Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and LucK-
ENBACH GULF STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and MARITIME OFFICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WVAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION, LOCAL No. 1-25
Case No. 0-505-Decided September 08, 1938
Water Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint and Coercion : inter-
rogation of employee concerning attendance at union meeting and union activi-
ties ; distribution of anti-union propaganda to employee , by supervisory offlcials-
Discrtimination : discharges, of known union leaders, possessing qualifications for
available positions , in preference to unknown rank and file union members and
non-union employees , in connection with legitimate reduction in force-Reinstate-
ment Ordered : discharged employees-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Daniel Baker and Mr. Thomas P. Graham, for the Board.
Mr. Gunther F. Krause, of Portland, Oreg., and Brobeck, Phleger
and Harrison by Mr. Gregory C. Harrison, of San Francisco , Calif.,
for the respondents.
Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Maritime Office Employees Interna-
tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 1-25,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by Charles W. Hope, Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint, dated
December 17, 1937, against Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc.,
and Luckenbach Gulf Steamship Company, Inc., Portland, Oregon,
herein called the respondents. Copies of the complaint and notice of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
The complaint alleged that the respondents had engaged in and were
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.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondents discharged C. K. Collier and George
8 N. L. R. B., No. 158.
1280
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1281
Cron on July 26, 1937, and George Kell on September 8, 1937, from
their joint employ, and have since refused to reinstate them, because
they, and each of them, joined and assisted the Union and engaged
in concerted activities with other employees of respondents for the
purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
In addition the complaint alleged that the respondents had interfered
with, coerced, intimidated, and restrained, and are continuing to in-
terfere with, coerce, intimidate, and restrain their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by the
making of statements, indicating hostility of the respondents toward
labor organizations, and by interrogating individual employees in
regard to their union affiliation and making derogatory comments
concerning the Union to discourage their employees from joining it.
The respondents filed a joint answer to the complaint in which
they admitted the*allegations concerning their business, admitted that
they discharged the employees named in the complaint, but denied
all other material allegations concerning the alleged unfair labor
practices. -
Pursuant to notice; a hearing was held at Portland, Oregon, from
January 10 to 14, 1938, both inclusive, before Madison Hill, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the re-
spondents were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was
afforded to all parties.
At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondents moved
that the complaint be dismissed for want of evidence showing that
the respondents discriminatorily discharged the employees named
in the complaint. The Trial Examiner denied the motion. His
ruling is hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing, counsel for
the Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof ad-
duced at the hearing. Counsel for the respondents similarly moved
with respect to their answer. The Trial Examiner granted both
motions.
On January 29, 1938, counsel for the respondents filed a brief,
pursuant to permission granted by the Trial Examiner. On Febru-
ary 28, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, find-
ing that the respondents had engaged in unfair labor practice affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending that the Board
issue a cease and desist order and require the respondents to reinstate
the employees named in the complaint with back pay and to take
certain other specified affirmative action. Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a brief in support of the Exceptions were there-
after filed by the respondents. On May 6, 1938, the Board notified
1282 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondents and the Union that they were entitled to request
oral argument before the Board in Washington, D. C., but they did
not avail themselves of this opportunity.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence made during
the course of the hearing and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The Trial Examiner's rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
the briefs filed by the respondents. As hereinafter indicated, the
exceptions to the conclusions and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner are without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents are corporations organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware and have their principal office, which they main-
tain jointly, in New York City. The stock of the corporations is
almost wholly owned or controlled by members of the Luckenbach
family. The respondents are jointly engaged in the transportation
of passengers, and freight, operating a fleet of approximately 22
vessels, in the intercoastal trade and between the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic and Pacific ports. The vessels sail upon regular schedules
and make scheduled stops to take on and discharge cargo and pas-
sengers in substantially all of the major coastal ports in the United
States. The respondents also have joint offices in New Orleans,
Louisiana, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, California,
and in Seattle, Washington. They jointly operate waterfront freight
terminals at the major ports. At the hearing counsel for the re=
spondents conceded that the respondents are engaged exclusively in
interstate commerce, and that the employees involved in this pro-
ceeding perform work in interstate commerce. The present proceed-
ing concerns only the office workers at the respondents' Portland,
Oregon, port.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union is a labor
organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza-
tion. It chartered Maritime Office Employees, Local No. 1-25, on or
about June 1, 1937. The Local admits to membership all men and
women employed as clerks in steamship, steamship brokers', dock,
terminal, flour mill and other offices connected with the waterfront
industry.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1283
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges
The Union was organized about April 15, 1937. Its first officers
were C. K. Collier, president, and George Kell, secretary; George Cron
was named chairman of the Union's bargaining committee. The
Union applied for a charter on April 19. Cecil Evans, a member of
the Union, who was employed by the respondents as an assistant in
the timekeeper's and paymaster's office, was discharged on April 23
for alleged inefficiency.' On June 22, 1937, the Union sent a letter to
C. K. Piper, the respondents' district manager stationed at their Port-
land office, advising that the Union had selected a negotiating com-
mittee to bargain with the respondents on behalf of employee members,
and requesting an appointment for a conference. The letter specifi-
cally' named the members of the committee, all employees of the
respondents, and bore Collier's signature as president of the Union.'
The Oregonian, a local newspaper, of June 26, 1937, reported the
organization of the Union with Collier as temporary chairman, and
Kell acting as temporary secretary-treasurer, and identified them as
Luckenbach employees. No reply having been received from the
respondents, the Union again wrote on July 14, reminding the respond-
ents of the Union's unanswered letter, and advising that its committee
stood prepared to bargain for the entire office personnel. On July 22,
Piper replied acknowledging receipt of both letters and inquiring
whether the Union represented a majority of the respondents' office
employees. On July 23, the Union mailed mimeographed circulars to
persons employed as office workers in the waterfront industry in and
around Portland, including ordinary office employees of the respond-
ents and members of their supervisory staff who were eligible to join
the Union. In the circulars, the Union urged them to join the organi-
zation and invited prospective members to attend a Union meeting on
the night of July 27.
1 Since neither the charge nor the complaint contains any allegation relating to Evans'
discharge , we make no findings with respect to him.
The letter read :
The Maritime Office Employees , I. L A. Local 38-149, representing Portland steam-
ship clerks has appointed a negotiating Committees to negotiate with the Luckenbach
Steamship Company on behalf of employees who are members of this union
The members of this committee are as follows :
Mr. George Cron, Chairman.
Mr. George Kell.
Mr. Harold Arnold.
Mr. C K. Collier
This committee desires that you advise when convenient for you to meet with them
and open negotiations.
Awaiting your pleasure, we are
very truly Yours,
I [7213-39-vol 8--82
MARITIME OFFICE EMPLOYEES,
ILA Local S8--1i9
C K COLLIN711, PreFidP,it.
1284 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On July 26 Collier and Cron were discharged. Collier was notified
of the termination of his employment under the following circum-
stances : About 2: 15 that afternoon, William R. Landis, Collier's
immediate superior, motioned Collier into Piper's office. Piper in-
formed Collier that the respondents found it necessary to curtail per-
sonnel owing to a contemplated change in the sailing schedule of
their vessels and asked Collier for his resignation. Piper also stated
that, inasmuch as Collier had not yet taken his vacation, he would
receive his vacation money and 2 weeks' advance notice of the cessa-
tion of his employment. Collier pointed out to Piper that it was not
customary for a resigning employee to receive such notice. Collier
insisted that lie was being "fired." Piper replied : "Well if (you)
wanted to put it that way. I thought it would look a little better
on your Social Security report if I put it down resigned . . ." Col-
lier further testified that he understood Piper to say that Collier
could take the money for his vacation period and also have the 2
weeks' notice, with or without work; that he stated to Piper that he
preferred "to work the time out." Piper, however, then objected:
"No, I am offering you the money." Collier accepted the money and
did not work after July 26. Piper, unsolicited, gave Collier a letter
of recommendation stating that "his work has been quite satisfactory
and his leaving our service was brought about by a retrenchment
program on account of change in our shipping schedule."
Cron's discharge occurred at about 2 p. in. on July 26. At that
time all dock office employees were summoned by messenger to the
desk of Roy R. Steele, pier superintendent. Steele showed the gath-
ered employees two letters, one from J. C. Euson, the respondent's
Pacific Coast manager stationed at San Francisco, to Piper, dated
July 10, 1937, stating that it was necessary to reduce the office force
coincident with the inauguration of a weekly sailing schedule, effec-
tive July 30, because the change involved a resulting estimated 18-
per cent decrease in revenue and a decrease in the amount of avail-
able work. The other letter, from Piper to Steele, dated July 23, 1937,
referred to Euson's letter and called Steele's attention to Euson's in-
sistence that a reduction in force be made at the dock as well as in
the respondents' uptown office. Steele announced to the assembled
employees that inasmuch as lie needed the services of all dock em-
ployees, except Cron, lie planned to place Harold Arnold,'the O._ S. &
D.3 clerk, in Cron's position as dock typist and to combine C. A.
Nelson's duties as car desk man with the O. S. & D. clerkship. Al-
though the change in Arnold's position carried no reduction in salary,
his new duties as dock typist did not involve the use of judgment
a Ovei age, Shoi tage, and Damage
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1285
exercised by the O. S. & D. clerk, nor did they entail the responsibility
which the O. S. & D. clerk bore.4
On August 12, Collier and Cron picketed the respondents' dock
office to protest against their discharges. They maintained the picket
line about 4 or 5 hours, thereby delaying the sailing of a vessel. Two
days later, on August 14, Piper ordered Kell, the cashier's assistant
in the uptown office, to confine himself to general office work and to
discontinue his over-the-counter and telephone duties.. Piper claimed
that he had received complaints from the public with respect to Kell's
abrupt manner in addressing customers. Under date of August 17,
1937, Piper received a communication from Euson which made refer-
ence to the picketing incident and advised Piper of a need for further
reduction in force in the cashier's department and dock clerical staff.
On the morning of August 17, Piper told Kell that someone was being
laid off at the dock office and instructed him to report to the dock
the following morning to replace that person.5 Piper refused to reveal
to Kell the name of the individual being displaced. Kell worked at
the dock until September 8. On that day Steele told him that his
services were no longer needed because of lack of work.
The respondents justify the discharges on the ground that a con-
templated change in the eastbound sailing schedule from a 5- to a 7-day
schedule necessarily involved a reduction in the number of sailings
and a decrease in the amount of cargo with the result that less office
work would be available for the clerical and other personnel. Piper
testified that he estimated, on the basis of 24 fewer sailings a year
figured at 1,500 tons capacity per ship, that the change in schedule
would result in a loss of tonnage of approximately 40,000 tons for the
Portland port. In his testimony, Piper explained the change in sched-
ule as a device to lower overhead costs. Prior to July 30, 1937, the
respondents' lines operated on a 5-day eastbound and a 7-day west-
bound schedule. In order to maintain the 5-day eastbound schedule,
the respondents found it necessary to return many vessels without
cargo from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast. In the early spring of
1937 the respondents decided to change to the 7-day eastbound sched-
ule thereby obviating the operation of vessels in ballast, to avoid
the payment of Panama Canal tolls, crew hire, and other expenses
incident to trips without cargo. The respondents introduced in evi-
dence figures which indicated a substantial decrease in the amount
of handled cargo and the number of man-hours worked for the 5-month
4 Since neither the charge nor the complaint contains any allegation that the respond-
ents' change of Arnold's position constituted a demotion, we make no finding with respect
thereto.
5 The respondents utilized teletype facilities in their interoffice and other communica-
tions, making it possible for Euson' s message to reach Portland prior to Piper's issuance of
employment instructions to Kell that day.
•
1286 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period immediately following the change in schedule when compared
with similar data for the 5-month period immediately preceding July
30._ A comparison of pertinent figures for the last half of 1935 6 with
those for the last half of 1937 also reveals a decrease in cargo, except
lumber, and in the number of hours worked 7 during the period after
the change.
The respondents contend that the elimination of Collier, Cron, and
Kell, the Union's leaders, was a mere coincidence. To understand
the selection of these employees for discharge we now consider the
respondents' form of organization in the Portland port. The re-
spondents operated two offices in Portland, one called the uptown
office, with Piper in complete charge, and the other, the dock office,
under the supervision of Steele as pier superintendent. The uptown
office was divided into three departments: (1) claims, (2) cashier's,
(3) traffic. The eastbound department, where Collier was employed
as a billing clerk, constituted a division of the traffic department. The
claims department consisted of the claim agent and Strowger, his-
assistant, who was not a member of the Union. The cashier's de-
partment consisted of H. C. Chadbourne, head cashier, Kell, a clerk,
and two girls, Gertrude Gorham and a Miss Meinman, who acted as
stenographer-clerks. In addition to Kell only Gorham, in the cash-
ier's department, belonged to the Union. In the traffic department,
other than the eastbound division, the respondents employed Hermes
Wrightson, traffic manager, Earl F. Waller, rate clerk, and two out-
side freight solicitors, Stoneberg and Shute. All employees in the
traffic department, as so defined, were non-members of the Union.
Landis headed the eastbound division with Collier, billing clerk,
and two girls, one a comptometer operator and the other a stenog-
rapher, under his supervision. Of this group only Collier belonged
to the Union.
The dock office personnel consisted of Steele, pier superintendent,
C. B. Barr, timekeeper and paymaster, R. J. Wigg and Lawrence
Kretzmeier, Barr's assistants, C. A. Nelson, car desk man, Burl C.
Burdick, head checker, Jesse C. Stranahan, whose employment duties
are not disclosed in the record, Arnold, the O. S. & D. clerk, Harris,
the delivery clerk, and Cron, the dock typist. In addition to Cron
and Arnold, Barr and Wigg were members of the Union. Nelson,
Burdick and Stranahan, belonged to the Supercargo and Checker's
Union, affiliated with the International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union. The record does not definitely show whether Har-
ris or Kretzmeier belonged to any labor organization. The evidence
6 Since the longshoremen 's strike occurred in 1936, the respondents regarded that period
as not affording a fair basis for comparison and for that reason did not submit data for
1936.
T The respondents ' data relating to man-hours in all periods includes ship and dock hourly
employees , including dock office employees but excluding uptown office workers.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1287
discloses, however, that all the dock office employees, except one, who
was unnamed, belonged to a labor union.
Collier was first employed by the respondents as dock typist on'
February 6, 1928. When the O. S. & D. clerk was discharged 8
months later, Collier assumed his duties in addition to those of dock.
typist. Sometime thereafter the respondents hired a typist to assist
him, when the combined duties became too burdensome, and Collier
confined himself to the O. S. & D. clerkship. About 2 weeks before
the May 1934 longshoremen's strike, the claim agent in the uptown
office died; the dock paymaster was promoted to the position of claim
agent and Collier was assigned to the paymaster's position. Upon
the termination of the strike in August 1934, Piper transferred Collier
from the dock to the uptown office as billing clerk, which position he
retained until his discharge on July 26, 1937. At the time of the
hearing Waller held both the rate and billing clerkships.
In the uptown office Collier had seniority over Kell, Strowger,
Waller, and Shute. None, except Kell, were members of the Union.
Collier testified that he felt qualified to fill their positions, except that
of Waller suite he lacked knowledge of rates. Shute had served as
traffic solicitor for the respondents for 5 years. Strowger's employ-
ment in the claims department, however, dated only from February
1937. Previous to that his experience had been limited to general
office work during two summer vacation periods in the respondents'
uptown Portland office. Collier had seniority over Arnold, the O. S.
& D. clerk, Barr, and Wigg and Kretzmeier, Barr's assistants, at the
clock. The respondents had notice of Arnold's position as member
of the Union's negotiating committee. Barr and Wigg also belonged
to the Union but the record is barren of any evidence which indicates
that the respondents knew of their union affiliation prior to the hear-
ing. Kretzmeier's experience in the paymaster and timekeeper's
office dated only from April 23, 1937. - Before that he was engaged in
general clerical work in the dock office.
George Kell's employment with the respondents began on August 1,
1934, as an assistant in the cashier's department, the position which
he retained until August 17, 1937, when he was transferred to the dock
office for a period of 3 weeks. He was discharged on September 8,
1937. According to Piper, Kell's duties since August 17 have been
divided between the two stenographer-clerks in the cashier's office.
Piper testified that at the time he transferred Kell to the dock he
wished to retain Kell in the employ of the respondents, because Kell
had a wife and child, planning to place him in Wigg's job, but that
he later changed his mind when he ascertained that Wigg had ability
as a stenographer, which Kell lacked. The evidence is plain, how-
ever, that a stenographer's services were rarely used at the dock.
Over a period of many years it had long been the practice at the dock
0
0
1288 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the typist to take dictation for transcription directly on the type-
writer or to copy from manuscript. Kell had seniority over Strowger,
whose tenure in the claims department had been brief, in the uptown
office. Kell testified that from inspectors' reports, which had come to
his attention in the course of his work in the cashier's office, he learned
the type of information which was required in the inspection of
damaged cargo. He felt qualified to fill Strowger's position. In the
dock office Kell had seniority over Barr and Kretzmeier. Before his
employment with the respondents Kell served for approximately 1
year as head night timekeeper for the Long Bell Lumber Company,
Longview, Washington.
George Cron was first employed by the respondents on August 7,
1934, as dock typist, the position which he retained until his discharge
on July 26, 1937. At the uptown office Cron had seniority over
Strowger. Cron testified that he felt qualified to fill Strowger's place.
In the dock office, Cron had seniority over Barr and Kretzmeier.
Shortly before Evans' discharge, which occurred on April 23, 1937,
Steele offered Cron Evans' position, as assistant in the paymaster's
and timekeeper's office, but Cron did not accept Steele's proposal
because Cron feared that he might make errors in the new position
which could be used as a pretext for his discharge for union activities.
Instead Kretzmeier was given Evans' position. Although Piper
testified that he consulted with the department heads in making his
selections, at another point in his testimony he admitted that he
planned to eliminate Collier, Cron, and Kell a "considerable" period
before they were discharged.
According to Piper the respondents did not regard seniority as
controlling in the matter of discharges, lay-off s, and promotions, but
rather were governed by considerations of ability, experience, and the
marital or dependency status of their employees. In any case it is
difficult to believe that Collier-with a record of almost 10 years' serv-
ice with the respondents in the capacity of dock typist, paymaster and
timekeeper, and billing clerk, did not possess the requisite ability
and experience with the available clerical work, thereby compelling
the respondents, as they contend, to release Collier from their employ
in deference to other clerical assistants with shorter employment rec-
ords. Further, when Steele offered Cron a position as assistant in
the paymaster and timekeeper's office, he made no inquiry as to
Cron's previous experience to qualify him for that position. Indeed,
when Steele interviewed Cron with reference to employment, Steele
stated that he "picked some of his best men off the streets." More-
over, in making selections for discharge, the respondents disregarded
Kell's prior experience as chief timekeeper with another company,
which qualified him for positions retained by two dock employees with
less seniority. Again, the respondents did not adopt a natural course
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1289
of conduct when they selected Cron for elimination and retained all
three employees in the paymaster and timekeeper's office in the face
of Cron's greater seniority over two of them, and especially in view
of the fact that the change in schedule decreased, in accordance with
the respondents' estimate, the number of man-hours worked by ship
and dock hourly employees and thus resulted in less available work
for the paymaster and timekeeper's office. In fact, Steele's selection
of Cron is somewhat inconsistent with a statement Steele made to
Cron in the spring of 1937. At that time Steele stated to Cron that
he was "a darn good man" and that Steele did not "want to lose"
Cron.
As a result of the discharges of its officers, the Union was almost
completely disorganized. It surrendered its regular meeting hall.
Union meetings thereafter were irregularly held and infrequently
attended by those members who remained in the respondents' employ.
Under the circumstances, and especially in view of the respondents'
dismissal of qualified employees known to them to be Union officers,
and of no other employees, following closely, in the case of Collier
and Cron, upon the heels of the Union's demand for collective bar-
gaining, and coming shortly, in the case of Kell, after the Union
picketed the respondents' dock, we are convinced that the respondents
utilized the opportunity which the change in sailing schedule afforded
to select Collier, Cron, and Kell for discharge in order to lessen the
membership of the Union among their employees and to weaken the
Union's strength as a collective bargaining agency by depriving the
organization of office workers of the leadership which its officers
provided. In our decision we are supported by the findings and con-
clusions of the Trial Examiner who saw and heard the witnesses.
Accordingly, we find that the respondents discharged C. K. Collier
and George Cron on July 26, 1937, and transferred George Kell from
the uptown to the dock office on August 17, 1937, and discharged him
on September 8, 1937, because of their membership and activities in
the Union. We further find that the respondents have discriminated
against their employees in regard to hire and tenure of -employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
Since his discharge Collier has not been employed elsewhere. Cron
worked for a period of 16 weeks until December 18, 1937, under a
temporary permit as a stevedore at the respondents' dock. He was
employed for the job through the longshoremen's hiring hall. He
testified that his 30-day permit, which had previously been renewed
on several occasions, was not likely to be again renewed since the
amount of work had fallen off. Kell has been employed since October
1, 1937, as an advertising solicitor for a labor publication on a com-
mission basis. From the date of the commencement of such
employment to the time of the hearing, he earned approximately $70.
1290 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Immediately following the longshoremen's strike, which terminated
in August 1934, Burdick, head checker at the respondents' dock,
requested Collier, who, not being a checker, was ineligible to vote,
to cast a ballot in an old Labor Board election in the name of another
employee who was absent from the dock. Collier told Burdick that
he did not know how the absent employee desired to vote. Burdick
replied : "Well, we are going to vote for Luckenbach as a collective
bargaining agency." Collier protested that the respondents could
not with propriety act as an agency to deal with themselves, but
Burdick replied : "Well, that is all settled, and that is what they are
going to do." This incident, which occurred prior to the effective
date of the Act, reflects the respondents' attitude toward labor organi-
zations and the processes of genuine collective bargaining.
During 1936, Wrightson, the respondents' traffic manager, placed
each week on Collier's desk printed propaganda purporting to show
that the maritime strike was "communistic and controlled from
Moscow."
Shortly after the formation of the Union, Steele questioned Arnold
concerning his attendance at a Union meeting: When he learned
from Arnold that he had attended, Steele further sought to learn what
had transpired at the meeting.
Accordingly we find that the respondents, by the interrogation of
their employee as to his Union activities and by making or bringing
to the attention of their employee remarks derogatory to labor organ-
izations, thereby discouraging membership therein, have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since we have found that the respondents discriminated in regard
to the tenure of employment of C. K. Collier, George Cron, and
George Kell, we will require the respondents to offer each of said
persons full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, with back pay.
The respondents contend that they cannot reinstate Collier, Cron,
and Kell to their former or equivalent positions because their former
positions have been abolished and equivalent positions do not exist.
The argument, however, does not bear inspection. The record abun-
dantly,discloses that the prior duties of each of said persons at the
time of his discharge or at the time of the respondents' reorganization
of the office personnel were being performed by other employees at the
time of the hearing as hereinabove indicated in Section III, A.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1291
We shall order the respondents to make each of the discharged
employees whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of his discharge by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date
of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings 8 during said period. We will further order the respondents
to cease and desist from their unfair labor practices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Maritime Office Employees International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Local No. 1-25, is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondents, by discriminating in regard to the tenure of
employment of C. K. Collier, George Cron, and George Kell, and
thereby discouraging membership in the Union, have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
3. The respondents, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, have engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are- unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ents, Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., and Luckenbach Gulf
Steamship Company, Inc., and their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, respectively, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership or activity in Maritime Office Em-
ployees International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
Local No. 1-25, or any other labor organization of their employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees or in
8 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 elsewhere
than for the respondents , 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, Local No. 2590, 8 N. L R B 440.
1292 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition, of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose 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 C. K. Collier and George Cron immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
which each of them held with the respondents prior to their discharge
on July 26, 1937, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, respectively;
(b) Offer to George Kell immediate and full reinstatement to the
position which he formerly. held with the respondents on or about
August 17, 1937, prior to his transfer from his position as assistant
in the cashier's department at the respondents' uptown office to the
position as general clerical assistant at the respondents' dock office,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole the said C. K. Collier and George Cron for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by pay-
mnent to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages from July 26, 1937, the date of
their discharge, to the date of the respondents' offer of reinstatement,
less the net earnings of each of them during that period, respectively;
(d) Make whole the said George Kell for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of his 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, September 8, 1937, to the date of the
respondents' offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that
period;
(e) Post immediately, and keep posted for a period of at least
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to
their employees in conspicuous places at their uptown and dock
offices, Portland, Oregon, stating that the respondents will cease and
desist in the manner set forth in paragraph 1 of this order ;
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITII took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.