Phillips Granite Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 910 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY and GRANITE CUT-
TER'S INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and THE QUARRY
WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFFILIATED
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. C-805.-Decided March 3, 1939
Granite Processing Industry-Interference, Restraint , and Coercion-Discrim-
ination: closing plant to discourage union activity-Back Pay: awarded dis-
charged employees.
Mr. John T. Mahoney, and Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson, for the Board.
Hemphill, and Hemphill, by Mr. J. M. Hemphill, and Mr. Paul
Hemphill, of Chester, S. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Dick Hudson, and Mr. Irving S. Nathan, of Atlanta, Ga., Mr.
Joseph Padway, and Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C.,
and Mr. Lawrence Foley, of Quincy, Mass., for the Granite Cutters
and the Quarry Workers.
Mr. Harry A. Sellery, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the A. F. of L.,1 the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated
February 17, 1938, against Phillips Granite Company, Rion, South
Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by no-
tice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and Granite
Cutters' International Association of America, herein called the
1 The A. F. of L. filed the charges on behalf of Granite Cutters' International Associa-
tion of America and The Quarry Workers' International Union of North America.
11 N. L. R. B., No. 72.
910
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 911
Granite Cutters, and The Quarry Workers ' International Union of
North America , herein called the Quarry Workers. In respect to the
unfair labor practices , the complaint , as amended during the course
of the hearing, alleged in substance : ( 1) that on November 18, 1937,
the respondent discharged and locked out all its named employees at
its plant at Rion, South Carolina , and at all times since has failed
and refused to reopen that plant and reinstate such employees, be-
cause of their union activities ; and (2 ) that after November 18, 1937,
the respondent sent its orders to other plants in order to prevent its
employees from maintaining a labor organization and engaging in
union activities and to avoid recognition of such labor organization.
On February 23, 1938, the respondent duly filed its special appear-
ance, which reserved its right to except to the jurisdiction of the
Board, and its answer , which, as amended during the course of the
hearing, denied all the material allegations of the complaint. The
answer affirmatively alleged that the respondent closed its plant on
November 18, 1937, by reason of circumstances beyond its control,
and had thereafter been unable to resume its operations profitably;
it admitted that a few pieces of work were finished principally by
some of the respondent 's employees at places other than the re-
spondent's plant.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held in Columbia, South
Carolina , from February 24 through March 3, 1938, before E. R.
Strempel, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Gran-
ite Cutters and the Quarry Workers by a southern representative of
the Granite Cutters and all participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all par-
ties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed all such rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 21 , 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Re-
port , copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found
that the respondent was engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but recommended that
the respondent's motion, which was made at the close of the hear-
ing, to dismiss the complaint for insufficient proof be granted.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the Granite
Cutters and the Quarry Workers on August 11 and by the respondent
on August 12, 1938 . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before
the Board on November 8, 1938, in Washington , D. C., for the pur-
pose of oral argument on the exceptions . The respondent and the
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Granite Cutters and the Quarry Workers were represented by coun-
sel and participated in the argument. On November 8, 1938, the
Granite Cutters and the Quarry Workers submitted a brief. The
Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and finds no merit in them. The Board has also con-
sidered the exceptions filed by the Granite Cutters and the Quarry
Workers and to the extent that they are consistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order, below, hereby sustains them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow-
ing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Phillips Granite Company, a South Carolina corporation, with its
plant and principal place of business at Rion, South Carolina, is
engaged in the finishing and sale of granite monuments. It rents
its office, plant, and some of the equipment from its landlord, Winns-
boro Granite Corporation. The respondent ordinarily employs about
70 production employees and the average weekly pay roll is about
$1,000.
The respondent annually purchases about $40,000 to $50,000 of
rough quarried granite slabs from the operator of the "Anderson
Quarry" which is adjacent to its plant. The bulk of the respond-
ent's purchases of raw materials consist of granite, but numerous
other commodities are necessary for the respondent's finishing proc-
ess. About 20 per cent of its total expenditures for raw materials
represent purchases made outside South Carolina.
About 63 per cent of the respondent's products are sold outside
South Carolina, principally to dealers in the northerly States, in-
cluding Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New York, and
Pennsylvania. In 1936 the respondent's gross sales were about $160,-
000; in 1937, until November 18, the gross sales are estimated to have
been about $125,000.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Granite Cutters' International Association of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to membership the respondent's granite cutters who manu-
ally, or by the use of machines, shape, dress, and polish stone for
utilitarian or decorative purposes.
The Quarry Workers' International Union of North America is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership the respondent's unskilled workers.
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 913
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The background
In 1934 the respondent's employees attended a meeting at Columbia,
South Carolina, at which three committeemen were appointed to
represent the respondent's employees. On the day following this
meeting the committeemen were discharged with the statement that
the respondent had no further need for them. That evening the
employees went on strike in protest against the three discharges and
remained on strike for about 2 weeks. During this period the plant
was shut down. Thereafter Herman G. Phillips, the respondent's
president, sent for the employees, who went to the respondent's office
in a body. Phillips declined to see the men in a group, but inter-
viewed each employee separately about the possibility of reopening
the plant. Shortly thereafter when the plant reopened most of the
striking employees were reinstated.
During a discussion in the summer of 1937, regarding a strike of
granite workers in another town, Melvin L. Barber, a machinist and
electrician's helper, was told by his immediate superior, W. T. Dickin-
son, the respondent's master mechanic and chief engineer, "If these
boys join the union, this thing (the respondent's plant) will be locked
so tight, a jaybird could not get in ... If it comes over here, we won't
have it." About November 10, 1937, Dickinson made the same state-
ment to Claude C. Bell, a stonecutter in the respondent's employ.
The respondent contends that Dickinson is not a supervisory employee
because he does not have the power to hire and discharge. The record
shows, however, that Dickinson has supervision of the employees
under him, assigns work to them, and is responsible for the perform-
ance of such work. He is thus a supervisory employee for whose
activities the respondent is responsible?
The antipathy of the respondent, as described above, to the union
organization of its employees affords a significant background to a
consideration of the respondent's activities which are alleged to consti-
tute the unfair labor practices.
B. The lock-out
Preliminary arrangements having been made on November 13, 1937,
and notice given by word of mouth, three organizers for the A. F. of
L., L. B. Carter, R. S. Denny, and Fred E. Hatchell, conducted a
meeting at Rion, South Carolina, on the evening of November 17,
1937. At this meeting almost all the respondent's employees signed
petitions for membership in the Granite Cutters and the Quarry
2 Matter of American Manufacturing Company, et at. and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, C. 1 0., 5 N. L. R. B. 443; Matter of T. W. Hepler and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, 7 N. L. R. B. 255.
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Workers. Homer L. Lee, a stonecutter employed by the respondent,
was elected president of the Granite Cutters.
At least one of the respondent's supervisory employees had fore-
knowledge of this meeting. On the afternoon of November 17, 1937.
Threadgill, the respondent's foreman, asked Earl E. Fowler, the stock-
man, to "find out" and "let him know" about the meeting. When
Fowler later gave Threadgill the details concerning the proposed meet-
ing, Threadgill told Fowler that he was not going to the meeting,
and that "it did not concern him (Threadgill) either way."
Just before the meeting began that evening, Phillip E. Fowler, the
respondent's lay-out man, invited Carter, one of the three organizers
for the A. F. of L., outside the meeting place. It is Fowler's duty to
transfer the designs and lettering from the patterns to the stone
before it is cut and sandblasted. About six employees work under
his supervision. One Banks, apparently an employee of Rockton &
Rion Railway, Earl Issenhouser, Sr., and one Setzer 8 urged Carter to
leave town, stating that if he did not, the respondent would shut down
as it had in 1934. Fowler concurred in their recommendation.
Phillips, who was the only witness for the respondent, testified that he
had never discussed the respondent's labor relations with Banks,
Issenhouser, or Setzer. In view of Fowler's position, however, the
respondent is chargeable with his participation in the attempt to
persuade the organizers for the A. F. of L. to abandon their efforts
to organize the respondent's employees.
On the next morning, November 18, 1937, when the employees
reported for work as usual, they were told that there had been a break-
down in the transmission of electric power. Several employees noticed
a man working on the electric power lines. By the time that the
line for the electric lights had been fixed and tested, Threadgill in-
formed the employees, all of whom had remained standing about the
plant, that there would be no work that morning. About noon all
the employees were paid off.
The monuments which had to be finished after the respondent's plant
closed on November 18, 1937, were finished at the plant of Brown.
Memorial Company at Florence, South Carolina. Some of the work
at that plant was performed by several of the respondent's employees.
C. Conclusions with respect to the lock-out
Since the respondent sells its products principally to dealers in
the northerly States, its production is seasonal and declines during
8Issenhouser , a stonemason , referred to as "Issenhour" in the Intermediate Report,
is not on the respondent 's pay roll, but has worked on additions to the respondent's
plant which have been made by its landlord Setzer is a carpenter who has been sent
to the respondent 's plant when the respondent requests its landlord to make repairs in
the plant. He is not on the respondent's pay roll , although it has furnished him with its
employees to assist In the performance of repair work.
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 915
the winter months when the ground cannot be easily broken for
setting monuments. The respondent contends that because of the
start of the slack season and because business conditions were unusu-
ally adverse, it was compelled to close its plant on November 18,
1937. Phillips testified that earlier in November he had laid off
two office employees and three salaried salesmen because of a decrease
in the number of incoming orders; that on November 17, 1937, the
respondent had only a. small supply of granite on hand; and that
he therefore issued instructions during the afternoon for the shut-
down of the plant at the close of the day. According to Phillips,
after giving the order, he left the plant about 2: 00 p. m., went to
his home at Winnsboro, South Carolina, about 12 miles from the
plant, and early the next morning left with a hunting companion
on a previously planned trip. Phillips testified that while they
were traveling to their destination his companion informed him
that there had been a union meeting at Rion the previous evening.
Phillips testified that he did not communicate with the respondent's
officials until his return on November 20, 1937, when he first learned
of the power interruption on November 18, 1937.
Although the respondent admitted that orders remaining uncom-
pleted on November 18, 1937, were finished at another plant, it
urges that this transfer of orders was more economical than the
continued operation of its own plant. In support of its contention
that the business recession continued the Tespondent introduced
evidence to show that at the annual convention of monument dealers
in December 1937, at which the respondent exhibited its products, it
received less than one-half of the orders it usually obtained at such
conventions. Furthermore, the respondent had not paid the rent
of $500 per month since the payment of its rent for November 1937.
While the evidence tends to support the respondent's contention
that because of adverse business conditions it would have been re-
quired to close its plant sometime in November 1937, or shortly
thereafter, the record shows that the shut-down on November 18,
1937, was premature and not occasioned by the production situation
on that day.
Phillips' testimony that he issued instructions during the after-
noon of November 17, 1937, finds no support in the record. During
the same afternoon, Threadgill told Lee that certain pieces had to
be shipped by November 20, 1937, and that it would be necessary to
``work like hell." Threadgill told Barber that the respondent had
a rush order to fill and instructed the latter to connect an electric
light near a polishing machine for night work. It does not appear,
however, that any work was performed that evening. Earl Fowler
estimated that about 4 days' work would have been required in order
to finish the respondent's exhibition pieces for a coming convention.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He estimated that the respondent had about 12 or 15 orders on hand
on November 17, 1937, in addition to the convention exhibits, but
could not estimate how long it would have taken to finish such
orders.
Moreover, except for testimony that there may have been some
"matters of emergencies ," no convincing explanation was offered for
the failure to pay off the employees at the close of business on
November 17, 1937. The fact that the employees were permitted to
stand around the plant waiting for the repair in the electrical trans-
mission on the following morning and that they were not apprised of
the shut-down until noon of that day raises a strong inference that
the decision was not made by the respondent until sometime during
the morning of November 18, 1937.
Other circumstances point to the conclusion that the shut-down
on that day was not required for business reasons. Lay-offs in the
past had been made on pay days and the employees were told when
the plant would reopen. The shut-down on November 18 took place
during a pay-roll period and the employees were given no definite
assurance that the plant would reopen. Furthermore, as noted above,
the respondent had paid its rent for the entire month of November,
work was available for at least some of the employees, and arrange-
ments had been made for night work. Under the circumstances,
the respondent's explanation that it was more economical to send
its unfinished work to another plant for completion cannot be cred-
ited. Finally, the respondent's purchases during this period shows
that an immediate shut-down was not contemplated. During the
first 2 weeks of November, the respondent purchased more than one-
half of the amount of granite that it had purchased in each of the
months of September and October 1937. Likewise the shipments
of raw materials, other than granite, which the respondent received
in about 2 weeks in November 1937, were larger than similar ship-
ments in each of the months of August to October 1937, inclusive.'
Whether or not Phillips, himself, was aware of the union meeting
to be called on the evening of November 17, 1937, or whether he was
apprised of the meeting immediately thereafter, appears irrelevant
to us. It is undenied that Threadgill, who was in complete charge
of the respondent's plant, was fully aware of the meeting, and the
respondent is chargeable with his knowledge. Under the circum-
4 The respondent 's granite purchases for that period were as follows : June , $ 1,692.44 ;
July, $5,694.97; August, $7,057.07; September, $4,07143; October, $3,256.41; and No-
vember, up to and including November 16, 1937, $2,107 35. For that same period the
respondent received shipments of raw materials , other than granite, as follows : June,
$206.48; July, $2,464.52; August, $ 779.05; September , $ 70.55; October , $ 593.66 (ex-
cluding a shipment of $1,210 for steel shot which , according to Phillips' testimony, had
been previously ordered and delayed en route, and had not been paid for by the respond-
ent at the time of the hearing) ; and November, up to and including November 18, 1937,
$963 17.
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 917
stances , as described above, the shut-down effected immediately there-
after can only be characterized as a lock-out to discourage the
organization of the respondent's employees. The respondent's action
on November 18, 1937, followed precisely the predictions previously
made by Dickinson that "if these boys join the union, this thing will
be locked so tight, a jaybird could not get in."
We find that the respondent, by locking out its employees named
in Appendix A on November 18, 1937, discriminated in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Granite Cutters and the Quarry Workers, and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
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
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order that it cease and desist therefrom, and that
it take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the employees named in Appendix A were
locked out on November 18, 1937, as a result of the respondent's un-
fair labor practices. We shall therefore order the respondent to
offer reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions to these employees. Inasmuch as several months have elapsed
since the date of the hearing and the respondent has reopened its
plant with employees who may not have been employed prior to
November 18, 1937, such reinstatement shall be effected in the follow-
ing manner : All employees hired after November 18, 1937, shall, if
necessary to provide employment for those to be offered reinstate-
ment, be dismissed. If, thereupon, there is not sufficient employment
for the remaining employees, including those to be offered rein-
statement, all available positions shall be distributed among such
employees in accordance with the respondent's usual method of re-
ducing its force, without discrimination against any employee because
of his union affiliation or activity, following a system of seniority
or procedure to such extent as has heretofore been applied in the
conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees remaining
after such distribution for whom no employment is immediately
164275-39-vol xi-59
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
available shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accord-
ance with the principles set forth in the preceding sentences, and shall
thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in
their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employ-
ment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such
work.
The employees would normally be entitled to be made whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
unlawful conduct. We shall order the respondent to make such
reimbursement to its employees, subject however to the following
modifications :
1. We have found that the respondent would have closed its plant
for business reasons shortly after November 18, 1937, even if the
respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices. Since it
is impossible to determine from the record precisely how soon after
November 18, 1937, the respondent would have closed its plant for
business reasons, we shall not require the respondent to pay its em-
ployees back pay from November 18, 1937, until about March 17,
1938, when, according to the statements of its counsel at the oral
argument, the respondent reopened its plant; 5 and
2. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner recommended
that the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficient
proof be granted. As we have previously held in cases where the
Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report recommended a dis-
missal of the complaint on the merits, the respondent could not have
been expected to reinstate its employees on the basis of such recom-
mendation.s We shall not, therefore, require the respondent to pay
its employees back pay from July 19, 1938, the date of the Inter-
mediate Report, until 5 days after the date of this Decision and
Order.
Accordingly, we shall order the respondent to make its employees
named in Appendix A whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them when
the plant was reopened about March 17, 1938,7 until July 19, 1938,
and for any loss of pay they will have suffered by reason of the
5 See Matter of American Radiator Company and Local Lodge No. 1770, Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, affiliated with the Com-
mittee for Industrial Organization 7 N. L It. B. 1127, 1152 See also Matter of Titmus
Optical Company and Optical Workers Union, Local No. 20682, 9 N. L. It. B. 1026.
B See Matter of E. R Haffelfinger Company, Inc and United Wall Paper Crafts of
North America, Local No. 6, 1 N. L R. B 760; Matter of Brown Shoe Company, Inc., a
corporation and Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, Local No. 655, 1 N. L. R. B. 803.
' At the oral argument counsel for the respondent stated that many of the employees
named in Appendix A were offered reinstatement at this time . As to those employees,
however, who may have been offered reinstatement about March 17, 1938, and there-
after, and who have refused such offer, the period or periods during which they are
entitled to back pay shall not extend beyond the dates of any such offers of reinstate-
ment, provided that such reinstatement was offered unconditionally and without loss of
seniority or other rights and privileges.
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 919
respondent's refusal to reinstate them following the issuance of the
Order in this proceeding by payment to each of them of a sum of
money equal to that which each would normally have earned as
wages during the period from about March 17, 1938, until July 19,
1938, and the period from 5 days after the issuance of this Order to
the date of the offer of reinstatement or placement upon the prefer-
ential list above mentioned in this section, less his net earnings 8 dur-
ing said periods.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Granite Cutters' International Association of America and The
Quarry Workers' International Union of North America are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of its employees named in Appendix A, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. 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 foregoing 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 re-
spondent, Phillips Granite Company, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Granite Cutters' International
Association of America and The Quarry Workers' International
Union of North America, or any other labor organization of its em-
8 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by such employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his un-
lawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. 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 de-
ducted 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 govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of
its employees, or in any other manner discriminating against its em-
ployees in regard to the hire and tenure of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the employees named in Appendix A immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "Remedy" above,
placing those employees for whom employment is not immediately
available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth in said
section, and thereafter, in said manner, offer them employment as it
becomes available;
(b) Make whole the employees named in Appendix A for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal
to reinstate them from about March 17, 1938, the date the plant was
reopened, until July 19, 1938, and for any loss of pay they will have
suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them fol-
lowing the issuance of this Order by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned
as wages during the period from about March 17, 1938, until July
19, 1938, and from 5 days after the issuance of this Order to the
date of the offer of reinstatement or placement upon the preferential
list required by paragraph (a), less his net earnings, if any, during
the said periods; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due
to each of the said employees, monies received by said employee dur-
ing the said periods for work performed 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 sup-
plied the funds for said work-relief projects;9
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in
the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), and that it will
take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of
this Order;
9 The provisions of this paragraph are subject to the provisions of footnote 7, supra.
PHILLIPS GRANITE COMPANY ET AL. 921
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
Robert Adgear
Lesley Banks
John J. Barbee
Melvin L. Barber
Claude C. Bell
Gabriel Bell
Maurice Brown
Robert R. Brown
Charles H. Bundrick
Ernest H. Burrell
Harold Burrell
Herbert L. Burrell
Leon Byrd
J. C. Chambers
Timothy Chappell
Luke A. Compton
W. T. Dickinson
E. M. Earnhardt
Earl E. Fowler
Phillip E. Fowler
C. 0. Fuller
J. W. Fuller
Buster Guinard
Robert Hall
George Henderson
Walter L. Hess
Ernest Irby
H. L. Isenhower
Willie James
Robert Jiles
Clyde W. Jones
E. Lawson Jones
Clifford Jordan
Roy M. Jordan
Homer L. Lee
A
Arthur J. Matthews
Preston L. Mayberry
Willie Owens
John Padgett
Emmitt Petty
Blanchard C. Phillips
0. C. Phillips
Frank E. Pope, Jr.
Norman W. Reed
Henry P. Robertson
Henry R. Robertson
Kitt Robertson
Thomas L. Robertson
Henry D. Robinson
John W. Seibles
John H. Sellers
Roy 0. Shelton
Elmo Simmons
Sam G. Simmons
R. N. Simpson
Archer I. Smith
Frank E. Sparks
Albert M. Swygert
Harley M. Thomason
L. Trapp
Wallace A. Turner
Walter C. Turner
Floyd N. Watson
John W. Wells
Jeff Willingham
W. S. Willis
C. B. Yarborough
Thomas W. Yarborough
Hilliard C. Youngue
J. E. Youngueblood