubiales and said that he would not reopen the plant
with a C. I. O. crew. About August 15, 1937, W. E. Sullivan, fore-
man of the sack house, visited the home of George Marines, who
had been employed in the sack house and who had never been laid
off before July 16, 1937, during the 12 years he had worked for the
respondent, and told him that he had been instructed to tell Marines
to return to work and "sign up with the A. F. of L." In fact, an
office of the A. F. of L., at which membership in the organization
was solicited, was maintained next door to the respondent's store
in Cowell. When Donald B. Reynolds, who was employed as a
fireman, applied for work on August 11, 1937, George sent him to
Von Tellrop to "sign up with the A. F. of L." as a condition of his
returning to work, stating that "they were planning to hold an
election up there."
On July 19, 1937, the respondent deprived Barnett of his authority
to represent it in connection with the proposed agreement by ap-
pointing its attorneys, Thelen and Johnson, to represent it "in all
labor relations matters at Cowell." Thelen met with a committee of
striking employees on August 17, 1937, and told them that the re-
spondent could not recognize the Smelter Workers Union and that
the employees would be obliged to sign up with the A. F. of L. in
order to return to work, although the closed-shop contract with the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1033
Lime Union was not signed until nearly 2 weeks thereafter. A com-
mittee of striking employees held another meeting with Thelen on
September 7, 1937, at which he again stated that membership in the
Lime Union was a condition of employment.
At the hearing, Barnett stated that Manuel Gonzales, one of the
employees, had not been laid off, but had been discharged on July
16, 1937. He further testified that, as he and Stenger, Gonzales'
foreman, had considered Gonzales to be "an inefficient and unsatis-
factory man for the position," they had decided to discharge him at
the next seasonal shut-down. Although Stenger took the stand, he
offered no testimony concerning Gonzales or his alleged failings.
We agree with the Trial Examiner in finding that the evidence does
not warrant regarding Gonzales' case as different from all the others.
The employees whose names are set forth in appendix A were
members of or had applied for membership in the Smelter Workers
Union and were employees of the respondent on July 16, 1937, when
they were locked out in order to compel them to renounce their
affiliation with the Smelter Workers Union and join the Lime Union.
We find that on July 16, 1937, and at all times thereafter the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Smelter Workers
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appro-
priate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
other conditions of employment.
We find that on July 16, 1937, the respondent locked out and
discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate the individuals whose
names are set forth in appendix A for the reason that they were
members of or had applied for membership in the Smelter Workers
Union. The respondent thereby discriminated in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in the
Smelter Workers Union. Further findings with respect to discrimi-
nation in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of these
employees are set forth in section B below.
We find that by the acts set forth in the two preceding paragraphs
and-by urging, pursuading, and warning its employees to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the Smelter Workers Union
and to join the Lime Union, the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and other, mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
1034 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
B. The respondent's relations with the Lime Union and the closed-
shop contract
Pursuant to its plan to install the Lime Union as the representative
of its employees, the respondent, as soon as the plant closed down,
-demanded membership in the A. F. of L. as a condition of the
employees' return to work.
Although the A. F. of L. issued a charter to the Lime Union on
August 4, 1937, its first meeting was not held until August 26, 1937.
According to George, Vandeleur spoke to him before the first meet-
ing about a contract with the Lime Union. No negotiations with
reference to the terms of the contract were conducted and George
caused the contract to be drawn by Max Thelen, one of the respond-
ent's attorneys. The contract, as drawn by Thelen, provided that
the Lime Union would accept as members "the present employees"
of the respondent' in the same bargaining unit as we have found
above to be appropriate ; that the respondent would be the sole
judge of the competency of its employees and would have the right
to hire and discharge any employee, provided that the respondent
would require membership in the Lime Union as a condition of
employment; that "all present" employees were obliged to become
members of the Lime Union within 15 days and all employees subse-
quently hired were obliged to become members of the Lime Union
within 30 days ; that the respondent would recognize the Lime Union's
bargaining committee and make an earnest effort to reach an agree-
ment with it with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment; and the contract further
provided for the arbitration of grievances which could not otherwise
be resolved. The contract as drawn by Thelen was acceptable to
Vandeleur after the respondent, at his request, had changed it so as
to compel newly hired employees to join the Lime Union within 10
days- instead of 30 days, as set forth in the original draft.
On August 26, 1937, 21 of the respondent's employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit were members of the Lime Union, 20 of
whom attended its meeting held that night. Immediately prior to
the shut-down, five of the Lime Union's members were employed as
foremen, but it was claimed that they were not serving in a super-
visory capacity on August 26, 1937. The record does not indicate the
total number of employees working at the plant at that time but, as
it does not appear that the respondent ceased demanding member-
ship in the Lime Union as a condition of employment, apparently all
the eligible employees were members of the organization. At the
meeting, officers were elected, Thelen's contract was read and ap-
proved, and the officers were directed to sign it on behalf of the Lime
Union. The next morning, at Vandeleur's office, the newly elected
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1035
C
officers took their oaths of office and the contract was signed on behalf
of the Lime Union by two of its officers. Subsequently, George signed
the contract as secretary of the respondent.
The respondent sought to justify its activities in connection with
the Lime Union by asserting that the A. F. of L. had threatened to
boycott its products unless the employees were members of one of its
subsidiary unions. However, Mogus testified that he told Thelen
that the respondent's products had already been placed, upon the
unfair list of the A. F. of L. because of George's activity in connec-
tion with a carpenter's strike. We credit this testimony as it was
neither refuted nor denied. But, regardless of its motives in com-
pelling the employees to join the Lime Union, the respondent over-
looks the provisions of the Act which make it an unfair labor prac-
tice for an employer to interfere with employees in the exercise of
their right to form, join, and assist labor organizations.2
By establishing as a condition of employment membership in the
Lime Union, the respondent has discriminated in favor of the Lime
Union and against the Smelter Workers Union. Such discrimination
is an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act, unless the closed-shop contract with the Lime Union
falls within the proviso of Section 8 (3) of the Act.3 Since the Lime
Union received its members as a result of the respondent's unfair
labor practices and at no time represented a majority of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, the closed-shop contract does not fall
within the proviso of Section 8 (3) of the Act and is void and of no
effect. We will therefore order the respondent not to give any effect
to its contract with the Lime Union dated August 27, 1937.
The employees who were locked out on July 16, 1937, having ceased
work as a consequence of an unfair labor practice, remained, under
Section 2 (3) of the Act, employees of the respondent for the purpose
of the Act and were protected against the unfair labor practices
'denounced by it.4 Pursuant to its illegal closed-shop contract,, the
2 National Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Company. ( 1938 ) 97 Fed.
(2nd) 465
3 The Act provides, in part, as follows : "Sec . 8 It shall be an unfair labor practice
for an employer-. . . ( 3) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any
labor orgamzation : Provided, That nothing in this Act , or in the National Industrial
Recovery Act (U. S. C., Supp VII, title 15 , secs 701-712 ), as amended from time to
time, or in any code or agreement approved or prescribed thereunder , or in any other
statute of the United States , shall preclude an employer fiom making an agreement with
a labor organization ( not established , maintained, or assisted by any action defined in
this Act as an unfair labor practice ) to require as a condition of employment membership
therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in
section 9 ( a), in the appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement
when made "
* See National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company (1938)
58 S. Ct. 904.
1036 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent demanded membership in the Lime Union as a condition
of reinstatement. The imposition of this discriminatory condition
of employment also operated as a discriminatory denial of reinstate-
ment to the employees who were locked out on July 16, 1937, and we
find that the respondent has thereby discouraged membership in one
labor organization and encouraged membership in another labor or-
ganization by discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment.5
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 have led, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices and will order it to cease and desist therefrom. As
the employees listed in appendix A were discriminatorily discharged
on July 16, 1937, and were thereafter refused reinstatement by the
respondent, we shall order the respondent to reinstate them to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges and to give them back
pay. Such reinstatement shall be effected in the following manner :
All employees hired after July 16, 1937, shall, if necessary to pro-
vide employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed.
If, even after this is done there is not, by reason of a reduction in
the force of employees needed, sufficient employment immediately
available for the remaining employees, including those to be offered
reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed among such
remaining employees in accordance with the respondent's usual
method of reducing its force, without discrimination against any
employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following a
system of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied in
the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees remain-
ing after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately
available, shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accord-
ance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence and shall,
thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in
6 See Matter of Carlisle Lumber Company and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local
2511, Onalaska, Washington and Associated Employees of Onalaska, Inc., Intervener, 2
N. L. R. B. 248, 94 F. (2nd) 138, cert. den. May 23, 1938.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1037
their former or in substantially equivalent positions as such employ-
ment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such
work.
We have found that on July 16, 1937, the respondent closed its
plant not for the purpose of a seasonal shut-down but to effect its
preconceived plan of discriminatorily locking out its employees and
compelling them to become members of the Lime Union. The evi-
dence indicates that, under normal conditions, the plant would have
operated after July 16, 1937. However, the strife which accompanied
the lock-out prevented normal operations' from being conducted at the
plant. As a result thereof, the respondent kept the plant shut down
and its usual production operations were not resumed until about
October 1, 1937. We cannot ascertain with any degree of certainty
the date upon which the plant would have closed for the purposes of
a seasonal shut-down or the period during which it would have re-
mained closed if the respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices which we have discussed above. However, we find that, in
accordance with Barnett's testimony as noted above, the plant could
have remained in operation for 2 weeks after July 16, 1937. There-
fore, in computing back pay for the period during which the plant
was closed down, we will order that the respondent pay to each of the
employees listed on appendix A a sum of money equal to that which
he would have received as wages if he had been working steadily for
the respondent during the period from July 16 to July 30, 1937, less
his net earnings e during that period. We shall order the respondent
also to pay to each of the employees listed on appendix A a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have received as wages
from October 1, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement or
placement upon a preferential list mentioned in the preceding para-
graph, less his net earnings 7 during that period.
As the Smelter Workers Union has been duly designated as such,
we shall order the respondent to bargain with the Smelter Workers
Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the ap-
propriate unit. Since the Lime Union was not the freely chosen
representative of the employees in the said bargaining unit, we shall
order the respondent not to give effect to its contract with the Lime
Union and to cease and desist from recognizing the Lime Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees unless and until it is
certified as such by the Board.
6 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
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local No. 2590, 8 N L. R. B. 440.
7 See footnote 6, supra.
1038 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We shall also order the respondent to perform such other acts as
will tend to assure the employees complete freedom to exercise the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America,
Local #356, and Lime and Cement Employees Union of Contra Costa
County, No. 21,074, are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All the employees at the Cowell plant of Cowell Portland Ce-
ment Company, excluding executives, supervisory employees of the
rank of foreman and above, and persons having the power to hire
and discharge, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. International Union, Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America,
Local #356, was on July 15, 1937, and at all times thereafter has been,
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America, Local #356, as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment and terms and conditions of employment of the employees listed
in appendix A and thereby discouraging membership in Inter-
national Union, Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America, Local,
#356, and encouraging membership in Lime and Cement Employees
Union of Contra Costa County, No. 21,074, the respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
. 7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1039
Act, the National Labor. Relations Board_ hereby orders that the
respondent, Cowell Portland Cement Company, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union, Mine, Mill
& Smelter Workers of America, Local #356, or any other labor
organization of its employees, or encouraging membership in Lime
and Cement Employees Union of Contra Costa County, No. 21,074,
or any other labor organization of 'its employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Giving effect to its contract with Lime and Cement Employees
Union of Contra Costa County, No. 21,074, providing, however, that
nothing in this order shall preclude the respondent from hereafter
making an agreement with Lime and Cement Employees Union of
Contra Costa County, No. 21,074, or any labor organization (not
established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act as an unfair labor practice) requiring, as
a condition of employment, membership therein, if such labor organi-
zation is the representative of the employees as provided in Section
9 (a) of the Act;
(c) Recognizing Lime and Cement Employees Union of Contra
Costa County, No. 21,074, as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees unless' and until Lime and Cement Employees Union of
Contra Costa County, No. 21,074, is certified as such by the Board;
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union,
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America, Local #356, as the exclu-
sive representative of all its employees at its Cowell plant, exclusive
of executives, supervisory employees of the rank of foreman and
above, and persons having the power to hire and discharge, in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment ;
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees listed in appendix A immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantively equivalent posi-
1040 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy"
above, placing those employees for whom employment is not immedi-
ately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in
said section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as
it becomes available;
(b) Make whole the employees named in appendix A for any losses
of pay they have suffered by the respondent's discriminatory acts,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would have earned as wages if he had been working steadily for the
respondent during the period from July 16 to July 30, 1937, and a
sum of money equal to that which lie would normally have received
as wages from October 1, 1937, to the date of the respondent's offer
of reinstatement or placement upon the preferential list required by
paragraph (a) above, less the net earnings during those periods;
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union,
Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers of America, Local #356, as the ex-
clusive representative of all its employees at its Cowell plant, exclu-
sive of executives, supervisory employees of the rank of foreman and
above, and persons having the power to hire and discharge, in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment;
(d) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in its plant and
quarries stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the man-
ner aforesaid, and maintain said notices for a period of at least thirty
(30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
Able, A. P.
Arias, Isidro
Arriaga, J.
Arrien, P.
Ball, C. L.
Balimes, C. V.
Bariani, D.
Barreras, R.
Berger, T.
Bisso , Angelo
Black, B.
Bowe, Tom
Bronsdon, U. P.
Brown, R.
Burgess, J.
Burruss, W.
Burt, J. A.
Bustamente, M.
Butler, R.
Butzer, E.
Cain, J.
Capitani, D.
Carlos, J.
Carrera, J.
Carter, H.
Castro, J. M.
Chaves, Luis
Chapralis, N.
Chilton, G. L.
Civello, Frank
Clark, B.
Colombo, E.
Colston, W. H.
Conway, J.
Coulombe, L. E.
Delsigne, John
Derigo, E.
Diegelman, C. D.
Dimas, Theo.
Draper, F.
Fabre, R.
Fariss, E. W.
Faulkner, R.
Ferreira, M.
Flores, R.
Fontana, E.
Foster, L. S.
Francis, F. E.
Frasee, P.
Freire, H.
Fuller, J. W.
Garcia, B. IT.
Garcia , Miguel
Garcia, R.
Garcia, S.
Garrison, C. B.
Gericke, Eldon
German, R.
Gilmore, C.
Gonsales, M.
Gonsalves, A.
Gonsalves, M.
Gruessing, Lester
Hames, L. W.
Hanson, W.
Harris, J.
Harrison, J.
Hayes, F. D.
Hewlett, M.
Hogan, F.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
Holman, C. D.
Johnson, A.
Johnson, G. A.
Kaminski, J. A.
Kaske, R.
Kimbley, N. E.
Kirby, H. W.
Koup, C.
Krieger, W. M.
Kriticos, C.
Kuhne, F.
Lamberger, M.
Lane, D. J.
La Verne, D.
Layman, C. N.
Lopes, Albert
Losa, L.
Lousa, German
Luj an, S.
Maduros, W.
Malone, E. P.
Manos, N.
Manos, W.
Marines, D.
Marines, Geo.
Marshall, M.
Marseu, L.
Martin, Pete
McAtee, H. D.
McCall, J. H.
McGinley, Mike
McKeen, Jas.
McMorris, E.
McMorris, H.
McMorris, R.
Mendoza, F.
Miller, I.
Mogus, Mathew
Molina, A.
Monde, Ralph
Monterrosa, F.
Montes, C.
Montes, E.
Montes, M.
1041
1042 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreno, Benito
Morgan, D. D.
Morphy, F.
Nelson, W. A.
Nichols, A.
Nichols, H. A.
Ortega, P.
Padilla, V.
Paoli, F.
Pearce, Tom
Pendergrass, C.
Pendergrass, T. A.
Peres, A.
Perez, P.
Peterson, W.
Phillips, V.
Pippert, F.
Piscovich, M.
Porath, F.
Prentice, H. M.
Puerta, C.
Rameris, Fernando F.
Regan, J.
Remmert, Ralph,
Reynolds, D. B.
Richardson, W. L.
Robbins, T.
Robinson, W. C.
Rodrigues, Ricardo
Rogers, H.
Romero, E.
Rubiales, Jim
Rubiales, John
Rubiales, Juan
Salisbury, B.
Sallaba, Jack
Sanchez, A.
Sayers, T. P.
Sayers, Victor
Seay, H.
Seay, John
Seeley, Milton
Silva, W. J.
Smith, C. B.
Smith, H.
Snaveley, Farel
Speck, Dan
Solis, P.
Steers, C. H.
Stine, D.
Thoma (s), Earl
Tooley, S.
Tunnell, Guy
Unick, B.
Valencia, D.
Valencia, Jose
Vansura, F. C.
Vargas, R.
Vasilakis, M.
Walsh, J.
Warford, J. A.
Whaley, F.
Wood, O.