General Shale Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1940

26 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of GENERAL SHALE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and
UNITED CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-1604.-Decided August 21, 1940
Jurisdiction : brick and building tile manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In general: responsibility of respondent for acts of supervisory employees, despite
its assertion that it instructed them to take a neutral position, since it took
no effective means to stop repeated violations of the Act.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion anti-union statements; disparaging the
Union; threatening discharge of employees who joined the Union; indicating
advancement for employees who refused to join the Union; threatening to
close plant if the employees joined the Union.
Expressed dissatisfaction of employees with working conditions, which
was not spontaneous, but long felt and expressed and known to be such by
respondent, held to constitute concerted activity within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act, and discharges therefor held a violation of 8 (1).
Discrimination
Discharge of four union members, two known by respondent to be very
active, after they expressed dissatisfaction with working conditions, when
respondent knew union had adopted their complaint held discharge for union
activity.
Remedial Orders
The respondent having violated Section 8 (3) by discharging employees
because of their union membership and activity and Section 8 (1) by dis-
charging said employees because of their concerted activity, the Board in
order to remedy each of these unfair labor practices, ordered their reinstate-
ment and awarded them back pay.
Mr. John C. McRee, for the Board.
Simmonds. cQ, Bowman, by Mr. A. B. Bowman, of Johnson City,
Tenn., and Kelly, Penn ct Hunter, by Mr. Eugene Hunter, of Kings-
port, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. C. D. Puckett, of Kingsport, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Stanley D. Metzger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Construction Workers Organizing
Committee,' affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
I Charges were filed by Textile Workers Union of America Subsequent to the hearing, on July 30, 1940,
a motion was filed by the C I 0. requesting a change in the name of the Union from "Textile Workers
Union of America" to "United Construction Workers Organizing Committee," wherever it appeared in
these proceedings The change was requested because of a new charter issued by the C I 0., Textile Work-
ers Union of America acquiesced to the motion. The motion is hereby granted.
26 N. L. R. B., No. 97.
921
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
(Atlanta, Georgia) issued its complaint dated March 23, 1940, against
General Shale Products Corporation, Kingsport, Tennessee, herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49- Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
on the respondent and the Union.
The complaint alleged in substance (1) that the respondent, since
May 1, 1937, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act by disparaging
the Union, by threatening to discharge its employees because of their
union affiliations, and by other acts; (2) that the respondent, on or
about July 13, 1939, discharged Milton Crawford, John- Compton,
Vance Jones, and Gordon Flannary, and since said date has refused to
reinstate them, because they joined and assisted the Union and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.
On April 4, 1940, the respondent filed a motion to strike an allega-
tion of the complaint, an alternative motion for a bill of particulars as
to the same allegation, and its answer. In its answer the respondent
admitted that it is engaged in interstate commerce, and that it had
discharged the above-named employees, but denied that it had com-
mitted the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Kingsport, Tennessee,
on April 25, 26, 29, and 30, 1940, before Berdon M. Bell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel, and the Union by a duly designated
representative; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the outset of
the hearing the Trial Examiner denied the respondent's motions to
strike an allegation of the complaint and for a bill of particulars as to
that allegation. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various other rulings on motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On June 6, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon all parties, in which he found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices substantially
as alleged in the complaint. He recommended that the respondent
cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices, and that
GENERAL SHALE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 923
it, reinstate with back pay Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance
Jones, and Gordon Flannary.
On July 1, 1940 , the respondent filed its exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report ,, and, on August 1, 1940, its brief. Pursuant to
notice duly served upon all parties , on request therefor by ' the re-
spondent, a hearing was held before the Board in Washington, D. C.,
on August 6, 1940, for the purpose of oral argument . The respondent
was represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The
Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed
by the respondent and, except as followed herein, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
General Shale Products Corporation is a Delaware corporation
having its main office in Johnson City , Tennessee . It operates plants
in Kingsport, Johnson City, Knoxville, and Oliver Springs, Tennessee,
and Richlands , Virginia , where it manufactures, sells, and distributes
brick . and building tile.
This proceeding involves the operations of the respondent at its
Kingsport , Tennessee , plant. The principal raw material used by
the respondent is shale, which is mined in Kingsport . All of the coal
and electricity used by the respondent during 1939 had its origin
outside the State of Tennessee . Approximately 55 per cent of its
finished , products , valued at approximately $225,000 during 1939, are
shipped to points outside the State of Tennessee.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce
in the operation of its Kingsport , Tennessee, plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers Organizing Committee, the successor
in these proceedings to Textile Workers Union of America,' is, like
its predecessor herein, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , admitting to its membership employees
of the respondent at its Kingsport , Tennessee , plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In April. 1937 the Union began organizing the employees of the
respondent at its Kingsport , Tennessee , plant. By autumn 1937
about 40 ' or 50 employees , of approximately 125 at the Kingsport
plant, had joined the Union, largely through solicitation by employee
union members Milton Crawford and John Compton.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about June 15, 1937, Clyde Bernard, general superintendent
of all of the respondent's plants, told Compton, in the plant during
working hours, according to Compton, that
. . . if you can do anything to get this union stopped, I would
like for you to do so; it will help us out. I think it will help your
fellow man. If you can say anything to help us and your fellow
man, we will appreciate it if you will do that, talk to the men and
get the union stopped right where it is at.
Compton did not indicate to Bernard what action he would take.
Bernard, while admitting that he spoke often to Compton, denied
having had this conversation with Compton. The Trail Examiner
did not credit Bernard's denial "due to Bernard's demeanor while
testifying and his vagueness as to many vitally important incidents,"
and believed Compton's version as stated above. We affirm and
adopt the Trial Examiner's finding, and find that Bernard made the
statement attributed to him by Compton.
N. L. Ketron, an employee, testified that in autumn 1938, while
he was working on Bernard's farm during a period in which he was
temporarily laid off, Bernard, in discussing the Board's Borden Mills
case,' the hearing in which had been held in Kingsport, told him
that "All the Union was good for was to put confusion among the men,
he didn't want nothing like that started at the brick plant [the
respondent's Kingsport plant] ... if it did, the persons that started
it would get their time." Bernard denied having made the above
statement, and denied that Ketron worked on his farm at that time.'
The Trial Examiner did not credit Bernard's denials, for the reasons
above stated in the Compton incident, and believed Ketron's testi-
mony. We affirm and adopt the Trial Examiner's finding, and find
that Bernard made the statement attributed to him by Ketron.
F. F. Salley, an employee, testified that in May 1939 Charles
Booth, superintendent of the Kingsport plant, approached him in the
plant during working hours and asked him how the "organizer,"
Crawford, was getting on, adding, "that's going to be the ruination of
this country." Booth denied having made the statement, although
admitting that he had talked often to Salley, in the plant. The Trial
Examiner, who saw and heard the witnesses, did not credit Booth's
denial, and believed Salley's testimony. We affirm and adopt the
Trial Examiner's finding, and find that Booth made the statement
attributed to him by Salley.
Gordon Flannary, an employee and union member, testified that in
June 1939 Menefee Jobe, foreman of the grinding department, told
him, while they were riding to work in Jobe's automobile, that "if the
2 See footnote 1, supra.
3 Matter of Borden Mills, Inc , and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 13 N. L R. B 459.
4 Bernard testified that Hugh Harkleroad worked on his farm in autumn 1938 . Harkleroad , however,
was not called to testify in corroboration.
GENERAL SHALE , PRODUCTS CORPORATION 925
Union organized the plant, the company would shut down and send
its orders to Johnson City [where another of its plants is located]."
Jobe admitted having a conversation with Flannary while riding to
work with him in June 1939, but denied having made the above state-
ment. The Trial Examiner, who saw and heard the witnesses, did not
credit Jobe's denial, and believed Flannary's version of the conversa-
tion. We affirm and adopt his finding, and find that Jobe made the
statement attributed' to him'by Flannary.
S. E. Breeding, an employee, testified that in autumn 1939, about 2
months after the discharges of the four complainants herein, Booth
complimented him on his work, stating that he would "go places" if
he did "not get messed tip in any union." Booth admitted having
complimented Breeding at that time, but denied having made the
quoted statements. The Trial Examiner, who saw and heard the
witnesses, did not credit Booth's denial, and believed Breeding's version
of the conversation. We affirm and adopt the Trial Examiner's finding,
and find that Booth made the statement attributed to him by Breeding.
Tom Hensley, an employee, quit working for the respondent about
September 1, 1939, worked in a nearby coal mine for about 3 weeks,
then again sought employment at the respondent's Kingsport plant.
On that occasion Booth asked Hensley if he had had to join a union at
the mine, and Hensley replied affirmatively, stating, however, that
"it didn't have anything to do with this work here." Booth then said,
"No. We don't have nothing to do with the union here." Hensley
was then hired.
From the foregoing it is clear that during the period covered by the
activities recited, the respondent's conduct, through Bernard and
Booth, two of its highest supervisory officials, and Jobe, a foreman,
was designed to interfere with the employees' exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by the Act. From their statements disparaging the
Union, threatening discharge of employees who joined the Union, in-
dicating advancement for employees who refused to join the Union,
and threatening to'close the plant if the employees joined the Union,
which they made when the Union was attempting to organize the
employees, the employees could infer only that it was not to their
best interests to become or remain members of the Union. The re-
spondent is responsible for the statements, above-recited, of its super-
visory officials since, despite its assertion that it instructed, its officials
to take a neutral position, it took no effective means to stop repeated
violations of the Act.5
5 Swift & Company v N L. R B , 106 F (2d) 87 (C C. A 10), enf'g as mod . Matter of Swift & Company
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No 641, and United Packing
House Workers Local Industrial Union No 300, 7 N L R B 269, If J. Heinz Co. v. N L R B, 110 F
(2d) 843 (C C A 6), cert . granted June 3, 1940, enf 'g Matter of H J Heinz Company and Canning and
Pickle Workers, Local Union No 325, affi liated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , American Federation of Labor, 10 N L. R B 963 See N L R. B v The A S Abell Com-
pany, 97 F (2d) 951 (C C A 4), enf'g as mod . Matter of The A. S• Abell Company and International Printing
and Pressmen 's Union, Baltimore Branch, Baltimore Web Pressmen ' s Union, No 31, 5 N. L It. B. 644.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find from the foregoing that the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights 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 or other mutual aid or protection.
B. Discrimination in Regard to Hire and Tenure of Employment
The complaint alleges that the respondent, on or about July 13,
1939, discharged Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones, and
Gordon Flannary, and has since refused to reinstate them because
they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activi-
ties with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
The events surrounding the discharges of the four named employees
are largely undisputed. From autumn 1937 until spring 1939 there
was very little union activity among the respondent's employees.' In
the spring of 1939, however, Crawford and Compton renewed solicita-
tion of the respondent's employees, aided in June by Jones and in July
by Flannary, among others, and obtained approximately 90 members.
Regular Saturday union meetings were held, and a shop committee
was formed in early June 1939, among whose five members were
Crawford and Compton. Dissatisfaction was expressed at these meet-
ings and elsewhere, over the respondent's method for computing over-
time compensation. The respondent's Kingsport brick plant worked
on a 44-hour week, 8-hour day, hourly wage-rate system, but, like
many other brick plants, also worked on the "task" system, whereby
a certain amount of work must be completed by each employee every
day. If an employee completed his "task" in 732 hours, he received
8 hours pay. However, if it took him 832 hours to complete the task,
the employee did not receive overtime pay unless his total weekly
hours exceeded 44 hours per week. A number of employees desired to
have overtime computed on a daily instead of on a weekly basis. In
addition, some employees thought that errors were being made in
computing actual overtime hours worked even under the then-existing
overtime system, and beginning about June 15, 1939, Crawford and
Compton began to keep their own "time." 7
About July 8, 1939, Richard Cunningham, then a timekeeper of 2
months' standing, approached Compton in the plant and told Comp-
ton that he had heard that Compton was keeping his own "time."
Compton replied that that was true, and, in the ensuing discussion,
argued in favor of a daily overtime system as against the weekly
6 Some witnesses testified that this was because the employees were awaiting the outcome of the Board's
Borden dills case, footnote 4, supra
7 The record shows that errors were made ; it also reveals that , prior to July 10, 1939, at least, the overtime
tabulation system was inexact.
GENERAL SHALE PRODUCTS CORPORATION- 927
system then in use. About July 10 Cunningham again approached
Compton and sought to engage in further discussion concerning over-
time systems. Compton told Cunningham that he could not discuss
the question alone, that it would have to be referred to the employees'
"C. I. O. committee." Cunningham reported this conversation to
Booth, to Glen Bruce, vice president of the respondent, and, on July
12, to Bernard, who had been out of town. Bernard sought out
Compton in the plant and learned from Compton that the employees
were dissatisfied with the overtime system then in use, and that they
desired the daily overtime system. Bernard argued in favor of the
existing overtime system.
Shortly after his conversation with Compton, on the same day,
Bernard told the foremen to tell the mill-department employees to
attend a meeting after work that afternoon of July 12 in the mill.
About 25 or 30 mill-department employees attended the meeting.
At the meeting Bernard informed the assembled employees that the
existing overtime system would be continued, that he did not want
dissatisfied employees "mouthing around," that he was "not going to
work a bunch of men that is not satisfied on this job," and that he
wanted "to have a showdown this evening." He then questioned
each employee individually as to whether or not that employee was
"satisfied" with working conditions, instructing-Booth to write down
the names of those employees who replied in the negative. Compton,
Crawford, Jones, and Flannary, alone of all those present,^while not
replying unqualifiedly in the negative,8 did not answer to Bernard's
satisfaction, and he instructed Booth to "mark them dissatisfied,"
and informed them to get their "time." On the following day, July
13, they received their checks.
During the following week, C. D. Puckett, union representative,
twice sought reinstatement for the four discharged employees, but was
refused by the respondent, Bruce stating that "if we keep them work-
ing with the other men they would get them dissatisfied." - They were
replaced by new employees.
The respondent claims, upon the facts recited above, that its dis-
charge of the four employees was within the permissible area of em-
ployer control over employees and not discriminatory. We do not
doubt that their dissatisfaction with the overtime system was the
immediate cause of the discharge of the four employees. We are of
the opinion, however, that this dissatisfaction- and its mode of expres-
sion was union activity, and that the discharges were made because
of and to discourage such activity. It will be noted, in this connec-
tion, that for a 2-year period the respondent, through its supervisory
officials, had. been disparaging the Union, threatening to discharge
employees if they joined the Union, and threatening to close down-its
8 Crawford, for example , said, "I 'll let you know Monday." •
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kingsport plant if -the Union succeeded in organizing its employees.
In addition, the respondent was aware of the fact that Crawford and
Compton were very active union leaders," and, through Cunningham,
that they were dissatisfied with the existing overtime system and had
referred the overtime question to the "C. I. O. committee." Further-
more, this overtime question was the first question concerning working
conditions over which, to the respondent's knowledge,10 the Union
had shown signs of activity. The meeting of July 12 was called by
Bernard shortly after he had learned these facts from Compton and
Cunningham. At the outset of that meeting Bernard announced that
the existing overtime system would be retained, and, without giving
the employees present an opportunity to object, present counter-pro-
posals, or otherwise to discuss the matter, proceeded to poll the em-
ployees after stating explicitly that discharge would be the penalty
for "dissatisfaction." The four employees discharged were all mem-
bers of the Union, Crawford and Compton being the most, active
union leaders. The interest of the "C. I. O. committee" and its
leaders in this overtime dispute made it clear to the respondent that
the action of the discharged employees in this regard was union
activity. We so regard it.
It is to be noted, moreover, that even in the absence of any union,
the expressed dissatisfaction of the employees with the * overtime
system, both before and during the July 12 meeting, constituted con-
certed activity of employees for their mutual aid and protection, within
the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. That the respondent so recog-
nized it is clear from Bernard's statement, after he had talked to
Compton and Cunningham, that he would not work a "bunch" of
dissatisfied employees. It is equally patent from the "dissatisfied"
response of the four discharged employees after Bernard had warned
them that such reponse would be grounds for discharge. We cannot
believe that such reponse was spontaneous or independent of a previ-
ously felt and expressed concerted desire for a change in working con-
ditions. We find that the action of the four discharged employees was
a concerted activity. Our finding is further supported by the fact
that Bruce refused to reinstate the discharged employees because
"they would get [the other employees] dissatisfied," a clear indication
that the respondent discharged the named employees because of their
concerted activities, and in order to forestall future concerted activity
on the part of other employees. Its discharge of these employees for
engaging in such activity constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent by dis-
charging John Compton, Milton Crawford, Vance Jones, and Gordon
9 Crawford had been told by Bernard not to solicit for union membership during working hours __
10 And, also, it should be added, the first question of any kind about which the Union had shown any
interest, so far as appears from the record.
GENERAL SHALE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 929
Flannary, discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, discouraged membership in the Union, and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its. employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
Since their discharges, Compton and Crawford have been unem-
ployed. Jones has been employed by the Bristol Weaving Company,
Bristol, Tennessee, since July 22, 1939. He works on the night shift
and has earned approximately $13.50 per week. Jones worked on the
day shift for the respondent and earned approximately $16 per week.
Bristol, Tennessee, is approximately 21 miles from his home, and the
transportation cost is $1.50 per week. Flannary secured temporary
employment in December 1939, with the Borden Mills Company at
32j2 cents per hour. He earned 35 cents an hour while employed by
the respondent.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the. several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act and to restore as nearly as possible the conditions which existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices by discharging Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones,
and Gordon Flannary. By discharging them for their union member-
ship and activities, the respondent has violated Section 8 (3) of the
Act. By discharging them for their concerted activities the re-
spondent has violated Section 8 (1) of the Act. In order to remedy
each of these unfair labor practices, we will order the respondent to
offer to each of the above-named persons reinstatement to his former
position or to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges and to make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his dis-
charge by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount
li See Matter of M. F. A. Milling Company et al . and United Grain Processors , Local 20692 , affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, 26 N. L. R. B., No 64, Matter of Bank of America National Trust & Savings
Association California and United Office and Professional Workers of America, 14 N. L It. B 207, Matter of
Harnischfeger Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North Americo,
Lodge 1114, 9 N L. It. B. 676.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the
discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less his net earnings 12 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and Textile Workers
Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment
of Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones, and Gordon
Flannary, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3., By discharging Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones,
and Gordon Flannery, because they engaged in concerted activities
for their mutual aid or protection, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent,
General Shale Products Corporation, Kingsport, Tennessee, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
12 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 elsewhere 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 Union , Local 2590 , 8 N I' it. B 440 Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal, or other work -relief projects are not considered
as earnings , but as provided below in the Order , shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and
the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State , county , munic-'
ipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects See
Republic Steel Corporation v N. L R . B , 107 F- (2d) 472 (C C A 3), Bert granted as to this point May
20, 1940, enf'g as mod Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L
R. B. 219 _
GENERAL SHALE PRODUCTS CORPORATION 931
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers
Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in 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. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones, and
Gordon Flannary immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejuduce to their seniority
and other rights and privileges which they may have lost by reason of
their discharges;
(b) Make whole Milton Crawford, John Compton, Vance Jones,
and Gordon Flannary for any losses of pay they may have suffered by
reason of their discharges, by payment to each of them respectively of
a sum of money equal to that which each normally would have earned
as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of
the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings,13 if any, during said
period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to each
of them monies received by each of them during said period for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, and other work-
relief projects; and pay over the amount so deducted to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for such work-relief
projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its Kingsport,
Tennessee, plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) con-
secutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating:
(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it
is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)`of this Order;
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in
paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's
employees are free to become or remain members of United Construc-
tion Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent will not discriminate
13 See footnote 12, supra.
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against any employee because of membership or activity in that
organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.