Crucible Steel Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1936

2 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA and STRIP
STEEL AND WIRE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 20084, 'AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Cases Nos. R-25 and C-67-Decided October 09, 1936
Iron and Steel Industry-Election Ordered: controversy concerning repre-
sentation of employees-rival organizations, refusal by employer to recognize
union as bargaining agency ; request by substantial number in appropriate
unit-question affecting commerce : prior strike caused by employer ' s refusal to
recognize representatives-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : produc-
tion employees ; plant : community of interest ; established labor organizations
in plant; eligibility for membership in petitioning union-Interference, Re-
straint or Coercion : expressed opposition to labor organization , threats of
retaliatory action; surveillance of, questioning regarding organizational activi-
ties and meetings ; interference with organizational activity ; vilifying union
and union leaders-Discrimination: discharge-Reinstatement Ordered-Back
Pay: awarded.
Mr. David A. Moscovitz for the Board.
Mr. Raoul Desvernine , of New York City, for respondent. Mr.
Edward M. Garvey, of New York City, of counsel.
Mr. Louis L. Jaffe, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 8, 1936, Strip Steel and Wire Workers Union, Local
No. 20084, a federal labor union chartered by the American Federa-
tion of Labor, hereinafter called the Union, petitioned the Board to
investigate and certify representatives of the production employees
of the Crucible Steel Company of America, Jersey City, New Jersey,
hereinafter called the respondent,' at its Spaulding & Jennings
Works, Jersey City, hereinafter called the S. & J. Works, pursuant
to Section 9 (c) of the Act. The petition stated that "the S. & J.
Works Council, a company union", also claims to represent the em-
ployees. On February 7, 1936, the Board directed an investigation
and hearing. Notice of hearing was served on the respondent, the
Works Council and the Union.
' The Crucible Steel Company, though not technically a respondent in the representation
case, will for convenience be designated as such in this decision , which deals with both
the complaint and representation cases.
298
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 299
On March 9, 1936, the Union filed a charge 2 with the Regional
Director for the Second Region against the respondent, charging the
respondent with violations of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (3) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935,
alleged to have taken place at its S. & J. Works. Thereupon a com-
plaint and notice of hearing signed by Elinore M. Herrick, Regional
Director for the Second Region, were issued and duly served upon
the respondent. The complaint charged respondent with violations
of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act because of the
discharge and refusal to reinstate John Lutz and Alva Kocher, for
the reason that they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities with other employees at the S. & J. Works for
the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and pro-
tection; and with violations of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (5)
of the Act because of its refusal to bargain with the Union as the
representative of its employees.3
The respondent filed a special appearance denying that "its busi-
ness and its relations with any of its employees or former employees
affect interstate commerce", and "that the Board . . . has any juris-
diction in the premises . . . either under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act or under any other federal statute". It claimed also that
the exercise of jurisdiction violated rights guaranteed to it by the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
A hearing was held in both cases on March 23, 1936, in New York
City before Benedict Wolf, the Trial Examiner designated by the
Board. It was agreed and stipulated between counsel for the Board
and the respondent that the two cases be heard together. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues in both cases was afforded
to all parties. Counsel for the respondent announced that he was
appearing specially on the jurisdictional question and was not par-
ticipating on any other question.
On March 27, 1936, pursuant to Section 35 of Article II of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, the
Board directed that the proceeding in the complaint case be trans-
ferred to and continued before it.
A further hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on April 2 to April 8, 1936, inclusive, at which time there was in-
troduced into the record on behalf of the Board oral and written
evidence tending to lend further support to the findings made by
Congress in Section 1 of the Act, and tending to show the need for,
and the practicability and reasonableness of, the method adopted by
2 This was an amended charge Three previous charges had been filed.
8 This charge was struck out at the hearing on motion of the Board's counsel
•
300 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Congress for dealing with the problem. The oral testimony was
received from persons generally recognized as experts in their re-
spective fields, who qualified as such before giving, testimony ; and
the written evidence was prepared from authoritative sources. The
staff of the Board, under its direction and close supervision, has
summarized and rearranged this evidence in the form of a bulletin '4
which'is being issued concurrently with and as a supplement to this
decision, and which is hereby made a part hereof as if incorporated
herein.
In issuing this bulletin, the Board does so with the realization that
the treatment of the various subjects dealt with therein is not in-
clusive, nor does the Board suppose that because the evidence sum-
marized in the bulletin was received in a hearing held pursuant to
Section 10 (b) of the Act, the conclusions stated in the bulletin are
conclusive upon the courts as provided in Section 10 (e) of the Act
with respect to other findings of the Board. Rather, the Board
offers the bulletin for the information and assistance of the courts
and for others who may desire to have in convenient form some of
the learning which has been gathered during the years in the various
fields covered by the witnesses.
After examining the record in the case, the Board concluded that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of certain of the production employees of the respondent, and
on the basis of such conclusion, and acting pursuant to Article III,
Section 8 of said Rules and Regulations-Series 1, issued a Direc-
fion for Election (April 16, 1936)5 in which it found that said em-
ployees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. Merely for the purpose of expediting the election and
thus to insure to the employees of the respondent the full benefit of
their right to collective bargaining as early as possible, the Board
directed the election without at the same time issuing a decision
embodying complete findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and from the entire
record now before it, including the transcript of the hearing and
exhibits introduced, the Board, for the purposes of both cases, makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA
The respondent is a New Jersey corporation, which together with
its wholly-owned subsidiaries-six in number-manufactures and
4 National Labor Relations Board, Bulletin No . 1, Governmental Protection of Labor's
Right to Organize ( August 1936 ) ; United States Government Printing Office.
51 N. L. R. B. 545
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 301.
distributes a widely diversified line of steel and pig-iron. In annual
steel ingot capacity it was in 1934 the tenth largest producer of steel,
in the United States. It specializes in high grade steels; the S. & J.
Works, for example, is the largest producer of high grade strip and
wire specialties in the country.
In a registration statement filed with the Securities and Ex-
change Commission, the respondent describes itself and its sub-
sidiaries as "a completely integrated unit". The respondent owns
iron ore properties in Minnesota, coal mines in Pennsylvania from
which it carries coal by its own barges to its various plants, and
limestone quarries. The respondent operates eight plants in Penn-
sylvania, New Jersey and New York, in which it manufactures coke,
pig-iron, staple steel forms, and high grade steels. It owns ware-
houses in Rhode Island, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Detroit, and
rents other warehouses for the sale and distribution of its products.
The respondent has salesmen throughout the country.
The S. & J. Works is run from the central office of the respondent
in New York City. It secures its raw materials, e. g., coal and steel,
from Pennsylvania through the New York office; it receives its cus-
tomer orders from that office. The S. & J. Works sends its products
to all parts of the United States and to foreign countries, at least
80 per cent of the product going outside of New Jersey. Common
.carrier railroad sidings run into the plant; on these sidings the
respondent's employees load the products into cars for outbound
shipment.
The ramifications of the Crucible Steel Company are thus broadly
extended over many States. It is impossible to isolate the opera-
tions of each of its Works or to consider them as detached, separate-
"local"-phenomena. In this and many other respects the respond-
ent shows the characteristics of the steel industry as a whole. This
industry had, as of 1934, an investment of $4,705,976,350. To sup-
port its activity 33,000 men mine ore, 44,000 men mine coal, 4,000
men quarry limestone, 16,000 men manufacture coke, 343,000 men
manufacture steel, and 83,000 men transport its product. The con-
ception of the industry as a conduit through which materials pass
in a continuous stream from mine to consumer, undergoing trans-
formations en route, at the mine, at the mill, at the fabricating plant,
until they are delivered to the consumer becomes, for technical and
economic reasons, more and more exact.
The steel industry involves enormous movements of materials
back and forth across the length and breadth of the nation. Of
approximately 25,000,000 tons of ore mined in the United States in
1934, 15,000,000 were mined in Minnesota, 5,000,000 in Michigan, and
2,000,000 in Alabama. These States, on the other hand, accounted
302 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for less than 2,000,000 of the 15,686,442 tons of pig-iron manufac-
tured in that year. In Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana,
producing 11,285,014 tons of pig-iron, only 524,667 tons of ore were
mined. Additional iron ore is imported from Cuba and Chile.
States producing 9,429,305 tons of pig-iron, 55.7 per cent of the total,,
import all the coal used by them in the manufacture of coke. Of
the approximately 114;00( tons-of-manganese used in the industry,;
95,000 tons are imported from Brazil, India and Russia; the re-
mainder is mined in States of the United States producing little or
no pig-iron or steel. A great steel company will, for example, dig
out and pick up its materials in one State, carry them to its plant in
another, there melt them down and fashion them into shapes, trans-
port them out of its plant, itself initiating the rail shipment-some-
times performing all of a water shipment-, further fabricate them
at the conclusion of this shipment in still another State, and then
deliver the products to the customer. This vertical integration of
the entire process through the medium of a single company is,
typical of the few giant corporations which control the bulk of the
steel production in this country. Two corporations, the United
States Steel Corporation and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, have
over 50 per cent of the steel capacity of the country. Add to this
eight more companies, among them the respondent, and 91 per cent
of the nation's steel capacity is accounted for. This great size is in
part an outgrowth of technical forces. It has been estimated that
the investment required for the most efficient blast furnace operation
is in the neighborhood of $(00,000,000. Vertical integration, a further
source of economy, may increase capital requirements. The great
capacities thus built up, whatever their causes, require large markets
and have molded the steel industry as a whole and in its most
important units into a nation-wide system.
The device of the "transit rate" for steel products-"transit rates'}
on numerous products are permitted by the Interstate Commerce
Commission-illustrates in particular that processing and fabrica-
tion are simply transformations of materials en route in the stream
of commerce. Under the transit rate a steel fabricator which buys
steel forms from a steel producer at point A, performs on them cer-
tain limited work at point B and then ships the product to point C,
receives from the railroads the privilege of the through rate from A
to C, point B being considered only as a temporary stopping place
where service is performed in transit. The great importance of
transportation to the steel industry and of the steel industry to the
railroads is shown by the fact that 12 per cent of the railroads' freight
is attributable to the activity of the steel industry.
An increasingly large part of this activity does not consist in
processing goods in the expectation of future sales but is a direct
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 303
response to the customer's order. The steel industry is becoming
predominantly a special order business. It has been estimated that
the industry must be prepared to produce no less than 100,000 vari-
ations of the approximately 500 different kinds of steel products.
Though no one plant will meet all these needs, it will seek-particu-
larly where it is large-to fill all the demands possible for a plant of
its type; it will be ready to provide variations on its staple prod-
ucts. But to carry sufficient inventories of such varieties becomes
an increasing burden. Thus, the customer's order directly initiates
particular plant activity and conversely, a breakdown in this activity
makes likely stoppage of shipment. This is true of the S. & J.
Works, where practically all of the product is manufactured on
special order.
The significance of the special order system, and the ramifying
effect of stoppage, are made clearer.by an inquiry into the uses of
basic steel products.. Steel, of course, is used to a great extent in
operations involving further manufacture and transportation. Re-
cent estimates show that about 20 per cent of all steel products are
used by the automobile industry. The railroads take nearly 12
per cent of the steel output. Other important users are food pack-
ing-9 per cent; agricultural implements-5 per cent; building and
fabrication of materials for building-12 per cent. Furthermore, a
large pig-iron and ingot plant will produce semi-finished products
to the order of special steel fabricators. The Atha Works of the
respondent supplies the S. & J. Works with materials' for further
fabrication. A stoppage of steel production hinders the progress of
and normal operations in these many industries which depend on
steel.
The price system of the steel industry emphasizes the close rela-
tion between shipment and manufacture of the product. We refer
to the famous basing point system of quoting prices. "The essence
of the multiple basing point system in the steel industry," says
the Federal Trade Commission ° of the price system now in use, "is
to be found in its use of a device of calculation whereby buyers of a
commodity located at any given point are charged by the industry
a definite uniform price for delivery at that point, regardless of the
point of shipment . . ." This system enlarges the market in which
many companies can compete, since it neutralizes transportation
differentials based on differing distances between the plants of com-
petitors and a given customer. It no doubt assists many of the
companies in maintaining their great size, their broad structures of
distribution, and their high degree of integration. It reveals fully
E Report of Federal Trade Commission to the President with Respect to the Basin Point
System , p. 2, November 1934.
304 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the fact that transportation of the product is not only the final stage
of that integration, but one which conditions the extent and nature
of the, earlier stages. The mining of materials, their transportation
to and collection at a certain point, their transformation there into
pig-iron, into steel shapes in all stages of finish, their reshipment for
further fabrication, for use in railways, automobiles, buildings : all
this is one giant, indivisible economic process : it is commerce among
the States.
We conclude that the operations of the respondent constitute a
continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and with foreign countries.
II. QUESTION AS TO REPRESENTATION
There are about 510 employees in the S. & J. Works ; excluding
maintenance and clerical workers, about 475. In August, 1933, there
was organized in the S. & J. Works, the Works Council, which is a
labor organization. The Works Council plan provides for the nomi-
nation and election, of employee representatives, for regular meetings
of those representatives, and for the procedure to be used in °settling
disputes with the management. All expenses under the plan are
borne by the respondent. Representatives under the plan were last
elected in July, 1935.
In August, 1935, a group of 12 employees began the organization
of the Union. On September 16 the Union, which is a labor organiza-
tion, received its charter from the American Federation of Labor.
Only the production workers in the S. & J. Works are eligible for
membership. The Union has received 205 membership applications.
Others have, indicated their interest in the Union but have been
unwilling openly to affiliate with it. On November 30, 1935, five
permanent officers were elected. In December, 1935, the Union re-
quested the respondent to meet with it for the purpose of collective
bargaining. The respondent replied that it would meet with the
representative of its employees and it considered these representa-
tives to have been elected in July of 1935 under the Council Plan.
The Union, whose claim to represent the production employees has
thus been denied, contends that the production employees in the
S. & J. Works constitute a proper unit for, purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The interests of the production workers are distinct from
those of the clerical force. Many of the maintenance men, also the
engineers, firemen, electricians, etc., have their separate organizations
and consider their interests as distinct from the production workers,
a point of view which, in this case at least, is shared by the Union.
3 The, employees in the, S. & J., Works have no contact or no common
organization with the employees in any other plant of the respondent-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 305
We conclude that the production employees of the S. & - J. Works,
including those in the rolling, drawing, slitting, tempering, anneal-
ing, trucking, and shipping cleparttnents-exclusive of clerical
workers, power house workers, engineers, firemen, watchmen, gas
producers, and maintenance men-constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. We conclude further that a
question has arisen as to the representation of the employees in this
unit.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Alva Kocher. Kocher was employed by the respondent from
July, 1933, to the time of his lay-off or discharge on December 6, 1935.
He began as a helper in the rolling department and in time was
advanced to the job of roller. He complained to Richard Benowitz,
the plant superintendent., that his wage was too low. Benowitz
agreed that Kocher was entitled to a raise, and just a few weeks prior
to the lay-off he was raised from 51 cents to 54 cents per hour. He
had never been criticized with respect to his work and immediately
prior to the lay-off was doing work requiring special skill. Kocher
was active in organizing the Union and this was known to the
respondent. He conducted meetings, solicited members and was
elected on November 30, 1935, as the first permanent president of the
Union. Many of the employees did not speak English. Kocher, who
was educated, was of particular assistance to them in organizing and
leading them. Benowitz, on October 31, 1935, spoke with Kocher
while he was on the job. Benowitz said that he had heard that
Kocher was soliciting for the Union and that he wanted an assur-
ance that this was not true. He said. that he wanted "to be fair to
the men" and wanted them "to be fair with him". He pointed out
that Kocher was above the level of intelligence of the men. "I can't
understand why you didn't come to see me before you got mixed up
in this union," he said. Benowitz stated that he had been in the plant
30 years and no attempt at organization had succeeded: the men had
always been "kicked out".
Benowitz had a conversation also with Edward Murphy, who at
the time was secretary of the Union, and who in November was
elected treasurer. He assured Murphy that his job was safe if he
gave up the Urni.on. He said he had been standing on a corner observ-
ing the men, who went into the Union meeting hall ; that there seemed
to be very few; that a strike would likely fail and then "you might
lose your job".
On December 6, 1.935, one week after his election as president,
Kocher was laid off; lie was told that work was slack. There were
50 men in his department; he alone was laid off. Six of the 50 had
306 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
less seniority than he did, and though seniority was not rigidly
observed in lay-offs it was customary to consider it except where the
differences in seniority were trifling. If work was slack, it was usual
to lay off a helper before a roller and give a roller the job as helper,
but that was not done on behalf of Kocher. Furthermore, it would not
appear that work was slack. The plant was being run on two shifts
five days a week; after Kocher's discharge it was run six days and
in some departments seven days a week. William Gross, manager of
the plant, testified at the hearing that the plant has been in normal
operation since December, 1935. After Kocher's lay-off another man
in the department was assigned to run the machine he had been
operating. Kocher has twice applied for reemployment and been
refused.
2. John Lutz. Lutz was employed by the respondent from August,
1933, to the time of his layoff or discharge on December 6, 1935.
He was helper in the tempering department and was receiving 40
cents per hour. Lutz applied for membership in the Union on
September 6, 1935. He was active in soliciting members, and at
Union meetings. At about this time his foreman told him the
Union was "a bunch of Communists"; "they will get a couple of
dollars together and go out and get drunk on your money." When
Lutz expressed sympathy with the Union, he replied, "You don't
want to talk like that; keep your eye open and the first chance we
get, I will try to put you on the furnace" (which would have meant
more money). He was elected sergeant-at-arms of the Union on
November 30, 1935. He was laid off on December 6, one week later;
he too was told that work was slack. At the same time two others
in his department-there were about 40 in all-were laid off, both
non-Union men ; one had worked three months for the respondent,
the other five months. The foreman told these two to remain home
a couple of days. And to one he said, "I will let you know in a
couple of days." This one was reemployed the following week.
Three or four other men with less seniority were kept in preference
to Lutz. One man, who had previously worked in the yard gang,
was promoted to a job of the type done by Lutz. After his dis-
charge some of the men in his department worked six and seven days
a, week. Lutz returned the following week for reemployment but
again was told that work was slack.
We find that Alva Kocher and John Lutz were laid off and dis-
criminated against with respect to hire and tenure of employment
because they joined and assisted the Union. Officers of the re-
spondent made it clear in conversations with both of them that the
respondent would not tolerate a Union. This, apparently, was not
successful in killing the attempt to organize, and one week after
the Union election of officers, the respondent discharged two of them,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 307
one of whom was the leading spirit of the Union. The respondent
maintained that work was slack. The evidence shows that this
was not so, and even if it were that under the customary practices
of the respondent governing lay-offs these men would not have
been the- ones to go. ^ In two departments having 90 men, three were
permanently laid off. Two of them were prominent Union leaders,
recently elected as officers, and each was senior to a number of men
in his department. Such a coincidence is too striking to be acci-
dental. To discourage labor activity among employees newly or-
ganized and very little experienced-is for an employer a compara-
tively simple thing. The discharge, of two leaders without more
brings a.clear and forceful message to men who are acutely aware
of their employer's undeflying power and the, favor upon which
they must rely for economic livelihood.
By such discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment and terms and conditions of employment, the respondent
interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In the apast, disputes relating to the organizational activities of
labor have seriously disrupted operations in the steel industry.
There was the great steel strike of 1919 in which it is said more than
360,000 employees went out on strike because the steel companies
refused to meet any union representatives whatsoever for the pur-
poses' of collective bargaining. Judge Gary of the United States
Steel Corporation said at that time that it is "the policy of our
corporation not to deal with union labor leaders". Coming to more
recent times, in 1934. 9,844 men suffered a loss of 264,810 man-days of
work with consequent serious injury to industry and commerce.
Labor disputes have in the past stopped production at the S. & J.
Works' and hindered shipments from the plant. We find that the
question concerning representation which has. here arisen and the
aforesaid acts of the respondent tend to' lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law in connection with Case No. R-25:
1. Strip Steel and Wire Workers Union, Local No. 20084, Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the mean-
ing of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. The Spaulding & Jennings Works Council is a labor organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
3. The production employees of the respondent in the Spaulding
& Jennings Works, exclusive of clerical, supervisory, power house
5727-37-vol. ii-21
308, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
workers, engineers, firemen,-watchmen, gas producers, and mainte-
nance workers, -constitute, a- unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. -
4. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of the production employees in the Spaulding & Jennings
Works of the respondent, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of
the Act.
-'On the basis of these conclusions of law, a Direction of • Election
has already issued, dated. April 16, 1936.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law in connection with Case No. C-67.-
1
1. Strip Steel and Wire Workers Union, Local No. 20084, Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization, within the meaning
of `Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
2. By its discharge of Alva Kocher and John Lutz, and each of
them, for the reason that they and each of them joined and assisted
the Union, the respondent did interfere with, restrain and coerce,
and is interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and by
all of said acts and each of them did thereby engage in and is thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (1) of the Act. . .
3. By its discharges of the persons aforesaid, as set forth in para-
graph 2 hereof, and each of-them, the respondent did discriminate
and is discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of said persons and each of Ahem, and did thus discourage
and is thus discouraging membership in the Union, and by all of said
acts and each of them did thereby engage in and is thereby engag-
ing in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (3) of said Act.
4. The unfair labor practices in which the respondent has engaged
and is engaging are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, with-
in the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of said Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of law, and pursuant
to Section 10,• subdivision (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Crucible Steel Company of America :
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining or coercing its' emloyees 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,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 309
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in the Union
or any other labor organization of. its employees, by discrimina-
tion in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
3. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Alva Kocher and John Lutz employment in the
respective positions formerly held by them with all rights and
privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said Alva Kocher and John Lutz for any losses
of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge, by payment
to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that which each
would normally have earned as wages during the period from the
date of his discharge to the date of offer of employment as ordered
hereunder, les's amounts earned by each during such period ;
(c) Post immediately, for a period of at least thirty (30) days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees in conspicuous
places in each shop and yard of the S. & J. Works, stating that
the respondent will not discharge or in any manner discriminate
against members of, or those desiring to become members of, Strip
Steel and Wire Workers Union, Local No. 20084, American Federa-
tion of Labor, or persons assisting said organization or otherwise
engaging in union activity.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO ORDER
March 3, 1937
The Board, being duly advised in the premises, hereby amends
the order issued October 29, 1936 in the above entitled case by strik-
ing all of Paragraph 3 (c) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following :
"Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places in each shop and yard of the S. & J. Works stating
(1) that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
aforesaid, and (2) that such notices will remain posted for a
period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting."