Mann Edge Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter Of MANN EDGE TOOL COMPANY and FEDERAL LABOR
UNION No. 18779
Case No. C-61.-Decided June 22, 1936
Tool Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: denial of right of em-
ployees to be represented by non-employees-Discrimination: demotion, wage
reduction; discharge-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Robert H. Kleeb for the Board.
Mr. A. Reed Hayes, of Lewistown, Pa., for respondent.
Mr. David Williams for American Federation of Labor.
Hilda Droslinicop, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon charges 1 duly filed by David Williams, representative of the
American Federation of Labor, on November 12, 1935, the National
Labor Relations Board, by Clinton S. Golden, Regional Director
for the Sixth Region, issued its complaint against the Mann Edge
Tool Company, Lewiston,, Pennsylvania, respondent herein. The
complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served on
January 20, 1936.
The complaint alleges that respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
divisions (1), (3) and (5) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, here-
inafter called the Act.2 Respondent did not file an answer.
Pursuant to the notice of hearing, Judson A. Crane, duly desig-
nated as Trial Examiner by the Board, conducted a hearing on Jan-
uary 30 and 31, and February 1, 1936, at Lewistown, Pennsylvania.
Respondent and Federal Labor Union No. 18779, hereinafter called
the union, appeared by counsel and participated in this hearing.
The Board was also represented by counsel.
At the hearing respondent submitted a document, dated January
30,, 1936, in which it stated among other things that it appeared spe-
1 On November 12, 1935 the union filed a petition for investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. With per-
mission of the Board, this petition was withdrawn on June 3, 1936.
2 on June 3, 1936, the Board granted the request of the union to withdraw the charge
that respondent had violated Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act.
977
978 NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD
cifically for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Board
and requested that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that
respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce. Respondent's
motion to dismiss was denied. This ruling is affirmed. On motion
by counsel for the Board, the Trial Examiner amended the complaint
by withdrawing the name of Wilson Swonger, and by alleging as
regards E. J. Miller that he had been reemployed in a demoted posi-
tion, said demotion being due to his union activities.
Full opportunity to be heard, to cross-examine witnesses and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
Upon the record as thus made, the stenographic report of the hear-
ing and all the evidence, including oral testimony, documentary and
other evidence offered and received at the hearing, the Trial Exam-
iner, on February 27, 1936, filed an intermediate report, finding in
substance that respondent had discriminated against Domer H. Mus-
selman and James F. Longacre, but not against Russell Smith and
Elmer J. Miller. The Trial Examiner recommended that respondent
cease and desist from interfering with the union activities of its
employees and-that-it immediately reinstate Musselman and Long-
acre. On March 6, 1936, David Williams, acting for the union,
filed exception to the intermediate report.
We find that the evidence requires some modification of the Trial
Examiner's rulings, findings and conclusions.
Upon the entire, record, including the pleadings, the stenographic
transcript of the hearing, the documentary and other evidence re-
ceived at the hearing, and the intermediate report and exceptions
thereto, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE MANN EDGE TOOL COMPANY
The Mann Edge Tool Company is a Pennsylvania corporation en-
gaged at its plant in the City of Lewiston, County of Mifflin, Penn-
sylvania, in the production, sale and distribution of edge tools.
Handled and unhandled axes are respondent's principal product. A
total of about 75 men are employed in the various departments which
compose respondent's plant. Respondent is capitalized at $75,000.00.
From August 1, 1935 to about January 30, 1936 respondent im-
ported over the Pennsylvania Railroad 73% less-than-carload-lots
shipments from points outside Pennsylvania as against 27% less-
than-carload-lots shipments from within the state. These shipments
included axe handles, mechanic tools, paper bags, axes, lacquer, paint
and lard oil, ball bearings and belt fasteners imported from Arkansas,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 979
New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Tennessee. Three carload lots
shipped to respondent from without the State during this period
consisted of wooden handles from Louisville, Kentucky, and of ship-
ping boxes from Baltimore, Maryland. Norton grinding wheels,
which are indispensable for the manufacture of respondent's axes
ire imported by respondent from Worcester, Massachusetts. Within
the same period 85% of the less-than-carload lots of handled and
unhandled axes shipped by respondent over the Pennsylvania Rail-
road were to destinations in more than thirty States, while only 15%
were to points within the State of Pennsylvania. Combining the
figures for the total shipments, interstate and intrastate, carload and
less-than-carload, inbound and outbound shipments over this rail-
road were 68% interstate and 32% intrastate.
Rail is an important method of transportation used by respondent.
A side track runs off the line of the Pennsylvania Railroad adjoining
the plant; through this, products are moved in and out of respondent's
plant. Employees of respondent load and unload cars on this track.
Trucking of materials to and from the freight stations is another
method of transportation used by respondent.
All of the aforesaid constitutes a continuous flow of trade, traffic
and commerce among the several States.
2. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On August 1, 1933, respondent's entire force, then unorganized,
struck for the wages to which they were entitled by virtue of the
Code for the industry under the National Industrial Recovery Act.
On August 2, the plant resumed operations, and in September, 1933,
respondent's employees were granted the wage to which they were
entitled under the Code. After this strike, Manbeck, Secretary
,qnd Superintendent of respondent, suggested to Musselman, who was
vice-president and chairman of the wage committee which had been
formed during the strike, that a permanent shop committee be formed.
About October 11, 1933, Federal Labor Union No. 18779, a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, was
formed in the plant and a check-off system was instituted. About
May, 1934 Duncan, foreman of the painting department, who had
been president of the union after its formation, told Musselman that
Manbeck had informed him that he had intended that the men have
an independent organization rather than American Federation of
Labor affiliations. Duncan said that he concurred in Manbeck's
view, and about this time led the employees in the painting and
handling departments out of the union. The bulk of these men
never reentered the organization.
980 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's wage agreement with the union entered into in 1934
expired February, 1935. About March 1, 1935, negotiations for the
following year's agreement began. When negotiations reached an
impasse, the union proposed to enlist the aid of an American Feder-
ation of Labor representative in the bargaining. Manbeck reacted
unfavorably to this suggestion, saying, "It's no use, he knows nothing
about the axe business". Nevertheless, Williams, representative of
the American Federation of Labor, was called in, and respondent
agreed that the old contract would remain in force pending negotia-
tions on the new agreement. On May 16, 1935, the union committee
and Williams met with Manbeck and a further conference was set for
May 22, 1935.
When the committee and Williams arrived for the May 22 meeting,
Manbeck did not appear. Stephens explained that he was at the
hospital. Upon the threat of the union committee that it would
strike if subjected to these tactics, Manbeck presented himself. How-
ever, he then took the line that a year's contract was for far too long
a period and that a 30 day agreement was as far as he would go.
At a subsequent meeting on May 29, the only item in dispute was the
duration of the agreement. At this conference Manbeck proposed
December 31 or January 1 as the expiration date; when Williams
suggested February 1, Manbeck agreed. Williams and Manbeck were
to meet on June 3 to settle details and to sign the agreement. It was
clearly understood throughout the negotiations that Manbeck had
authority to make commitments for respondent on these questions.
The union informed Manbeck that it would strike on June 4 if the
agreement was not signed on the afternoon of June 3.
On the morning of June 3, at 10 o'clock, the whole factory force
was suddenly called together. Manbeck announced that the union
insisted on his signing the agreement that afternoon. He delivered
the warning that respondent could close down its factory during the
summer and fall and fill its orders from competitors' plants and
remarked that if this were done competitors might discover the vol-
ume of respondent's business, buy it, and close it down. He asserted
that the disputed agreement contained no change in the wage scale,
and that the union's insistence on respondent's signing it was there-
fore incomprehensible to him. Respondent, he declared, could not
sign the agreement because of the recent invalidation of the National
Industrial Recovery Act, and the possibility that competitors would
cut costs by reducing labor standards. Respondent intended to con-
tinue last year's wage rates and working schedules, and would, he
said, having signed the agreement on May 27 had the union been
willing to make its expiration date December 31, 1935. However,
competitive conditions might now require a cut in wages. In con-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 981
elusion, Manbeck offered bonuses to the men who stayed on their
jobs, subject to respondent's orders being paid for at the present rates
and a rise in corporate profits from the present level. Manbeck's
speech concluded with the following statement :
"Now, if there are any men in the shop who do not care to
continue their jobs, let your foreman know this afternoon, and
we will arrange to have your pay ready, just as soon as the cleri-
cal work can be done at the office. I mean your pay in full, last
week's, and whatever you earned today . . . Gentlemen, I hope
we do not have any trouble. Think twice before you take final
action. If you think Mr. Williams can pay you a better wage
for the rest of your days than the M. E. T. Co. follow him."
Musselman testified that at one point in this speech Manbeck turned
to him and said : "Don't bring Williams to our meeting because we
won't see him." Manbeck also indicated that the painting and han-
dling departments had already been consulted and had agreed to his
proposal. The union was requested to indicate its intentions imme-
diately. This it refused to do. On the night of June 3, the union
met to consider respondent's ultimatum and decided to strike. The
following day the strike began.
Respondent had made preparations for this event. It recruited
several skilled workers from a plant which it had closed down some
time before, and with the aid of these and some unskilled men whom
it had also collected in 'advance, continued operations.
Respondent having announced that it would not see Williams, he
called in Mr. Robert E. Mythen, Commissioner of Conciliation, U. S.
Department of Labor and Mr. Frank Bowden of the Pennsylvania
Department of Labor and Industry to assist the union in bargaining
with respondent. Their conference with Manbeck and Stephens re-
sulted in a signed agreement dated June 6, 1935, which reads as
follows :
"That we agree to take back all these men without discrimi-
nation, putting them to work on some kind of a job in the factory
within the next twenty to thirty days, sooner if at all possible.
It is further understood that they will be put back on their regu-
lar jobs just as soon as it can be arranged."
The strikers consented on June 6 to return to work, under the,
impression that this agreement meant that they all would receive
their jobs back within 20-30 days. This, however, did not occur.
Manbeck refused to lay off any of the strikebreakers, and continued
to employ other men. Fifteen or sixteen union men were thus not
taken back. At the hearing respondent explained that there was a
verbal understanding with the conciliators that it would not have to
982 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take back those who were "undesirables"-"not on account of union
activities, but on account of their disposition towards the company
and the kind of work ..." and that it intended from the beginning
to reinstate in their old jobs only those whom "the company desired
to have back." Both Mythen and Bowden flatly denied that the
agreement contained any such proviso, not only at the hearing, but,
as hereafter set forth, to respondent's officers at a time prior to the
hearing.
As a result of this "interpretation", Russell Smith, president of
the union, Domer H. Musselman, vice-president and head of the
grievance committee, Elmer J. Miller, secretary of the union, and
James Longacre, member of the grievance committee and an active
union man, all highly skilled workers, were never returned to their
former places, but were put on a temporary labor-gang job tearing
out obsolete machinery. When this work was completed, respondent
laid them off indefinitely on July 5, though their old jobs were then
open. Williams tried unsuccessfully to deal with respondent on
the question of reinstating these four employees. Respondent took
the position that the agreement did not require it to take back per-
manently employees whom it considered "undesirable" and that, in
any event, it was under no obligation to take the men back at any
particular time. At about this time the rumor spread that Bowden
had told respondent's officers that he would be amenable to their
carrying out the agreement by formally reemploying "undesirables"
and then discharging them on some pretext. About July 8 or July
10 Bowden returned to Lewiston for the purpose of scotching this
rumor. In a conference at which Russell Smith and Musselman were
present Bowden confronted Manbeck with this statement. Manbeck
admitted that Bowden had not said this, but declared that Mythen
had. During this meeting the union men took the opportunity to
point out that Manbeck was unfairly hiring new men when em-
ployees to whom it was obligated under the agreement were still
out. To this Manbeck replied "That is our business; we can hire
and fire whom we please."' P
The following week, Mythen made a special trip to Lewiston to
deny Manbeck's statement. On July 18 Bowden, Mythen, Musselman,
and Miller went to respondent's plant for a conference with Man-
beck and Stephens on this matter and on the whole question of the
reinstatement of the men who were still unemployed.4 When Myythen
inquired where Manbeck was, Stephens replied that he had left
town-though the stenographer had just told Mythen that he was in
S At the hearing Manbeck denied that Bowden and he had this conference
4 At the hearing Manbeck testified that he never heard of Mythen 's and Bowden's visit
until the day before in court. However , he later asserted that Stephens told him he
need not come to the meeting.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 983
the factory. Mythen testified that he then informed Stephens that
he considered that respondent had violated its agreement in failing
to take back the strikers-particularly the leaders-within 30 days,
although their jobs were open. To this Stephens replied, "Well, if
the men feel like they can get more through their labor organizer
and more through bringing a representative of the government here,
they could do so." On July 22, Williams requested the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region to investigate the question of whether
a complaint could be issued in this case.
At the time of the hearing most of the strikers had been taken
back except the men here involved; and two of these, Miller and
Gibboney, were subsequently called back to work. Manbeck admitted
that he had taken on other employees since the work of the "labor
gang" had ended on July 5. These men, he said, were promised jobs
before and during the strike.
It is indicative of respondent's attitude toward the union that
Grant Smith, assistant superintendent of the plant and uncle of
Russell and Oscar Smith, both union men in the plant, said when he
saw Oscar passing around union applications early in October, 1935,
"I understand you are ... getting signers to represent the union .. .
well, you don't want to do it again . . . the company will not positively
have anything to do with an organization that is affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor." On cross-examination by respond-
ent's counsel, Grant Smith explained his statement in the following
manner: "I didn't want to have to do it (i. e., to discharge Oscar).
I wanted to keep him in the employ . . . I wanted to take care of him
after going through what he went through, we didn't want to start
anything else right away . . .". Grant Smith admitted also that he
told Oscar, "The company would not stand for this literature passing
through the shop."
3. THE DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES
(1) Russell Smith had been president of the union since April, 1934.
He had been a steel heater in respondent's plant for approximately
two or three years, earning about $16 or $17 a week on piece work.
There had never been any complaints about his work or any dis-
cussion about laying him off before the strike. The evidence fails
to establish the fact that Smith was not called back to his former
position because he was inefficient. Grant Smith, who at first as-
serted that Bridgens, whom Russell helped, complained about Russell's
work every day, later admitted that Bridgens was a chronic com-
plainer . The testimony that Russell was "indifferent to his work"
because he wished to stop work at noon , after having been at the
furnace from 6: 15 A. M. on, with a half hour out at 9: 00, was
97571-36-vol i-63
984 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vitiated by the fact that the schedule desired by Russell was the
general practice in the industry, had formerly been respondent's
practice, and all the steel helpers in the plant shared his views on
the matter. Though it might easily have done so, respondent failed
to put in pay roll records of employees in comparable positions to
substantiate its accusation of inefficiency. At the hearing Manbeck
openly admitted the source of his objection to Russell Smith: "I am
not talking about his efficiency," he said. "It is his disposition ..."
Smith, he declared, was a disruptive influence because, he suggested
to the men that they should work shorter hours and receive more
wages. Since his discharge respondent's steel heaters work until
2: 00 o'clock whereas they formerly refused to work after noon.
After the strike, Oscar Smith, a bit drawer who was then working
on the labor gang with the men here involved, was put on Russell's
job heating steel, which was then open, and Madison, a man who
had not been on the pay roll before the strike, was put in Oscar's
place. Russell was then kept on the temporary laboring job though
he might have been returned to his old position. When Oscar was
subsequently detailed to his former place as a bit drawer, leaving
Russell's job open again, Herbert Swonger, who was hired Septem-
ber 9, was put in Russell Smith's place.
The Trial Examiner's finding that Russell Smith was dismissed
for inefficiency is hereby reversed.
(2) Domev H. Musselman, vice-president of the union and head
of the grievance committee, had been employed by respondent for
about twelve years and had been a bit drawer in respondent's forge
shop for approximately nine years. His average earnings were $20
a week on piece work. Respondent's officers admitted that he was a
good workman, and said that lie would be taken back if there was
work for him. There had never been any discussion of discharging
him before the strike. The objections to Musselman offered by re-
spondent that he occasionally took 45 minutes for lunch instead of
30 minutes, and that, though he was good on his own work, he was
not equally efficient on other jobs, scarcely account for the discharge
of so old an employee.
Directly after the strike, Bowman, who had never worked for re-
spondent before, was put in Musselman's place, though Musselman
was available for employment. After July 5, when the labor gang
had been laid off and Musselman was again without work, respond-
ent discharged Bowman because, he was "seldom sober." Instead of
recalling Musselman, whom they admittedly could have taken back
at that point, Frey, who had not worked for respondent for six years,
replaced Bowman. Of his qualifications for the position, Grant
Smith said after Frey had worked six months on the job: "He is a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 985
better blacksmith than bit drawer, but he is getting better." Grant
Smith's conclusion on the relative merits of Musselman and the men
who replaced him is suggestive. Smith testified that despite Bow-
man's inebriety and Frey's inexperience, he preferred them both to
Musselman as bit drawers. He admitted that neither Bowman nor
Frey was a better worker than Musselman, but ". . . Musselman was
a fault-finder." In response to the suggestion that Musselman may
have appeared to be a "kicker" because he was chairman of the
grievance committee, respondent said, "Yes, and I think it spoiled
him." The inference was that he brought too many grievances to
respondent.
After the issuance of the intermediate report in this case Mussel-
man was reinstated in his former position by respondent on March
10, 1936 without payment of back wages.
(3) James Longacre was the member of the grievance committee
representing the polishing department. He had been the sole regular
buffer in respondent's plant for about seven and a half years. His
average salary was about $32-$33 for a five day week. During that
period he was never laid off, except in slack periods. His output was
never inspected, and he was regarded as one of the hardest workers
in the shop. Respondent never contemplated discharging him before
the strike. In spite of attempts by respondent's counsel to establish
the fact that there were flaws in his work, respondent's officers
conceded at the hearing that he was an excellent workman.
After the strike, Ed Bowman, a new man, was put in Longacre's
place though Longacre was available. When Ed Bowman left the
job because "he has the habit of not staying anywhere very long"
Longacre, who was then on the labor gang, could have replaced him.
Instead Snyder, a new man who had been hired as a bit drawer,
filled the vacancy left by Ed Bowman. Respondent's officers admitted
that Longacre was then available and could have filled the job better
than any man known to them. As in the case of Musselman and
Russell Smith, respondent's only consistently held objection to
Longacre was his "disposition".
On March 10, 1936 respondent reinstated Longacre in his former
position without back pay.
(4) Elmer J. Miller, the secretary of the union, and a former
member of the grievance committee had worked for respondent for
twenty-three years. For approximately five years he had worked
at the wedge saw in the tempering room. His earnings were approxi-
mately $19 a week.
Though Miller was available for employment after the strike.
Ralph Reed, an employee of respondent, was detailed to his position.
After July 8, when Miller had been discharged with the rest of the
labor gang, C. P. Vogelsang, who had been laid off by respondent
986 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some time before the strike, was put in Miller's position at the wedge
saw. On November 13 Miller was recalled and placed in a demoted
position in the shipping department at a lower wage than he had
previously received at the wedge saw.
As in the case of the other men here involved, respondent failed
to substantiate its contention that Miller was not reinstated in his
former job because of inefficiency. The Trial Examiner's finding
that Elmer J. Miller was not reinstated in his former position because
of inefficiency is hereby reversed.
At the hearing respondent openly asserted that it intended from
the beginning, at the cost of violating the agreement with the con-
ciliators, not to reinstate to their former positions "undesirables"
whose "disposition" toward their work was improper. In spite of
its alleged commitment to the strike breakers, respondent succeeded,
by some discharges and reallocations of work, in finding room for
the great majority of the 50-odd employees who struck on June 4.
The president, vice-president, secretary and a member of the griev-
ance committee of the union alone have failed of reemployment. The
Board's conclusion in Timken Silent Automatic Company and Earl
P. Ormsbee, Chaim an, Executive Board, Oil Burner Mechanics
Association, is applicable here :
"Employees of their experience would normally have been
reinstated before others. In this fact : The disproportionate
number of ... prominent Union leaders who were not reinstated,
we perceive more than the operation of mere chance; we find
a studied plan by respondent to eliminate the Union leaders
from its staff."
Owing to the absence of evidence no finding is made on the dis-
charge and failure to reinstate to his former position of Harry
Gibboney.
We find that respondent has discriminated with respect to hire and
tenure of employment against the persons named in the complaint as
amended except Harry Gibboney, for the purpose of discouraging
membership in the union, and that by such acts, respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights of self-organization guaranteed in Section 7 'of the Act.
4. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
We have found above that in August, 1933, respondent's plant was
shut down owing to labor difficulties. Owing to the strike on June
4, 1935, the functioning of respondent's factory was again consider-
ably disrupted. That labor disputes frequently cause serious dislo-
cations in the industry in which respondent is engaged is evidenced
by the fact that according to records of the Bureau of Labor Statis-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 987
tics of the United States Department of Labor, strikes and lockouts
in 1934 and in January to July, 1935 , involved 996 men and 11,447
man-days of idleness.
We find that the aforesaid acts of respondent have led and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
We have found that respondent on July 5, failed to reinstate in
their former positions and discharged Russell Smith, Elmer J. Miller,
Domer H. Musselman and 'James Longacre because of their union
activities . To this explanation alone can we assign respondent's dis-
missal of men of such extensive experience in respondent 's own plant
in favor of the workmen who were retained in their places or hired
from outside . Since Longacre and Musselman have already been re-
instated in their former positions , an order to that effect in their
cases would be superfluous ; we therefore award them only back pay
from the period of their illegal discharge on July 5, to the date of
their reinstatement in their former positions , less the amount earned
by them during the time they were without employment in respon-
dent's plant . Since Russell Sniith and Elmer J. Miller are still
ousted from their former positions , we order that they be reinstated
and given back pay on the same basis as Musselman and Longacre.
They are not , however, to be paid for the period between February
27, 1936 and the date of this decision , because of the failure of the
Trial Examiner to find that respondent was guilty of a violation in
their cases.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding the Board finds and concludes as a matter
of l,aw :
1. Federal Labor Union No. 18779 is a labor organization , within
the meaning of Section 2, subdivision ( 5) of the Act.
2. By its refusal after July 5 to reinstate in their former positions
Russell Smith, Domer H. Musselman , Elmer J . Miller and James
Longacre respondent did discriminate in regard to hire and tenure
of employment of said persons and each of them, and did thus dis-
courage and is thus discouraging membership in Federal Labor
Union No. 18779 and by all of said acts and each of them did thereby
engage in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8,
subdivision (3) of the Act. By its continued refusal after July 5
to reinstate in their former positions Russell Smith and Elmer J.
Miller respondent is discriminating in regard to hire and . tenure of
employment of said persons and each of them and is thus discour-
aging membership in Federal Labor Union No. 18779 and by all said
988 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acts and each of them is thereby engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, re-
spondent has engaged 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
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Mann Edge Tool Company, and its officers and agents,
to:
(1) Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining or coercing 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 purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
(2) Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Federal
Labor Union No. 18779, or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment 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) Reinstate to their former positions without prejudice Russell
Smith and Elmer J. Miller, with all rights and privileges previously
enjoyed; and
(b) Make whole Russell Smith, Elmer J. Miller, Domer H. Mus-
selman and James Longacre for any loss they may have suffered by
reason of their discharge, by payment to each of them, respectively,
of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have
earned as wages on his former position during the period from the
time he was discharged on July 5, 1935, to the date of such offer of
reinstatement, computed at his average weekly wage on his former
position, less the amount which each, respectively, has earned sub-
sequent to July 5, 1935, and up to the time of such offer of reinstate-
ment; except that Russell Smith and Elmer J. Miller shall not be
compensated for the period of February 27, 1936 to the date of this
decision.
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed as to Harry
Gibboney.