The Texas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE TEXAS COMPANY, MARINE DIVISION 1 and
NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, PORT ARTHUR BI:ANCH
Case No. C-1076.-Decided January 04, 1940
Petroleum Products Distribution Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coer-
cion : anti-union statements by supervisory employees: warning employees against
organization ; threatening to discharge , union members ; questioning employee
about ' membership in union ; respondent 's refusal , to .permit all persons not in
its employ , including union representatives , to board its ships held not to be a
violation of the Act-Discrimination : discharge and refusal to reinstate two
employees found discriminatory ; charges of discriminatory discharge and refusal
to reinstate four other employees dismissed-Employee Status: termination of
voyage as affecting-Reinstatement Ordered: one employee discriminatorily dis-
charged and not reinstated-Back Pay: awarded to employees discriminated
against, including reasonable value of board and maintenance.
111r. E. P. Davis and Mr. Alba Burnham Martin, for the Board.
Mr. A. E. Van Dusen, of New York City, Mr. James H. Pipkin, of
Houston, Tex., and Mr. J. W. Williams, of Port Arthur, Tex., for the
respondent.
Mandell & Combs, by Mr. Herman Wright, .Mr. W. A. Combs, Mr.
Arthur J. Mandell, and Mr. Otto Mullina ,. of Houston , Tex., and
Mr. Max Lustig, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Ben Law, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT, OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by National Maritime Union of
America,' Port Arthur Branch, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas) issued its
complaint dated September 3, 1938, against The Texas Company,
1 As noted below, the complaint was issued against "The Texas Company " rather than
"The Texas Company, Marine Division."
2 This is the correct . designation of the Union. As used :herein, "Union " also refers to
National Maritime Unon, Port -Arthur Branch , as the Uriion Chas previously been desig-
nated in this proceeding.
19 N. L. R. B., No. 89.
835
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOB RELATIONS BOARD
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. A copy of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing
was duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.
In respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance that the. respondent discharged and refused to reinstate
10 of its employees 3 for the reason that they, and each of them, joined
and/or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities with
other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating
in regard to hire and tenure of employment of these employees and
discouraging membership in the Union; that since on or about August
1, 1937, the respondent, through its officers, agents, and employees, has
made various and sundry statements to its employees discouraging
affiliation in or activity on behalf of the Union; that through its offi-
cers, agents, and employees the respondent has denied passes to repre-
sentatives of the Union to board the respondent's vessels in order to
contact members of the Union; and that by the afore-mentioned and
other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
On September 12, 1938, the respondent filed its answer and its
amended answer to the complaint in which it denied that it had en-
gaged in unfair labor practices, but admitted that certain of the
employees named had been discharged and refused reinstatement.4
In its amended answer the respondent also admitted that it has denied
passes to representatives of the Union to board its vessels, but averred
that such denial had not in any way been discriminatory.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Port Arthur, Texas, from
September 12 to 16 and 19 to 22, 1938, before Howard Myers, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The hearing was
S The complaint listed the employees allegedly discharged , the dates of the alleged' dis-
charges, and the ships from which they took place , as follows : F. W. Zinkiewycz, April 18,
1938 , S. S. Rhode Island ; D. C. MacClennan , April 17, 1938, S. S. Rhode Island ; C. Buck-
less , April 18, 1938, S. S. Nevada ; J. Gordon Rosen , April 19, 1938, S. S. Nevada; F. W.
Zinkiewycz , July 14, 1938, S. S. Washington ; C. Buckless , July 14, 1938, S. S. Washing-
ton; J . Gordon Rosen , July 14, 1938 , S. S. Washington ; James P. Blasingame , September
19, 1937 , S. S. California ; Arthur Spencer , September 19, 1937, S. S. California ; J. Gor-
don Rosen , September 19, 1937, S. S . California ; A. P. Lortie, July 30, 1938, S. S. Roa-
noke; John Helton, July 30, 1938, S. S . Roanoke; C . T. Adams, July 30, 1938, S. S.
Roanoke; R . M. Lyons, July 17,'1938, S. S . Roanoke.
'The respondent admitted in its amended answer that it had on the dates given dis-
charged the following employees from the following named ships : C. Buckless , April 18,
1938, S. S. Nevada; J. Gordon Rosen, April 19, 1938, S. S. Nevada; F. W. Zinkiewycz,
July 14, 1938, S. S. Rhode Island ; J. Gordon Rosen, July 14, 1938, S. S. Washington;
C. T. Adams, July 30, 1938, S . S. Roanoke ; A. P. Lortie, July 30, 1938, S . S. Roanoke;
John Helton, July 30, 1938, S. S. Roanoke ; C. Buckless, July 14, 1938, S . S. Washington.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 837
continued at Port Arthur, Texas, on November 28 and 29, 1938, before
Charles E. Persons, another Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented.
by counsel.and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Board moved to amend its
complaint to include an allegation that the respondent discharged
and refused to reinstate two men 5 not previously named therein for
the reason, among others, that they had joined and/or assisted the
Union. The Trial Examiner. granted the motion without opposition.
With the consent of all parties the respondent's answer was deemed
amended to include a denial of the charges that the said two men
were discharged in violation of the Act. During the course of the
hearing, the Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint as to
particular alleged discharges of 7 of the 12 employees named.6 The
Trial Examiner granted the motion which was not opposed. Also
during the course of the hearing the respondent made various mo-.
tions to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety; it moved
specially. to dismiss that portion of the amended complaint which
alleged that Rufus H. Andrews and F. W. Zinkiewycz were dis-
missed by the respondent on July 8, and July 14, 1938, respectively,
because they had joined and/or assisted the Union; and it mad(','
various motions to strike certain testimony. Decision on these
motions was reserved by the Trial Examiner at the hearing. In his
.Intermediate Report,? discussed below, the Trial Examiner denied
the motions to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and
the motions to strike certain testimony, but grantel the motions to
dismiss the amended complaint as to Rufus H. Andrews and F. W.
Zinkiewycz. At the close of the hearing the Board moved to conform
the complaint to the proof. This motion was granted by the Trial
Examiner. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiners
made other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board ha,s reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iners and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed.
" The names of these employees , the dates of the alleged discharges , and the ships from
which they took place are : Rufus H. Andrews, July 8, 1938, S. S. Australia ; Jack Wilson,
March 17 , 1938, S . S. Washington.
6 These seven discharges involved the following employees who were alleged to have been
discharged on the following dates from the following ships: P. W. Zinkiewycz, April 18,
1938, S. S. Rhode Island ; D. G. MacClennan , April 17, 1938, S. S. Rhode Island ; Arthur
Spencer, September 19, 1937, S. S. California ; John Helton, July 30,'1938, S. S. Roanoke;
C. T. Adams, July 30, 1938, S. S . Roanoke ; R. M. Lyons, July 17, 1938, S. S. Roanoke;
Jack Wilson, March 17, 1938, S. S. Washington.
' The Intermediate Report was submitted by Trial Examiner Howard Myers.
2830'30-41-vol. 19-54
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 8, 1939, Trial Examiner Myers filed an Intermediate
Report finding 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 Act. He
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices; that it reinstate with back pay 4 of the 12 employees
originally named in the amended complaint ; and that it take cer-
tain other action to remedy the situation brought about by the
unfair labor practices. He dismissed the allegations of the com-
plaint, as above stated, with respect to Rufus H. Andrews and F. W.
Zinkiewycz. The respondent filed its request for oral argument be-
fore the Board upon. the Intermediate Report and,.,the: record on: May
12, 1939, its Statement of Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
to the record on July 14, 1939, and its Brief in support of the State-
ment of Exceptions on July 17, 1939.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the respondent and upon the
Union, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held on Oc-
tober 24, 1939, before the Board in Washington, D. C. The respond-
ent and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in
the argument.
The Board has considered the Exceptions filed by the respondent
to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner and to the record
and, except in so far as the exceptions are consistent with the find-
ings_of fact, conclusions of law, and the 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 , The Texas Company, a wholly owned subsidiary
of The Texas Corporation , is a Delaware corporation , with its prin-
cipal business and. executive offices located at -New York City and
Houston, ' Texas.' It is engaged ' chiefly in ' the production , distribu-
tion, and sale of petroleum products.
The respondent operates refineries in Texas at Galena Park, Port
Arthur, and Port Neches. In addition , at Port Neches it operates
a factory for the manufacture of roofing materials , barrels, and vari-
ous other products.
Chief products of the Galena Park refinery are gasoline and fuel
oils. The crude oil used in their manufacture comes principally
from producing wells in Texas and New _Mexico'' through pipe lines
operated by the Texas New Mexico Pipe Line Company . This com-
THE TEXAS COMPAN Y 839
pany is a common carrier with tariffs, prescribed by the Interstate
Commerce Commission. A majority of its stock is owned by The
Texas Corporation. The average daily throughput of the Galena
Park refinery is approximately 20,000 barrels of crude oil. Of the
finished products, approximately 75 per cent are shipped out of Galena
Park via seagoing tankers destined for points outside the State of
Texas.
The principal products manufactured at the respondent's Port
Neches works are roofing, asphalt, steel barrels, wood barrels, and
drums. The principal raw materials used are crude oil, felt, sheet
steel, wood staves, slate, paper, and nails. The daily average through-
put of crude oil is approximately 25,000 barrels. Most of the crude
oil is obtained from Texas and `Louisiaiia, but- substantial quantities
arrive by tanker and barge from Mexico. All of the felt, slate,
sheet steel, and paper is procured from outside Texas.
The unfinished crude distillates from both the Galena Park and
Port Neches refineries are pumped to the respondent's Port Arthur
refinery where the refining process is completed. In finished form
a substantial per cent of the crude-oil distillates pumped to Port
Arthur eventually reach a destination outside Texas.
Products of the respondent are in part distributed by means of
2,100 wholesale outlets and over 40,000 retailers located in most of
the States of the United States.
Gross receipts of the respondent for the fiscal year ending December
31, 1937, were in excess of $280,000,000. According to the respondent's
franchise tax return to the Secretary of State of Texas, covering the
year 1937, over 86 per cent of its business was reported as interstate
in character and approximately 13 per cent was reported as
intrastate.
The respondent owns, maintains, and operates through its Marine
Division approximately 28 oceangoing vessels having an average
capacity of 11,00.0 tons. These vessels are used by the respondent in
transporting its petroleum products. between various ports of the
Gulf. of Mexico and other parts of- the United States, and to and from
Europe, South America, and other points.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Maritime Union of America, Port Arthur Branch, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions. It admits to membership all unlicensed seamen employed by
the respondent.
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to issue passes
On or about November 1, 1936, there was a general strike called in
the shipping industry of the United States which lasted until some-
time in the early part of January 1937. Immediately after the
cessation of the strike a group known as the "rank and file" of the
International Seamen's Union, an affiliate of the American Federation
of Labor, formed the National Maritime Union of America, which
later became affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Soon after its formation the Union began organizing unlicensed
seamen employed on the respondent's ships. In this work the Port
Arthur branch of the Union was especially active. It is undisputed
that during the entire period here involved the respondent refused
permission to representatives of the Union not in its employ to board
its vessels. The Union contended at the hearing that such refusals
were discriminatory and illegally designed to prevent it from con-
tacting its members on board. The respondent, on the other hand,
offered evidence that it extended the prohibition against boarding
its vessels to the representatives of any and all unions as well as
to all other persons not in its employ. The respondent alleged that
because of the highly inflammable nature of the cargo carried in its
vessels such a policy is necessary in the proper conduct of its busi-
ness. There is no evidence in the record that the respondent has
discriminated against representatives of the Union by denying them
access to its vessels while granting it to other persons not in its
employ. It is clear that the Union was able to confer with the
respondent at its offices on shore, and to contact its members employed
by the respondent while they were on shore leave. Under these
circumstances we find that by refusing passes to board its vessels to
representatives of the Union the respondent has not interfered with,
restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
under the Act.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Both J. Gordon Rosen and James P. Blasingame were hired by
the respondent on or about June 30, 1937, at Port Arthur, Texas, and
assigned to the S. S. California as able-bodied seaman and quarter-
master, respectively.
When Rosen went on board he reported for duty to Earl Baldwin,
then acting first mate of the S. S. California. According to Rosen's
account of the ensuing conversation Baldwin stated to him, "Just a
minute, there is one thing I want to tell you we don't allow on this
THE TEXAS OOMPANY 841
ship, and that is getting drunk, missing watches, and we don't allow
any agitation with the crew on this union business." Blasingame
gave a similar account of his first conversation with Baldwin. He
said that when he boarded the S. S. California Baldwin warned him
against three things, "drunkenness," "missing watches," and "union
agitating."
Soon after Rosen and Blasingame went to work on the S. S. Cali-
fornia, its regular first mate, one Dave Rosen, returned to the ship
from a leave of absence. Earl Baldwin was shifted back to his
regular position as second mate. As such, Baldwin was in charge of
the 12 to 4 watch during which Blasingame, as quartermaster, steered
the ship.
In the course of their duties, Blasingame and Baldwin were fre-
quently on the bridge together and engaged in various conversations.
Concerning these conversations, Blasingame testified, "He (Baldwin)
told me he belonged to some union out on the west coast, and he got
gypped out of about $50, and he never did get nothing out of it,
and he ain't never had any use for a union since," and that Baldwin
also told him how the ship had been run without union men aboard
and how he (Baldwin) had to get rid of a man "because he was
agitating union all the time." On one occasion, according to Blasin-
game, a newly hired seaman came aboard wearing a union button.
Baldwin upon seeing it remarked, "There is a man who won't ride
this ship long." At another time, Blasingame testified, Baldwin asked
him if a certain, new seaman was a "rank and file." a Blasingame
replied that he did not know and Baldwin said, "Well, if he is he
won't be on this ship very long."
Blasingame also testified that Baldwin asked him about his own
union affiliation as well as that of various other crew members, includ-
ing J. Gordon Rosen. Blasingame avoided giving a direct answer to
the question as to his own membership in the Union, he said, and
stated to Baldwin that he knew nothing about the membership of
others.
Baldwin testified that when J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame first,
boarded the S. S. California he told them simply to go to their quar-
ters. He denied warning them against "union agitation." Although
he admitted having had, as second mate, various conversations with
Blasingame, he flatly denied each and every anti-union statement
attributed to him by the latter. The Trial Examiner did not credit
Baldwin's denials, nor do we. We find that Baldwin made the state-
ments attributed to him by J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame sub-
stantially as recited above.
e The Union was commonly referred to as the "rank and file" during the first stages of
Its organization and for some time thereafter.
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As acting first mate on the S. S. California when J. - Gordon Rosen
and Blasingame were hired and when he warned them against "union,
agitation," Baldwin was second in authority only to the captain.
As second mate at the time of his various conversations with Blas-
ingame on the bridge of the S. S. California, Baldwin was the third
ranking officer on the ship. During the absence of his superior officer
or officers, Baldwin was in complete charge of the ship. He was at all
times in charge of the deck crew during one watch of 8 hours each
day. The respondent is clearly accountable for his statements of the
nature discussed above.,
We find that the respondent, by warning its employees against
organization, threatening to discharge union members, and questioning
an employee about membership in the Union, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees on the S. S. California in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The shipping articles
As stated above, the amended complaint charges the respondent with
having discharged and refused to reinstate various employees in
violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
It is undisputed that each seaman involved in the particular alleged
discharges, which are fully discussed in the sections below, signed
shipping articles required by law,10 and that each received his dis-
charge certificate 11 at the port from which he had originally embarked.
The respondent contends that under the circumstances there is no
issue of unlawful discharge involved in this proceeding, alleging that
the shipping articles constituted contracts of employment under which
the employment relationship was terminated as a matter of law at
the end of the particular voyages concerned.
We cannot concur in this contention of the respondent. It is clear
from the record that the termination of a voyage does not, as a matter
of fact, terminate the employment relationship between the respond-
ent and the members of the crew. With the exception of those seamen
who either quit or are dismissed, the crew continues in the performance
of its duties. Regular watches are maintained and'the seamen remain
subject to the orders of their ship's officers. Ordinarily the same
crew goes on the succeeding voyage.
Despite the fact that seamen may have concurrently signed ship-
ping articles for a voyage, the respondent may dismiss them on differ-
6 See Virginia Ferry Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 101 F. (2d) 103 (C. C. A. 4), enf'g
Matter of Virginia Ferry Corporation and Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, 8 N. L.
B. B. 730.
10 46 U . S. C. A. 564; 46 U. S. C. A. 574.
11 In the event a seaman quits a particular vessel or is dismissed for any reason , the law
requires that he be given a discharge certificate , 46 U. S. C. A. 643.
THE TEXAS OOMMPANS 843
ent days upon or after the end of the voyage, thus indicating that it
is the dismissal by the respondent's officers rather than the completion
of the voyage which terminates the employment relationship. 12 Fur-
thermore, the respondent's working rules provide, "all unlicensed
personnel with one year of continuous service shall be given an annual
vacation of one week with pay. Those in continuous service for two
years or more shall be given an annual vacation of two weeks with
pay." Since shipping articles signed by the respondent's seamen are
never for voyages lasting as long as a year, the above-quoted provisions
of the working rules would be meaningless if, as the respondent con-
tends, the employment relationship was ended upon the completion of
each voyage.
On the basis of all the evidence, we find that nothwithstanding the
termination of a particular voyage, the employment relationship of
each member of the crew on the respondent's ships here involved con-
tinued until he quit or was dismissed for a lawful cause.13
D. The alleged discharges of J. Gordon Rosen and James P. Blas-
ingame from the S. S. "California"
At the time of the hearing both J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame
had been seamen for about 10 years, and able-bodied- seamen for 6
and 7 years, respectively. Prior to their employment on the S. S.
California on June 30, 1937, J. Gordon Rosen had worked about 4
months during 1935 for the respondent on the S. S. Nevada, from
which he resigned, and Blasingame had been employed on various
of the respondent's vessels intermittently since 1931 for short periods
totaling about 7 months. He had not been dismissed from any of
these vessels because of unsatisfactory work or conduct. Between
periods of employment by the respondent J. Gordon Rosen and Blas-
ingame worked on the ships of various other companies.
Both men joined the Union at its inception in the first part of
1937. J. Gordon Rosen was an especially active member. Immediately
after he was hired on the S. S. California he began discussing the
Union with various members of the crew. He distributed union litera-
ture among the unlicensed seamen and started the practice of holding
regular meetings of the Union, a practice which had been neglected
prior to his coming aboard. On several occasions J. Gordon Rosen
12 Both J. Gordon Rosen and Clarence Buckless signed their last shipping articles on the
S. S. Nevada on April 13, 1938, at Port Arthur for a voyage to Port Texaco , Louisiana,
to be paid off in Port Arthur, Port Neches, or Houston. Buckless was dismissed by the
respondent on April 18, 1938, at Port Arthur , while Rosen was dismissed April 19, 1938,
at Port Arthur . The respondent contends in substance that neither man was discharged,
but that the expiration of the shipping articles automatically terminated the employment
relationship on the dates given.
18 See Matter of South Atlan tio Steamship Company of Delaware and National Maritbnw
Union o f America, 12 N. L. It. B. 1367.
844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was elected as the crew's delegate to present grievances to the captain
and first mate. Blasingame accompanied him as a co-delegate on one
or more occasions.
On September 19, 1937, when the S. S. California was in Port
Arthur, J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame left the ship. According
to the Union, they were discharged because of their union activity.
The respondent contends that both men quit voluntarily.
Circumstances surrounding the alleged discharge of J. Gordon
Rosen will be discussed first. He testified that on the morning of
September 19, 1937, the boatswain said to him, "The mate told me you
are fired." J. Gordon Rosen reports that he replied, "I guess you
know what I am getting fired for," and that the boatswain answered,
"Yes, I feel pretty bad about it. I ought to quit myself." The boat-
swain did not testify.
According to J. Gordon Rosen, he then packed his things and went
to see Baldwin who was making out his discharge slip. He testified
that he asked, "What is the reason for my getting fired?" and that
Baldwin replied, "The reason, well, you know we don't want any
agitating back there."
Blasingame. testified that on the- same morning he was, below. packing
to leave the ship and that he heard the boatswain and the first mate,
Dave Rosen, talking outside his bunk. Blasingame testified that he
heard the boatswain say, "You are firing Rosen, the only good A. B.
that I got on deck," and the first mate reply, "I don't give a damn.
These guys aren't going to run this ship. This ship is no union ship."
Baldwin denied that he had dismissed J. Gordon Rosen, or that he
knew anything about his leaving the ship until some time after the
event, when the first mate instructed him to enter on the ship's crew
list that J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame had resigned. 1.4 He denied
having made out J. Gordon Rosen's discharge certificate.
Captain P. Peterson, of the S. S. California, was in Norway at the
time of the hearing. The parties stipulated that if he were present
he would testify that both J. Gordon Rosen and Blasingame had vol-
untarily quit, and that he personally paid them off. A comparison of
the handwriting on both men's discharge certificates with Captain
Peterson's signature on the shipping articles indicates that Captain
Peterson both made out and signed the discharge certificates.
Dave Rosen, the first mate, testified. that neither he nor Captain
Peterson had dismissed J. Gordon Rosen. He said that both J.
Gordon Rosen and Blasingame told him before September 19, 1937,
that they were going to quit. This latter statement is confirmed by
J. Gordon Rosen who testified that on September 7, 1937, he and
Blasingame unsuccessfully took up a dispute concerning overtime
14 The crew list was not introduced in evidence.
THE TEXAS COMPAE Y 845
with the first mate. Concerning the first mate's failure to satisfy
his request, J. Gordon Rosen said at the hearing, "When I had this .
conversation with the mate I.told him if that is all they could afford
to give us, I said, `I am going to quit,' and James Blasingame told
him the same thing, `I am going to quit.' 1)
On the basis of the entire record, we find that the evidence is insuf-
ficient to establish that the respondent discharged J. Gordon Rosen
from the S. S. California because of his membership in the Union.
Blasingame testified that in the morning of September 19, 1937, the
first mate said to him, "Blasingame, you are fired right now," and
that when he asked for the reason the first mate replied, "Never mind,
you can't ride this ship any more. Go ride one of your rank and
file ships."
Dave Rosen, on the other hand, testified that when the S. S. Cali-
f ornia got into Port Arthur, Blasingame told him that he was dis-
satisfied with conditions on board and was going to quit. Blasingame
did not deny that he had announced on "September 7, 1939, as testified
by J. Gordon Rosen, that he was going to quit.
The account given by O. D. Mitchell, Blasingame's "bunkmate" on
the S. S. California, of events on the morning of the alleged dis-
charges is uncontradicted by other evidence in the record. Mitchell
testified that on that morning he found Blasingame in their quarters
packing his belongings. Mitchell asked him what had happened.
Blasingame replied, according to Mitchell, "that he was getting off;
that he didn't like the ship." Blasingame did not tell Mitchell that
he had been "fired."
Mitchell also testified that Blasingame was not any more active in
the Union than a number of the other employees on the ship. The
record is clear that there were other men active in the Union on board
the S. S. California.
On the basis of the entire record we find that the evidence is insuffi-
cient to establish that the respondent discharged James P. Blasingame
from the S. S. California because of his membership in the Union.
E. The discharges of Clarence Buck less and J. Gordon Rosen from
the S. S. "Nevada"
At the time of the hearing, Clarence Buckless had been a seaman
for 20 years and an able-bodied seaman for 12 years. He joined the
Union on June 7, 1937. Buckless was hired by the respondent on No-
vember 17, 1937, and assigned to the S. S. Nevada as an able-bodied
seaman. About a week later he was promoted to the position of
ship's boatswain. During the 13 years previous to his employment
on the S. S. Nevada, Buckless had been employed intermittently on
various of the respondent's ships for short r eriods totaling 18 months.
.846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the S. S. Nevada Buckless very soon became active as a leader
and organizer of the Union. He called meetings of the Union for the
crew, most of whom were members, and was delegated to speak with
the captain and first mate concerning various grievances. Buckless
testified that he told Carl Tranberg, the first mate, that he had been
elected delegate of the Union.
Thereafter, on January 10, 1938, J. Gordon Rosen was again hired
by„ the respondent and assigned to the. S. S. Nevada, as an_able-bodied
seaman. Rosen testified that when he boarded the S. S. Nevada he
found that the entire crew, with the exception of one man, was com-
posed of members of the Union.
Like Buckless, Rosen at once became active in affairs of the Union.
He presided over meetings held in the crew's quarters each week and,
along with Buckless and one or two others, acted as a delegate to dis-
cuss various controversial grievances with the ship's officers. He
drafted a letter, copies of which the crew sent through the mails and
hiring halls to crews of the respondent's other ships, urging them to
join the Union. It seems clear that Buckless and Rosen were out-
standing as active leaders of the Union on board the S. S. Nevada,
and that the ship's officers were aware of their activity.
On April 18, 1938, at Port Arthur, Hugo Swanson, captain of the
S. S. Nevada, gave Buckless his discharge slip and told him that he
was dismissed for "drunkenness and bringing liquor aboard the ship."
A day later, on April 19, 1938, the first mate, Carl Tranberg, dismissed
Rosen, Rosen testified that he asked Tranberg why he was being
"fired," and that the latter answered, "Well, it might be the reason
that your work is not satisfactory."
The respondent contended that Buckless' shipping articles termi-
nated on April 18, 1938, and that he was not reemployed because of
his alleged habitual drunkenness. Three officers of the S. S. Nevada
testified concerning various occasions when Buckless came on board
after shore leave "under the influence" of liquor. Buckless admitted
that he drank while on shore but denied that his doing so interfered
with his duties on the ship. The evidence does not entirely support
his denial. On the other hand, it is clear from the record that heavy
drinking is not uncommon among unlicensed seamen employed by the
respondent, and that they, are not ordinarily discharged for that
reason. Also, it is undisputed that on more than one occasion, and
during the course of a voyage, Captain Swanson himself gave
Buckless liquor in substantial quantities.15
As to Rosen, the respondent contended that he was not discharged
because of his activity in the Union, but that his shipping articles
15 This was liquor which Buckless had obtained while the S . S. Nevada was in Spain.
As the liquor came on board Captain Swanson confiscated it. During the return trip to
the United States Captain Swanson gave it back to Buckless a bottle at a time.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 847
expired on April 19, 1938, and he was not reemployed because he was
lazy and continually neglected his duties. First Mate Tranberg testi-
fied that Rosen seemed to "intentionally lag behind in his work," and
that on various occasions he left his position when he was supposed
to be on watch and went aft to play cards, write, or smoke. Captain
Swanson testified that Rosen appeared to him to be "purely lazy" and
that Tranberg had often complained about his work.
Rosen denied that he' had improperly performed any of his duties.
It is clear that he does not smoke. The respondent admitted that
when Rosen was employed on the S. S. Nevada in 1935, and on the
S. S. California from June 30 to September 19, 1937, his work had
been satisfactory 16
We feel that the conflicting evidence concerning the respondent's
real reason for discharging and refusing to reemploy Buckless and
Rosen on the S. S. Nevada is resolved by the testimony of Leo
Herman and George Hart.
Leo Herman was hired by the respondent as an able-bodied seaman
on the S. S. Nevada at about 7 a. in. on April 19, 1938, some hours
after Buckless had left the ship but before the dismissal of Rosen.
Herman testified that when he came on board Rosen and others asked
him about liis union afflliatioin;*'and when he told them thatle' w"-as
a member of the International Seaman's Union, an affiliate of the
American Federation of Labor, they objected to his working on the
ship. Herman then went to Tranberg, the first mate, and explained
that the crew did not want him on board. Tranberg told him to go to
work.
Later during the same day Herman again reported to Tranberg,
who asked. him,. according to Herman, with whom he had the con-
versation about his union affiliation. Herman testified that he an-
swered that, "he wasn't a rat," and that Tranberg then said, "I know
who you had the conversation with. It was Baldy 17 Baldy is a
good man, but he let the union go to his head. We had a boat-
1e As is discussed below, less than a month and a half after Buckless and Rosen received
their discharge papers from the S. S . Nevada they were rehired by the respondent on the
S. S. Washington as quartermaster and able-bodied seaman, respectively . In its brief and
at the oral argument the respondent urged that the fact that they were rehired demon-
strates that the two men had not been discharged from the S . S. Nevada because of their
activity in the Union.
We do not feel that this argument tends to resolve any of the issues . It might equally
well be urged that the respondent would hardly rehire Buckless as a quartermaster with
the duty of steering the S. S. IVashington, as it did, if he was in truth discharged from
the S . S. Nevada because of habitual drunkenness as the respondent contends , and that the
respondent would not rehire Rosen if he was in fact negligent and lazy.
The fact of the situation appears from all of the evidence to be that . in so far as the
hiring of unlicensed seamen is concerned , each of the respondent 's ships was operated
largely as a separate unit, obtaining its employees from any of various uncoordinated
agencies . A man might therefore be discharged from one of the respondent 's ships and
thereafter rehired on another, the fact of the rehiring having little or no bearing upon the
merits of, or the reasons for, the previous discharge.
11 The record is clear that J. Gordon Rosen was commonly called "Baldy."
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA'HONS BOARD
swain 18 on here. He done the same thing. Every time a - - -
(new) man comes on board he asked him if he had a union book."
Herman further testified that about 9 days later Tranberg again
spoke to him. Herman's account of this conversation follows :
He told me that he fired Baldy on account of union activities,
but that is not the reason he gave him, but he also fired the
boatswain on account of union activities but the captain found
another reason to fire him. The only reason he told me (was)
that I told him I didn't belong ' to the N. M. U.; I belonged to
the I. S. U. Otherwise he wouldn't have told me.
During the period here involved, George Hart was a quartermaster
on the S. S. Nevada. He testified that on April 19, 1938, he was
standing nearby when Herman reported to Tranberg that the rest of
the crew objected to his working because he was a member of the
International Seaman's Union. Hart said that after Herman left,
Tranberg turned to him and asked, "Hart, how about this? What is
this all about ?" Hart replied that all of the crew were members of
the Union except Herman and that they didn't want him on board.
Tranberg then said, according to Hart, "When you go back aft you
tell those people I don't want none of that kind of stuff on here. I
am not going to have it. I thought I got rid of that when I got rid
of that fellow yesterday." Hart said he understood that Tranberg
was referring to Buckless when he said "that fellow," since only one
other man, an ordinary seaman, had been discharged the previous
day and he was not active in the Union.
Tranberg testified that he probably spoke to Herman when he
came on board, but that he did not recall the conversation. He de-
nied making the statements attributed to him by Herman but said
nothing concerning the alleged conversation with Hart.
On the entire record, we credit the testimony of Herman and Hart.
We find that the respondent discharged Clarence Buckless and J.
Gordon Rosen from the S. S. Nevada, and. refused to reemploy them
on that•ship because they had joined and actively assisted the Union.
F. The discharge of J. Gordon Rosen from the S. S. "Washington"
J. Gordon Rosen was unemployed from the time he left the S. S.
Nevada until June 1, 1938, when he was rehired by the respondent
for work as an able-bodied seaman on the S. S. Washington. As in
the case of his previous employment with the respondent, soon after
his arrival on the ship Rosen became very active in the affairs of the
Union. He presided over meetings and was elected as a delegate.
In that capacity from time to time he presented various grievances
"Herman testified that he understood that this reference was to Buckless.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 849
of the crew to Captain Bergman of the S. S. Washington. Although
the captain refused to recognize Rosen as a delegate of the Union,
most of the grievances were satisfactorily adjusted. As delegate,
Rosen also discussed various controversial issues with C. L. Hand,
the respondent's port captain at Port Arthur. On July 11, 1938, he
drafted and signed an open letter from the crew of the S. S. Wash-
zngton to the crews of all other ships owned by the respondent,
urging them to organize and severely criticizing the respondent be-
cause it allegedly refused to improve the working conditions of its
employees. This letter was distributed widely through the mails
and by personal contacts on shore. Rosen also sent a telegram to
J. P. Roney, the general marine manager of the respondent' s marine
department, complaining that the captain of the S. S. Washington
refused to recognize the delegates of the Union. It is clear that the
officers of the S. S. Washington had knowledge of Rosen's activity
on behalf of the Union.
On July 14, 1938, at Port Arthur, the first mate, C. B. Johannesen,
told Rosen that he was "fired" because of "unsatisfactory seaman-
ship." This occurred a few hours after Rosen, as delegate of the
Union, had taken up an overtime dispute with C. L. Hand, the port
captain.
The respondent contends that Rosen was not discharged because
of his activity on behalf of the Union, but because he continually
neglected his work. Both Bergman and Johannesen testified that.on.
various occasions Rosen was noticeably negligent and lazy. The
respondent also introduced in evidence the crew list of the S. ^S.
Washington for July 16, 1938, showing a notation that on July 14,
1938, Rosen was "discharged for incompetency."
In view of Rosen's long experience as a seaman we do not credit
the notation on the crew list that he was incompetent. Nor do we
fully credit the testimony that Rosen was negligent and lazy in the
performance of his duties. There is considerable evidence to the
contrary. On the basis of the entire record it seems apparent, and
we find, that the respondent discharged Rosen from the S. S. Wash-
ington on July 14, 1938, and refused to reinstate him because he had
joined and actively assisted the Union. Rosen desires reinstatement.
On the basis of the entire record we find that by discharging J.
Gordon Rosen and Clarence Buckless from the S. S. Nevada, and by
discharging J. Gordon Rosen from the S. S. Washington, the respond-
ent has discriminated against them in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and
has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that by refusing to reemploy Clarence Buckless
on the S. S. Nevada after April 18, 1938, and by refusing to reemploy
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. Gordon Rosen on the S. S. Nevada after April 19, 1938, and on
the S. S. Washington after July 14, 1938, the respondent discrimi-
nated against the two men in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union,19 and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
G. The discharge of Clarence Buckless from the S. S. "Washington"
Clarence Buckless was unemployed from the time he left the S. S.
Nevada on April 18, 1938, until June 1, 1938, when he was hired by
the respondent as a quartermaster on the S. S. Washington. While
on the S. S. Washington, Buckless continued to be an active member
of the Union, but it does not appear from the record that he was
outstanding in this respect.
On July 14, 1938, at Port Arthur the first mate, C. B. Johannesen,
told Buckless that he was "fired" for "missing a watch at Claymont,
Delaware" and for being an unsatisfactory seaman.
The respondent contends that Buckless was not discharged because
of his activity in the Union, but was refused reemployment becannse
of his alleged habitual drunkenness and poor helmsmanship. The
evidence that Buckless did considerable drinking and that it inter-
fered with the proper performance of his duties on the S. S. Wash-
ington is convincing.
On the basis of all the evidence we find that the respondent did not
discharge Buckless from the S. S. Washington, or refuse to reinstate
him because of his activity in the Union.
H. -The discharges of Albert P. Lortie, F. W. Zinkiewycz, and
Rufus H. Andrews
Albert P. Lortie had been a seaman for over 20 years at the time of
the hearing. He was hired by the respondent for the first time on
May 11, 1938, and assigned to the S. S. Roanoke as an able-bodied
seaman. .
Soon after boarding the S. S. Roanoke, Lortie became active on
behalf of the Union. He insisted that regular meetings of the mem-
bers of the Union be held. These had been neglected prior to his
coming on board. He presided at the meetings and saw that copies
of the minutes, signed by himself as chairman, were posted on the
bulkhead in the petty-officers' messroom. Lortie openly solicited
non-union members of the crew to join the Union. There is no sub-
stantial showing in the record, however, that during Lortie's employ-
ment on the S. S. Roanoke, the respondent inferfered with or dis-
couraged in any way his activities of the nature described above.
19 See footnote 13, supra.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 851
On July 30, 1938, at Port Arthur, according to Lortie , the first
mate, Edgar Carpenter , discharged him saying that he was a good
seaman but that he had been "drunk and disorderly" and "threatening
men back there to join the union." The respondent introduced un-
controverted evidence that in Charleston , South Carolina , just before
the S . S. Roanoke returned to Port Arthur, Lortie had come on board
in a drunken condition and had threatened a messboy , not a member
of the Union, with physical violence unless he got off the ship. A
fight was"averted ' by the 'intervention of the first mate. There is
other evidence in the record that on various occasions Lortie came
aboard drunk and unable to perform his duties . Lortie admitted
that he drank but denied that it interfered with his work . A notation
from the log book of the S. S. Roanoke stating , ". . . A. Loftie
discharged for being intoxicated and disorderly on board ship in
Charleston, July 24," was read into evidence.
On the basis of all the evidence we find that the respondent did
not discharge Lortie from the S. S. Roanoke , or refuse to reinstate
him because of his activity in the Union.
As to F. W. Zinkiewycz , and Rufus H. Andrews , the complaint, as
amended, alleges that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1) and (3) of the Act, by discharg-
ing Andrews on July 8, 1938, from the S. S. Australia, and Zinkiewycz
on July 14, 1938, from the S. S. Washington, and by refusing to re-
instate them . The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report found
that the two men were not discharged and refused reinstatement be-
cause of their union activities , but for good cause. In his Intermediate
Report the Trial Examiner also granted the respondent 's motion to
dismiss that portion of the' amended complaint in so far as it con-
cerns Zinkiewycz and Andrews . The Union has filed no exception
to the findings or rulings on the motion . We have examined the evi-
dence and we agree with the Trial Examiner in his findings and
rulings as to Zinkiewycz and Andrews.
We find that the evidence does not sustain the allegation that the
respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Zinkiewycz and
Andrews for the reason that they had joined and assisted the Union.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III B, E, and F
above, occurring in connection with its operations described 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.
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY .
We have found that the respondent, by its anti-union statements
and in other ways, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
We shall order the respondent to cease and desist from such practices.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Clarence Buckless from the S. S. Nevada on April 18, 1938. We shall
therefore order the respondent to make Buckless whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge, by payment to
him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination on April '18,
3 .938, to June 1, 1938, the date on which he was reinstated by the re-
spondent on the S. S. Washington, less his net earnings 20 during such
period. Since we have found that Buckless' subsequent discharge from
the S. S. Washington was not discriminatory, we shall not order the
respondent to offer him reinstatement.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
J. Gordon Rosen from the S. S. Nevada on April 19, 1938, and from
the S. S. Washington on July 14, 1938. We shall therefore order the
respondent to offer Rosen immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges. We shall further order the
respondent to make Rosen whole for any loss of pay. suffered by, him
by reason of his discharges by payment to him of a sum equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages from April 19,
1938, the date of his discharge from the S. S. Nevada, to June 1, 1939,
when he was rehired on the S. S. Washington, and from July 14, 1938,
the date of his discharge from the S. S. Washington, to the date of the
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 21 during such periods.
Since both J. Gordon Rosen and Clarence Buckless, while in the
employ of the respondent, received in addition to their monetary
wage, maintenance on shipboard, we shall order that the reasonable
value of such maintenance on shipboard during the period for which
° 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 his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, 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 . By "earnings" in this case is
meant monetary compensation obtained at other employment and also the reasonable value
of board and maintenance received in addition to such monetary compensation.
21 See footnote 20, supra.
THE TEXAS COMPANY 853
we shall award back pay shall be included in the total monetary
compensation to be paid to each by the respondent.
The respondent contended in its brief and at the oral argument
that the Board has no power to order reinstatement or back pay
for 'any of the seamen involved in this proceeding on the alleged
grounds that they have ceased to be employees of the respondent by
reason of having' since obtained regular and substantially equivalent
employment elsewhere. This contention is without merit. The record
shows that both Clarence Buckless and J. Gordon Rosen were un-
employed from the dates upon which they were discriminatorily dis-
charged from the S. S. Nevada until the respondent rehired them
on the S. S. Washington. Clearly then, during such periods neither
man had substantially equivalent employment and neither lost his
employee status. After J. Gordon Rosen was discriminatorily dis-
charged from the S. S. Washington on July 14, 1938, he was unem-
ployed until the last part of September 1938, when he obtained work
on a ship bound for Europe. The details of this employment do not
appear in the record. Thus, it is not shown that J. Gordon Rosen
has obtained regular and substantially equivalent employment. Even
if it be assumed, as the respondent contends, that he obtained such
employment, we do not believe that he thereby became remediless,
either for the purposes of back pay or for purposes of future em-
ployment by the respondent.22
We have found that the respondent did not discharge or refuse to
reinstate J. Gordon Rosen and James P. Blasingame on the S.. S.
California, F. W. Zinkiewycz and Clarence Buckless on the S. S.
Washington, A. P. Lortie on the S. S. Roanoke, or Rufus H. Andrews
on the S. S. Australia because of. their activities in the Union. We
shall, therefore, order that the amended complaint, in so far as it
alleges that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of the above-named employees on the above-
named ships, be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Maritime Union of America, Port Arthur Branch, is
a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of J. Gordon Rosen and Clarence Buckless, thereby discouraging
membership in the National Maritime Union of America, Port Arthur
zz See Matter ofEagle-Picker Mining d Smelting Company, etc. and International Union of
Mine, Mill d Smelter Workers, Local Nos. 15, 17, 107 , 108, and 111, 16 N. L. R. B. 727.
233080--41-vol. 19--55
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Branch, 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 re-
spondent 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.
5. The respondent did not discharge or refuse to reinstate J. Gor-
don Rosen and James P. Blasingame on the S. S. California, F. W.
Zinkiewycz' and Clarence Buckless on the S. S: Washington, A. P.
Lortie on the S. S. Roanoke, or Rufus H. Andrews on the S. S.
Australia, in violation 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, The Texas Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in National Maritime Union of
America, Port Arthur Branch, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging or refusing to. reinstate any of its em-
ployees,- or in any other manner discriminating" in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of their
employment, because of membership or activity in connection with
any such labor organization;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist National Maritime Union of America, Port Ar-
thur Branch, or any other labor organization,-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 by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the' policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Clarence Buckless for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he normally would have:earned as
wages-including therein the reasonable value of his maintenance on
shipboard-from April 18, 1938, the date of such discrimination, to
THE TEXAS COMPANY 855
June 1. 1938, the date upon which he was reinstated by the respond-
ent, less his net earnings during such period; deducting, however,
from the amount otherwise due to him monies received by him during .
said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, muni
cipal, or other work-relief projects and pay over the amount so de-
ducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county,
municipal, or other governments which supplied the funds for said
work-relief projects;
(b) Offer to J. Gorden Rosen immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position held on July 14, 1938, or to a substantially equiva-
lent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed by him;
(c) Make whole J. Gorden Rosen for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to his
hire and tenure of employment by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages-
including therein the reasonable value of his maintenance on ship-
board-from April 19, 1938, the date he was discriminatorily dis-
charged from and refused reinstatement on the S. S. Nevada, to June
1, 1938, when the respondent rehired him on the S. S. Washington,
and from July 14, 1938, the date he was discriminatorily discharged
from and refused reinstatement on the S. S. Washington, to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such periods;
deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due to him monies
received by him during said periods for work performed upon Fed-
eral, 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 governments which sup-
plied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(d) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous
places on its docks and on its vessels, and maintain such notices for a
period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; that it will take
the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and (c)
of this Order; and that its employees are free to become or remain
members of the National Maritime Union of America, Port Arthur
Branch, and that it will not discriminate against any employee be-
cause of membership or activity in that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10)' days from the date of this Order what steps.the
respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint, in so far
as it alleges that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hire and tenure of employment or terms or conditions of employment
of J. Gorden Rosen and James Blasingame on the S. S. California,
F. W. Zinkiewycz and Clarence Buckless on the S. S. Washington,
A. P. Lortie on the S. S. Roanoke, and Rufus H. Andrews on the S. S.
Australia, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.