Waumbec Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 1, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 37 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of WAUMBEC MILLS, INC . and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-866.-Decided September 1, 1939
Rayon Fabrics Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion: discrimination in regard to hire-Discrimination : refusal to hire
two men because of their record of union activity and labor organization-
Offer of Employment : ordered-Back Pay: awarded , from date of refusal to
hire to offer of employment.
Mr. Edward Schneider, for the Board.
Mr. John R. McLane, of Manchester, N. H., for the respondent.
Mr. Ben Law, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by United Textile
Workers of America, Local 86, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued its
complaint dated June 18, 1938, against Waumbec Mills, Inc., Man-
chester, New Hampshire, 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 notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent on or about July 15, 1937, refused
and has since refused to hire Alphonse Chartier and Edward G.
Geoffrion for the reason that they had been members and officers
of the Union and had engaged in concerted activities for collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection with employees of
textile mills in Manchester, New Hampshire; and that by such
refusal the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
15 N. L. R. B., No. 4.
37
199549-39-vol. 15--4
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer, dated June 23, 1938, in
which it admitted the allegations concerning.the nature and scope
of its business, but denied all other allegations of the complaint and
further stated that according to the fair meaning of the Act there
would be no discrimination in taking into account the labor-union
record of an applicant for employment; and with respect to Chartier
and Geoffrion,.that their lack of experience, their employment else-
where, the skill and experience of other applicants, as well as their
record of labor-union organization were all given consideration by
the respondent in reaching a decision upon their applications.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held June 27, 1938, at Man-
chester, New Hampshire, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to produce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the respondent
moved that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that : the com-
plaint does not state a cause of action; the evidence does not sustain
the finding of a violation of the Act; the Act does not cover a
situation of unfair labor practice where the relationship of employer
and employee has not yet been established, and if the Act is con-
strued to cover a relationship prior to employment it is unconsti-
tutional. This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report.
We have reviewed this ruling and a ruling made by the Trial
Examiner on an objection to the admission of evidence and find that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings
are hereby affirmed.
On August 12, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on the parties, finding that
the respondent had committed unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the respondent cease and
desist therefrom and, affirmatively, offer immediate employment to
Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion, with back pay from
July 15, 1937. Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report upon substantially the same grounds as were
advanced in its afore-mentioned motion to dismiss the complaint.
Pursuant to notice duly served on all the parties, a hearing was
held before the Board on May 4, 1939, at Washington, D. C., for
the purpose of oral argument. The respondent appeared by counsel
and participated in the oral argument. The Board has considered
WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 39
the exceptions of the respondent to the Intermediate Report and,
save as consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order herein-
after set forth, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New Hampshire corporation engaged in the
production, sale, and distribution of rayon fabrics. Its plant is
located at Manchester, New Hampshire, and its only sales office is
located in New York City. The raw material used is rayon yarn,
of which the respondent purchased during the 10-month period be-
ginning July 1, 1937, approximately 600,000 pounds. All of the raw
material was transported to the plant from States other than New
Hampshire and all of the finished products, valued during the same
period at $300,000, were sold through the New York office in States
other than New Hampshire.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, affiliated at the time
of the hearing with the Textile Workers Organizing Committee and
the Committee for Industrial Organization, is a labor organization
including in its membership employees who are or have been engaged
in the loom fixers' craft in Manchester, New Hampshire. Prior to
1936 it was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The men refused employment
Alphonse Chartier was 46 years old at the time of the hearing.
His home has been established in Manchester for many years. He
has worked in textiles for almost 30 years and has been a loom
fixer for much of that time. Altogether he has had 21/2 years' ex-
perience as a rayon loom fixer. At the time he applied for work
with the respondent he was employed as a rayon loom fixer in the
Pacific Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, but was soon after laid
off due to a curtailment in production.
Chartier was treasurer of the Union from 1929 until 1933. He
became president for 4 or 5 months, from on or about November
1934, until the spring of 1935, and chairman of the negotiating com-
mittee for loom fixers in 1934 and 1935. As such he was on the
Textile.Council of all textile labor organizations in the city of Man-
chester. He apparently took an active part in negotiations with em-
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployers before, during, and after the general textile strike in 1934.
Due to lack of employment in the industry in the vicinity of Man-
chester, the Union has been virtually inactive for some time. It is
not clear whether Chartier actually resigned as president of the
Union or whether he merely considered the office as defunct in view
of the inactive state of the Union.
Edward G. Geoffrion'was 50 years old at the time of the hearing.
He has always lived in Manchester. He has been in the textile in-
dustry for 33 years and has spent 25 years of that period as a loom
fixer. At the.time of his application with the respondent he had
about 21 months of experience as a rayon loom fixer at the Pacific
Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and continued thereafter in the
same position.
Geoff non was secretary and treasurer of the Union from 1934 until
the organization became inactive. He never did resign. He also was
for a time treasurer of the Loom Fixers Social Club, a separate
social organization for loom fixers to which members of the Union
automatically belong. He was a trustee of the Union for an unde-
fined period.
B. The discriminatory refusal to hire
In July 1937, respondent began the manufacture of rayon fabrics
in one plant unit of the former Amoskeag properties in Manchester,
New Hampshire, most of which had been idle since 1935 and follow-
ing the general textile strike of 1934. The record is clear that with
the commencement of production and for some time thereafter the
respondent was in need of experienced rayon loom fixers.
Prior to the opening of the Waumbec Mills, applications for em-
ployment were received at the U. S. Silk Mills, situated in the same
city, but subsequently closed, by William Zopfi, superintendent of
the respondent. Zopfi had full authority to hire employees for the
respondent during and after June 1937. During the last week in
June or early in July 1937, Chartier and Geoffrion interviewed Zopfi
at the U. S. Silk Mills asking for employment as rayon loom fixers
in the Waumbec plant, which they had learned. would soon open.
Both applicants were then employed in the same craft capacity at a
weekly salary of $32 by the Pacific Mills in Lawrence, Massachu
setts, about 30 miles distant from Manchester. The jobs for which
they applied with the respondent were to pay $31.50 weekly but both
men preferred to work in Manchester where their families and homes
were established rather than to continue their practice of commuting
each day to and from Lawrence.
At the interview Zopfi questioned Chartier and Geoff non as to
their general experience, their work and pay at Lawrence, and the
WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 41
type of looms which they tended there. He took their applications
on a piece of paper since regular card forms had not yet been pre-
pared. Details of wages and employment agreeable to all three
were discussed. Zopfi then raised the question of union affiliation.
The two applicants told him that they had previously been officers of
the Union but were no longer. Chartier's uncontradicted testimony
was that Zopfi replied that he was glad they had told him this and
that he added, "We don't want any trouble; we don't want no union
and don't want no trouble."
Following the interview at the U. S. Silk Mills, Zopfi invited the
two men to accompany him to the Waumbec plant a mile or so away
to meet the "overseer," Benny Prokuski. Zopfi drove to the plant in
his car while the applicants followed in Chartier's. Zopfi and Pro-
kuski showed them the looms of which they would be in charge if
employed and again their experience on rayon looms at the Pacific
Mills in Lawrence was discussed. Neither superintendent nor over-
seer expressed doubt as to their experience or ability to take charge
of the looms. . Both men then left understanding that they were to
be employed. Zopfi assured them that they would hear from him
within a few days, after an "investigation."
No word reaching them, the two men again visited the respondent's
plant on or shortly before July 15, 1937. Chartier's account of this
second visit, given at the hearing and uncontradicted by the re-
spondent, is as follows :
Q. (by Mr. Schneider.) Whom did you see there? Tell me
what happened.
A. (by Mr. Chartier.) We came in
Q. Was Mr. Geoffrion with you?
A. Both of us.
Q. Together?
A. Yes. We went in and we saw an overseer, Mr. Prokuski,
and it seems he didn't want to talk to us. So Mr. Zopfi had
company from I don't know where, but he left them and came
over to us.
Q. You saw Mr. Zopfi with some people?
A. Yes. He came over to us and he said, "No use, boys;
we don't want any trouble; you are the president of the Union,"
and he said to Geoffrion, "You are the secretary. We don't
want any trouble here." I says, "Who told you I was the presi-
dent of the Union?" Then of course he wouldn't tell me.
I told him, "Who ever told you that, it would be good for
him to tell you the truth, that I am 'not." I told him before
that I had been but I resigned from the Union.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Well, he says, "Don't go away like that. I am new in the
city. I don't know all the people. Later on we might come to
terms."
In mid-August Chartier returned alone. At the hearing he gave,
the following uncontradicted account of this third visit :
Well, I met Mr. Zopfi and he told me that he found that I.
have made a lot of trouble in the Amoskeag and he also had
found I was a very good loom fixer. He says, "They tell me
that you made some trouble in the Amoskeag; you told the
Amoskeag who to hire and who to fire in the loom fixers.
We don't want any trouble here. I am not ready to hire any-
body that is making trouble.
Chartier made three or four subsequent applications but each time
was refused employment either by Zopfi or Prokuski.
Geoffrion did not visit the respondent's plant following the mid-
July interview, until February 1938. During the latter month he
learned from Maurice Huard, a weaver employed by the respondent,
that the company was "badly in need of loom fixers with experience
on rayon." Huard, who had worked with Geoffrion in Lawrence,
urged him to apply. Geoffrion replied that his application had been
on file for some months. A few days later Huard reported to
Geoffrion, according to the testimony of both, that the "boss" at
respondent's plant wished to see him. Geoffrion went to the plant
and saw Prokuski who, he testifies, asked him, "Aren't you the fel-
lo^; who was here with Chartier before?" Prokuski admitted that
he needed three or four good loom fixers at the time and promised
to speak to the "other fellow," apparently referring to Zopfi. He
asked Geoffrion if he then held any office in the Union. Geoffrion
admitted that he was treasurer of the Loom Fixers Social Club.
Geoffrion was never notified as to Prokuski's decision. Huard,
however, testified that following Geoffrion's departure, his immediate
superior, Berry, reproached him for sending "a guy up here to look
for a job, and it turns out to be the treasurer of the Labor Union."
Huard asked if that was the reason Geoffrion was refused a job.
Berry nodded. As has already been indicated, none of the above
testimony concerning the conversations and events at the various in-
terviews between the two applicants and the respondent's supervisory
officials was contradicted or questioned by any evidence adduced by
the respondent.
Zopfi, the only witness called by the respondent on the issue' of un-
fair labor practices, admitted that one factor leading to his denial of
employment to Chartier and Geoffrion was that he was told they had
unfavorable labor union records. Zopfi was a newcomer in Man-
chester and it seems clear that prior to the first application by the
WAUMBBC MILLS, INC. 43
two men he had no knowledge of either. His information concerning
their records came entirely as a result of subsequent investigation.
Under cross-examination Zopfi said that he had promised not to reveal
the identity of the persons of whom he had made inquiry concerning
Chartier and Geoffrion and subsequently, after a 5-minute recess in
the hearing, declared that he could not remember the name of a single
one of them. He did admit that he had never inquired at the Pacific
Mills, where both men were employed at the time of initial applica-
tion, nor had he obtained information from employment records of
the defunct Amoskeag Mills, where both men had worked for many
years. Each place would be an obvious and normal source of infor-
mation for any prospective employer of the two applicants in doubt
about their experience and ability.
Zopfi did not define what he meant by the term "unfavorable labor
union record." At the oral argument counsel for the respondent,
speaking of Chartier in particular, stated that it was not the fact of
his being a union member or a union officer that Zopfi objected to, but
rather the kind of union officer he was reputed to be. The respondent
took no position at either the hearing or oral argument upon the
question of whether or not Chartier's alleged unfavorable reputation
was deserved, but insisted that he was known as a "trouble maker,"
and that this reputation justified the refusal to hire.
Certain of the questions put by counsel for the respondent to
Chartier upon cross-examination appear to carry the implication that
Chartier's record was not favorable because in the respondent's
opinion he had been unfair to employers and had brought numerous
unfounded complaints against them in his former capacity as chair-
man of the Loom Fixers' negotiating committee.' Chartier denied
that he had been unfair but admitted that an outsider making in-
quiries among local employers about him would not receive favorable
answers.
There is nothing in the entire record to indicate that either Chartier
or Geoffrion had ever committed or had ever been accused of com-
mitting any unlawful acts within or without their capacities as union
officials. In view of the respondent's failure otherwise to define or
clarify the terms, "undesirable labor union record," and, "trouble
maker," and in view of the circumstances under which they were used,
we find that the respondent considered them as applicable solely to
1 Q. (By counsel for the respondent .) "If a man who holds one of these jobs ( chairman
of the loom fixers' negotiating committee) is not fair and square to the company, then
you can see why he wouldn 't get a record which would put him in good standing with
some future employer can't you?"
Q. "If the chairman of a negotiating committee for his local over a period of time
persists in bringing up for attention complaints that have no foundation in fact and
keeps on doing that sort of thing, that ought to show in his record one way or another
shouldn't it?"
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the previous lawful union activities of the two men. That normal
union activities would be regarded by the respondent as "undesirable"
is amply established by Zopfi's announcement that "we don't want no
union," and by the record as a whole.'
The respondent advanced as other alleged factors leading to the re-
fusal to employ Chartier and Geoffrion that they lacked experience
on the recent types of looms installed at the Waumbec plant, that
they were too old, that there were more desirable applicants and that
the two men had employment as well as opportunities for employment
elsewhere.
The contention that Chartier and Geoffrion had insufficient ex-
perience and ability as rayon loom fixers lacks substance when
weighed by unrefuted evidence that at the first interview both super-
intendent and overseer expressed no doubt as to the men's ability,
even when pointing out that they would be expected to take charge
of 72 looms instead of the lesser number they were then running at
the Pacific Mills. Furthermore, it appears that 264 of the 314 looms
installed at the respondent's mill were of the same general type,
though newer, and required the same type of skill to operate, as those
in use at the Pacific Mills. Respondent had employed 19 loom fixers
from July 15, 1937, to the time of the hearing. Four of these had
obtained their experience on rayon at the Pacific Mills. Eugene God-
dette, a loom fixer with less experience on rayon looms than either
Chartier or Geoffrion, was employed by the respondent on July 19,
1937.
Records introduced at the hearing show that of the 16 loom fixers
employed by the respondent at that time, 6 of them range from 41 to
56 years of age. This would indicate that the ages of Chartier and
Geoffrion, as well as of other applicants as old or older, were not of
themselves a decisive factor in determining eligibility for employ-
ment. Even more significant on this point is Zopfi's admission that
at the time he made inquiries concerning Chartier's record he had
forgotten the applicant's age and lost the memorandum showing it.
He had made no subsequent efforts to ascertain Chartier's age though
he declared as late as the hearing that he was still considering his
application.
It is no doubt true that there were several applicants for each
loom fixer's job in the respondent's plant. Many of these applied
after Chartier and Geoffrion, however, and many lacked experience
on rayon. It seems clear that in point of experience and apparent
2 The respondent urged as significant the fact that it had employed a number of union
members. It is apparent, however, that the respondent's objection to Chartier and
Geoffrion was that they had taken a leading part in union activities and organization ;
in view of this fact we do not regard it as important that the respondent has hired
some union members.
WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 45
ability the two men were at least the equal of many who applied and
of some who were hired.
That the respondent gave serious consideration to the fact that
Chartier and Geoffrion had' employment and possible opportunities
for employment elsewhere as a basis for refusing to hire them is not
supported by facts or testimony. At the first interview Zopfi knew
that both men were then working in Lawrence, but seemed ready
enough, pending the results of an investigation, to hire them. That
.the fact of current employment was not'a'subject of his investigation
is obvious in view of the open declaration by the two applicants that
they were then working.
Zopfi declared at the hearing that he was still considering the possi-
bility of employing the two men. He stated further that if some
qualified person spoke well of Chartier he might still give him a job.
This appears to be a belated effort to evade the issues of the complaint
and mitigates neither his definite refusal to hire the two applicants in
mid-July 1937, nor the certainty of the past tense expressed in the
respondent's answer, "the most that can be said on behalf of appli-
cants Chartier and Geoffrion is that in competition with other appli-
cants their record of activity and labor organization was given
consideration."
All of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the decisive factor
in the respondent's refusal to hire Chartier and Geoffrion was the
fact that they had previously been union leaders and had taken an
outstanding part in concerted activities for mutual aid and protec-
tion with employees of textile mills in Manchester, New Hampshire.
We find that Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion would have
been employed by the respondent on or before July 15, 1937, but for
the respondent's knowledge of their past union leadership. Dis-
semination of knowledge that Chartier and Geoffrion had been
refused employment because of their union records cannot have had
other than a restrictive effect upon labor organization among the
respondent's employees in a city where the collapse of the textile
industry had deprived scores of loom fixers and other textile workers
of employment.
At the oral argument before the Board the respondent contended
that an employer legally has the right to form its own judgment as to
whom it shall employ to the extent of refusing to employ any union
members at all; that the Act has no application prior to the forma-
tion of the employer-employee relationship. Counsel for the respond-
ent, in illustration of this contention, conceded that an employers'
community blacklist against union members would be legally proper
under his theory of the Act. We disagree with this view.
It is well established that the Act is not intended to interfere with
the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select its employees
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or to discharge them. The respondent's contention, however, that the
Act has no application whatever prior to the formation of the
employer-employee relationship is clearly and specifically contra-
dicted by the terms of Section 8 (3) of the Act which provides, "It
shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-By discrimination
in regard to hire 3 or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization :..." A reference to the legislative history of the
Act indicates that the provision means exactly what it says.4 In addi-
tion, the broad purpose of the Act to further industrial peace by
"encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining" is
irreconcilable with the proposition that employers may debar union
applicants with impunity.
Section 8 (1) of the Act likewise covers a discriminatory refusal
to hire as well as a discriminatory discharge. Simply stated, Section
8 (1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights of
self-organization and collective bargaining. One form of interfer-
ence, restraint, and coercion is the discharge for union membership
or activities of an individual already employed. Another such form
is the refusal to hire an individual seeking employment for the same
reasons. Each is an open warning to all persons already employed,
and it is the interfering, restraining and coercive effect upon these
employees that constitutes the violation of Section 8 (1) in both cases.
Hence it is immaterial whether the individual discriminated against
is already an employee or merely an applicant for employment.5
Since discrimination in hiring is as telling a form of interference
with self-organization as any other and as much an incitement to
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce, such discrimination
is plainly in conflict with both the policy and purposes of the Act.
We find that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the
hire of Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union. We also find that by refusing
to hire Alphonse Chartier and, Edward G. Geoffrion, the respondent
$ Italics supplied.
a The Committee on Labor of the House in its report speaks of "Discrimination in
discharge , lay-off , demotion or transfer, hire, forced resignation , or division of work ;
in reinstatement or hire following a technical change in corporate structure , a strike,
lock-out, temporary lay-off, or a transfer of the plant " as among the various kinds of
discriminations prohibited by Section 8 (3) (House Rept. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.,
p. 19; italics supplied).
8 See Matter of The Kelly -Springfield Tire Company and United Rubber Workers of
America, Local No. 26 and James M. Reed and Minnie Rank , 6 N. L. R . B. 325, enforced
in The Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 97 F. (2d)
1007 ( C. C. A. 4th , 1938 ) ; Matter of Montgomery Ward and Company, Incorporated, a
Corporation and United Mail Order and Retail Workers of America , 4 N. L. R. B. 1151;
Matter of Algonquin Printing Company and United Textile Workers of America, Local
No. 1044, 1 N. L. R. B. 264.
WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 47
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
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.
V. 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 respondent has discriminated in regard
to the hire of Chartier and Geoffrion to discourage membership in
the Union. This discrimination took the form of a refusal to hire.
Clearly the appropriate remedy to effectuate the policies of the Act
is to order that they respondent offer employment to Chartier and
Geoffrion and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have
suffered as the result of the respondent's refusal to hire them. We
will, therefore, order the respondent to offer immediate employment
to Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion; and further that it
shall make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as
the result of the respondent's refusal to hire from July 15, 1937, to
the date employment is offered to him, less his net earnings" in the
interim.
6 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an applicant in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the particular respondent, which would not have been incurred but
for the unlawful refusal of his application for employment and the consequent necessity
of his seeking employment elsewhere . For example , the record shows that Chartier and
Geoffrion were in the practice of commuting between Lawrence, Massachusetts , where they
were employed when they applied for work with the respondent, and Manchester, New
Hampshire . where their homes and families were established . This commuting expense
would not have been incurred after July 15, 1937, had the respondent not illegally refused
them employment in its Manchester plant . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Sawmill Workers
Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440 . Monies received for work performed , upon Federal,
State , county, municipal , or other work -relief projects are not considered as earnings,
but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the complainants
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.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. United Textile " Workers of America, Local 86, is a 'labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire of Alphonse Chartier
and Edward G. Geoffrion and thereby discouraging membership in
United Textile Workers of America, Local 86, and other labor organ-
izations, 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 e
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
respondent, Waumbec Mills, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, and
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of
America, Local 86, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminating in regard to the hiring of applicants for
employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its e mployees in their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentacives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate employment to Alphonse Chartier and Ed-
ward G. Geoffrion at the same or substantially equivalent positions
at which they would have been employed on July 15, 1937, had the
respondent not unlawfully refused to hire them;
WAUMBEC MILLS, INC. 49
(b) Make whole Alphonse Chartier and Edward G. Geoffrion for
any loss of pay each may have suffered as the result of the respond-
ent's refusal to hire him from July 15, 1937, to the date employment
is offered him, less his net earnings during that period, deducting,
however, from the amount otherwise due to each of them monies
received by him during that period 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 government or
governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in its plant,
buildings, and other places of employment, and maintain them for
a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating that it will
cease and desist in the manner set forth in 1 (a) and (b), and that
it will take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a) and (b) of this
Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.