West Kentucky Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 724 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY and INLAND
BOATMEN'S UNION, C. I. O.
Case No. C-1015.-Decided November 15, 1939
Coal Mining and Shipping Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion--
Discrimination: discharge of three employees for union activity and member-
ship; charges of discharge of three other employees. not sustained-Employee.
Status: termination of voyage, as affecting-Reinstatement Ordered: of dis-
charged employees against whom discrimination practiced-Back Pay: awarded
to employees discriminated against, including reasonable value of board and
maintenance.
Mr. Walter B. Chel f, for the Board.
Wheeler & Shelbourne, by Mr. James G. Wheeler, of Paducah, Ky.,
for the respondent.
Mr. Herbert B. Galton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by Inland Boatmen's Union,
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by Robert H. Cowdrill, the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana), issued its com-
plaint, dated August 29, 1938, against the West Kentucky Coal Com-
pany, Sturgis, Kentucky, 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. In respect to the unfair labor
practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent dis-
charged and thereafter continuously refused to reinstate eight named
employees 1 because of their membership in the Union, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union, and that the respondent by the
discharges and by other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced
'The complaint alleged that Leon Lyles, Luther Brooks, William Woods, and W. E.
Hines were discharged on April 22, 1938, and that Emmett Cooper, Charles Faughn,
Eddie Adkins, and James Adkins were discharged on May 7, 1938.
17 N. L. R. B., No. 62.
724
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 725
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Copies of the complaint and notices of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union. On September 6, 1938, the re-
spondent filed an answer admitting the allegations concerning its busi-
ness and commerce, and denying the commission of the unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Paducah, Kentucky, on
September 15 and 16, 1938, before William P. Webb, 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 introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing, counsel for the Board made a motion to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice in so far as Leon Lyles and Eddie
Adkins were concerned. The Trial Examiner granted this motion.
At the conclusion of the case, counsel for the Board moved to amend
the pleadings to conform to the proof. This motion was likewise
granted by the Trial Examiner. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner' made several'rulings on- other motions and on
objections to the, admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all
the rulings. of, the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial er-
rors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
the respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
On October 26, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties, 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 complaint be dismissed as to William Woods and Emmett Cooper
and that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor prac-
tices and, affirmatively, offer reinstatement and back pay to Luther
Brooks, W. E. Hines, James Adkins, and Charlie Faughn.
On November 8, 1938, the respondent filed its exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and on December 19, 1938, submitted a brief in
support of its exceptions. Pursuant to notice duly served on the re-
spondent and the Union, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., on December 22,
1938. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in
the argument. The Union did not appear. The Board has consid-
ered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and, in
so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FAcT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a New Jersey corporation having its principal office
and place of business at Sturgis, Kentucky, is engaged in the general
business of coal mining. It owns and operates a coal -loading tipple
<,n t lie Ohio River near Caseyville, Kentucky, and a barge plant on
the Paducah side of the Tennessee River.
The respondent owns and operates approximately 70 coal barges for
the transportation of its coal on the Ohio River, in addition to 3
steamers which are used for the purpose of towing its coal barges.
l'1ReseF3 steAmeis ,are known as the C1uai:les, F+. BRiehardson;.,tlie .1l(arcia
11ichavdso'n, and the Ellen Richardson.
From 6,000 to 12,000 tons of coal are shipped each month through
the aforesaid tipple. During the year 1937 and for a number of
years prior thereto, approximately 59 per cent of the coal produced by
the respondent was shipped to points outside the State of Kentucky
by rail and barge.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Inland Boatmen's Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., is a labor organization
admitting to membership the firemen and deckhands employed on the
respondent's steamers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of union activity
1: O. Ford, a master and pilot of river boats, started to organize
the employees on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers about the early
part of 1936. The first, meeting of the Union was held in February
1938. In March 1938, .the Union was duly chartered by the C. I. O.
On April 14, 1938, the towboat A. I. Baker, owned by the Wood
Pree1 ing:. Corporation,. which is separate and distinct. fr•Pm the
r(^spoii0ent, was stationed at the place where the respondent's
steamers anchor. At that time a .strike occurred among the mem-
bers of the crew of this towboat, and lasted until about May 4, 1938.
Various employees of the respondent who were members of the Union
and who assisted the strikers in picketing were seen and recognized
by supervisory officials of the respondent while they were on picket
duty. Although the respondent claimed that it did not know what
employees were members of the Union , we are satisfied that it pos-
ses sed-st ch knowledge.
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 727
B. The discharges
It is the pra; Tice of the respondent to notify its employees prior
to the time that the steamers sail. Such notification is given by the
officials themselves, by leaving notices in the neighborhood where the
employees reside, or by notifying employees to tell others. The re-
spondent generally notifies more men than it requires for a particu-
lar trip and then employs those who report first. It is the normal
practice of the respondent, however, as well as of other companies
engaged in the shipping industry to reship a crew when that crew
is satisfactory. The chief engineers hire the firemen, and the mates
hire the deckhands.
. The respondent contends that its employees are hired only by the
trip, that each man is paid off at the end of the trip, that there is
no agreement for future trips, that there are no seniority rules, and
that each trip of the steamer constitutes separate and distinct em-
ployment of the crews. In view of the established practice we have
in analogous cases overruled contentions similar to those offered by
the respondent.2 We,therefore conclude that notwithstanding the
termination of a particular voyage and the payment of the men at
the conclusion of each trip, the employment status of the employees
with the respondent is not severed at the conclusion of each trip.
The complaint alleged the discriminatory discharge of eight named
employees, but the cases of Leon Lyles and Eddie Adkins were dis-
missed at the hearing upon motion of counsel for the Board. The
other six will be discussed individually.
Luther Brooks
Brooks was first employed by the respondent as an extra deck-
hand in September 1937. In January 1938, he obtained regular em-
ployment on the Ellen Richardson and, according to his testimony, he
shipped aboard this boat on every trip thereafter until his discharge
on April 22, 1938. The respondent submitted figures purporting to
show that in the period from October 1937 to April 1938, Brooks
made 12 trips and missed 19. These figures fail to show, however,
the dates of the trips that Brooks made and the dates of those that
he missed. We accept Brooks' testimony as true.
Brooks testified that during his last trip on the Ellen Richardson
from April 13 to April 16, 1938, Captain Carroll, of this boat, told
him and Leon Lyles, a fellow employee, that if they joined the Union
2 See Matter of Southgate -Nelson Corporation and National Marine E ngineers ' Beneficial
Association ; Matter of Southgate-Nelson Corporation and American Telegraphists' Asso-
ciation, Baltimore Local No. 4, and David R. Crawford, 3 N. L. R. B. 535; Matter of
South Atlantic Steamship Company of Delaware and National Maritime Union of North
America, 12 N. L. R. B.-1367.
247384-40-vol. 17--4 7
728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they might not be working. Carroll denied that he had made this
statement and testified that Brooks was not present during his con-
versation with Lyles.3 That Carroll wiis aware of the conversation to
which Brooks alluded in his testimony is obvious, and we find that
he made the statement attributed to him by Brooks.
On April 18 Brooks joined the Union, solicited members, and
assisted the Union in picketing the A. I. Baker.
Brooks testified that on April 20 he went to the office of Ralph E.
Vennum, the respondent's manager of transportation, in order to
borrow a dollar; that in the conversation which ensued Vennum
asked him whether he was interested in the Union; and that when he
denied such interest Vennum, suggested that the respondent had a
labor organization of its own and that it would not be of advantage
to join the Union., During the conversation Vennum also advised
Brooks that the Ellen Richardson would sail on Friday, April 22,
and that Brooks should be on hand to make the trip. Vennum ad-
mitted that Brooks borrowed the dollar but he denied that he had
mentioned the Union or the date of the sailing of the steamer. In
view of Brooks' treatment by the respondent, discussed below, we find
that Vennum made the statements ascribed to him by Brooks.
There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Captain Carroll
told Brooks that he would be notified through Lyles when the boat
would sail. We need not, however, resolve the conflict. At 6:00
a. m., on April 22, Brooks boarded the Ellen Richardson for the pur-
pose of signing on for the trip. The mate, Jack Fulton, first told him
that the boat was not sailing, but later, after Lyles appeared, Fulton
told both men that he had a full crew and that the boat would stop
at the barge plant before sailing. Despite Fulton's statement, Brooks
remained on the Ellen Richardson until it reached the barge plant.
At that point two barge employees, McCoy and Phillips, were signed
on for the trip.
On the previous trip, the Ellen Richardson had a complement of
four deckhands: Brooks, Lyles, and two non-union employees, Metzker
and Beard. For the instant trip, only Brooks and Lyles were re-
placed. According to Fulton, whose testimony we accept as true,
Vennum had requested him to take on the two bargemen, a request
which was unusual since it was customary for the mate to hire deck-
hands. Fulton admitted that this was the first time that he. had ever
supplemented his crew with barge-plant employees. At the conclu-
sion of the voyage both McCoy and Phillips resumed their work at
the barge plant, jobs which were better paying than berths on the
steamers.
8 Counsel for the Board announced at the conclusion of the Board's case that Lyles was
outside the State and was therefore unavailable as a witness . As noted above, the con.
plaint with respect to him was dismissed.
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 729
The respo;i ent's reasons for refusing to hire Brooks and Lyles are
inconsister t and find little support in the record. Fulton argued
that Brooks and Lyles applied too late, but there is no evidence that
McCoy,' and Phillips who were signed on later in the morning had
applied earlier. On the other hand, Vennum urged as the reason for
the refusal the fact that he had desired to give work to McCoy and
Phillips because work was slack at the barge, plant and these men,
who had families, needed the employment. Vennum's further con-
tention that the employment was interchangeable between the boats
and the ,barges is not borne out by the evidence. We are satisfied,
from the respondent's deviations from the usual practice of hiring
deckhands and from the innovation of shipping bargemen on the
steamers, that the respondent's immediate purpose was to deprive
Brooks and Lyles of their employment because of their membership
in the Union. Captain Carroll's remark to Brooks on the morning
of April 22 lends support to our conclusion. On that day, Brooks
stated to Captain Carroll: "Well, Captain, they won't make anything
taking me off the boat for joining the Union, for the Marcia Rich-
ardson and the Charles F. Richardson and everything on it is organ-
ized." Captain Carroll responded: "You mean they just was work-
ing on it; they wasn't any more." Thereafter, contrary to its usual
practice, the respondent at no time thereafter notified Brooks to
report to work. Subsequent to April 22, a chief engineer on the
Charles F. Richardson and the Ellen Richardson told Brooks to tear
up his union card and go back to work.
When the Ellen Richardson returned on April 29, it did not pro--
ceed to the respondent's usual anchorage at Paducah, but stopped at
Livingston Point, about a mile above the anchorage, and made sub-
sequent trips therefrom for the next 30 days. Thereafter, it resumed
its voyages from Paducah. Captain Carroll testified that he so
docked because of orders from Vennum; and, in response to a ques-
tion concerning its unusualness, he stated that after the order was
given, he "did 'not ask any questions. The respondent offered no ex-
planation for changing the anchorage of the Ellen Richardson. The
inference is plain, and we find, that the respondent docked the Ellen
Richardson at Livingston Point in order to prevent Brooks and other
union members from applying for employment thereon.
The respondent contended that the four to six positions open for
deckhands on the Ellen Richardson were filled by 37 men from Sep-
tember 1937 to and including August 1938, when, on 58 trips, there
was an average turn-over in the personnel per trip of 17 per cent.
These figures, however, are unreliable as a guide to employment turn-
over since :the names of the employees who made ,each trip do not
appear in the record. In any event, the mere percentage of turn-
over cannot justify a discriminatory discharge of an employee.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the respondent, by terminating the employment of
Luther Brooks on April 22, 1938, and thereafter failing to notify
him of employment, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of his employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union
and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Brooks' average earnings with the respondent were $52.50 per
month. In addition to the monetary wages, he also received board
and living quarters while on shipboard. Brooks has not obtained
steady employment since his discharge, having earned approximately
$30.00 up to the time of the hearing.
James M. Adkins and Charlie Faughn
Adkins was first employed by the respondent as an extra deckhandt
in 1934. In 1937 he obtained regular employment on the Marcia
Richardson and Ellen Richardson and shipped out with these steam-
ers until his discharge on May 7, 1938. Faughn had worked at vari-
ous times as a deckhand and a fireman for the respondent since about
1922. During September 1936 he obtained regular employment with
the respondent and did not miss a trip thereafter. On February 23,
1938, Faughn joined the Union, and on March 31, 1938, Adkins
joined. They both solicited members and assisted the Union in
picketing, the A. I. Baker.
The last trip that Adkins and Faughn made with the respondent
was on the Marcia Richardson from April 4 to April 12, 1938. A
few weeks prior to that trip, Robert Hearall, mate of the Marcia
Richardson told Adkins that he "don't think so much about" the
Union and that he did not think that he would join it. About 2
weeks after Faughn returned from this trip, he went to Vemium's
office for the purpose of borrowing $2.00. Faughn testified that Ven-
num for the first time in their association refused to make the loan,
and further, questioned Faughn as to his membership in the Union.
Vennum testified that he was "at the end of the rope" and that there-
fore he refused to lend Faughn any money. He subsequently testi-
fied, however, that he did not recall any conversation with Faughn.
We find that Vennum questioned'Faughn about his union member-
ship as testified to by the latter.
On May 6, Adkins telephoned Hearall for the purpose of securing
employment on the Marcia Richardson, which was to sail on the
following day. Hearall informed him that the crew was already
hired. When Adkins and Faughn appeared at the boat for employ-
ment, Hearall stated to them that Vennum was hiring the men.
Hearall testified that he had requested Vennum to send him three
men from the barge plant. However, Hearall also testified that he
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 731
had never made a similar request of Vennum, except that he took one
man from the barge plant on April 23, 1936. Three carpenters from
the barge plant were hired as deckhands and returned to barge work
at the completion of the trip on May 16, 1938. Neither Adkins nor
Faughn was subsequently notified by the respondent to report to
work.
The respondent's asserted reasons for hiring barge employees in-
stead of Adkins and Faughn, are similar to those we have discussed
in the case of Brooks. However, in addition, the respondent con-
tends that Adkins and Faughn were undesirable employees because
they drank excessively. The evidence shows that the respondent tol-
erated drinking and took employees aboard the ship who were in an
inebriated condition. We do not believe that the respondent refused
to employ Adkins and Faughn for the reasons it advances above.
We find that the respondent, by terminating the employment of
James M. Adkins and Charlie Faughn on May 7, 1938, and thereafter
failing to notify them of employment, discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of their employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
Adkins and Faughn have not secured steady employment since
their discharge by the respondent.
William Woods
Woods was a colored deckhand on the Charles F. Richardson,
where only colored deckhands were employed. Woods worked con-
tinuously for the respondent for about 12 years, except for a period
of 9 months when he received an injury to his leg.
Woods joined the Union on April 8, 1938, and solicited members.
The last trip that he made on the Charles F. Richardson was from
April 10 to 19, 1938. Previously, Captain Fred McCandless usually
retained Woods at the conclusion of each trip to do general utility
work on the boat. However, when the steamer docked after this
trip, the Captain did not instruct Woods to remain.
On May 31 McCandless left word for Woods at a neighborhood
store that the steamer would leave the following morning. Woods
on the morning of June 1, went down to the river landing where
the Charles F. Richardson was anchored, in order to board a yawl
to the steamer. When an employee brought the yawl over from
the steamer to the river landing, the employee informed the mate,
who was at the landing, that there were 16 men on board, 2 more
than were needed. The mate told Woods. that there would be no
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"use in going over" to the steamer. Woods replied : "I am glad of
it" and thereafter left. All the deckhands who worked on this trip
were experienced employees who had worked on the boat many times
previously. We find that Woods' failure to receive employment
on June 1, 1938, was due to his own failure to report to the-steamer
earlier.
After the end of this trip on June 10, and until the time of the
hearing herein, the Charles F. Richardson had made no further trips.
We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment
of William Woods on June 1., 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment.
Emmett Cooper
Cooper has been employed by the respondent since 1927. He
generally worked as a fireman on the Charles F. Richardson,. The
last trip that Cooper made on this steamer was from March 3 to 14,
1938. Of the 11 trips that the Charles F. Richardson made from
about June 1937 to June 1938, he made only 5 trips. On March
30, 1938, Cooper joined the Union, solicited members, and assisted
the Union in picketing the A. I. Baker.
Cooper also occasionally worked as a deckhand on the Marcia
Richardson. The last trip that he made on this steamer was from
April 4 to 12, 1938.
Cooper did not attempt to ship out on the next trip of the Marcia
Richardson, which was from May 7 to 16. The next effort he made
to ship out was on June 1, when he went down to the river landing
for the purpose of securing employment as a fireman on the. Charles
F. Richardson. When Cooper arrived at the river landing, the mate
informed Cooper, as he had informed Woods, that he already had a
full crew. Of the five firemen who had made the previous trip on
the Charles F. Richardson, two were reemployed and three new
experienced firemen were hired. All firemen that were employed for
the June 1 trip were union members. As noted above, the Charles
F. Richardson did not sail after this trip.
The Marcia Richardson made subsequent trips in June and July.
Cooper was not thereafter notified by the respondent to report for
work, nor did he inform the respondent of his desire to work. As
indicated above, however, Cooper was normally employed on the
Charles F. Richardson, and we are not satisfied that he was entitled
to be notified of sailings of the Marcia Richardson.
We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment
of Emmett Cooper on June 1, 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment.
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY
W. E. Hines
733
W. E. Hines had worked for the respondent on the Charles F.
Richardson as a fireman since 1921. Since about June 1937, he had
been continuously employed by the respondent and did not miss
any trips. The last trip that Hines made on the Charles F. Richard-
son was from April 10 to 19, 1938. He subsequently joined the
Union on or about April 23, and assisted the Union in picketing
the A. I. Baker.
On May 31, 1938, the day before the Charles F. Richardson was
scheduled to sail, Hines telephoned the chief engineer who informed
him that Vennum was hiring the crew. On the following morning,
Hines telephoned Vennum who told him that the crew had already
been hired. The chief engineer testified that he asked Vennum to
secure firemen for him because he was too busy at the steamer.
All the firemen who made this trip were union members.
We find that the respondent did not terminate the employment of
W. E. Hines on June 1, 1938, nor did it discriminate in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment.
IV. THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices. We will order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the- Act.
We have found that, because of their union activities, the respond-
ent discriminatorily terminated the employment of Luther Brooks,
James Al. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn. We will therefore order
the respondent to offer Brooks, Adkins, and Faughn full and im-
mediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges. The respondent claims in its brief that reinstate-
ment, of the complainants on the succeeding trips of the steamers
would result in replacing other employees who were equally, if not
more, deserving and thus would give an unreasonable and unfair
preference which would be violative of the spirit of the Act. How-
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever , as reinstatement herein will only be directed to the employees'
positions and privileges they possessed prior to the discharge, we
find that such a contention is untenable.
We will further order the respondent to make these employees
whole for any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of his dis-
criminatory discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date reinstatement is offered to him, less
his net earnings' during said period. Deckhands, in addition to
monetary wages, receive from the respondent board and living quar-
ters while on shipboard. Accordingly, in determining the amount
of back pay to be awarded to Brooks, Adkins, and Faughn, we will
order that the reasonable value of their'board and living quarters
on shipboard be added to their monetary compensation from the
respondent.'
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. Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., 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 and terms and conditions of employment of Luther Brooks,
James M. Adkins, and Charlie Faughn, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., 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.
4 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
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N . L. R. B. 440 . Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief
projects are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order , shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee , and the amount thereof shall be paid over to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State , county, municipal , or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
' See Matter of Southern Steamship Company and Marine Engineers Beneficial Asso-
ciation, 12 N. L. R. B. 1088.
WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY 735
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to
'Leon Lyles, Eddie Adkins, Emmett Cooper, William Woods, and
W. E. Hines.
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 West
Kentucky Coal Company, Sturgis, Kentucky, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Inland Boatmen's Union,
C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of its employees, by laying
off or discharging any of its employees because of membership in,
or activity in connection with, Inland Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in any other
manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Luther Brooks, James M. Adkins, and Charlie
Faughn, and each of them, full and immediate reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole said. Luther Brooks, James M. Adkins, and
Charlie Faughn for any loss of pay each has suffered by reason of
his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a Cum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages-
including therein the reasonable value of his board and living quar-
ters on shipboard-from the date of his discharge to the date rein-
statement is offered to him, less his net earnings s during said period;
deducting, however, from the amount otherwise clue each of these
employees monies received by him during said period for work per-
formed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief
projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
See footnote 4.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
government or governments which supplied the funds for said : ivork-
relief projects ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its ,principal ;place
of business at Sturgis, Kentucky, and also on each of its steamers,
notices to its employees, and maintain said notices for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, stating
that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in
paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), that it will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and that the re-
spondent's employees are free to become or remain members of Inland
Boatmen's Union, C. I. 0., and that the respondent will not dis-
criminate against any employee because of membership or. activity
in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the.date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act by discharging Leon Lyles, Eddie Adkins, Emmett Cooper,
William Woods, and W. E. Hines.