Moltrup Steel Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 471 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY and STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, LODGE NO. 1202
Case No. C-779.-Decided January 15, 1940
Cold Drawn Steel industry-Interference, Restraint, and - Coercion: main-
tenance of employees representation plan ; statements of foremen and officials-
disparaging union and warning employees against joining ; holding of meet-
ings in plant to discourage union activity ; attempted espionage ; questioning:
employees concerning union affiliation ; characterizing union as irresponsible-
during bargaining negotiations ; expressed willingness to bargain only with
representatives who were employees ; sponsorship of back-to-work movement:
during strike resulting from refusal to bargain collectively ; distribution of anti-
union pamphlet-Strike: precipitated and prolonged by refusal to bargain-
Company-Dominated Union: formation following series of interferences with
rights guaranteed employees by Act, refusal to bargain collectively, and dis-
crimination against leading union members ; outgrowth of back-to-work move-
ment ; formation of by back-to-work leaders who had collaborated with re-
spondent in breaking strike ; function of organization to combat outside union ;
support ; expressed willingness to bargain with organization only if limited
to employees of employer-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: pro-
duction employees, excluding clerical and office workers, foremen, and super-
visory employees ; no controversy as to-Representatives: proof of choice : mem-
bership application cards; majority status prior to strike not affected by with-
drawal in view of respondent's interference-Collective Bargaining: refusal to
bargain ; absence of intention to recognize union ; unwillingness to cooperate
in bargaining procedure ; evasion of meetings with union representatives ; re-
quirement that list of union members be submitted despite presence of other
reasonable methods of determining whether union represented majority of
employees ; refusal to sign contract because of alleged irresponsibility of union ;
employer ordered to bargain and upon request enter into signed agreement
with union if understanding reached-Discrimination: laying off entire shift
where business conditions not unfavorable ; discharge of employee for failure
to discontinue union activity ; refusal to reinstate leading members of union-
Regular and Substantially Equivalent Employment: factors considered ; desire
for reinstatement, location and lower wage of new work, as-Reinstatement:
ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Francis V. Paone and Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, for the Board.
Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, by Mr. Kenneth G. Jackson,
Mr. W. Davis Graham, and Mr. Charles C. Hewvitt, all of Pittsburgh,
Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Benjamin Sigal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Forest G. Moorhead, of Beaver, Pa., for the Independent.
Mr. Sylvester Garrett, of counsel to the Board.
19 N. L. R. B., No. 55.
471
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Joseph J. Timko, Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles T. Douds,
Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania),
issued a complaint, dated November 12, 1937, alleging that Moltrup
Steel Products Company, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, herein called
the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the
complaint, accompanied by a notice of hearing, was duly served
upon the respondent.
The complaint alleged, in substance, that on or about May 15; 1937,
and at all times thereafter, the S. W. O. C. represented a majority
of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit; that the re-
spondent had refused to bargain collectively with the S. W. O. C.
as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees; that
the respondent had dominated and interfered, with, the,. formation
and administration of, and contributed support to, a labor organiza-
tion known as Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers,
Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania,
herein called the Independent ; that, on or about August 6, 1936,
the respondent had discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure
of employment of the entire night shift of its employees by laying
off the said employees in order to discourage membership in a union ;
that the respondent had discriminated with regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of 14 named employees by refusing at all
times to reinstate them to their employment ; and that by these and
other acts, the respondent had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion and to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection. On November 26, 1937, the respondent filed its answer,
admitting certain allegations of the complaint but traversing others
and making certain allegations by way of an affirmative defense.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, from February 7 to March 30, 1938, before
William H. Griffin, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
The Board, the respondent, the S. W. O. C., and the Independent
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 473
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues of the case was
afforded all parties. During the course of the' hearing, counsel for
the Board moved that the complaint be amended to allege that pend-
ing incorporation of the Independent an organization had been
formed under the name of Local Independent Brotherhood of Steel
Workers of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Penn-
sylvania, herein called the Local Brotherhood, and that the Local
Brotherhood was in reality the same organization as the Independent.
Counsel for the Board also moved that the complaint be amended to
delete the allegations thereof that the respondent had discriminated
against Merle Boland, Joseph Smith, Frank Veres, Paul Dewhirst,
Stanley Gamzalla, Leslie Alexander, Harry Behringer, Harry Cald-
well, and Lloyd Goddard. These motions were granted by the Trial
Examiner, and his rulings are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner
also ruled on a number of other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were made. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
At various stages of the proceedings, counsel for the respondent
and for the Independent moved that the entire complaint be dismissed
and also moved for dismissal of various specific allegations thereof.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on these motions and on certain
other motions to exclude testimony. The motions are hereby denied.
On July 27, 1938, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (a), of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, the Board ordered the proceedings transferred to and
coiatinu4 before it. On September 12, 1938, acting pursuant to
Article II, Section 38 (d), of said Rules and Regulations, the Board
directed that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of
Law, and a Proposed Order be issued and granted to the parties
the right to request permission to file briefs and have oral argument
before the Board.
On June 23, 1939, the Board issued Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order herein, copies
of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the respond-
ent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. The respondent and the Independent thereafter
filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order. Pursuant to notice, a hearing
for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., on August 10, 1939. The respondent and the Inde-
pendent were represented by counsel and participated in the argu-
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondent
and of the Independent and, in so far as they are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to
be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the man-
ufacture of cold drawn steel bars, wire, machine keys , machine rack,
moulding machine and engraving plates, and discs, at its plant
located in Beaver Falls , Pennsylvania . Between 45 and 50 per cent
of the raw materials used in such manufacture are obtained by the
respondent from sources outside Pennsylvania , while approximately
84 per cent of the finished product is shipped to destinations outside
that State. The respondent 's annual sales exceed $1,500,000. Its
product is distributed through sales agencies in New York and
Massachusetts handling the respondent 's product exclusively , as well
as through 17 independent jobbers variously located in 11 different
States.
There are normally about 280 production employees at the respond-
ent's Beaver Falls plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili-
ated with the Committee for Industrial Organization ,' herein called
the C. I. 0., which represents Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel & Tin Workers of North America, herein called the Amal-
gamated, also a labor organization affiliated with the C. I. O. On
January 23 , 1937 , Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin
Workers of North America issued a charter to, Lodge No. 1202,
admitting to its membership production and maintenance employees
of the respondent , excluding supervisory employees.
Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers , Moltrup Steel
Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , is an unaffiliated
labor organization which is seeking incorporation under the laws of
Pennsylvania , admitting to its membership employees of the respond-
ent. Pending incorporation , the members of. Independent Brother-
hood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup Steel Products Company of,
Beaver Falls , Pennsylvania , have formed an unaffiliated labor organ-
ization known as Local Independent Brotherhood of Steel Workers
of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania.
1 Now Congress of Industrial Organizations.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 475
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The chronology of events
1. The events prior to and pertaining to the lay-offs in August 1936
and the resumption of operations of the night shift in September
1936
Representatives of the S. W. O. C . began organization activities
among the employees of the respondent about July 1, 1936, and held
a series of public mass meetings from the latter part of July to
November of that year . On one occasion early in July, an organizer
who was distributing S. W. O. C . literature outside the respondent's
plant was accosted by J. Frank Moltrup , the respondent 's president.
Moltrup inquired what the organizer expected to gain by his activity
and asked if he had obtained a permit from local authorities to dis-
tribute the S. W. O . C. literature . At this time , there existed at the
respondent 's plant an "Employee Representation Plan," herein called
the E. R. P., which had been formed in 1934. Under the E. R. P.,
the employees annually elected representatives who met each month
in the plant during working hours to discuss employee problems and
who chose from their number three employees to constitute an "Em-
ployees' Joint Representative Committee." This committee met with
management representatives to discuss grievances . Meetings of the
employee representatives were called by the management . The an-
nual elections , the last of which was held in November ' 1936, took
place in the plant during working hours . The employees received,
their regular pay for time spent during working hours participating
in the E. R. P. activities.
About July 12, 1939, S. W. O. C. organizers met with 6 persons 2
employed on the respondent 's night shift at the home of one of the
employees . The six employees were at this time given S. W. O. C.
membership application cards. Within a short period of time they
succeeded in signing up a number of the night -shift employees.
Within a few weeks , William McGraw and Matthew Eureich, day-
shift employees , also became active in efforts to interest employees
in the S. W. O. C.
About the middle of July 1936, the respondent announced that
thereafter the night shift would work 6 days each week and 8 hours
each day instead of 5 days each week and 9 hours each day as had
been the practice theretofore . Certain of the employees thereupon
complained to Foreman John Rutter about the increase in hours and
the fact that the change would necessitate working on Saturday after-
noon and night . When they failed to obtain satisfaction from Rutter,
2Flenry Keppen, Samuel Cain, Merle Boland , Glenn Rose , Lloyd Goddard, and Lawrence
Rump.
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees attempted to get an E. R. P. representative to present
the matter to the management, but he refused to do so. Samuel Cain,
an employee, then drafted a petition protesting the proposed change
in the hours of the night shift, and most of the night-shift employees
signed it. The petition later was placed .in the locker of an E. R. P.
representative with a request that it be presented to the management
Shortly thereafter, however, it was confiscated by Foreman Rutter,
acting upon instructions from General Foreman John Miller. Miller
later told the men that they "had no right to form a petition."
About this time, certain of the respondent's supervisory employees
indicated disapproval of the C. I. 0. and of the union activities
which were being carried on. Clarence Geiser, a foreman related
by marriage to employees Paul Dewhirst and William McGraw, in-
formed these two employees that they did not have to belong to a
union to work for the respondent. He also cautioned Dewhirst not
to sign anything, stating that he "didn't know what was going to
happen or what might turn up." He warned McGraw, "Whatever
you do, don't join that God damn union" or "they will fire. you quicker
than Hell." 3 Foreman Rutter questioned Henry Keppen, an em-
ployee, as to whether the latter had received any C. I. 0. literature
and stated to Keppen that the "C. I. 0. is no damn good," that the
C. I. 0. would take his money and let him "go to the devil" . and
cause him to lose "lots of work"; and that the respondent would not
recognize any labor organization except its "own company union."
During the early part of August 1936, Rutter engaged in further
attempts to discourage membership in the S. W. 0. C. Euriech, an
employee on the day shift, testified that during this period Rutter
approached him on a number of occasions, advising him to "stay away
as far as you can from the S. W. 0.. C. and that it would be a waste
of money for him to pay union dues inasmuch as the union would not
get him anywhere. Euriech testified that Rutter also questioned him
regarding his opinion of the S. W. O. C. and expressed curiosity as to
whether an employee named Early would be among the first to join
the S. W. 0. C. Rutter denied at the hearing that he had made the
statements attributed to him by Euriech, but admitted having on one
occasion informed Euriech that he need not join in a union in order
to remain in the respondent's employ. He testified that he had made
this statement only after Euriech himself had brought up the subject
and stated that he was being "pressed" to join the S. W. 0. C.4 In
view of the entire record, we conclude that Euriech's testimony is to
3 Although Geiser denied that he so warned McGraw , we do not give credence to such
denial in view of all the circumstances.
4 Rutter also testified that, during a conversation , Lawrence Rump had brought up the
subject of unions , whereupon Rutter advised him that he did not have to join a union to
work for the respondent.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 477
be accepted rather than that of Rutter. An incident which occurred
several days prior to Rutter's conversations with Euriech is indicative
of Rutter's general attitude at this time. The evidence shows that
about August 1 someone left a note on Euriech's machine reading,
"Nice work, Bozo, you keep it up and you will get a penny lollypop
raise and you will be in Class A with the rest 'of us." On learning
of this, Rutter appropriated the note, stated to Euriech that, "some-
body is going to pay for this," and sought to learn the identity of the
writer of the note by comparing the writing on it with the time sheets
filled in by various employees. He also discussed the note with
General Foreman Miller since he felt that it "might lead to jangle-
ment among the men."
About August 5, 1936, Moltrup instructed Mervin Hahn, the re-
spondent's paymaster, to ascertain for him the name of a certain
employee who lived in a specified neighborhood in Beaver Falls and
also the names of the night-shift employees "who were to be laid off"
and who were meeting at the home of such employee. Moltrup testi-
fied at the hearing that he sought this information inasmuch as he
had heard that night-shift employees were leaving the plant during
working hours to visit a nearby beer garden and inasmuch as he
desired to question the employee living in'the vicinity of the beer
garden regarding the truth of the rumor. In view of all the circum-
stances, we are convinced, however, that Moltrup desired the informa-
tion in order to learn the identity of night-shift employees who, he
believed, were engaging in union activity.
On August 5 and 6, 1936, the respondent laid off approximately 5
employees of the day shift, including Matthew Euriech and William
McGraw, both of whom had participated in S. W. O. C. activity.
Euriech was laid off on August 5 and McGraw on August 6. At the
end of the night shift on August 6, 1936, the respondent also laid off
most of the approximately 45 employees working on such shift, in-
cluding Rump, Cain, Keppen, Boland, Rose, and Goddard, all of
whom had met with S. W. O. C. organizers on July 12, 1936. A few
of the night-shift employees were not laid off but were transferred to
the day shift. The respondent informed the employees that they were
being laid off because of "lack of orders."
On August 7, 1936, Paymaster Hahn furnished to. Moltrup the name
and address of the employee about whom Moltrup had inquired. At
this time, Moltrup instructed Hahn to inform the men when they
were paid off that the lay-offs were the result of "lack of orders."
Hahn informed Moltrup that he could not conscientiously do so,
whereupon Moltroup discharged him on the ground that the re-
spondent did not "want anybody ... not 100 per cent for the com-
pany." Although the respondent's witnesses attempted to minimize
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the extent of Hahn's knowledge respecting the actual condition of the
respondent's business at the time of the lay-offs, we conclude that
Hahn was in a position to known the condition of the respondent's
business at that time s
Shortly following his lay-off, Euriech on several occasions requested
General Foreman Miller to reinstate him and also discussed the matter
with Moltrup. Euriech testified that both Miller and Moltrup asked
him whether he belonged to the S. W. O. C. and that, inasmuch as he
desired employment, he denied being a member of that organization.
Miller further inquired if another employee belonged to the S. W.
O. C. Euriech testified that during his conversation with Moltrup,
the latter expressed a desire that the men consult him before join-
ing a union ; disparaged the S. W. O. C.; advised Euriech not to
believe that Rump, Goddard, and Keppen were S. W. O. C. members,
stating that "All they have got is a long sheet of paper with a lot
of fellows' names on, to tell you that they have signed them, which
they didn't, and make you believe it so you will sign" ; and declared
that he would "have no union in his mill" unless the government in-
tervened. Although Miller and Moltrup denied that they made the
statements attributed to them by Euriech, we are convinced • on the
basis of the entire record that such statements were made by them,
and so find. Following Euriech's talk with Moltrup, the latter as-
sured Euriech that he would be reemployed before reemployment of
the other men who had been laid off. During the last week in August
1936, Euriech actually was reinstated by Clarence Small, plant super-
intendent, who stated at the time that the respondent did not want
any "labor trouble." Euriech continued his membership in the
S. W. O. C. and was laid off a second time about the middle of
September 1936. The lay-off was allegedly because of a lack of work,
although 20 other employees were hired during this month. There-
after during September Euriech twice applied to Miller for work,
but was told that none was available.
During the period following the lay-offs in August 1936, Moltrup,
Miller, and Small each attended various of the S. W. O. C. mass meet-
ings held in Beaver Falls. About October 1, Moltrup called together
the E. R. P. employee representatives and requested them to attend
S. W. O. C. meetings also in order to inform him of what took place.
During September and October, Moltrup called all the employees into
his office in separate groups of about 25 each and spoke to each group
for approximately 45 minutes. Moltrup stated at the hearing that the
_ 8 The evidence shows in this connection that Hahn had been in the respondent's employ
for 20 years ; that in the course of his work Hahn compiled reports on the respondent's
business for various governmental agencies, for the American Iron and Steel Institute,
and foi• the Cold Finished Bar Institute; and that he had knowledge of the respondent's
shipments and of the stock on hand.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 479
purpose of these meetings was to explain to the employees their rights
under the Act. In support of this testimony the respondent intro-
duced in evidence two mimeographed sheets entitled, "A Message to
Employees-Facts About the Wagner Act," which Moltrup testified
that he had in his possession while talking to the employees. It is
to be noted in this connection that the mimeographed material sub-
mitted in evidence contains quotations from a decision rendered by
the Supreme Court of the United States on April 12, 1937,6 a date a
number of months subsequent to Moltrup's talks to the employee
groups. Moltrup admitted that during his talks he told the men to
"keep their noses clean and keep their feet on the ground," warned
them' "if they made any gestures to be sure that they were right in
their movements," and requested them to inform him "if the pressure
got too great on them." The evidence establishes, moreover, that
during the course of the talks Moltrup stated that he could not under-
stand why the employees would care to use "outside help" in handling
their affairs; declared that he did not want any "coal diggers" to tell
the men what to do ; requested the employees to inform him if they
were asked to join a union; and expressed a determination to close the
plant rather than sign a contract with any "outside union."
On September 21, 1936, the respondent resumed the operation of its
night shift, but did not reinstate leading S. W. O. C. members, includ-
ing Rump, Cain, Keppen, McGraw, and Euriech, at such time or
thereafter. During the period from August 6, 1936, to the date of
the hearing, the respondent hired over 90 other persons, about 25
of whom had no previous experience in the work they were assigned.
2. The circumstances pertaining to the strike of June 1, 1937
Following the resumption of operation of the night shift in Sep-
tember 1936 , the S. W. O. C. organizational campaign continued and
on January 23, 1937, Lodge 1202 was chartered . On March 10, 1937,
the S. W. O. C. mailed to the respondent a copy of a proposed agree-
ment. Thereafter on about March 23, Joseph J. Timko, subregional
director of the S. W. O. 'C., attempted to communicate by telephone
with Moltrup about the proposed contract , but was informed that
Moltrup was out of town . On March 25 the S. W. O. C. mailed a.
second proposed contract to the respondent and requested a prompt
reply. The respondent having failed to reply to the letter, Timko
again attempted to communicate with Moltrup by telephone but,
after a few minutes' wait , he was informed that Moltrup was "not
in." Timko was similarly unsuccessful in attempting to communicate
with Moltrup early in April.
a National Labor Relations Board v. Jones J Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1.
480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the foregoing period, a number of the employee representa-
tives under the E. R. P. joined the S. W. O. C. and at a meeting of .
the representatives six of the eight voted to discontinue their activity
in the E. R. P. on the ground that the majority of the employees had
changed their views as to the type of organization they wished to rep-
resent them . By letter to Superintendent Small dated April 6, 1937,
the six representatives submitted their resignations as employee
representatives.
On April 9, 1937, Moltrup called three of the said representatives,
Robert Provence , Wilbur Holmes, and Harold Makepeace, to his
office. On this occasion the three employees were wearing C. I. O.
buttons. Provence and Holmes testified that during the ensuing con-
ference Moltrup stated that "the C . I. O. were all scums" and that
the employee representatives were no better . They also testified that
Moltrup pointed to Makepeace during the discussion and stated that
he was "the cause of all this." Although Moltrup and James Phillips,
the respondent 's secretary and treasurer who was also present at the
conference , denied that Moltrup made the alleged statements, we are
convinced on the basis of the entire evidence that the testimony of
Holmes and Provence is to be accepted.
About April 20 Organizer Feeney Busarello succeeded in meeting
Moltrup and arranged to hold a conference with him on April 26.
At the conference on the latter date Busarello and another organizer
asserted that the S. W. O. C. represented 90 per cent of the respond-
ent's production employees and stated that they wished to negotiate a
contract covering the employees in the plant . Moltrup thereupon
remarked that for aught he knew the organizers might be "a couple
of crooks ." Claiming that, as far as he was aware , - Provence was the
only S. W. O. C. member among the employees , he demanded that he
be shown the S. W. O. C. membership list before entering into any
negotiations . The S. W. O. C. representatives thereupon presented
their S. W. O. C. credentials , and suggested that, in view of alleged
previous discrimination by the respondent against S . W. O. C. mem-
bers, either an election or a check of S. W . O. C. membership cards
by a Board representative would be an appropriate method of deter-
mining if the employees desired representation by the S. W. O. C.
Rejecting this suggestion, Moltrup concluded , "Well , I can't discuss
this matter with you until I get the list and I am not interested in any
more conversation ." When Busarello inquired whether the respond-
ent would sign a contract with the S . W. O. C. if that organization
proved that it represented a majority of the employees Moltrup de-
clared that such a contract was "not necessary " and that the respond-
ent previously had been "getting along all right" without "outsiders."
During the conference Moltrup made no proposals other than his
demand for production of the S. W. O. C. membership list.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 481
Two days after the conference, Busarello telephoned Moltrup and
the latter again stated that he would not talk to any "outside" union
representatives until shown the S. W. O. C. membership list. When
Timko subsequently telephoned the plant and failed to reach Moltrup,
he. thereafter waited outside the plant until Moltrup entered and then
telephoned a second time. He was told that Moltrup had just left
the plant. On about May 26, Timko once more telephoned but was
told that Moltrup was out. About noon on Friday, May 28, Timko
telegraphed the respondent stating that unless the respondent reached
some -agreement with the S. W. O. C. by the following .Tuesday
evening, June 1, he would not be responsible should the employees
decide to strike.
After the respondent failed to reply to Timko's telegram, about
175 of the members of Lodge 1202 participated in 2 meetings held
on May 31 and June 1, respectively. As a result of the meetings the
employees decided to go on strike and at 11 p. in. on June 1, a picket
line was formed outside the plant. Production operations thereupon
ceased.
About the middle of June, representatives of the Board arranged a
conference, which took place on June 17, between Timko and the
respondent's officials while the strike was still in progress. At the
outset of this meeting, Timko stated that the S. W. O. C. desired
recognition as exclusive bargaining agent of the employees and sought
to explain provisions of a -proposed contract to Moltrup.. As each
section was presented, it was rejected by Moltrup, who remarked
that it was not "necessary" and that he was not "interested" in the
contract. Timko then offered to terminate the strike if Moltrup
would consent to an election to determine whether the employees
desired representation by the S. W. O. C. This offer was conditioned
upon Moltrup's promising to sign a contract with the S. W. O. C.
if it represented a majority. Although Moltrup flatly rejected this
proposal, his testimony at the hearing was that he did not "have
any reason," for doing so. He also rejected Timko's alternative
offer to submit S. W. O. C. membership lists to the Board to be
checked. During the conference Moltrup asserted that the respond-
ent already was observing the terms of the proposed contract and
would deal with any group representing a majority of the employees.
Timko thereupon inquired whether Moltrup would be willing to put
this statement in the form of a letter instead of signing a contract.
Moltrup again refused. During the conference Moltrup stated,
among other things, that the S. W. O. C. was not "responsible,"
that he had been getting along all right with his employees long be-
fore he was approached by the S. W. O. C., that he was satisfied
to continue to deal with his employees as he had in the pest, and
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he was not going to recognize 'any union. Moltrup finally termi-
nated the conference by leaving the room after telling Timko, "If
that is your attitude, the meeting is over." Timko's request for a
further meeting was rejected on the ground that the employees were
"satisfied."
3. The back-to-work movement
Shortly after June 17, 1937, Moltrup, Phillips, a number of fore-
men, and a group of employees, held a meeting at the General Brod-
head Hotel in Beaver Falls to discuss a resumption of operations.
Thereafter, the employees and foremen present at the meeting can-
vassed the other employees and sought to induce the S. W. O. C.
members to abandon the strike and to return to work. In further-
ance of these efforts, the respondent caused a notice to be published
in a local newspaper on Jude 26, stating that the plant would be
reopened on June 28. On the morning of June 28, about 20 em-
ployees entered the plant without difficulty. When night-shift em-
ployees sought to enter the plant in the afternoon, however, there
ensued a brief 'scuffle participated in by such employees, the
S. W. O. C. pickets, and a number of armed and unidentified deputy
sheriffs who had collected outside the plant. During the scuffle, a
picket was fatally wounded by a tear-gas shell 'discharged by one of
the deputy sheriffs. Shortly thereafter, the deputy sheriffs left
Beaver Falls and the attempt to operate the plant was discontinued.
Subsequently a representative of the Board suggested' that Moltrup
resume negotiations with the S. W. O. C., but Moltrup rejected the
suggestion and stated that he would reopen the plant as soon as the
respondent was able to obtain the necessary "protection."
On June 29 and thereafter, officials of the respondent held ad-
ditional meetings with foremen and certain of the employees at which
plans again were discussed to induce the employees to return to work.
Acting on instructions from Moltrup a number of the foremen col-
laborated with the back-to-work leaders among the employees in
soliciting other employees to return to their jobs. On July 7 the
respondent resumed operations at its plant. Shortly thereafter, the
members of Lodge 1202 voted to discontinue the strike and return to
work. They did so within a few days after July 7. '
As part of the back-to-work movement, employees who were lead-
ers therein laid plans to induce the other employees to withdraw from
the S. W. O. C. and from Lodge 1202. In addition, as noted below,
the back-to-work leaders planned the formation of the Independent
as a means of combatting the S. W. O. C. About July 7, 1937, back-
to-work leader Harry Yokel made arrangements with a local alder-
man whereby, as Yokel then expressed it, "over a hundred" em-
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 483
ployees could "swear off" the S. W. O. C. at a special reduced charge
of 10 cents for the alderman's services. During the ensuing period
of several weeks a number of, employee leaders in the back-to-work
movement actively solicited a large number of S. W. O. C. members
to sign a form letter in the alderman's office, expressing a desire to
withdraw from the S. W. O. C. Although much of this solicitation
took place prior to formation of the Independent, employees solicited
were warned that unless they signed the-letter of withdrawal' from
the S. W. O. C., they would not be permitted to join the Independent.
In addition, the respondent's vice president, Fred Ward, on July 9
sought to induce Provence, the president of Lodge 1202, to give up
his S. W. O. C. activity. On this occasion Ward called Provence
away from -his work, remarked that the S. W. O. C. had had its
"try" and failed, and asked Provence why he could not see things
Ward's way. Within the next few days Provence was solicited by
several employees to join the Independent,. although that organiza-
tion purportedly did not come into existence until ' July 18. As a
result of the activity carried on in this respect by back-to-work
leaders and others, approximately 115 employees were induced to
sign the form letter of withdrawal from the S. W. O. C.
4. The formation of the Independent and Local Brotherhood
At one of the meetings prior to-July 7, 1937, at which plans were
formulated to induce employees to return to work, Moltrup stated
that the plant would reopen only if the respondent was "assured
that production could continue in the mill." That such statement had
a particular significance to the employees present is indicated by
the testimony of Les Namath, a leader in the back-to-work movement,
that about July 7 "there was talk among the men that we should
organize a. group of our own to try to guarantee ourselves steady
work if we possibly could instead of having someone else butt
in..."
On July 10, 1937, a number of the employees 7 who had been active
in the back-to-work movement, and James Meadows, a sergeant of
police of the Republic Steel Corporation, stationed at its Union
Drawn plant at Beaver Falls, met at the General Brodhead Hotel
in Beaver Falls to discuss the formation of an organization of the
employees. The room in the hotel at which the meeting was held
was secured by Louis Yokel, a back-to-work leader, and the charge
therefor was made to the account of the respondent. After receipt
by the respondent of a statement from the hotel including such
charge, Phillips, the respondent's treasurer, made a cash payment
T The employees included Louis Yokel, John Namath , Alex . Juhasz, Harry Geiser, William
MacLean, Stanley .Skerkowski , Ed Graham,-Harry Yokel , and Kenneth Majors.
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the entire amount called for by the statement. At the hearing
Phillips denied that he knew that the statement included a charge for
the room engaged by Yokel. He admitted, however, that statements
received by the respondent customarily were checked and approved
both by its purchasing department and by its assistant secretary-
treasurer and that he himself had considered the charge to the extent
that lke directed that it be entered against the respondent's "incidental
administrative expense" account. He testified in the latter connection
that he.thought the room- had. been used in the course of the back-
to-work movement. The charge, however, was for use of the room
on a date 3 days subsequent to the reopening of the plant and Phillips
admitted at the hearing that he had noticed this fact. Under all the
circumstances, we are convinced, and find, that Phillips knew that
the payment which he made to the hotel included payment for the
room secured by Yokel on July 10.
At the aforesaid meeting, it was decided to form an organization
of employees similar to that which had been formed at the Union
Drawn Steel Company plant of Republic Steel Corporation, located
in Beaver Falls. Harry Geiser was selected as temporary chairman
of the organization and plans were made to hold a meeting of the
employees on Sunday, July 18. Meadows suggested that the meeting
be held at the local Elks Club.
A few days after July 10, Meadows and John Namath requested
of the steward of the Elks Club permission to use the club for the
proposed meeting and were informed that consent of the club trus-
tees would be necessary. C. T. McKane, one of the trustees, testified
at the hearing that about this time he received a telephone call from
Moltrup, requesting that the employees be permitted to hold a
meeting at the club. He testified that he informed Moltrup that the
permission would be granted, but that he thereafter informed Mol-
trup by telephone that the consent was withdrawn inasmuch as the
proposed meeting was to be held on Sunday afternoon and inasmuch
as non-members were ordinarily excluded from the club at such time.
Moltrup denied at the hearing that he had telephoned McKane
relative to the use of the Elks Club and testified that he had not
participated in any efforts to secure use of the club. Namath tes-
tified that he obtained information that the Elks Club would not
be available for the meeting but that he didn't inquire much about
it" and did not definitely recall the source of the information. In
view of the entire record and particularly the fact that McKane
was a disinterested witness, we conclude that Moltrup attempted to
secure permission for use of the Elks Club for the meeting in
question.
Following the failure to obtain use of the Elks Club, Meadows,
sergeant of police for Republic Steel Corporation, and several of
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 485
the employees who had been active in the back-to-work movement
secured permission to hold the meeting at the Polish Falcons Hall
in Beaver Falls. At the meeting which was held on July 18, Harry
Geiser acted as chairman and Meadows was a principal speaker.
During the course of his talk, Meadows predicted that John L. Lewis
would "sell out" the S. W. O. C. members; stated that there was no
necessity for an "outside" union and that a "brotherhood" without
"outside interference" was desirable since money paid to such an
organization would "stay at home"; and further stated that "twenty
fellows" had agreed to form an independent union. Meadows ad-
vised the men that they would not be permitted to join the Inde-
pendent unless they first withdrew from the S. W. O. C. by signing
the form letter in the alderman's office. He then called for employees
to volunteer to serve as employee representatives in the new or-
ganization and 11 persons who 'so volunteered were approved as
representatives. Of the 11, at.least 7 had been leaders in the back-to-
work movement."
Shortly following the aforesaid meeting, the employee representa-
tives selected at the meeting conferred with Meadows and John
Namath at the General Brodhead Hotel. At Meadows'. suggestion,
plans were discussed relative to incorporation of the organization
of employees. It was decided to name the organization "Independent
Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup Steel Products
Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania" and to hold a second meet-
ing of the employees. At the second meeting, which was held on
August 1, 1937, Meadows administered an oath or "obligation" to
those present.
About October 1937 papers were filed in a local court seeking
incorporation of the Independent under the laws of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. The 11 employee representatives selected
at the meeting on July 18 were designated in the papers as directors
of the organization. Pending action upon the application for incor-
poration, it was decided that the organization should function as
an unincorporated association under the name "Local Independent
Brotherhood of Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Products Company
of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania." The 11 employee representatives of
the Independent thereafter acted as the "executive committee" of the
Local Brotherhood and the officers selected by the Independent
served as officers of the Local Brotherhood.
During the fall of 1937, the "executive committee" of the Local
Brotherhood met on several occasions with Moltrup and other of-
ficials of the respondent relative to recognition of the Local Brother-
8 Harry Geiser, Alex Juhasz, Ed Graham, Louis Yokel, Ed Hawthorne, Owen Murphy, and
Charles Moegerle.
283030-11-vol. 10-32
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hood as bargaining agent of the employees, and to discuss a proposed
vacation plan. Moltrup stated that the respondent would bargain
with the Local Brotherhood or with any other group "as long as
they were employees of his plant." Although he refused to grant
vacations as requested, on the ground that business conditions would
not permit him to do so, Moltrup stated that the respondent would
try to stagger employment so as to divide the work among as many
employees as possible. In the course of the negotiations, no proof
was submitted relative to designation of the Independent or the
Local Brotherhood as bargaining representative by the employees.
During the period from September 17 to October 22, 1937, the
respondent distributed to the employees a series of 6 pamphets, 5 of
which discussed various aspects of the conduct of a business enter-
prise and the sixth of which embodied a direct attack upon the
Amalgamated.' The latter pamphlet, entitled "What is the Check
Off", depicted a cringing worker seeking to ward off an unidentified
hand clutching at his pay envelope and stated that under the rules
of the Amalgamated a 2-per cent levy could be assessed against the
wages of an Amalgamated member at any time and that a union
member neither knew nor was able to ascertain who ultimately re-
ceived his dues or for what purpose they might be used. The pamph-
let was distributed at the plant entrance by Superintendent Small
and one of the respondent's watchmen.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In view of the facts above set forth, it is clear that the respondent
has engaged in numerous acts of interference, restraint, and coercion.
At the time the S. W. O. C. began its organizational efforts, there
was in existence an Employee Representation Plan clearly sponsored
and dominated by the respondent. The respondent took no steps
at any time to dissolve the Plan and continued to deal with em-
ployees on the basis of such Plan. Shortly after the S. W. O. C.
began to organize, supervisory employees of the respondent actively
discouraged membership in that organization by questioning em-
ployees concerning their union affiliation, by statements detrimental
to the C. I. O. and the S. W. O. C., and by threats of the conse-
quences which would ensue if employees joined the S. W. O. C.
During the period following the shut-down of the night shift on
August 6, 1936,11 Moultrup held meetings of groups of employees at
which he clearly indicated his hostility to any "outside union" and
made numerous statements patently coercive. At about the same
time, he sought to use the E. R. P. employee representatives as in-
As noted in Section II above, the Amalgamated admits to membership employees of
the respondent , and is represented by the S. W. O. C.
"This part of the case 's discussed in detail in subsection E below.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 487
formers respecting S. W. 0. C. activity. When certain employees
submitted their resignations as E. R. P. representatives, Moltrup
again expressed his hostility to the C. I. 0. as well as to the repre-
sentatives. During the S. W. 0. C. attempts to negotiate with the
respondent, Moltrup characterized the S. W. 0. C. as irresponsible
and stated that he was not going to recognize any union. When
later requested to negotiate with the Independent, he stated that he
would bargain with anyone "as long as they were employees of his
plant." The officials and supervisory employees of the respondent
actively participated in the attempts to induce individual employees
to abandon the strike and return to work. After the formation of
the Independent and Local Brotherhood, the respondent distributed
a pamphlet containing a direct attack upon the Amalgamated.
We find that by virtue of the acts and conduct set forth above
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
C. Domination of and interference with the Independent and the
Local Brotherhood
The formation of the Independent took place only after strong
manifestations of hostility on the part of the respondent towards the
S. W. 0. C. and all "outside unions" and which included discrimina-
tion as to the employment of leading S. W. 0. C. members. As
noted below, the respondent precipitated the strike in June 1937 by
its refusal to bargain collectively with the S. W. 0. C. By con-
tinuing its refusal to bargain the respondent prolonged the strike
and ultimately succeeded in forcing the employees to return to work
without recognition having been granted the S. W. 0. C. The back-
to-work movement was largely promoted by the respondent's officials
and formation of the Independent was an outgrowth of it. The
employees who aided the respondent in such movement were leaders
iiot only in the formation of the Independent but also in the efforts
to have employees sign the letter of withdrawal from the S. W. 0. C.
There is an apparent connection between Moltrup's request from the
back-to-work leaders for assurance that "production could continue
in the mill" and the formation of the Independent as a device to
.combat the S. W. 0. C. The respondent further promoted the Inde-
pendent by paying for the hotel room at which the initial steps were
taken relative to the formation of the Independent and by attempting
to secure permission for the use of the Elks Club for the meeting of
.employees on July 18, 1937. After the Independent and the Local
Brotherhood were formed, the respondent expressed a willingness to
bargain with representatives of these organizations "as long as they
were employees" of the respondent.
Ogg DECISIONS OF NATIONALS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the facts set forth in subsection A above, it is clear
that the Local Brotherhood is in fact the same organization as the
Independent and that the respondent by its domination of and
interference with the Independent and by contributing support
thereto likewise dominated and interfered with the Local Brotherhood
and contributed support to it.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Independent and Local
Brotherhood and contributed support thereto and that it has thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The refusal to bargain- collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, and the respondent admits in its answer
thereto, that all the respondent's production employees, excluding
clerical and office workers, foremen, and supervisory employees, con-
stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. We find no reason to conclude
that such unit is inappropriate.
We find that all the production employees of the respondent,
excluding clerical and office workers, foremen, and supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that such unit will' insure to the employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the S. W. O. C. of a majority in the
appropriate unit
There was introduced in evidence at the hearing the pay roll of the
respondent for the period ending May 30, 1937, containing the names
of 271 employees within the unit which we have found to be appro-
priate. There were also submitted in evidence 254 membership appli-
cation cards containing designations of the S. W. O. C. as bargaining
representative. Of the 254 cards, 191 are dated prior to May 30,
1937, and bear the names of persons within the appropriate unit
whose names appear on the pay roll of that date." After a check
of the cards by counsel for the respondent and by counsel for the
Board,. the respondent challenged the validity of the signatures on
14 of the said 191 cards and challenged generally 2 additional cards.
As to the cards not challenged counsel for the respondent agreed
n There were no identifiable cards as to six employees who testified that they had joined
the S. W. 0. C. Although these employees may be regarded as S. W . O. C. members on
May 30 , 1937 , it is unnecessary to include them in computation of the S. W. O. C.
majority.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 489
that the signatures thereon "appear to be the signatures of the persons
purporting to have signed" them. Since four employees whose
signatures were challenged subsequently testified that they had
signed cards, the challenge as to them may be disregarded. Nine
employees, other than those whose cards were challenged, variously
testified that they had not attended S. W. O. C. meetings or paid
dues over a long period of time prior to May 30, that they had orally
withdrawn from the S. W. O. C. prior to May 30, that they had
joined the S. W. O. C. solely because of threats, or that their names
had been signed without authority.12 Even if the 12 remaining
challenged cards and the 9 cards bearing the names of employees
who testified as aforesaid are excluded, there remain the cards of
170 employees listed on the pay roll. We conclude, therefore, that
the S. W. O. C. represented a majority of the employees within the
appropriate unit on and after May 30, 1937.
Through the testimony of a large number of employees, supported
by signatures to petitions 13 and membership cards, the respondent
sought to show that about 175 of the employees had joined the In-
dependent after July 1937. It also was shown that a large number
,of S. W. O. C. members had signed the form letter addressed to the
'S. W. O. C., expressing a desire to withdraw from that organization
and from the Amalgamated. As noted above, the respondent domi-
nated and interfered with the formation and administration of the
Independent, and the inducement of employees to sign the letter of
withdrawal from the S. W. O. C. was but' one aspect of the activities
participated in by the respondent which culminated in formation of
the Independent. In addition, the growth of the Independent and
the signing of the letter of withdrawal followed a series of violations
of the Act by the respondent of such serious nature that they could
not have failed to exert a coercive influence upon the employees to
'disavow membership in the S. W. O. C. irrespective of their wishes.14
As we have already had occasion to observe in a number of similar
-cases," it is manifest that the purposes of the Act require that the
respondent should not be permitted to evade its duty under Sec-
is This testimony was elicited at the instance of the respondent and in the presence of
officials of the respondent. See Matter of May Knitting Company. Inc. and United Whole-
sale and Warehouse Employees of New York , Local 65 , C. I. 0., 9 N. L. R. B. 938.
13 An appreciable number of such signatures were spurious.
14 A number of those signing the letter of withdrawal stated that they did so because of
the strike . As noted below, the strike resulted from the respondent 's unlawful refusal to
bargain with the S. W. 0. C.
15 Cf. Matter of Inland Steel Company and Steel Workers Organizing Committee and
Amalgamated Association of Iron , Steel and Tin Workers of North America , Lodges Nos.
64, 1010, and 1101, 9 N. L. R . B. 783 ; Matter of Western Felt Works, a corporation and
Textile Workers Organizing Committee , Western Local , 10 N. L. R. B. 407 ; Matter of
McKaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America , Local No . 1139, 10 N . L. R. B. 33; Matter of H. J. Heinz Company and
Canning and Pickle Workers, Local Union No. 325, etc., 10 N. L . R. B. 963.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 8 (5) of the Act by the expedient of violating other provisions of
the Act. The majority status of.the S. W. O. C. prior to and during
the strike of 1937 is therefore not to be regarded as having been
affected thereafter by virtue of membership in the Independent or
the signing of the form letter of withdrawal from the S. W. O. C.
. We find that on May 30, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the
S. W. O. C. was the duly designated representative of the majority of
the employees of the respondent in the appropriate unit. Pursuant
to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was therefore at all such times the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
As noted above, the S. W. O. C. on March 10, 1937, senit to the
respondent a proposed contract and thereafter at various times un-
successfully attempted to obtain conferences with the respondent's
officials to discuss the matter of bargaining. During the period from
March 10 to the strike beginning June 1, 1937, the respondent evaded,
meeting S . W. O. C. representatives on all occasions other than
April 26. At the meeting on this day the respondent refused to
enter into any negotiations with the S. W. O. C. representatives
unless it was furnished a list of the S. W. O. C. members, and further
took the position that it would not sign a contract with the S. W. O. C.
even if that organization represented a majority of the employees
since previously it had been "getting along all right." The respond-
ent on this date also rejected a proposal made by the S. W. O. C.
that an election be held to determine the desires of the employees with
regard to representation. Upon receiving the S. W. O. C. telegram
of May 28, indicating the likelihood of a strike unless the respondent
reached some agreement with the S. W. O. C. by the evening of
June 1, the respondent failed to communicate with the S. W. O. C.
By thus ignoring this last of a series of efforts to initiate bargaining
negotiations the respondent made clear its intention not to bargain
with the S. W. O. C.
On June 17, 1937, the S. W. O. C. finally obtained a conference
with the respondent at which Moltrup characterized the S. W. O. C.
as not "responsible" and stated, among other things, that the respond-
eut would not recognize any union. The respondent refused at this
time to discuss the proposed contract submitted by the S. W. O. C.
and rejected proposals for a consent election and for a check of the
S. W. O. C. membership cards by a representative of the Board.
Shortly after the unsuccessful attempt to reopen the plant on June
28, Moltrup flatly refused to meet S. W. O. C. representatives.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 491
At the hearing, the respondent contended that the sole obstacle
to negotiations during the period prior to the strike was the refusal
of the S. W. 0. C. to submit its membership cards to the respondent
and that the respondent at the meeting on June 17, 1937, merely
refused to consider the question of a signed contract. Under the
circumstances of this case, and in view of the alleged discrimination
against S. W. 0. C. members, the respondent's persistent demand
for a list identifying S. W. 0. C. members may in itself be regarded
as intimidatory. In any event, inasmuch as the S. W. 0. C. on
April 26 proposed reasonable procedures whereby the respondent
could ascertain whether the S. W. 0. C. represented a majority of
the employees and inasmuch as the respondent rejected such proce-
dures,'the respondent's refusals to bargain could not be justified upon
the basis of the refusal of the S. W. 0. C. to submit its membership
cards to the respondent. We have previously pointed out in our
decisions that the duty to bargain collectively includes an obligation
to cooperate to a reasonable extent when a labor organization is
attempting to prove its majority."' The respondent's failure to reply
to the S. W. 0. C. telegram of May 28 under the circumstances,
demonstrates the respondent's unwillingness to cooperate to a rea-
sonable extent in the bargaining procedure.
Even if the respondent's contention that it merely refused to enter
into a signed agreement on June 17, 1937, were accepted as a correct
statement of the situation, it is clear that this refusal was based only
on such considerations as the alleged irresponsibility of the S. W. 0. C.
and would in itself constitute a refusal to bargain within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act 17
We think it clear, from the facts set forth above, that the respond-
ent under no circumstances intended to recognize the S. W. 0. C. or
to bargain collectively with it. This conclusion is further supported
by the evidence of the respondent's activities connected with the back-
to-work movement, of the respondent's long-standing opposition to
S. W. 0. C. activity among the employees, of the respondent's dom-
ination of and interference with the formation of the Independent,
of the respondent's announced willingness to negotiate with repre-
sentatives of the Independent "as long as they were employees" of
16 Cf. Matter of Burnside Steel Foundry Company and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No. 1719, 7 N. L. R. B. 714; Matter of
MoNeeley & Price Company and National Leather Workers Association, Local No. 30, of
the C. I. O., 6 N. L. It. B. 800.
17 Ward, the respondent's vice president, testified that prior to the meeting the re-
spondent's officials bad determined not to sign a contract with the S. W. O. C. Phillips.
the respondent's treasurer explained this determination on the grounds that the S. W.
O. C. was "irresponsible" and that recognition of the S. W. O. C. would be injurious to
the respondent's business. Neither of these grounds relate to the mere act of signing a
contract with the S. W. O. C. On the contrary, they show that the respondent was fully
determined not to bargain in good faith with the S. W. O. C. tinder any circumstances.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent , and of the respondent 's refusal after June 17, 1937, to
-meet with the S. W. 0. C. representatives ;for the purpose of settling
the strike.
We find that on May 30, 1937, and at all times thereafter , the re-
spondent refused to bargain collectively with the S . W. 0. C. as the
representatives of its employees in respect to rates of pay , wages,
hours of employment , and other conditions of employment, and that
it thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
E. Discrimination with regard to hire and tenure o l employment
The amended complaint alleges that by laying off its night shift
on or about August 6, 1936, and by thereafter denying reinstatement
to Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain, Henry Keppen, William McGraw,
and Matthew Euriech, the respondent discriminated with regard to
hire and tenure of employment , thereby discouraging membership in
the S. W. O. C. Rump, Cain , Keppen, and McGraw all were members
of, and active in, the S. W. 0. C. at this time. Although Euriech
was actively interested in the S. W. 0. C., it does not appear that he
signed a membership card until August 6. As noted in Section III,
A, 1, above, Rump, Cain,.and Keppen were among the approximately
45 men employed on the night shift at the time its operation was
discontinued on August 6. In connection with discontinuance of the
night shift , the respondent. transferred five or more men from the
night shift to. the day shift, while several clay-shift employees were
laid off. Included in this group of clay-shift employees were McGraw
and Euriech , who were laid off on August 5 and 6, 1936, respectively.
In its answer the respondent denied discriminating against the
men named in the complaint , and averred that the lay-off of the night-
shift employees was "due to lack of orders."
Prior to August 1936, the respondent operated its night shift
during the periods of favorable business conditions, but did not
operate'it during slack periods. In commencing operation of a given
night shift, it, was the respondent 's practice to transfer experienced
day-shift employees to the night shift, and thereafter add less ex-
perienced employees to this nucleus of experienced men. Prior to
1936 it had been customary to transfer the experienced men back to
the day shift upon discontinuance of the night shift. Rump and
Cain had been thus transferred between the day and night shifts
on prior occasions . These two men were not accorded transfers to
the day shift when operation of the night shift was discontinued
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 493
in August 1936; 18 although at least five other employees were trans-
ferred at,that time.'
Rump, Cain, Keppen, and Euriech all testified from personal
observation that during July 1936, the respondent had an exceptionally
large volume of unfilled orders on hand. This testimony was based
on copies of the respondent's orders which were contained in "schedule
books" used by the men in the course of their work."
The respondent introduced much testimony to show that business
conditions necessitated curtailment of operations in August 1936, and
thus required the lay-offs made at that time. A large part of this
testimony, relating to the steel industry in general, may be briefly stated
as follows : About a month prior to the end of each calendar quarter
of the year it is customary for hot rolled steel mills to announce prices
of steel for the ensuing quarter; the announcement at such time of a
change in price of hot rolled steel invariably is paralleled by a sym-
pathetic change in the price of cold drawn steel which is announced
shortly thereafter; during the period of about a month after announce-
ment. of a price increase and prior to its effective date orders may be
placed at the old price for future delivery; as a result the ,Mnounce-
ment of a price increase for an ensuing quarter is accompanied by a
marked upturn in the number of orders placed, which continues until
the effective date of the advanced price, but which is followed by a
period of decline in placing of orders. Ordinarily price increases do
not occur in successive quarters. On May 26, 1936, the respondent
announced a price increase effective July 1. During the month of June
it booked 3,120 tons of new orders, in contrast to an average of about
1,365 tons of new orders booked during each, of the first 5 months in
1936.
In connection with this evidence, the respondent's vice president and
sales manager, Ward, testified that early in May he noticed that the
respondent's "backlog" of unfilled orders had reached a low level,
and thereafter he learned that important customers did not contemplate
placing any orders in the near future. His testimony was that these
facts, together with his knowledge that a drop in the number of orders
placed usually followed the effective date of a price increase, led him
to tell Moltrup in July that business would be dull thereafter. Moltrup
asserted that after Ward had requested that the night shift be discon-
's About a month prior to the lay-off, Rump asked Foreman Rutter for a transfer.
Rutter replied that Rump would have to remain on the night shift since experienced
employees, capable of working without supervision, were required there.
10 These men were Stanley Olkoski, Ed Kroske, John Namath, Fred Farkas, and Oscar
Ebensberger. Apparently one other man, identified only as "Nick," was given such a
transfer.
20 It also appears that about July 1, 1936, the respondent sought to increase working
hours 3 hours per man per week. In addition, 11 new employees were hired during the
3 weeks preceding the lay-offs.
0
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
tinued, he checked the amount of finished goods on hand and the "back-
log" of unfilled orders. He further stated that the amount of finished
goods usually was a decisive factor in discontinuance of the night shift.
Seeking to discredit the testimony of Rump, Keppen, Cain, and
Euriech that the respondent's schedule books contained an exception-
ally large volume of unfilled orders during July, a number of the
respondent's witnesses claimed that all information needed by em-
ployees during work was set forth on tags attached to the rough stock
used, so that there was no occasion for an employee to refer to the
schedule books. It was shown, however, that shortly before the lay-off
the books were removed from their customary place in the plant and
locked in the foreman's office. In the course of their work thereafter,
it was necessary for night-shift employees to have Foreman Makowski
himself refer to the schedule books for the same type of information
which the employees themselves previously had obtained. We are con-
vinced that in the ordinary course of their work prior to August 1936
the employees had occasion to refer to the schedule books for
information.
The testimony of the four employees that business conditions were
favorable in August 1936, is fully corroborated by one of the respond-
ent's exhibits. This shows that the average finished-goods inventory
at the close of each of the first 6 months of 1936 was 3,423 tons while
at the end of July such inventory was but 3,210 tons. The average
quantity of orders booked during each of the 5 months of 1936 prior to
the large influx of orders during June was 1,365 tons. During this
period, the respondent built up its night shift by the gradual addition
thereto of most of the meal who were on the night shift at the time of
the lay-off. During July when business conditions allegedly necessi-
tated discontinuance of the night shift, approximately 1,518 tons of
new orders were received by the respondent. At the same time the
average amount of unshipped orders on hand at the end of each of the
first 5 months was 1,135 tons, and, after jumping to 2,275 tons in June,
this "backlog" of unfilled orders continued at the high level of 2,034
tons at the end of July.
As we have noted in Section III, A, 1, above, Hahn, the respondent's
paymaster, refused to inform the employees on August 7, 1936, that the
lay-offs were the result of a "lack of orders" on the ground that he could
not conscientiously do so. By virtue of his position and duties, Hahn.
was in *a position to know the facts with respect to the condition of the
respondent's business.21
In view of all the evidence, we are convinced that the lay-offs in
August 1936 did not result from "lack of orders" or from' any other
unfavorable business condition. We so find.
21 Hahn' s duties in the respondent's employ are discussed in Section III, A, 1, above.
See especially footnote 5.
_MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 495
In seeking to determine the true reason for the lay-offs, we note
that S. W. O. C. activity among the employees, particularly those
on the night shift, had commenced shortly before, in July. As shown
in Section III, Al 1, above, the unrest among the employees which
existed during July was known to the respondent as a result of
abortive attempts to protest against increased hours of work, and
prior to the lay-off foremen on several occasions warned employees
to refrain from S. W. O. C. activity. At about the same time as
these events Moltrup became aware of the S. W. O. C. activity among
the employees and attempted to learn the identity of participants
therein. Following the lay-off the respondent's official attended S. W.
O. C. mass meetings and after the respondent decided to resume the
night shift Moltrup delivered a series of talks designed to warn the
men against further S. W. O. C. activity. He also sought to use
E. R. P. representatives as informers respecting S. W. O. C. affairs.
On one occasion, shortly after the lay-offs, he admitted to Euriech
that he had been aware of the S. W. O. C. activity among night-shift
employees, questioned Euriech about his S. W. O. C. membership
and at the same time expressed hostility toward the S. W. O. C.
In view of these circumstances, as well as all the other evidence,
we are convinced that the respondent effected the lay-offs in August
1936 both as a warning to its employees to refrain from S. W. O. C.
activity and also in order to discriminate against S. W. O. C. leaders.
During the last week • in August 1936, the respondent reinstated
Euriech after the latter had, upon being questioned by officials of
the respondent, denied that he was a member of the S. W. O. C.
Euriech thereafter continued his membership in the S. W. O. C. and
attended S. W. O. C. mass meetings. As noted above, certain of
these meetings were attended by Moltrup, Small, and Miller, officials
of the respondent. Euriech was laid off a second time about Septem-
ber 12, 1936, allegedly because of lack of work. During September,
however, the respondent hired 20 other employees. One of the twenty
was John Vysomski, who was hired on September 8, 1936, to do
work similar to that done by Euriech. Vysomski had no previous
experience in this work. In view of the circumstances, we are
convinced that the lay-off was the result of Euriech's union member-
ship and activity rather than of a lack of work.
On September 21, 1936, the respondent resumed operation of the
night shift and called a number of employees back to work. Rump,
Cain, Keppen, McGraw, and Euriech, however, were not given em-
ployment at this time or thereafter. During the period from the
lay-offs in August 1936, until November 30, 1936, the respondent
employed or reinstated approximately 44 men, including at least 7
who had no previous experience in the work assigned to them. On
November 30; 1936, the number of the persons in the employ of
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent was substantially the same as the number employed
at the time of the lay-off in August 1936. Between November 30,
1936, and the date of the hearing, about 50 additional men were
hired by the respondent , approximately 18 of whom were without
experience in the work for which they were engaged.
During December 1936 and January 1937, Rump, Keppen, Cain,
Euriech , and McGraw , visited the plant of the respondent and unsuc-
cessfully sought work. During conferences on January 20, April 26,
June 17, and October 11 , 1937, representatives of the Board and
representatives of the S. W. O. C. likewise unsuccessfully sought
to have the 5 men reinstated . In the middle of July 1937 , Keppen
asked Superintendent Small for reinstatement and was told by Small,
"you have no job here . . . you got mixed up with a bunch of radical
miners." During the period covered by these attempts to obtain re-
instatement , the respondent continued to employ other men from
time to time.
At the time of the hearing , operation of the night shift was con-
tinued by the respondent despite business conditions appreciably less
favorable than in August 1936. Moltrup attributed this to the fact
that it was "awfully hard breaking in new men." Had the respondent
chosen to reinstate Rump, Cain , Keppen, McGraw, and Euriech there
would have been no necessity for "breaking them in ." During a
number of years in the respondent 's employ, Cain had been a die
maker, crane operator , and bar drawer. Rump had served the
respondent a number of years as a bar drawer and saw operator.
Keppen had been employed by the respondent on three different
occasions as wire block helper and bar drawer on a variety of ma-
chines. Euriech, with 14 years' experience in the cold drawn steel
industry., originally - entered .the respondent 's employ in 1935, as a
bar drawer , and had been rewarded for efficient work by a 5-cent
increase in his hourly wage. McGraw, with previous experience,
was employed by the respondent in February 1936 as a punch
straightener and thereafter received a 3-cent increase in his hourly
wage. During his employment he also worked temporarily in the
shipping room and as a cracker operator . Several of the respondent's
witnesses disparaged the quality of McGraw 's work but General
Foreman Miller asserted that no employee would be retained over
a week if unable to do his work "right." Miller also admitted that
McGraw had "gotten on to" his work "pretty fair ." We are satisfied,
and find, that McGraw was a competent employee.
We find that by laying off Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain, Henry
Keppen, and Matthew Euriech on August 6, and William McGraw
on August 5, 1936, the respondent discriminated with regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of these men , thereby discouraging
membership in the S. W. O. C. We find that by the discharge of
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 497
Matthew Euriech during September 1936, following his temporary
reemployment, the respondent discriminated with regard to his hire
and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the
S. W. 0. C. We find that by failing to reinstate Lawrence Rump,
Samuel Cain, Henry Keppen, William McGraw, and Matthew
Euriech to employment following.their discriminatory lay-offs, the
respondent further discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of these men, thereby discouraging membership in
the S. W. 0. C.
The respondent in its exceptions contends that at the time of the
hearing Euriech had obtained employment substantially equivalent
to that from which he was discriminatorily discharged, and thus
could no longer be regarded as an "employee" of the respondent or
entitled to reinstatement. It appears that on March 16, 1937, Euriech
obtained work as a wire drawer in Ellwood City, a town some
distance removed from Beaver Falls, where Euriech resided. At the
time of his lay-off in August of 1936, Euriech received 50 cents an
hour, whereas he initially received 55 cents on the Ellwood City job.
About a month prior to the, hearing, his Ellwood City wage was
raised to 60 cents an hour. In the meantime, however, there had been
general wage increases in the respondent's plant which, if applied to
Euriech without discrimination, would have increased his rate of pay
to substantially more than that which he received on' his new job.22
Since Euriech appeared at the hearing seeking reinstatement, it may
be inferred that,he himself regards the location away from his home
and the lower wage of his Ellwood City job as factors making it not
substantially equivalent to the employment which he would have had
but for the respondent's discrimination against him.23 We find that
at the time of the hearing Euriech had not obtained substantially
equivalent employment.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
21 In late 1936 and early 1937 there were general wage increases in the respondent's
plant as a result of which the rate of pay of ordinary laborers was increased from 48
cents to 62%/2 cents per hour. The rates of other employees were increased in approxi-
mately the same proportion . Clyde Walker, a laborer who was promoted to drawing-
machine operator subsequent to the discriminatory discharge of Euriech from such a
position , was paid 65 cents an hour at the time of the hearing . Joseph Terraccio , a draw-
ing-machine operator who was receiving 69 cents per hour at the' time of the hearing.
testified that at that time no drawing-machine operator was receiving less than 65 cents
per hour.
23 Cf. Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No . 1221, United Textile Workers of
America, 15 N. L. R. B. 416:-
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist from further
engaging therein. We shall also order the respondent to take certain
affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Independent, and the
Local Brotherhood, and has contributed support thereto. Under
these circumstances, neither the Independent nor the Local Brother-
hood can offer. to the employees the free representation for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining ' which is guaranteed by the Act. We
shall, therefore, order the respondent to withdraw both from the
Independent and from the Local Brotherhood all recognition as
representative or representatives of the respondent's employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and to disestablish the Inde-
pendent and the Local Brotherhood as such representative or
representatives.
We have found that by laying off Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain,
Henry Keppen, and Matthew Euriech on August 6, 1936, by laying
off William McGraw on August 5, 1936, by discharging Matthew
Euriech during September 1936, following his temporary reemploy-
ment beginning the last week in August 1936, and by failing to rein-
state said employees, the respondent has discriminated against the said
employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. We
shall, therefore, order the respondent to reinstate these employees
and to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to Rump, Cain,
Keppen, and McGraw, respectively, of a sum of money equal to the
amount each normally would have earned as wages from the date
of the discrimination against him until the date of the offer of rein-
statement to him, less his net earnings =' during said period, and by
payment to Euriech of a sum of money equal to the amount he nor-
24 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful
discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment else-
where. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. 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, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 499
orally would have earned as wages from August 6, 1936, to his
temporary reinstatement and from the date of the second discrimina-
tion against him, in September 1936 to the date of the offer of
reinstatement to him, less his net earnings during said periods.
We have found that on April 26, 1937, and at all times thereafter,
the respondent refused to- bargain collectively with the S. W. O. C.
as the representative of its employees within an appropriate unit.
In connection with its refusals to bargain, the respondent on several
occasions expressed its determination not to sign any agreement with
the S. W..O. C. regardless of the terms. thereof. We shall order the
respondent, upon request, to bargain collectively with the S. W. O. C.
as the exclusive representative of the production employees of the
respondent, excluding clerical and office workers, foremen, and super-
visory employees, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment. We further'shall order
the respondent, if any understanding is reached on any of the afore-
said matters and the respondent is requested by the S. W. O. C. to do
so, to embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee ; Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No.
1202; Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup
Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; and Local
Independent Brotherhood of Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Prod-
ucts Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, are labor organizations,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production employees of the respondent, excluding clerical
.and office workers, foremen, and supervisory employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Steel Workers Organizing Committee was on May 30, 1937, and
at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all
employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Steel Workers Organiz-
ing Committee as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above-stated unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act.
5. The respondent, by dominating and interfering with the forma-
tion and administration of, and contributing support to Independent
Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup Steel Products Com-
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , and Local Independent Brother-
hood of Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver
Falls, Pennsylvania , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices , within the-Ineaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain; Henry Keppen , William
McGraw, and Matthew Euriech , thereby discouraging membership in
Steel Workers Organizing Committee and in Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America , Lodge No.
1202, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices , within the meaning of Section 8 ( 3) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) of the Act.
8. 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 respond-
ent, Moltrup Steel Products Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a.) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup
Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls , Pennsylvania , or with the
administration of Local Independent Brotherhood of Steel Workers
of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania,
or with the formation. or administration of any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees , and from contributing financial or other sup-
port to Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup
Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, or to Local
Independent Brotherhood of Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Prod-
ucts Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , or. any other labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing Independent Brotherhood of Moltrup Steel
Workers, Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsyl-
vania, or Local Independent Brotherhood of Steel Workers of Mol-
trup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing
with the respondent concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages,
rates of pay , hoi irs of employment , or other conditions of employment;
MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY 501
(c) Discouraging membership in Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, in Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers
of North America , Lodge No. 1202, or in any other labor organization
of its employees , by discharging , laying off , or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment;
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Steel Workers Organ-
izing Committee as the exclusive representative of its production
employees excluding clerical and office workers, foremen , and super-
visory employees ;
(e) 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 con-
certed 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) Withdraw all recognition from Independent Brotherhood of
Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver
Falls, Pennsylvania , and from Local Independent Brotherhood of
Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver Falls,
Pennsylvania , as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or conditions
of employment , and completely disestablish Independent Brother-
hood of Moltrup Steel Workers, Moltrup Steel Products Company
of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania , and Local Independent Brotherhood
of Steel Workers of Moltrup Steel Products Company of Beaver
Falls, Pennsylvania, as such representative;
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Steel Workers Organ-
izing Committee , as the exclusive representative of its production
employees excluding clerical and office workers, foremen , and super-
visory employees , in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment ; and, if an understanding
is reached on any such matters, upon request, embody said under-
standing in a signed agreement ;
(c) Offer to Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain, Henry Keppen, Wil-
liam McGraw , and Matthew Euriech immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
253030-41-vol, 19--33
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Make whole Lawrence Rump, Samuel Cain, Henry Keppen,
William McGraw, and Matthew Euriech for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment , by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to that which each normally would
have earned as wages during the period from the date of the dis-
crimination against him by the respondent to the date of the offer
of reinstatement , less his net earnings during said period; deducting,
however, from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees,
monies received by said employee during said period for work per-
formed upon Federal, State , county, municipal , or other work -relief'
projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted , to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects;
(e) Post immediately in conspicuous places in each department.
of the Beaver Falls plant, notices stating : that the respondent will.
cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a ), ( b), (c), (d), and
(e) ; that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in
2 (a), (b), (c ), and (d ) of this Order; and that the respondent's
employees are free to become or remain members of the S. W. O. C.
and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee-
because of membership or activity in that organization;
(f) Maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region in writing,
within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.