Great Western Mushroom Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

III the Mattel' -of GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY and UNITED
CANNERY, AGRICULTURAL, PACKING AND ALLIED WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, UNITED MUSHROOM WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 300, AFFILIATED
WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1552.-Decided September 20, 1940
Jurisdiction : mushroom growing and canning industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
In General, _
Discriminatory use of loans to employees by president of corporation
properly attributable to corporation even though president used his per-
sonal funds on ground that loans were transacted and repaid at corpora-
tion's office with knowledge of board of directors.
Iuterferenee,-Rcctrarnit, and Coercion
Threatened eviction from company-owned houses by requiring of each
employee-tenant a deferred-strike agreement as a condition of tenancy,
held 8 (1)_
- Withholding loans to various employees for' the reason they were mein-
hers of the union, held 8 (1) ,
Dtscianiaataon: discharge for joining and assisting the union and engaging in
concerted activities
Evicting employees from company-owned house, the free rental of which
constituted part of their wages, because of the-activities of certain mem-
bers of-the family in a prior proceeding constitutes an act of discrimination
in violation of Section 8 (3).
Te.sti fywlt under Act
The eviction of an employee from a company-owned house, the free
rental of which constituted part of his wages, because he had testified
at an earlier hearing, constitutes a violation of Section 8 (4)
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded employee discrimina-
torilv discharged
Employees discriminatorily evicted from company-owned house, the free
rental of which constituted part of their wages, awarded a suns of money
equal to the rental of new dwellings from the date of eviction to the date
of offer of reinstatement plus incidental expenses directly incurred as a
result of the eviction.
Employee, o den ed to cease and desist from requiring or enforcing a de-
ferred-strike agreement demanded of each employee-tenant of the company-
owned houses.
Until such is a fact, contemplated action by employer in having work
peiformied by an independent contractor can have no effect upon order
of reinstatement of discriminatorily discharged employee.
Employer ordered to give separate written notice to each of its employee-
tenants who have consented to a deferred-strike. agreement that such
agreement is invalid under the Act and will not be enforced.
27 N. L. R. B., No. 79.
352
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 353
Definitions
Individuals engaged in the growing, processing, canning, packing, market-
ing and shipping of mushrooms held not to be agricultural litborers within
the meaning of the Act. The growing of mushrooms and work incident
thereto being carried on under artificial conditions more like cultivation
in green houses than on a farm, is not agricultural in nature in the common
understanding of the term The work performed in processing, canning,
packing, marketing and shipping is not agricultural in nature, nor is it, in
view of what has been stated above, incident to ordinary tanning
operations
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, for the Board.
Mr. Omar E. Garwood, of Denver, Colo., for the respondent.
Mr. Clyde Johnson, of Denver, Colo., for the Union.
Mr. John Green, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TYIE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Mushroom Workers Union No.
300, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,' herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
(Denver, Colorado), issued its complaint, dated March 4, 1940, against
Great Western Mushroom Company, Adams County, Colorado, 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 upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor, practices the complaint alleged,
in substance (1) that the respondent, on September 30, 1939, discharged
Dan Vigil, and at all, times thereafter refused to reinstate him because
he joined and assisted the Union and, engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection; (2) that from October 1938 and at all times
thereafter, the respondent urged, persuaded, and warned its employees
at its plant near Broomfield, Colorado, to refrain from joining or
retaining membership in the Union, and threatened said employees
with discharge if they joined or assisted the Union or engaged in
i The complete name of the labor organization herein is as stated in the caption of the cise-
3?3428-42-vol 27 24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; (3) that the respondent, by its officers and
agents, refused to -make loans to union members while making such
-loans to non-union employees -for the purpose of inducing its em-
ployees to refrain from joining or retaining membership in the Union;
and (4) that by the foregoing acts, and by other acts, the respondent
-interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent in its answer, duly filed with the Board, denied
the jurisdiction of the Board on the ground that its business was
wholly agricultural and that 'the employee named in the complaint,
-Dan Vigil, was an agricultural laborer and for that reason did not
come within the meaning of the term "employee" as defined in Sec-
tion 2 (3) of the Act; denied the allegations of unfair labor prac-
tices; and made certain affirmative averments with respect-to the
-alleged discriminatory ,discharge and the alleged discriminatory loans
to its employees.2 -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Deliver, Colorado, on
March 18 and 10, 1940, before William B. Barton, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and the Union by a duly authorized rep-
-resentative. All parties participated in. the hearing and were af-
-forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, alicl'to introduce evidence bearinb upon the issues. At
the commencement of the hearing the respondent renewed its motion
-to dismiss, previously filed with the Regional Director,, on the ground
that its employees were agricultural laborers within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling at
the hearing and denied the motion in his Intermediate Report. For
reasons hereinafter, noted, the ruling is hereby affirmed.' During
the course of the hearing counsel for the Board offered in' evidence
a copy of the complaint, the .settlement agreement, and the order
dismissing the complaint of, a previous case before the Board; in-
volving the respondent,' and, among others, Dan Vigil, the employee
-named in the complaint herein.5 The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
ttnd at the close of the hearing'denied the offer. - We hereby reverse
the Trial Examiner, admit the exhibit into evidence,, and incorporate
'The respondent also 'flled with the Regional Director a motion to dismiss, dated March
13, 1940 , on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction for the reason that all tile
respondent 's employees were agricultural laborers as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act.
' See footnote 2, supra
4 See Section III, infra. S
'Matter of Great Western Mushroom Company and United Cannery, Agricultural, Pack-
;ing, and Allied Workers of America, United Mushroom Workers Local Union No. 300
,affiliated with the Congress ,of Industrial Organazatsons,' Case No. XXII-C-211.
GREAT WEiSITERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 355
said exhibit as part of the record herein.6 At the close of the hearing
the Trial Examiner granted a motion made by counsel for the Board
to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced solely in respect to
dates, spelling, and similar matters. During the course of the hear-
ing the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objec-
tions to the admission of evidence. We have reviewed all the rulings
,of the Trial Examiner and find that no prejudicial errors were
committed. Except as indicated above, the rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated April 19,1940, copies of which were duly served upon the parties,
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
,gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He recommended that the respondent cease and desist, from engaging
in such unfair labor practices, that it offer full reinstatement to and
make whole Dan Vigil for any loss of pay suffered by reason,of the
respondent's discrimination in regard to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment, and that it take certain other affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Thereafter, upon a supplemental charge and an amendment thereto
duly filed by the Union and pursuant to an order of the Board grant-
ing a motion filed by the Regional Attorney to amend the complaint
and reopen the hearing and authorizing the Regional Director to
amend the complaint and to issue notice of further hearing, the Re-
gional Director, on May 31, 1940, issued an amendment to complaint,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and
(4) and Section 2 (6) and. (7) of the Act. The amendment to com-
plaint charged, in substance, that the respondent, on or about April
19, 1940, evicted Telesfor Vigil and family, including Elmer Vigil,
from the house in which' said family had been living, which house
was owned by the respondent and the rent for which constituted part
6 The respondent objected to the admission in evidence of the above exhibit on the
.ground that , since a settlement participated in by the Board is "presumably the equivalent
-of a judgment ," the Board is precluded in this proceeding from considering matters alleged
in the complaint of July 15 , 1939, and that further , as a matter of policy , it is undesirable
for the Board to proceed on matters covered by that complaint . While we do not believe
that the Board is estopped from proceeding on such complaint we agree that effective
.administration of the Act requires that the Board give full effect to a settlement or
compromise of unfair labor practice charges which the Regional Director or other agent
of the Board has approved unless , however , the employer is shown to have continued to
engage in the unfair labor practices thus settled or compromised . See Matter of Ralston
Purina Company and Flour, Feed and Cereal Workers' Federal Union No. 19184, 24 N L.
R B. 625 , and cases therein cited We shall consider the events preceding the settlement
agreement as background to our analysis of the activities which foam the basis of the
complaint herein We shall not, however , make any findings of unfair labor practices
with respect to such events
356 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,of the wages of said " Elmer and Telesfor Vigil, because Elmer Vigil
testified at the hearing held in this matter on March 18 and 19, 1940,
because said Elmer and Telesfor Vigil are members of-the Union, and
-because Dan Vigil did not abandon the charge against the respondent.
Copies of the amendment to complaint and accompanying notice of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.
Pursuant to notice of postponement, a hearing on the amendment
to complaint was held at Denver, Colorado, on June 20, 1940, before
Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
• The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the'
Union by a duly authorized representative. All parties participated in
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
-the issues.' At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted
a, motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the
proof adduced. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various rulings on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Oli July 5, 1940, the Board issued in order that no Intermediate
Report be issued in the further hearing and that pursuant to Article II,
Section 37 (c), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, as amended, proposed findings of fact, proposed con-
clusions of law, and a proposed order be issued, and that the parties
be permitted, within twenty (20) days from the date of said proposed
findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed order, to
file exceptions and to request oral argument before the Board, and
be permitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the said pro-
posed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and proposed
order to file a brief with the Board. Copies of this order were duly
served upon all the parties to the original proceeding.
On August 17,,1940, the Board issued Proposed Findings of-Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, and- Proposed Order in this proceeding,
copies of which were duly served upon all the parties.
On September 6, 1940, the respondent filed exceptions to the Pro-
posed Findings of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed
Order, and on September 16, 1940, a brief in support of its exceptions.
The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief',filed by the
respondent and, in so far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the
4 During the course of the hearing the respondent gave an "oral answer" to the amend-
ment to complaint, in which the respondent denied each and every allegation in the amend-
ment to complaint but admitted that Telesfor Vigil and family, including Elmer Vigil, were
asked to vacate the respondent ' s house in which they were In ing , though not for the reasons
alleged in the amendment to complaint
GREAT WEISIT 'ERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 357
findings, conclusions , and order set forth below, finds them to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Great Western Mushroom Company, a Colorado
corporation having its'principal office and place of business in Adams
County, Colorado, is engaged in the growing, processing, packing,
marketing, and shipping of mushrooms. The present proceeding is
concerned only with the respondent's plant located 7.4 miles from
the city limits of Denver, Colorado, and near Broomfield, Colorado,
herein called the Broomfield plant .s
During 1939 the respondent's total gross sales of mushroorris
amounted in value to slightly less than $200,000, of which more than
50 per cent was made to customers located outside the State of
Colorado. The respondent's principal out-of-State customers are
located in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, and the sales
to such customers consisted of mushrooms shipped from the re-
spondent's mushroom cannery located at its Brobmfield plant. Dur-
ing the same period the respondent purchased a substantial portion
of the materials, supplies, and equipment used in the growing, proc-
essing, canning, and packing of its products outside the State of
Colorado, including some manure hauled in its own trucks from
the State of Wyoming.
The respondent employs approximately 99 employees in its mush-
room growing and canning operations.
II, THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Cannery , Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of
America, United Mushroom Workers Local Union No. 300, is a
labor. organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations. The Union admits to- membership employees of the re-
spondent.
III. TIIE EMPLOYEES, WITHIN THE MEANING,OF SECTION 2 (3) OF THE ACT
The respondent contends that all of its employees, and particularly
Dan Vigil mentioned in the complaint, are engaged as agricultural
8 The respondent also maintains within the city limits of Denver , Colorado , 5 mushroom
houses, covering ippr6ximatel3, 10 city lots and containing approximately 40,000 square
feet of hod curfaeo
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laborers, and therefore are not employees within the meaning of the
Act."
The respondent 'maintains at the Broomfield plant 39. specially
constructed houses for the growing of mushrooms. Each house is
approximately 66 feet long, 23 feet wide, and 14 feet high, and
contains 16 mushroom beds arranged in 2 tiers of 8 shelf-beds each,
the total bed surface of all the houses aggregating approximately
280,000 square feet. The mushroom houses are artificially heated in the
winter and artificially cooled and moistened in the summer, and the
air within the houses is kept in constant circulation by the use of
electric fans in order to maintain a uniform temperature above all of
the shelf-beds. Also the beds themselves are watered whenever they
become dry. In addition to controlling the conditions under which
the mushrooms are grown, the respondent so arranges the output
of the mushroom houses that mushrooms are picked daily, and the
respondent thus obtains a steady and constant supply of mushrooms
throughout the entire year.
In order to grow mushrooms a compost, prepared by a process of
,mixing and watering horse manure, earth, and straw for a period of
about 30 days, is placed in the shelf-beds inside each mushroom house
to a dept of about 6 inches. The mushroom house is then closed,,
and the heat thrown off by the compost raises the temperature inside
the house to about 135 degrees, at which point the temperature is
allowed to remain for several days in order to drive to the surface
all insects in the compost. These insects are then killed off by sul-
phur and cyanide fumes. Thereafter, the temperature is allowed to
drop to 90 degrees, and mushroom spawn is placed in the beds, which
in about 3 weeks become matted with mycelium. Each bed is then
cased over with earth about 1 inch in depth and the temperature is
thereafter artifically maintained at between 58 and 65 degrees. In
about 57 days from the time the shelf-beds are filled, the first mush-
rooms are ready for picking. After these are harvested, the holes
left by the stems of the extracted mushrooms are filled, and more
mushrooms continue to, grow in the same mushroom beds. Several
crops or flushes are thus obtained from one filling, the cycle lasting
approximately 137 days from the time the shelf-beds are first filled
until, they are ready for a new filling. As noted above, the filling
of the beds in the various houses is staggered at such intervals that
the, respondent obtains a constant supply of mushrooms throughout
the entire year.
9 Section 2 (3) of the Act provides, in part :
The term "employee" shall include any employee, . . . but shall not include any
individual employed as an agricultural laborer.
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 359`
In short, the growing of mushrooms by the respondent is carried
on under artificial conditions more like cultivation in green houses
than on a farm. The mushrooms are grown in enclosed houses under
controlled conditions of heat and moisture. The crop is not seasonal,
but is so regulated by the respondent as to maintain a constant
output of mushrooms throughout the year. For these reasons, the
growing of mushrooms and the work incidental thereto is not agri-
cultural in nature in the common understanding of the term 10 With
respect to the services performed in processing, canning, packing,
marketing, and shipping of mushrooms, such work is not agricultural
in nature, nor is it, in view of what has been stated above, incident
to ordinary farming operations."
We find that employees of the respondent engaged in the growing,
processing, canning, packing, marketing, and shipping of mushrooms
are-employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On December 16, 1938, the Union filed with the Regional Director
a charge, and on April,4, 1939, an amended charge against the re-
spondent. On July 15, 1939, the Board issued a complaint against
the respondent alleging, in substance (1) that the respondent had
discharged and otherwise discriminated against certain named em-
ployees because they joined the Union and otherwise engaged in con-
certed activities, and (2) that the respondent had urged, persuaded,
and warned its employees to refrain from joining or retaining mem-
bership in the Union. Subsequently, on July 29, 1939, a compromise
settlement agreement was entered into by the Union, the respondent,
and the Regional Attorney providing inter alia, for the reinstate-
ment of various employees and the posting of notices. Thereafter
the Union withdrew the charges and the Regional Director issued an
order dismissing the complaint. 12
On September 30, 1939, the respondent discharged Dan Vigil, one
of the employees alleged in the first complaint to have been discrim-
inated against by the respondent in respect to the terms and con-
10 Matter of The Park Floral Company and United Greenhouse and Floral Workers Union
No. 510 of the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America. affiliated
With the Congress of Industrial Organizations;- 10 N L R B 404, and cases cited therein ;
also see Great Western Mushroom Company V Industrial Commission , 82 P (2d) 751 (Colo.
1938), in which the employees of the respondent were held not to be agricultural laborers,
within the meaning of the Colorado "Employment Act "
u See footnote 10, supra.
31 See footnote 6. supra.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
•ditions of his employment.',' Thereafter, on October 2, 1939, the
Union filed another charge with the Regional Director, which forms
the basis of the instant proceedings.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Several years prior to the hearing, there was a strike among the em-
ployees at the Broomfield plant at which time the respondent lost "a
lot of mushrooms." 'Thereafter, the respondent -required each em-
ployee-tenant of the 25 dwelling houses owned by the respondent to
agree to defer all strike action until the'mushrooms on the beds were
harvested, a period requiring, as noted above, as long as several months.
On November 20, 1938, certain employees of the respondent attended
an organizational meeting of the Union, at which time approximately
25 employees joined. Because of the Union's organizing activity at-
this time, Charles W. Savery, president of the respondent, approached
each of the various employee-tenants and asked them, individually, if
they still agreed, in the event of a strike, "to finish all the mushrooms
that were on the beds before they went out." Savery testified that the
respondent required such a deferred-strike agreement if the employee-
tenant was to receive free rent. The record discloses that the employee-
tenants were already receiving free rental as, compensation for wage
reductions first instituted in 1929. Moreover, nowhere in the record
does it appear that the employee-tenants were given the alternative of
paying rent if they refused to consent to the deferred-strike agree-
ment. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the privilege of
continuing to occupy a company house, and not the free rental thereof,
was the eolisideration for the deferred-strike agreement. Regardless
of the consideration for the deferred-strike agreement, however, such
an agreement constituted an interference with the rights guaranteed
by the Act. An agreement not to strike for a period as long as several
months is, on its face, a limitation on the exercise of the right'to en-
gage in concerted activities. Such a limitation, moreover, interferes
with the-right to self-organization since it eliminates one of the most
effective means to achieve the ends for which organization is designed.
The limitation upon the right to strike may be unobjectionable when
reached as a result of collective bargaining, for-in such a case, by
hypothesis, organization has been attained and the conclusion of the
agreement is itself an exercise of the right to engage in collective
activities. But the imposition of such a limitation upon the individual
employee constitutes not only a form of coercion resulting from an
inequality of bargaining position, but also an obstruction, at the out-
18 The complaint and settlement ac relating to the alleged discrimination against Dan
vigil in regard to hire and tenure of employment are discussed in Section IV C, infra ' ,
GREAT WEISITERN MUS 1ROOM COMPANY 361
set) to the development of effective organization. Accordingly, to the
extent that the respondent thus deprived its employees of the rights
guaranteed by the Act, it has engaged in an unfair labor practice."
For a long time prior to the events of November and December 1938,.
it had been the custom of Savery to make small loans from his per-
sonal funds to the employees of the respondent.15 After the organiza-
tional activity of the Union among the respondent's employees, Savery
refused to make such loans to union members. Although testifying
on direct examination that he continued to make such loans to both,
union and non-lmiori members without discrimination, upon further
examination Savery admitted that in the fall of 1938, "while they were
having this election le and trying to form the Union and so forth ...,"'
he told union members that "while the condition was in the upset
state they were in I wouldn't want to loan them," and that, after
charges were filed against the respondent in December. 1938 and April
1939, he again informed applicants for loans that "while this matter
was in colitroversy" he, would not make any loans to "C. I. 0. mem-
bers." Savery further testified that in the fall of 1939, and before
the charge in the instant proceeding was filed, he refused to give any
loans -to the union members reinstated pursuant to the settlement
agreement.
The respondent contends that it should in no event be held liable-
for Savery's conduct with respect to these loans, as such loans were
not part of the respondent's corporate, transactions. Although, as
stated above, Savery made these loans from his own funds, the trans-
actions took place at the respondent's office at the Broomfield plant,
and repayment of the loins was made through the respondent's
office by deductions from the employee's pay envelope. Savery stated
that this procedure was not employed in regard, to mercantile debts
incurred by the respondent's employees. Savery, as we- have stated
above, was an officer of the respondent and directly engaged in the
management of the respondent's business. It is plain from the man-
ner in which the loans were made and repaid that so far as the em-
ployees knew, the loans were made by the respondent. Although
the board of directors of the respondent knew of these loan transac-
tions, they have never disaffirmed or otherwise taken any action with
reference to them. Under these cirmumstances, we find that the
14 See Matter of Douglas Aircraft Co, Inc, Northrup Dscisien and International Union
United Automobi e Workers of America, Local 229, 18 N L R B 43 , and cases therein cited
15 In addition to his position as president of the respondent, Saveiy is actively engaged
in the management of the respondent and owns 65 . 000 shaies of the common stock Under
these circumstances , it is not eurpri ing that the respondent is referred to-in the record
as the " Saveiy Mushioom Company ."
16 Referring presumably to a consent election which had been set by the Regional Director
The elcetion was never conducted -
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent is responsible for the conduct of Savery with respect to such
loan transactions.
We find that the respondent, by the aforementioned activities of
Savery in requiring each of the respondent's employee-tenants to
consent to a deferred-strike agreement'"' and in withholding loans
to various employees of the respondent for the reason they were
members-of the Union, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
C. The discharge of Dan Vigil
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Dan Vigil
on September 30, 1939, and at all times thereafter refused to rein-
state him because he'joined and assisted the Union and engaged in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection. In its answer the respondent ad-
mitted that it discharged Vigil but alleged, in substance, by way of
an affirmative defense, that Vigil was discharged because he slackened
in his work and caused dissension and discontent among other em-
ployees of the respondent,by persistently boasting to them that the
'Board would restore him to his former job from which the respondent
had transferred him in 1938.
Vigil was continuously employed by the respondent from 1927
until his discharge on September 30, 1939, except for a period of
several months' illness in 1932. Vigil's illness was caused by the
ammonia fumes arising from the manure pile on which he was ,,work-
ing in the preparation of the compost. After his resumption of work
in 1932, Vigil was transferred and his duties were changed to those
of carrying earth into the mushroom houses. Vigil joined the Union
at the organizational meeting held on November 20, 1938, and was
elected vice president.
On the day following Vigil's affiliation with the 'Uhion, he was
approached by Savery who remarked, according to the testimohy of
Vigil, "I'heard you was going to strike here." Upon Vigil's denial,
Savery then stated, "You are a union member. I heard you were a;
union member." Vigil replied, "Yes, I am a union member, but I
don't feel like making any strike," to which Savery said, "Well, all
right," and walked away. This incident was uncontroverted and we
find that Savery made the foregoing statements.
Shortly thereafter, in December 1938, Savery asked Vigil to vacate
the respondent's dwelling house which he occupied at the Broomfield
"The respondent annexes to its exceptions herein a copy of a lease which it now requires
its employee -tenants to sign and which contains , as one of its provisions , a modification of
the deferred -strike agreement . We accept as part of the record herein the lease thug
proffered by the respondent. See Section VI, infra.
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 363
plant, and the latter, moved in January 1939. Savery testified.that,
before being requested to move, Vigil was asked along with the other
employee-tenants , as noted above , whether or not he would continue
to work on the mushroom beds in case of a strike , to which Vigil
answered in the negative . Vigil denied that he was asked any such
question , and testified that Savery asked him to vacate the house,
remarking . . '. "I can't depend on union people . They might
strike. ' We believe , as did the Trial Examiner , that it is unnecessary
to resolve this conflict in the evidence , since Savery 's own testimony
showed that , whether or not he so indicated to Vigil , he had in mind
Vigil's possible conduct as a member of the newly organized Union
when he asked Vigil to vacate the Company house.
About the same time Vigil was asked to vacate the respondent's
house, Savery changed Vigil 's duties from that of carrying earth,
as noted above , to that of turning manure in the preparation of the
compost. This work is less desirable than that of carrying earth
because of the deleterious ammonia fumes arising from the manure
pile, which , as noted above , had been the cause of Vigil's previous
illness. The respondent contends that it changed Vigil's . duties
only in order to relieve another employee whose health was injured
by the ammonia fumes. Vigil testified without contradiction that,
whereas it was usual for other employees on the manure pile to be
transferred to other work every several days, after his transfer to
that job he never received relief, except when the mushroom houses
were filled . In this respect Savery testified that there were 20 to 22
employees within the general classification known as fertilizers, al-
though only 5 men worked on the manure pile; that it was the prac-
tice of the respondent to switch those working on the manure pile
to other duties within the classification of fertilizers ; and that there
was no question that Vigil could do any of the work within the
classification . In view of the foregoing testimony , and in view of
the fact that Vigil's duties were changed soon after he joined the
Union and about the same time as his eviction from the respondent's
dwelling house , we find that the shift in the nature of Vigil 's duties
was a further manifestation of the respondent 's hostility toward Vigil
because of the latter 's union activity.
, On July 15, 1939, as noted above , the Board , upon charges duly
filed by the Union, issued a complaint against the respondent. The
complaint alleged, inter alia, that the respondent in December 1938
transferred Vigil to less desirable work, and on or about January 1,
1939, evicted him from a house, the rent of which had constituted part
of Vigil 's wages, all of the above actions being taken because Vigil
joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other mutual aid and protedtion.1s On July 29, 1939, as noted above;
the respondent, the Union, and the Board, through its Regional
Attorney, entered into a compromise settlement agreement, which
contained, however, BO provision' or reference to the alleged dis-
crimination in respect to Vigil."
On September 30, 1939, Vigil was discharged. Vigil testified that
at the time of his discharge Savery, said, "I am through with you.
Go and see what the Union can do for you." Although Savery 'did
not state what reasons were given to Vigil at the time for his dis-
charge, Savery admitted having made the above statement, but only
after Vigil threatened to complain to the Union.
As to the reason for having discharged Vigil, Savery testified
at the hearing that Vigil was constantly "condemning the manage-
meat . . . and his work was not so good as it had been before," so that
when it became "necessary to let certain peen go," Vigil was discharged:
With regard to the alleged slackening on his job, Vigil testified,
without contradiction, that his work had never been criticized by the
respondent. In fact, according to his testimony. Savery admitted at
a conference held at the office of the Regional Attorney in October
1939 that Vigil's work had always been good but added that Vigil
had been discharged because of his demoralizing effect upon the other
employees at the Broomfield plant. Savery did not unequivocally
deiiv the conversation attributed to him at this conference but stated
that "I thiilk I said as a general thing over the years his [Vigil's]
work' had been good" and "I don't think I said that [Vigil's effect
upon the morale of the-other employees] was the only trouble. I
think he [Vigil] did do that in addition to other things." Among
those present at this conference were two union representatives,
Clyde Johnson and Frank Price, both of whom corroborated, in sub-
stance, the version of Vigil. Under these circumstances, we find,
as did the Trial Examiner, that Savery made the. statements' at-
tributed to him at the above-mentioned conference. We find that the
evidence does not support the respondent's' contention that Vigil
was incompetent. -
18 It should be noted that the eviction did not carry with it a discharge from the respond-
ent's, employment -
'9
The agieement provided for the reinstatement of, 'plus a monetary award to, seven
named employees. and the posting f[ii a period of 00 consecutive days of a notice to the
effect that the respondent intended 'to comply 'with the intent of the Act," as set forth
in Sections 7 and 8, and specifically notifying "its employees that they have the right to
loin United Mushroom workers Local Union No 300, or any other labor organization, and
that it will not discnnunate in regeid to hire and tenure of employment of any employee
because of membership in that organization, or any other labor organization" The agree-
ment further piovided "that the Union will withdraw the charge and the complaint in this
matter will be dismissed upon conipliance.witli this agieement On January 11, 1940, the
Board , by the Regional Director , issued its order dismissing the complaint
GREAT WESTERN MTJSHROOM COMPANY. 365
The respondent's explanation of its contention that Vigil was con-
stantly "condemning the management" consisted of testimony by
.Savery that Vigil, over a period of almost 10 months, had complained
i wo or three tunes in regard to the type of fork used on the manure
.pile, and about six times in regard to his having been shifted to that
kind of work. In addition, Savery indicated that Vigil was ruin-
ing the morale of the other employees by his constant complaining to
them of the respondent's unfairness in changing his job and by evict-
ing him from the company house. Vigil denied that he caused the
respondent any trouble or that he had condemned the management
either to the respondent or to its employees. He admitted that on
one occasion he suggested to Lawrence A. Hughes, outside foreman
,of the' respondent, that the work might be clone easier and faster
with a different type of fork. According to the uncontroverted testi-
mony of Vigil, Hughes conceded that a better job could be done
with a larger fork, but that Savery was opposed to any change. In
.this respect it is to be noted that both Johnson and Price testified
in substance that, at "the afore-mentioned conference at the office of
the Regional Attorney, Savery's only illustration of Vigil's alleged
demoralizing influence upon the respondent's employees was his ask-
ing on one or two occasions for a larger fork. In the light of the fore-
going testimony, we believe that the above reasons ascribed to Vigil's
discharge were not, in fact, the motivating cause of the respondent's
action. , -
The respondent further contends, as noted above, that Vigil was
discharged because "it was necessary to let certain men go." Sub-
sequent to the discharge, however, the respondent hired additional
employees, including those to do the specific type of work that Vigil
had been doing. Upon being asked on direct examination why he
refused to reinstate Vigil, Savery replied that "it was a case of having
more men then we need and we let the poorest ones go." As we
have found above, however, the respondent did not show in what
respects Vigil was an unsatisfactory employee. We are of the opinion,
as was the Trial Examiner, that the reason for Vigil's discharge lay
in his union affiliation and his adherence to the Union despite the
respondent's expressed antagonism to it.
We find that the respondent discharged Dan Vigil on September
30, 1939, and has at all times thereafter refused to reinstate him
because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection. We further find that by such acts the respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vigil received no work and has earned no money between the time
of his discharge and the hearing. He, desires reinstatement.
D. The evictions
The amendment to the complaint alleges in substance that the
respondent on or about April 19, 1940, evicted Telesfor Vigil and
family,' including Elmer Vigil, from a company-owned house, the
free rental of which constituted part of the wages of Telesfor and
Elmer Vigil, because Elmer Vigil had testified at the earlier hear-
ing, because Dan Vigil did not abandon the charge against the re-
spondent, and because Elmer and Telesfor are members of the Union.
relesfor Vigil, the father of both Elmer and Dan Vigil, had con-
tinuously occupied a company-owned house from the time he was
first employed by the respondent 13 years ago, until his eviction on
April 19, 1940. Elmer Vigil lived at home with his parents in the
,company-owned -house and has for the past 5 years been employed
by the respondent as a truck driver, as well as having been employed
by the respondent at various times previous' thereto. Both Elmer
and Telesfor Vigil are members of the Union.
On March 18, 1940, the first day of the earlier hearing, Elmer
Vigil, testified as a witness for the Board as to certain, ac,ivities of
the respondent, which, as noted above, we have found to be unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act. At this time Elmer
Vigil also testified'that about 3 or 4 weeks previous to the earlier
hearing, Savery had stopped him as he was driving one of the re-
spondent's trucks and remarked, "I hear your brother has a case
against, me in the Labor Board." Elmer Vigil replied, "Well," that
case has been there ever since you- fired him." Thereupon Savery
threatened, "Well, if he is trying, to make trouble, I will have to fire
.the whole family, let the whole family go." Elmer Vigil's testis
mony in respect to the above statements .was not controverted and
we accept it as true. ,
In addition to his testimony at the earlier hearing, Elmer` Vigil
-testified at the reopened hearing that on the day immediately pre-
ceding the earlier hearing Savery warned him of the consequences
of further prosecution of Dan Vigil's case before the. Board.
Although Savery denied the incident, in view of his anti-union activi-
ties as described above, we find that he made the statement attributed
to him by Elmer Vigil.
On March 20, 1940, the day immediately following the close of the
earlier hearing, Savery handed Telesfor Vigil a letter, addressed to
Telesfor and Elmer Vigil, notifying them to vacate the respondent's
house, and emphasizing in particular that "we are insisting that you
move off the premises on account of the nuisance that the [Vigil]
'GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 367
children have become." No further explanation was- given by Savery
at this time.' On April 19, 1940, Telesfor Vigil and family vacated
the company-owned house. -
The respondent contends, as indicated in the letter referred to
above, that it was solely "on account of the children" that Telesfor
Vigil was asked to move, mentioning in particular, Richard-and Don-
ald Vigil, ages 9 and 10. At the hearing Savery testified that he had
received a great many complaints concerning Richard and Donald,
that these children were continually stealing things, including wood
from the respondent's premises at the Broomfield plant, and that they
were "continually being in fights with other children, and maligning
the people that lived out there."
With regard to the complaints concerning Richard and Donald, the
respondent introduced as witnesses Virgie Montgomery, one of the two
teachers at the district school attended by children of `the employee-
tenants at the Broomfield plant; Claude R. Ogelsby, a copartner of
Savery in the operation of the store at which most of the families-at
the Broomfield plant buy their groceries; and Nick Martinez, fore-
man and employee-tenant at the Broomfield plant.
Montgomery testified that she had difficulty with Richard and Don-
ald Vigil because they fought with the other children, and, according
'to the accusations of the other children, wrote "vile words" on mail
-boxes, and committed acts of indecent exposure whenever the teacher
left the room. In spite of the fact that the fighting and the marking
of the mail boxes had been occurring for some time, Montgomery con-
sidered only the acts of indecent exposure as serious enough to call to
the attention of Savery, in his capacity as a member of the school
board. Accordingly, on or about the first part of April 1940, Mont-
gomery reported the matter to Savery who gave Richard and Donald
"a 'strong talking to." Thereafter, Montgomery had no further trou-
ble from them. That this complaint by Montgomery even remotely
figured iii the cause of the respondent's. eviction of Telesfor Vigil from
the company-owned house may well be doubted in light of the follow-
ing testimony elicited-by-counsel for the Board:
Q. [Mr. Kuelthau] And that complaint [by Montgomery]
took place after you notified them to move [on March 20, 1940] ?
A. [Mr. Savery] No, it took place before they were notified
to move.
Q. Didn't you hear Mrs. Montgomery testify it took place
about the first of April?
A. There was more than one complaint by the teachers about
the boys.
Q. Did she testify about more than one?
A. I don't know whether she did or not.
:368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Didn't you hear her? -
A. She made more than one complaint. -
Q. What were the other ones about? -
A. There was one complaint made almost a year ago, about
'this boy's taking two dollars from down there. ,
Q. And this other one about the first of April?
A. I think so.
Q. And that is all?
X. That is all the complaints I have had from the school
teachers. '
Ogelsby testified that for the past year he had considerable trouble
with Richard and Donald Vigil in regard to stealing in his store, and
that when he would reprimand them, they would run out of the door
and shout in Spanish at him, which he "rather imagined was sort of
uncomplimentary." Ogelsby also testified, however, that other chil-
dren had been guilty of stealing, and that he had been warned about
such pilferings by children when he first moved into the store 5 years
ago. Ogelsby stated that he never spoke to Telesfor Vigil about
Richard and Donald, and tltnat he merely casually mentioned the mat-
ter to Savery as he did not desire to impose his business problems
upon the latter.
Martinez,testified'that in the spring of .1940,- possibly. April, he had
occasion to. protest to the school teacher and Savery about acts of in-
decent exposure by Richard and Donald toward his young daughters.
Martinez, however, was not certain whether or not this was the same
'incid'ent of which Montgomery had testified, as noted above. In
addition, Martinez testified-that on several other "occasions he had com-
plained to Telesfor Vigil about the conduct of the latter's children,
including one incident about a year previous, at which time one of the
Martinez children had received a beating at the hands of the Vigil
children. Both Elmer and Telesfor Vigil denied that Martinez had
ever complained to them about the Vigil children, and added that it
was common for all the children at the Broomfield plant to fight and
shortly thereafter to play amicably together again. Savery likewise
admitted that he,had' seen numerous other children `pick a fight."
In the light of the^entire record, we believe that the respondent has
resorted to the afore-mentioned peccadilloes of two mischievous chil-
dren, aged 9 and 10 years, to disguise its real motive in the-eviction of
Telesfor and Elmer Vigil. In this respect it is to be rioted that the
respondent relies upon the testimony of witnesses, who, as noted
above, stated that they did not complain to Savery about the Vigil
children until after Savery had given Elmer and Telesfor.Vigil-notice
to move, or who admitted that the conduct of-the Vigil children, on
the whole, was no different from that of the other children in the
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 369
neighborhood. Moreover, in view of the threats made to Elmer Vigil
by Savery in reference to the prosecution of Dan Vigil's case before
the Board, we conclude that Telesfor Vigil, after having continuously
occupied one of the respondent's houses for 13 years, was immediately,
upon the close of the earlier hearing, evicted from the respondent's
house because of the activities of Elsner and Dan Vigil in that pro-
ceeding.
We find that the respondent has, by the eviction of Telesfor and
Elmer Vigil, discriminated against them in respect- to hire and tenure
of employment and other conditions of employment because of their
activities in behalf of the Union, and because Elmer Vigil had given
testimony at the earlier hearing, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7
of the Act.
Telesfor Vigil desires to return to the company-owned house.
Whereas previously he had received free rental, as noted above, Teles-
for Vigil now has to pay $15 per month rent plus the expense of an
automobile necessary for transportation to and from the Broomfield
plant.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
'We find,that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section IV,
B, C, and D, 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.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain -affirmative action which we find necessary to effectuate the
policies of -the Act.
We have found that the respondent discharged Dan Vigil because
of his membership in and his activities on behalf of a union, thereby
.discriminating against him in regard to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment. The respondent contends that it does not• have a position
in which to reinstate Vigil, because it contemplates in the near
future to have the work of preparing the compost done by an in-
dependent contractor. it is obvious that until such is the case, con-
templated action in this matter can have no bearing upon the Decision
and Order herein. We shall therefore, order the respondent to offer
323428-42-vol 27-25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vigil full and immediate reinstatement to his former or to a sub-
stantially equivalent position. We shall further order the respondent
to make Vigil whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason
of his discriminatory discharge by payment to him of a snm 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.20 We have found that the
respondent evicted Telesfor Vigil and Elmer Vigil from a dwelling
house owned by the respondent because of their membership in a
union and because Elmer Vigil has given testimony under the Act,
thereby discriminating against them in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment. We shall therefore order the respondent to
offer them immediate occupancy of their former or substantially
equivalent living quarters in the,company-owned houses on the same
terms'afforded other employees.21- We shall further order the re-
spondent to make Telesfor and Elmer Vigil whole ,for any losses
they have suffered by reason of their discriminatory eviction by pay-
ment to them of a sum, of money equal to that which they have had
to pay as rental for new dwellings from the date of their eviction
to the date reinstatement is offered to them, plus such additional
expenses as they have incurred during said period, as a direct result
of said eviction.
20 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 as
borne -relief and unemployment insurance benefits , are not considered as earnings, and,
therefore , are not deductible Matter of Pennsylvania Furnace and Iron Company and
Lodge No 1328 , International Association of Machinists , 13 N L R B 52 . 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 theieof 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 ; Matter of Republic Steel Corporation
and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L R. B 219 enf ' d as modified as to other
issues, Republic Steel Corporation v N. L. R B, 107 F.'(2d) 472 ( C. C A. 3).
21 The respondent contends in its exceptions to the Proposed Findings and Order that,. in
view of the fact that it now requires from each employee -tenant a written tenancy contract
in which the employee-tenant agrees , in the event of a strike or other shut-down, "to assist
in picking and packing all mushrooms on the beds in the mushroom houses for a period not
exceeding thirty days from the beginning of the strike or shut -down " It must necessarily
demand such an agreement from Telesfor and Elmer Vigil As noted above, we have found
that the original deferred -strike agreement constituted an interference with the rights guaran-
teed by the Act That the respondent has made the period more definite as to when the
individual employee-tenant may respond to a strike call and has now reduced the oral
deferred -strike agreement to a formal lease , does not make the deferred-strike agreement
any less an interference with the rights guaranteed by the Act Accordingly , such a midifi-
cation of the deferred -strike agreement comes within the purview of paragraph 1 (c) of the
Order herein.
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM COMPANY 371
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following-
CONOLusIONs OF LAW
1. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied 'Workers
of America, United Mushroom Workers Local Union No. 300 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 Dan Vigil, Telesfor Vigil, and Elmer Vigil, thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the,
meaning'of Section 8 (3) of the Act. -
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Elmer Vigil, because he gave testimony under the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting- commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) 'and' (7)
of the Act. -
ORDER
Upon, the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent , Great Western Mushroom Company , Adams County,
Colorado, and its officers , agents, successors , and assign's shall:
1. Cease and desist- from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Cannery, Agricultural,
Packing and Allied- Workers of America, ,United Mushroom Workers
Local Union No. 300, or any other labor ' organization of its em-
ployees, by laying off or discharging any of its employees , or in any
other manner discriminating against its employees in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating ' against any of its
employees because he has given testimony under the Act;
(c) Requiring its employee -tenants to consent to a deferred -strike
agreement , or any modification thereof , or attempting to enforce
said deferred -strike agreement or any modification thereof;
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) In any other manner interfering -with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
- (a) Offer to Dan Vigil immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him;
(b) Make whole Dan Vigil for any loss of pay he has 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 that which he would normally have earned as wages from the date
of his discharge to the date of the, offer of reinstatement , less his net
earnings during such period; deducting, however; from the amount
otherwise due to said employee monies received by said employee
during said period for work performed upon Federal, State , county,
municipal , and other work-relief projects; and pay over the amount
so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State,
county, municipal , or other government or governments which sup-
plied the funds for said work -relief projects;
(c) Offer Telesfor Vigil and Elmer Vigil immediate occupancy of
their former or'substantially equivalent living quarters in the com-
pany-owned houses without requiring them to consent to a deferred-
strike ' agreement or any modification thereof; I
(d) Make whole Telesfor Vigil and Elmer Vigil for any losses
they have suffered by reason of the respondent 's discrimination in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment , by payment to them
of a sum of money equal to that which they have had to pay as
rental , for new dwellings from the date of their eviction to the date
reinstatement is offered to them, plus such additional expenses as
they - have -incurred during said period as a direct-'result of said
eviction;
(e) Give separate written notice , to each of its employee -tenants
who has consented to a deferred -strike agreement , that such an
agreement is invalid under the National Labor Relations Act, and
.will therefore be 'discontinued as a term or condition of employment
and will not in any manner be enforced or attempted to be enforced;
(f) Post ' immediately in conspicuous places throughout the Broom-
field plant , and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecu-
tive days ' from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating :
( 1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
GREAT WESTERN MUSHROOM comPANY 373
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and
(d) of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative
action required by paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this
Order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become
or remain members of United Cannery, Agricultural,, Packing and
Allied Workers of America, United Mushroom Workers Local Union
No. 300, and that the respondent' will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing within.ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.