Oregon Worsted Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of OREGON WORSTED COMPANY,' A CORPORATION a?ld
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2435
Case No. C-65.-Decided June 11, 1936
Wool Yarn Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion: expressed opposi-
tion to labor organization ; propaganda against union ; denial of right of
employees to be represented by non-employees-Company-Dominated Union:
domination and interference with formation and administration ; financial and
other support ; initiation and sponsorship ; discrimination in favor of , in : ben-
efits and privileges , recognizing as representative of employees ; disestablished
as agency for collective bargaining-Discrimination : transfer ; discharge-
Reinstatement ordered-Back Pay:. awarded.
Mr. E. J. Eager for the Board.
Mr. Abe Eugene Rosenberg, of Portland, Ore., for respondent.
Green, Tanner & Boesen, by Mr. K. C. Tanner, of Portland, Ore.,
for the Union.
Mr. Isaiah S. Dorfman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On November 26, 1935, United Textile Workers of America, Local
2435, hereinafter called the Union, filed with' the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region, a charge that the Oregon Worsted Com-
pany, Portland, Oregon, respondent herein, had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices contrary to the National Labor
Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, hereinafter called the Act. On
December 18, 1935, the National Labor Relations Board issued a com-
plaint, signed by the said Regional Director, alleging that respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (2) and
( 3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act.
In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint in substance
alleged that respondent has interfered with and dominated the forma-
tion and administration of a labor organization of its employees
known as the "Employees' Mutual Council", hereinafter called the
Council, and has contributed financial and other support thereto; and
that respondent discharged Sidney David Girard, a checker employed
by it, on or about November 21, 1935, and has since said date refused
to reemploy him, for the reason that he joined and assisted the Union.
The complaint and accompanying notice. of hearing were duly
served upon the parties. On December 24, 1935, an answer was filed
915
916 NATIONAL LA13OR RELATIONS BOARD
on behalf of respondent, which denied that respondent was engaged
in interstate commerce; denied that its relations with its employees
affected or tended to affect commerce; admitted that it had discharged
Girard on November 21, 1935, but alleged, that it had discharged him
for deliberately violating rules of respondent, and not because he had
joined and. assisted the Union; denied that it had engaged and was
engaging in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint; and
averred that the Act, if construed. to apply to it, was unconstitutional;
and that particularly. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act were imconst:-
t.utional.
The notice of hearing fixed January 3, 1936 as the date of hearing.
Respondent interposed a motion for a continuance, which the Re-
gional Director, after a hearing, denied. He then reset the hearing,
for January 2, 1936, with the proviso that, if the hearing was not
completed within three clays, it should be continued to and proceed
further on Januar' v24,1936. The hearing was had at Portland, Ore-
gon, on January 2, 3, 4, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1936, before Harry Al.
Kenin, Trial Examiner designated by the Board, and testimony wa
taken. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exaariine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all parties.
Counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for the
reasons that respondent is not engaged in commerce between the sev-
eral States; that none of its activities are in or affect interstate com-
merce; that its employees are engaged only in Portland, Oregon, and
solely in the manufacturing process;. that the Act is totally void and
unconstitutional; and that especially Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act
are unconstitutional. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon this
motion. Counsel for respondent also moved to strike paragraphs 2,
3. 4 and 5 of the complaint for the reason that said paragraphs were
conclusions of law supported by no allegations of fact. The Trial.
Examiner reserved decision as to this motion also. At the conclusion
of the testimony in support of the complaint, counsel for respondent
moved to dismiss for failure to prove the facts alleged in the com-
plaint. This motion the Trial Examiner denied. Much testimony
and several exhibits were introduced in evidence over the objections of
counsel for respondent. Oral argument was heard at the conclusion of
the hearing.
On February 19, 1936, the Trial Examiner duly filed with the
Regional Director an Intermediate Report in accordance with Article
II, Section 30 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, in which he denied the two above-mentioned motions
as to which he had reserved decision. The rulings of the Trial Ex--
'aminer on motions and objections to the introduction of evidence are
hereby affirmed. In the Intermediate Report the Trial Examiner
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 91'7
found that respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1), (2) and (3), and Section,
2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. Thereafter, respondent filed
a statement of exceptions to the Intermediate Report and to the rul-
ings upon all motions and objections contained therein.
Upon the entire record in the case, the stenographic report of the
hearing and all the evidence, including oral testimony and other,
evidence offered and received, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
Respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the law';
of the State of Oregon. Its principal office and place of business is in
Portland, Oregon, where it is engaged in the business of converting
wool into yarn, and selling and distributing the yarn. It is the only
mill of its kind west of the Mississippi River. There are approxi-
mately 100 such mills in the United States, most of them located along
the Atlantic Coast. Respondent's mill, which is valued at approxi-
mately $200,000, normally employs about 500 workers.
Wool, the principal raw material used in the manufacture of yarn,
is purchased by respondent mainly from dealers in Portland, Oregon,
although the points of origin of about 60 per cent of all the wool
utilized by it are in States other than Oregon. Part of its wool pur-
chases is made by a buyer who travels in and through the States of
Oregon, Washington and Idaho. On occasions, Roy T. Bishop,
president of respondent and manager of its mill, purchases wool
while in States other than Oregon. The demand for yarn, indicated
through orders and anticipated orders, determines the amount and
quality of wool purchased. Railroads, trucks and, infrequently,
boats are the instrumentalities for delivery of wool to respondent's
mill. Fifteen per cent of respondent's wool purchases from States
other than Oregon are consigned to respondent, the remainder to
dealers, banks and brokers.
At the mill the wool is sorted and cleaned by a series of processes;.
the fibres are combed, straightened and sorted, and then rolled into
balls or tops, some of which are dyed.. The tops are stored for use
in the manufacture of yarn as needed. Depending on the desired
yarn, tops are blended, the fibres are further refined, wound on spools,
doubled and redoubled, depending on the desired consistency, drawn
fine, and spun into yarn. The single fibres of yarn are twisted and
made into two, three and four "ply", reeled into skeins, inspected,
bundled and placed in a stock room preparatory to shipment or dye-
ing and shipment. The three general types of yarn so produced are
hand yarn for sale to retailers, and machine and weaving yarn for
918 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the manufacture of fabrics . The total 'annual production at re-
spondent's mill is valued at about $1,500,000.
The destination of a portion of the finished yarn is known to
respondent in some instances throughout and in others during only a
part of the above-described process. "Single 15's, in the oil in tubes",
are normally sold by respondent exclusively to the Foundation
Worsted Mills, Washougal , Washington , a corporation , of which the
aforementioned Roy T. Bishop is president . Likewise , yarn labelled
"Department D" is known to be destined for shipment to the Founda-
tion Worsted Mills throughout the said process . The dyeing of wool
tops and yarn in colors other than standard is done only upon order.
Yarn destined for shipment to the Jantzen Knitting Mills 1 is marked
"Jantzen" while in process . Some of the "20's" and "26 's" in process
are labelled "New York." Ninety -three per cent of respondent 's sales
are made through its sales agencies operating on a commission or
salary basis in New York City, New York, and Los Angeles and San
Francisco , California . In San Francisco its sales agency is the May-
pole Dye Works , a corporation of which Bishop is president and
whose stock is substantially owned by respondent . In the convey-
ance of yarn to the three sales agencies , and to others , all forms of
transportation are used. Respondent , which is consignee on 75 per
cent of all such shipments , pays the freight charges. About 98 per
cent of the hand yarn , constituting 20 per cent of respondent's total
production, is sold to large merchandising concerns such as Wool-
worth's, Kresge's, and Penney's. Its machine and weaving yarn is
sold principally to weaving mills and knitting mills in the North
Atlantic States.
In the purchase of wool, the conversion of wool into yarn, and the
sale and distribution of yarn, respondent 's operations thus extend
across the country from coast to coast in a closely integrated economic
enterprise for the purposes of trade. Respondent1 is vitally depend-
ent upon interstate transportation facilities and the continuous flow
of commerce among the states. In turn , the weaving and knitting
industries are in part dependent upon it, approximately 80 per cent
of its finished products being utilized by those industries.
We find that the operations of respondent constitute a continuous
flow of trade , traffic and commerce among the several States.
1 The Application for Permanent Registration under Section 12 (b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 of Securities Temporarily Registered , filed with the Securities Ex-
change Commission by Jantzen Knitting Mills on March 30, 1935 , although not introduced
in evidence , is a public document, and we take notice of the following facts stated therein :
that Jantzen Knitting Mills and its French subsidiary, Societe Anonyme "Jantzen", manu-
facture and sell to retailers swimming suits ; that a subsidiary of Jantzen Knitting Mills,
Jantzen ( Australia ) Limited, manufactures and sells swimming suits and sports wear ;
and that Jantzen Knitting Mills and its subsidiaries sell their products in the principal
countries of the world , either directly or through licensees.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
919`
The Union, a labor organization, was formed among respondent's
employees on May 26, 1934. In June, 1934, a Union committee of
six employees, including Mrs. Olive Shaffer, requested a conference
with Bishop, president of respondent, for the purpose of obtaining
permission to post notices of union activities on respondent's bulletin
boards. Carl Scheibert, foreman of the department in which Mrs.
Shaffer was employed, saw her among the committee members. That
afternoon he said to her, "Don't you know you are putting yourself
on the spot by being with the committee? I know you need a job.
Your husband is out of work. Your husband and you are friends of
mine and I know you need the work. You know it is easy enough to
frame anyone. All I would have to do would be to put you on the
graveyard shift and then lay the graveyard shift off."
The following morning, when the conference with Bishop took
place, Mrs. 'Shaffer was not present. Bishop denied the Union per-
mission to post notices on the bulletin boards.
On July 19, 1934, a day when all employees received their pay,
Bishop, at a meeting called by him, said to them in substance : that
he was opposed to the American Federation of Labor union being
formed at the mill ; that the American Federation of Labor is in
the same class as Communism, Fascism and Naziism; that should the
employees become members of the Union, the Union would demand
a closed shop, which would result in strikes; that in addition thereto
employees would be compelled to join in sympathetic strikes; that
respondent found it impossible at that time to operate the mill at a
profit, but with the cooperation of the employees it would endeavor
to continue operations; but that if Communism was to govern the
mill, respondent could operate more cheaply in one of the Eastern
States. He then held up for inspection of the employees the follow-
ing sample ballot, which, he stated, he had caused to be printed at
his own expense :
No. ----------
I desire to express my interest in forming an Employees ' Council
and Benefit Association composed of employees of the Oregon Worsted
Co.
Signed-----------------------------------------------------
No. ----------
Tear Off and Keep This Duplicate Number.
97571-3G-vol 1-59
920 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bishop went on to state that the employees were free to use their
own judgment with reference to joining either or any labor organiza-
tion ; that he would prefer the ballots to be signed, but any person
who did not care to affix his signature could in lieu thereof write an
X; that ballot boxes would be placed in the mill to receive the bal-
lots; and that he would not know how any'individual voted. Ballots
were then distributed among the employees, in some instances co-
incident with the pay envelopes. The result of the poll was not made
known at the hearing.
One day between July 19 and August 6, 1934, during working
hours, Alice Bishopp, an employee, and a member of the Union, was
asked by Tillie Engel, head-doffer (or "straw-boss"), to sign a type-
written statement which read as follows : "I desire to join the Oregon
Worsted Company Employees' Mutual Benefit Association." When
Alice Bishopp refused to sign it, Engel said, "You had better sign
it." Bishopp again refused. On August 6, 1934, she was dis-
charged, although no complaint was voiced as to her work. From
the time that the Union was organized to about September 1, 1934,
in addition to Bishopp, respondent discharged the following active
members of the Union : Earle Vandermark, Mr. Shields, George
Reimer, Charles Reimer and T. D. McCallum, the latter two being
respectively the first and second presidents of the Union.
On August 28, 1934, pursuant to a petition filed by the Union, the
Textile Labor Relations Board conducted an election among re-
spondent's employees to ascertain the representative for purposes
of collective bargaining. A majority of the employees voted in fa-
vor of the Council, represented by C. B. Wilson, Floyd Falkenberg,
Agnes Dickerson, Jake Eberle and Alice Artadeus. The Textile
Labor Relations Board did not, however, certify the Council as the
representative of the employees for purposes of collective bargain-
ing for the reason that the Union protested the conduct of the
election.
Effective September 1, 1934, the Union called a strike which con-
tinued for about two months. The mill continued to operate, but
on a considerably curtailed basis. During the course of the strike,
movement of goods to and from the mill was 50 per cent less than
normal.
On or about September 15, 1934, while the strike was in progress,
one representative of the non-striking employees of each depart-
ment of the mill met at the home of Zelina Dale, an employee, for-
mally organized the Council, and nominated its officers. As thus
organized the Council was a labor organization. The president of
the Council testified that he did not know how the representatives
were selected. At a meeting held in the mill about a week later, while
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 921
the strike was still in force, officers were elected as follows : Grafton
Smith , president , Mr. Harris , vice-president , and Miss Wahl, secre-
tary-treasurer. During the formative period, prior to the formal
organization of the Council , its typing was done in the offices of
respondent by respondent 's stenographers . A letter signed by the
Council dated October 5 , 1934, and introduced in evidence , was ad-
mittedly so typed ; this fact leads us to believe that the practice con-
tinued after the formal organization of the Council.
The strike was settled about November 1, 1934, through the offices
of the Seattle Regional Labor Board of the old National Labor Re-
lations Board. Thereafter , when respondent refused to reemploy a
number of the striking employees , among them , Charles Meagher,
president of the Union at that time , the Union filed a complaint
with the Textile Labor Relations Board. A decision of that Board
held that certain named employees should be reinstated . That de-
cision was not complied with or enforced . The Council filed a bill
in a United States District Court to enjoin respondent from com-
plying with the decision . The bill was subsequently withdrawn, but
was followed shortly by the Schechter decision 2 declaring the Na-
tional Industrial Recovery Act, under which the ruling of the Board
had been rendered , unconstitutional.
On June 18 , 1935, a written agreement was entered into between
respondent and a so-called "bargaining committee", consisting of
the five employees who represented the Council on the ballot in the
election of August 28, 1934. The agreement set forth in substance
that respondent recognized the Council as a duly organized associa-
tion of its employees ; that it recognized the "bargaining committee"
as the representative of the Council and of all its employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining ; and that all disputes between re-
spondent and its employees would be "taken up" through the "bar-
gaining committee ." No provision was made for wages, hours,
working conditions or duration of contract . Floyd Falkenberg,
chairman of the "bargaining committee " and "straw -boss" in the
hand yarn shipping department , testified that he told Bishop "the
employees were going to draw up an agreement , and wanted to know
if he thought we could agree on the recognition of the bargaining
committee for the organization in the mill;" and that Bishop re-
plied he "thought it would be agreeable , but of course he wanted
to see the agreement ." Bishop's cooperative attitude toward the
Council thus appears in sharp contrast to his conduct in relation to
the Union . The anaemic contract , although avowedly drawn by
lawyers in the pay of the Council , could hardly have been more
adroitly drafted on behalf of respondent . Thus the Council
exchanged one favor for another.
2 Schechter v. United States , 295 U. S. 495 ( 1935).
922 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's relations with the Council and the Union did not
change with the enactment of the Act on July 5, 1935. After that
date a representative of the Union again asked permission to post
notices of Union activities on respondent's bulletin boards, and was
again refused; this in contrast to the regular posting of notices on
respondent's clocks and bulletin boards announcing the activities of
the Council.
On or about July 29, 1935, a committee of five Union members,
consisting of three employees and two non-employees, requested re-
spondent to confer concerning the reinstatement of the striking em-
ployees not reemployed since the strike. Bishop refused to permit
the two non-employees to participate in the conference and insisted
on meeting them separately. Respondent did not reinstate any em-
ployees as a result of the conference, but about three days later did
transfer two of the three employee committeemen to the "graveyard
shift", an undesirable shift from 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. This transfer
was particularly ominous in the light of Scheibert's warning to
Mrs. Shaffer above described. Bishop's insistence upon dividing the
committee into employee and non-employee groups constituted an
arbitrary and flagrant violation of the employees' right to self-
organization. It is not for the employer to dictate the form of repre-
sentation the employees shall have. By the same conduct, and by
the transfer of the two committeemen, respondent clearly indicated
to the employees its dislike for outside representation and preference
for dealing directly with its own employees.
Sidney David Girard was employed by respondent on September
30, 1935, to pack hand and machine yarn, and to bale, weigh and
check it. Mr. Long, then respondent's personnel manager, asked
him whether he "intends to join a labor union." Girard expressed
ignorance of unions. Long then said : "Well, you will have a lot
better chance of keeping in the good graces of the company if you
do not have any affiliation with the Union." On or about October
13, 1935, Girard became a member of the Union. Although a new
member, he was asked to and did accept the presidency of the Union
for the reason that he was unmarried and could therefore more
readily risk the wrath of respondent than most of the members
who had dependents.
On November 21, 1935, Girard was due to report for work at
2:30 P. M. He arrived at the mill at 1: 53 P. M. with about 200
leaflets announcing a mass meeting of respondent's employees to be
held on November 23. He proceeded through the mill, posting a
notice on each of about ten departmental bulletin boards, and dis-
tributing some 15 or 25 leaflets to employees in the mill. Because
of the area covered by the mill, about two and a quarter city blocks,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 923
Girard hurried and did not tarry to speak to anyone , except to say
a few words in passing to two foremen and the president of the
Council . He then distributed some leaflets near the entrance to the
mill to employees about to report for work on the afternoon shift,
and finally, placed leaflets in cars parked near the mill . At 2: 25
P. M. he reported for work.
When F. Van Landingham , personnel manager, saw one of the
leaflets posted on a bulletin board he immediately informed Bishop
o$ that fact . Van Landingham had previously seen notices of the
Council posted on the bulletin boards, but had done nothing about
it. Later, that afternoon , a meeting of all the foremen was called
to determine what departments Girard had visited, whether he had
violated the rules of respondent , and if he had , what the punish-
ment should be. There was some division of opinion among the
foremen, the precise nature of which is not disclosed by the record,
due largely to the reluctance of respondent 's witnesses to divulge
that information . In any event , a majority of the foremen expressed
the opinion that Girard ought to , be dismissed . About 5 P. M.
that afternoon he was discharged , allegedly for violating a rule of
the mill prohibiting employees from visiting departments other than
their own and talking to the employees at work. At the time of his
discharge he was earning 371/2 cents per hour, working eight hours
per day, five days per week , and averaging $14.60 per week.
The testimony showed that there were no written rules governing
the conduct of the employees , except that forbidding smoking, and
that rules were not orally conveyed to new employees, except by
chance through those longer in respondent 's employ or by admoni-
tion of foremen upon specific transgressions . Girard admitted that
his foreman had on one occasion admonished him against excessive
talking, and on another occasion against wandering to a depart-
ment other than his own while on duty, but denied that he had ever
heard of the latter rule in relation to employees off duty. The
evidence as to this alleged rule is very confusing , and falls far short
of proving that such a rule was in effect at the time of Girard's dis-
charge. Respondent 's admission that this was the first time any
employee had ever committed such an offence throws further doubt
on the existence of the rule . Rules, in ordinary human experience,
are made to fit known patterns of behaviour.
Be that as it may, there is ample testimony that ordinarily re-
spondent 's rules were not rigidly adhered to : ( a) It was customary
for relatives to bring lunch baskets and messages to employees on
duty; ( b) Grafton Smith, president of the Council , spent consider-
able time while on duty conversing with employees in departments to
which he was assigned , and also in departments in which he had
924 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no duties; (c) Tillie Engel, who was active in the work of the
Council, while on duty, almost every day delivered money and a list
of names to the secretary of the Council. She also conversed.with
employees in her own and other departments. It will be noted
that both Smith and Engel committed offences while an duty, which
ordinarily would be considered a greater offence than similar ac-
tivity while not on duty; (d) Leona Mathews, secretary of the
Council, regularly arrived at the mill five minutes before her sched-
uled working time, walked through the main aisles of the twisting,
spinning, dandy and drawing departments, on the way to her de-
partment, and collected dues for the Council from employees in the
aisle. This is almost on all fours with Girard's alleged offence ex-
cept that Mathews' pre-work activity was on behalf of the Council
rather than the Union.
Smith and Engel, despite the repeated violations of rules, and
Mathews in the face of regular and recurrent transgressions of the
alleged rule invoked against Girard, were still employed by re-
spondent on the date of the hearing. Finally, it must be said that
respondent could, have disciplined Girard in the usual manner by
reprimanding or laying him off temporarily, but chose instead to
apply the most severe penalty at its command. We conclude that
had Girard distributed leaflets dealing with any subject other than
the Union, if he had been disciplined at all, it would not have been
by loss of his job.
It is clear, therefore, that Girard was discharged because of his
activity on behalf of the Union and not for violating any rule of
respondent. Long's prophecy had been fulfilled. That the employees
so interpreted respondent's conduct is readily discernible from the
following figures : On November 20, 1935, a day before Girard's dis-
charge, there were 79 members in the Union, 17 of whom were delin-
quent in the payment of dues. On January 3, 1936, the date of the
hearing, there were 81 members, 67 of whom were delinquent in the
payment of dues.
We find that respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Girard for the purpose of discouraging
membership in the Union, and that by such act, respondent has in-
terfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The discharge of Girard is the last of a long series of steps taken
by respondent, the purpose of which now stands out in clear relief.
Two major objectives are patent: (1) to destroy the Union; and (2)
to foster the Council. In the first category may be listed : Bishop's
expressed hostility against the Union on July 19, 1934; Scheibert's in-
timidation of Mrs. Shaffer in connection with her presence on the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 925
Union committee; the denying of permission to post notices of Union
activities on respondent's bulletin boards; Bishop's refusal to meet
with a Union committee consisting of employees and non-employees;
Long's warning against Union affiliation; and the discharge of Alice
Bishopp, Vandermark, Shields, George Reimer, Charles Reimer, T.
D. McCallum and Girard, the latter three presidents of, and the others
otherwise active in the Union.
In the second category are the following : Bishop's introduction and
sponsorship of the Council plan; the holding of the meeting at which
officers of the Council were elected in the mill; the stenographic aid
given by respondent to the Council prior to and after the formal or-
ganization of the Council; the ready signing of an agreement by re-
spondent recognizing the Council as the collective bargaining agency
of its employees ; permitting the Council to post its notices on re-
spondent's clocks and bulletin boards; and the special privileges per-
mitted Smith, Engel and Mathews, active Council members.
From the accumulation of the evidence, we conclude that the Coun-
cil is an organization superimposed by respondent on its employees,
and that the Council owes its creation and continued existence to
the encouragement and affirmative acts of respondent.
We find that respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Council and has continued sup-
port to it, and that by said acts, respondent has interfered with, re- -
strained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
III. EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
We found above that respondent's mill was merely one point in the
stream of interstate commerce; wool being brought and conveyed to
it from States other than Oregon, as well as from Oregon, and almost
all of the finished yarn being sold and transported to States other
than Oregon for further manufacture or for sale to wholesalers and
retailers; all of which constitute intercourse among the several states
for purposes of trade.
We found further that during the course of the strike at respond-
ent's mill in September, and October, 1934, the flow of goods to and
from the mill was 50 per cent less than normal. In the woolen and
worsted goods industry, of which respondent's mill is a part, in the
year 1934, there were 27 strikes and lockouts, involving 75,876 workers
and causing 874,500 man-days of idleness. Of these strikes and lock-
outs, 16 grew out of disputes relating to organization of employees
for purposes of collective bargaining, involving 72,890 workers, and
resulting in 833,598 man-days of idleness. Of the 16 strikes, seven
were directly traceable to disputes arising out of discrimination
926 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against employees for Union affiliation , involving 4,715 workers and
causing 42,008 man-days of idleness . In the first six months of 1935,
in the same industry, there were 11 strikes and lockouts , involving
5,718 workers and resulting in 183,896 man-days of idleness. The 11
strikes and lockouts included two which arose out of discrimination
against employees for union affiliation , involving 240 workers and
causing 11,580 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
Having found that respondent caused the Council to come into
being, dominated and interfered with its administration, and con-
tributed support to it, it follows indubitably that the Council cannon
serve the employees as a genuine collective bargaining agency, and
should be disestablished . We so provide in our order.
Respondent urges the Board not to order reinstatement of Girard
for two reasons . First, because the work he formerly performed for
respondent has diminished and is now divided up among a number
of girls, who also perform other tasks; and second, because since
Girard's discharge respondent has learned that in November, 1934,
in the State of Washington , he was convicted of the crime of mali-
cious destruction of property in the sum of $500, growing out of
intoxication . As to the first ground, the record indicates that Girard
was employed by respondent as an inexperienced worker, and that he
learned his work well, and was complimented by his foreman on the
thoroughness of his sheets . In all likelihood , therefore , it will not
be difficult for him to adapt himself to new work. Considering all
the facts , therefore , we shall not order respondent to reinstate Girard
to his former position , but merely to one that is substantially equiva
lent, in wages and in type of work , to his former position.
As to the second ground, respondent pleads that if reinstated
Girard will be ' in a position to sabotage the work of the mill. The
conclusive answer to this contention is that Girard worked for
respondent almost two months to its entire satisfaction. We believe
respondent 's fears to be unwarranted.
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , the Board makes
the following conclusions of law:
(1) United Textile Workers of America, Local 2435 , is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision ( 5) of the
Act.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 927
(2) The Employees' Mutual Council is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
(3) By its domination and interference with the administration
of the Employees' Mutual Council, and by contributing support
thereto, respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (2) of the
Act.
(4)- By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of em-
ployment of Sidney David Girard, respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
(5) 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 in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
(6) The unfair labor practices in which respondent has engaged
and is engaging 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 and conclusions of law, and pursuant
to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that respondent,
Oregon Worsted Company, and its officers and agents, shall:
(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 or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act;
(2) Cease and desist from encouraging membership in the Em-
ployees' Mutual Council or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, or from discouraging membership in the United Textile
Workers of America, Local 2435, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discrimination in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment, or by threats
of such discrimination;
(3) Cease and desist from in any manner dominating or interfer-
ing with the administration of the Employees' Mutual Council, or
any other labor organization of its employees and from contributing
support to such council or any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit respond-
ent from permitting its employees to confer with it during working
hours without loss of time or pay;
928 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Sidney David Girard immediate reinstatement to a
position substantially equivalent, in wages and in type of work, to
that which he-heid prior to his discharge;
(b) Make whole said Sidney David Girard for any loss of pay he
has suffered by reason of his discharge by payment of a sum of money
equal to that which he would have normally earned as wages during
the period from the date of his discharge to the date of such offer
of reinstatement, less any amounts earned by him during such
period ;
(c) Withdraw all recognition from the, Employees' Mutual Coun-
cil as representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work; and
(d) Post notices in conspicuous places on each of the bulletin
boards of its mill at Portland, Oregon, stating: (1) That the Em-
ployees' Mutual Council is disestablished, and that respondent will
refrain from any recognition thereof; (2) That respondent will cease
and desist in the manner aforesaid; and (3) That such notices will
remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days
from the date of posting.