Foster Brothers Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of FOSTER BROTHERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.
and FEDERAL LABOR UNION, LOCAL No. 20137
Case No. C-68.-Decided June 3,19&
Bed, Bedding and Related Products Industry-Interference , Restraint or
Coercion : expressed opposition to labor organization , threats of retaliatory
action ; espionage ; bribing union members ; questioning employees regarding
organizational activities and union affiliation-Discrimination : discharge-
Strike-Employee Status: during strike-Reinstatement Ordered, Non-
Strikers-Back Pay: awarded-Reinstatement Ordered, Strikers : strike pro-
voked by employer's law violation; displacement of employees hired during
strike ; preferential list ordered , including.
Mr. Laurence A. Knapp and Mr. Jacob Blum for the Board.
Weinberg di Sweeten, by Mr. Leonard Weinberg and Mr. Harry
J. Green, of Baltimore, Md., for respondent.
Mr. Joseph Rosenfarb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 20, 1936, Federal Labor Union, Local No. 20137, affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, hereinafter called the
union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region a charge
that the Foster Brothers Manufacturing Company, Inc., Baltimore,
Maryland, hereinafter called the respondent, had engaged and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations, Act, approved July 5, 1935,
hereinafter called the Act. On January 21, 1936, the Board issued a
complaint signed by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
alleging that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), and Sec-
tion 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges
in substance :
1. The respondent while engaged in commerce among the states
terminated the employment of and refuses to reinstate William Zoel-
ler, Herbert Deaton, Henry Deimel, W. R. Berg, Vernon Berg, Clif-
ford Dietrich, Elmer Grove, George Grove, Cornelius Bees, August
Kelch and William Baranowski for the reason that they joined and
assisted a labor organization known as Federal Labor Union, Local
No. 20137, and engaged in concerted activities with other employees
880
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 881
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection.
2. By terminating the employment of and refusing to reinstate the
above mentioned employees , the respondent has committed unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivisions ( 1) and ( 3), and Section 2, subdivisions ( 6) and (Ti)
of the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served
upon the parties in accordance with Article V of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1. Thereafter the re-
spondent filed a special appearance objecting to the jurisdiction of the
Board on constitutional grounds. Henry G. Perring, the Trial Ex-
aminer designated by the Board , overruled and denied these objec-
tions. Without waiving its rights under the special appearance, the
respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations
concerning the unfair labor practices and moving that the complaint
be dismissed.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on February 6, 1936, at
Baltimore , Maryland . The respondent , appearing by counsel, par-
ticipated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard , to cross-
examine witnesses and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded to all parties. Counsel for the respondent , however,
waived the right to cross -examine and to introduce evidence. The
evidence introduced in behalf of the Board is therefore uncontra-
dicted. The Trial Examiner denied the respondent 's motion to dis-
miss, which denial is hereby affirmed.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report with
the Regional Director in accordance with Article II, Section 30 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1.
The report was duly served upon the parties . The Trial Examiner
found that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions ( 1) and (3) of the Act,
and recommended that the respondent desist from interfering with
and coercing its employees in the rights guaranteed by the Act, and
reinstate the discharged employees to their former positions, with
back pay. The motion of the respondent to dismiss the complaint
renewed during the hearing and its various objections to the intro-
duction of evidence , which were based generally upon grounds of
alleged irrelevance , immateriality and hearsay were overruled by the
Trial Examiner . These rulings are hereby affirmed. No exceptions
to the Intermediate Report were filed by either party.
Upon the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, the
stenographic report of the hearing , and documentary and other evi-
dence offered and received at the hearing , the Board makes the
following :
882 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent is and has been since August 23, 1927, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, hav-
ing its principal office and place of business in the City of Baltimore,
State of Maryland, and has continuously been engaged in the pro-
duction, sale and distribution of bed springs, day beds, studio couches,
cots, bunks, inner springs for mattresses and beds, and related
products and equipment.
Eighty per cent of the raw materials used by the respondent in the
manufacture of its products is shipped to its plant in Baltimore from
states other than Maryland. The various materials used by the
respondent and their places of origin are :
Wire from Cleveland, Ohio.
Angle Iron from Pennsylvania.
Castings from West Virginia.
Rivets from New Brighton, Penna.
Screws from New York.
Cotton from Baltimore, Maryland.
Lumber, 1/3 from Maryland; 2/3 from Virginia.
Ticking, 75% from New York; 121/2% from Georgia; 12%
from Louisiana.
Paint and Enamels from Baltimore, Maryland.
Tubing from Ohio.
Most of the equipment, machinery and supplies used by the respond-
ent come from Maryland.
Fifty-one and four-tenths per cent of the finished products of the
respondent is shipped to destinations outside of the State of Mary-
land. The respondent maintains warehouse space in Richmond, Vir-
ginia and High Point, North Carolina, to which points a portion of
the respondent's finished products is directed. The warehouses are
used for storing and distribution, and not as sales points. In case of
shipments from these warehouses, orders are accepted in Baltimore.
Fifty per cent of the shipments from the plant of the respondent at
Baltimore are made by truck, 40% by railroad, and 10% by boat.
The respondent itself owns no trucking or other transportation
companies.
The respondent employ= six traveling salesmen, who solicit orders
in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina. Ninety per cent of the respondent's products is sold to
purchasers who are retailers only. The remainder is sold to mail
order houses.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 883
The average number of employees of the respondent during the last
five years were:
1931------- ------------- 6011934----------------------------- 95
1932- ---------------------------- 60 1935 ----------------------------- 125
1933----------------------------- 75
The peak, average and minimum weekly payrolls for the same
years were approximately as follows : ,
1931------------------------------------- $1,360 $1,150 $770
1932------------------------------------- 1,290 1,050 965
1933------------------------------------- 1,660 1,200 910
1934------------------------------------- x,160 1,530 1,070
1935------------------------------------- 2,630 2,150 1,555
The total volume of sales in dollars for the same years were :
1931------------------------ $225,0001934------------------------ 315,000
1932------------------------ 200,000 1935------------------------
1
390,000
1933----------------------- 265,000
By 1935 the dollar sales of the respondent had thus increased 95%
over 1932, and the average number of employees had increased 108%.
The average payroll per week had increased 104.77% in 1935 over
1932. The growth and improvement shown by the business of the re-
spondent in 1935 over 1932 were not however accompanied by a cor-
responding increase in the wages of employees of the respondent. On
the contrary, from 1932 to 1935, the average wage had actually de-
creased $.30 per week or 17%.
'The aforesaid operations of the respondent constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic and commerce among the several States.
H. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION AND TIIE HOSTILITY OF THE
RESPONDENT
On December 2, 1935 the foreman of the respondent announced an
impending 10% cut in wages. This caused general resentment and
dissatisfaction on the part of the employees, who were then working
full time and even overtime. The matter was discussed among the
employees and they decided to hold a meeting. George Grove, one
of the employees named in the complaint, distributed cards through-
out the plant announcing the time and place of the proposed meeting.
On the evening of December 4, 1935 the meeting was held in a public
hall. About 70 employees attended. Many of the employees could
not attend because they were working late that evening. It was de-
cided unanimously by those attending the meeting to form a union
and to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor. Organizers
of the American Federation of Labor who had been called in to
advise the employees and who were present at the meeting. dissuaded
them from their original intention of going out on strike.
884 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To the spontaneous attempt on the part of the employees to organ-
ize for their self-protection, the respondent showed an immediate
and drastic hostility. By discharging the men who were looked upon
as the "ring leaders," by espionage and intimidation, the respondent
sought to dragoon its employees into submission and abandonment
of their efforts to organize a union. On December 5th William
Baranowski, Elmer Grove and George Grove, three of the employees
named in the complaint, were called into the office of the respondent
at the same time and were questioned by Mr. Hall and Mr. Heller,
the president and the secretary-treasurer respectively of the respond-
ent, about the meeting of December 4th. They were told that the
respondent did not want the employees to attend any more union
meetings and that they would be discharged if they did. When told
that the meeting was called because of the 10% cut in wages, the
officials of the respondent stated that they had decided not to de-
crease wages but to increase the hours of work of the time workers
five hours a week.
On the morning of December 7th Baranowski was again called
to the office and was asked by Mr. Hall and Mr. Heller whether
'August W. Kelch, Cornelius Bees, George Grove and Elmer Grove
were the leaders and instigators of the union. Baranowski gave an
evasive reply. Later the same day Baranowski was again plied with
the same questions by these officials of the respondent. Apparently
expecting a strike on the part of the employees, the officers of the
respondent told Baranowski that he would not be laid off or fired,
but that in case the employees did go out on strike, he should go
out with them; and for doing so, he would be paid $5.00 a day,
which was in excess of his normal wages. The record does not make
clear exactly what Baranowski was to do; however, it is a fair infer-
ence that he would have been asked to spy on his fellows. Later
in the day the same offer was repeated to Baranowski over the
telephone by Turner, one of the officials of the respondent.
On the morning of December 7th, August W. Kelch was called
to the office and was accused by Heller in the presence of Hall,
Turner and McCubbins, the superintendent, of being the instigator
of the dissatisfaction in the plant,.and the ringleader in the attempt
to organize. When he denied the charge they pressed him to disclose
the identity of the leaders, which he refused. After this interview
McCubbins and Turner expressed their regret to Kelch about what
happened. About 11: 30 Kelch was paid off and discharged by his
foreman, Mossberg, who told him that he was merely carrying out
orders. A week before, Turner had told Kelch that he wanted him
to take charge of the night force beginning January 1, 1936.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 885
Immediately after,Kelch's interview with the management, Cor-
nelius Bees was called to the office and questioned about the meeting,
whether another meeting was to be held and whether he was going
to attend. When he refused to talk about these matters, Heller told
him, Well, you are through," and ordered the paymaster to get his
pay ready. Bees' foreman, Mossberg, paid him off.
On the same day George Grove was discharged by his foreman,
Mossberg, who said to him, "I am sorry; I have got to lay you off,
George." Grove was the senior inspector in his department and had
worked for the respondent continuously for five years. He had
acted as foreman in the department on two occasions when Mossberg
was sick or absent. Elmer Grove was discharged on the same day.
He had been working-for the respondent for six years and had
never been laid off or criticized. He worked in the assembling
department.
During this time some departments were working overtime.
These discharges were brought to the attention of Bennet F.
Schauffier, Regional Director for the Fifth Region, National Labor
Relations Board. Through his intervention Kelch, Bees, George
Grove and Elmer Grove were reinstated by the respondent on Decem-
ber 12th with back pay for lost time.
The next meeting of the employees was held on December 11th,
when the charter of Federal Labor Union, Local No. 20137, a labor
organization, was presented by Miss Anna Neary, organizer for the
American Federation of Labor. There were about 70 employees in
attendance ; those who had not become members of the union at the
meeting of December 4th, joined at this meeting.
At a meeting of the union on December 17th the following officers
were elected : Herbert Deaton, vice-president ; August W. Kelch,
recording secretary ; Cornelius Bees, secretary-treasurer ; and William
Zoeller, sergeant-at-arms. One Kramer, representing the American
Federation of Labor, was acting as the president of the union.
Another meeting of the union was held on December 27, 1935.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges
William Zoeller was elected sergeant-at-arms of the union on
December 17th. He had worked for the respondent for 17 years,
and was fourth in seniority of the 14 employed in the iron depart-
ment. On December 30, at the end of the day, John Stack, his
foreman, discharged him saying, "Bill, I hate to do this, it is none
of my doings, but I have got orders to give you your money." On
January 3, 1936 Zoeller saw Hall and was told that they were taking
886 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inventory and business was slack. He later saw McCubbins who
said that his hands were tied , that he couldn 't discuss the matter, and
that it was up to the foreman. The foreman however told him when
he went back to him, "As far as I am concerned , you could go back
right away ," and added, "Well, it looks like they are passing the buck
to me, Bill."
Zoeller had never been laid off before because inventory was-being
taken, or because of slackness of business . As a matter of fact, the
respondent was not taking inventory at the time Zoeller was dis-
charged, and his department as well as some of the others were work-
ing full time. After his discharge , his work was done by two men
who were his juniors in point of service.
Herbert Deaton had been elected vice -president of the union on
December 17. He operated various machines in the iron department.
When he returned from a vacation on December 31, his foreman told
him to see McCubbins . McCubbins said that they were taking inven-
tory and it would be necessary to lay him off for awhile . Prior to his
vacation he and the other men in his department had been working
overtime. About a week after the purported lay-off , Deaton returned
to the plant and was told by his foreman that they had not yet finished
taking inventory . They appeared to be as busy as usual in the
department.
Vernon Berg was elected to the executive board of the union on
January 3 , 1936. He was discharged on January 4. He had been
employed by the respondent for about two years . His work con-
sisted of putting S -hooks on bed springs in the assembling depart-
ment. About 11: 40 of the morning of January 4 he was paid off by
his foreman and was told that the warehouse was filled up and he
would have to be laid off for awhile . Prior to his discharge he was
working full time and even overtime occasionally.
Roy Berg, a brother of Vernon Berg, was also discharged on Janu-
ary 4, 1936. He was an inspector and did shape -up work in the
assembling department . His foreman told him that he would have
to be laid off because the warehouse was filled up and it was necessary
to cut down expenses . He and his brother made a few attempts to
get their jobs back but without success . At the time of his discharge
he was working regularly and overtime . He too had been elected a
member of the executive board of the union on January 3, 1936.
Clifford Dietrich was discharged on January 9, 1936. He had
worked a total of seven years for the respondent. At the end of the
day of his discharge his foreman told him that he would have to be
laid off awhile. When he inquired why, the foreman "put his face
in his hand * * * and kind of smiled, and said, `Well , all the
warehouse is filled, and we are pretty slack."'At the time of his dis-
DECISIONS , AND ORDERS 887
charge the assembling department where he was employed was work-
ing overtime . Although the respondent later agreed to reinstate him,
this was never done. He had been elected a member of the executive
board of the union on January 3rd and to the shop committee on
January 7th.
Ketch , Elmer Grove , George Grove , Baranowski and Bees were
discharged on January 15, 1936. About 4: 30 that day they were
called into Turner's office and told that they were discharged or
laid off . No reason was given. Ketch was recording secretary of
the union , Bees was secretary -treasurer , and Elmer Grove was a
member of the executive board. George Grove and Baranowski,
although not officers of the union , attended the meetings of the
union and were active in its affairs.
B. The negotiations between the union and the respondent
On January 3, 1936 a meeting of the union was held at which
an executive board was elected consisting of Elmer Grove, Clifford
Dietrich , Roy Berg, Vernon Berg, Herbert Florey, William Zoeller
and Floyd Albee . On January 7th a meeting of the executive board
of the union was held at which a shop committee was appointed to
negotiate with the respondent concerning the discharges. Elmer
Grove, Clifford Dietrich and August W. Kelch were elected to the
committee.
On January 10, 1936 the shop committee conferred with the man-
agement concerning the discharges which had taken place before
that date . The members of the committee stated that they were
representing the union , which had a membership of a large ma-
jority of the employees of the respondent and asked the management
to recognize the union . Heller at first pretended not to know any-
thing about the union and then made an oblique reply, adding, "This
will never be a union shop . . . I am going to hire whom I please."
The committee then informed the management that the men were
willing to share the work equally rather than to have anyone dis-
charged. Heller replied that he would leave that decision to the
superintendent and the foremen.
On January 11th the shop committee, then consisting of Elmer
Grove, Kelch, and Bees, was notified by the superintendent that the
management 's policy was that the plant would continue to be a non-
union shop , that they would hire and fire whom they pleased and
that the lay-offs would continue . This was also announced by-the
foremen throughout the shop.
On January 13, 1936 a union meeting was held at which it was
decided that further efforts be made to negotiate with the manage-
ment.
97571-36-vo1 1-57
888 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After repeated unsuccessful efforts a conference was finally ef-
fected between Heller and two representatives of the American Fed-
eration of Labor on the afternoon of January 15th. Heller was im-
pervious to any pleas to reinstate the dismissed men and to the offer
to share the work. He would not even discuss the matter nor did
he make any counter proposal. When asked to call in the shop com-
mittee which he was told consisted of Kelch, Grove and Bees, he
left the office for a while and then came back and said that no com-
mittee would be called in and that there was nothing to discuss.
On leaving the office of the respondent, at the end of the after-
noon, the representatives of the American Federation,of Labor were
informed by Grove, Kelch and Bees, the members of the shop com-
mittee, that they had just been discharged.
C. Conclusions respecting the unfair labor practices
The unconcealed hostility of the respondent to the union was mani-
fested immediately upon its formation when the men who were
looked upon as the "ring leaders" were discharged. Thereafter in
several instances as soon as an employee was made an officer of the
union, dismissal followed. Committee members were discharged
immediately after they had conferred with the management. The
effect followed the cause with too unerring promptness. No other
conclusion is warranted than that the men were discharged because
of their union activities.
The reasons assigned by the management for the discharges,
namely slackness of work and the taking of inventory have an espe-
cially hollow sound in view of the fact that during the time of the
discharges the plant of the respondent was on a full time basis with
overtime common in several of its departments. This case presents
all the elements of an especially ruthless use of the weapon of eco-
nomic compulsion to interfere with and coerce employees in their
exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively.
The Board concludes that by discharging from employment and
thereafter refusing to reinstate August W. Kelch, Elmer Grove,
George Grove, Vernon Berg, Roy Berg, Clifford Dietrich, William
Zoeller, Cornelius Bees, Herbert Deaton and William Baranowski,
and by each of said discharges, the respondent discriminated in re-
gard to hire and tenure of employment and thereby discouraged
membership in the labor organization known as the Federal Labor
Union, Local No. 20137, and that by such acts the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purposes of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 889
collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
No evidence substantiating the complaint as to Henry Deimel hav-
ing been presented , the complaint as to him will be dismissed.
IV. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
On the morning of January 16 , 1936 a meeting of the employees
was held concerning the discharge of the shop committee . Another
committee was selected to confer with Heller. The same day the
committee reported back to the assembled employees that Heller
refused to see them. A strike of the employees in protest against the
discharges was then called and about 88 employees went out on strike.
At the time of the hearing in this case the strike was still in progress.
We find that the aforesaid acts of the respondent have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
In order to make whole the damage caused by the respondent toy
the employees who were discriminatorily discharged it is imperative
that these employees be, reinstated to employment with back pay
from the time of their respective discharges to the date of offer of
such reinstatement.
This action alone however would fall short of effectuating the pol-
icies of the Act. In order to protect the rights of the employees of
the respondent to organize and bargain collectively we must restore
as far as possible the situation as it existed prior to the commission
of the unfair labor practices . To do this the striking employees
must be reinstated to employment even if their positions are now
filled by persons who were not working for the respondent before
the strike . The strike in this case , it should be remembered, was
called in protest against discharges which were made by the respond-
ent in violation of the Act . Since an "employee" under Section 2;
subdivision ( 3) of the Act includes "any individual whose work has
ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor
dispute or because of any unfair labor practice " the strikers are still`
employees of the respondent . As such they are entitled to their jobs,
especially since the unfair labor practices perpetrated by the respond-
ent provoked the strike and caused injury not only to those discrim-
inatorily discharged but to the rest of the respondent's employees.
An employer who discriminates in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or conditions of employment to encourage or discourage,
membership in any labor organization and thereby interferes, re-
strains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed'
890 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Section 7 of the Act, perpetrates a redressable wrong not only
against those discharged but also against the rest of the employees
who have chosen or might later choose to exercise their rights to self-
organization and collective bargaining guaranteed by the Act. The
fact that employees choose to protect these rights by their legally
recognized right to strike does not in any way destroy their right to
proceed under the Act.
We therefore conclude that in order to redress fully the wrongs
flowing from the unfair labor practices of the respondent and to
protect the rights of the employees, the striking workers should be
reinstated to employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the foregoing findings of fact the following conclusions of
law are made :
(1) Federal Labor Union, Local No. 20137 (the union) is a labor
organization, with the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the
Act.
(2) The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William Baranowski, Cornelius Bees, Roy
Berg, Vernon Berg, Elmer Grove, George Grove, Herbert Deaton,
William Zoeller and August W. Kelch, and each of them, has engaged
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
(3) The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
(4) The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders the
iespondent, the Foster Brothers Manufacturing Company, Inc., to :
1. Cease and desist :
(a) from discouraging membership in any labor organization by
discrimination in regard to tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
,coercing its employees in the exercise of the right of self-organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 891
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to William Baranowski, Cornelius Bees, Roy Berg, Ver-
non Berg, Herbert Deaton, Clifford Dietrich, Elmer Grove, George
Grove, August W. Kelch and William Zoeller, and to each and every
one of them, immediate and full reinstatement to their former posi-
tions, with all rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole the said William Baranowski, Cornelius Bees,
Roy Berg, Vernon Berg, Herbert Deaton, Clifford Dietrich, Elmer
Grove, George Grove, August W. Kelch and William Zoeller for any
losses of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by pay-
ment 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, less the amount earned by.each of them, respectively, dur-
ing such period.
(c) Offer employment to employees who were employed by the
respondent on January 15, 1936; who struck on January 16, 1936, and
who have not since received regular and substantially equivalent
employment elsewhere, where the positions held by such employees on
January 15, 1936, are now filled by persons who were not working for
I he respondent on January 15, 1936, and place all other employees
who were employed by the respondent on January 15, 1936, who
struck on January 16, 1936, and who have not since received regular
and substantially equivalent employment elsewhere, on a list to be
offered employment if and when their labor is needed.
And it is further ordered that the complaint be, and is hereby dis-
missed, without prejudice, with respect to Henry Deimel.
r,-