Oregon Worsted Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 36 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of OREGON WORSTED COMPANY and UNITED TEXTILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2435
Case No. C-167.-Decided July 16, 1937
Wool Yarn Industry-Strike: provoked by employer's refusal to meet and
negotiate with unionEmployee Status: during strike-Interference, Restraint
or Coercion: wilful interference with and obstruction of an election ordered
by the Board by threats to close and liquidate plant and business; attempts to
influence employees to vote against union ; influencing state conciliation board
to serve interests of employer to detriment of union ; attempts to discredit
union and union leaders ; "planting" bombs in "loyal" workers cars for purpose
of publicity against union ; soliciting individual strikers to return to work ;
interference with strikers and picketing activities by police, violence against
pickets ; strike-breaking employers' association-Reinstatement Ordered,
Strikers: upon application for reinstatement ; displacement of employees hired
at or after date of interference with election ; preference list ordered-Back
Pail: awarded from date of denial of application for reinstatement.
Mr. E. J. Eagen for the Board.
Mr. Abe Eugene Rosenberg, of Portland, Ore., for the respondent.
Mr. K. C. Tanner, of Portland, Ore., for the Union.
Mr. Allan R. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On January 15, 1937, United Textile Workers of America, Local
2435, hereinafter called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), a charge that the
Oregon Worsted Company of Portland, Oregon, respondent herein,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, hereinafter called the Act. On January 22, the National
Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, issued a com-
plaint signed by said Regional Director, alleging that respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) and
Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. In respect to the
unfair labor practices the complaint as amended I alleged in sub-
stance :
'On February 17, 1936, during the hearing , a motion to amend the complaint was
granted.
36
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 37
1. That following a strike on November 5, 1936, at respondent's
plant, an election was scheduled to be held on December 21, 1936,
among respondent's employees, pursuant to a direction of the Board,
in case numbered R-111; and that respondent, through its officers
and agents, made and caused to be circulated false statements with
the purpose of intimidating its employees to vote against the Union
as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining at said
election ;
2. That respondent, through its officers and agents, has made and
caused to be circulated false and derogatory statements about the
Union, its officers, and active members, in a campaign to discredit
the Union and discourage membership therein;
3. That by these and other enumerated acts, threats, and state-
ments, respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly
served on the parties. On January 26, 1937, respondent filed a
motion to dismiss, and an answer to the complaint; on March 12,
1937, it filed an answer to the motion to amend the complaint. In
its answer to the amended complaint, respondent denied that it had
engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices therein
alleged, admitted that an election had been scheduled, pursuant to a
direction of the Board, for December 21, 1936; and alleged, among
other affirmative defenses, that on petition of the Union, the direc-
tion of election had been vacated. It claimed that the Act is un-
constitutional and in any case inapplicable to it because neither
its business nor labor relations is in or affects interstate commerce.
On February 25, 1937, the Board filed its reply to the affirmative
defenses set forth in respondent's answer.
Pursuant to notices duly served, a hearing was held in Portland,
Oregon, on February 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and again on March 25,
1937, by Towne J. Nylander, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Board. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issue was
afforded all parties.
Counsel for respondent moved to strike paragraphs.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12, of the complaint as failing to allege violations of the Act, and
paragraph 13 of the complaint as alleging conclusions of law sup-
ported by no allegations of fact. These motions the Trial Examiner
denied. Much testimony and several exhibits were introduced in
evidence over the objections of counsel for respondent. At the con-
clusion of the testimony in support of the complaint, counsel for
respondent renewed his motion to dismiss the complaint upon the
49446-38-vol. m-4
38 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grounds set forth in his original motion to dismiss, and upon the
further ground .that the evidence failed to sustain the allegations of
the complaint. This motion the Trial Examiner denied. As evi-
dence in behalf of respondent, counsel for respondent offered to prove
the comparative wage rates in the wool textile industry. This offer
was rejected by the Trial Examiner, whereupon respondent rested
and offered no further testimony in support of its case.
Upon the record thus made, the Trial Examiner, on March 26, 1937,
filed an Intermediate Report finding and concluding that respondent
had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) and Section 2, subdivisions (6)
and (7) of the Act, and recommending that respondent cease and
desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees,
including those on strike, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act; that respondent distribute to its striking em-
ployees, issue to the press, and post in its plant notices stating that
it would cease and desist from such interference, restraint, and coer-
cion; and that respondent file with the Regional Director for the
Nineteenth Region a report, within a stated time, showing the man-
ner and form of its compliance with the foregoing recommendations.
No exceptions were filed to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on
motions and on objections to the introduction of evidence and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. As set forth below, we also find that the evidence supports
the findings and conclusions made by the Trial Examiner in his
Intermediate Report that respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
division (1), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS 2
The Company is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Oregon. Its principal office and place of busi-
ness is in Portland, Oregon, where it is engaged in the business of
2 This finding is taken verbatim from a decision of the Board, dated December 9, 1936,
(Case No. R1-111, 2 N. L. R B. 417), which in turn was taken with some modifications
from a decision of the Board, dated June 11, 1936, (Case No. C-65, 1 N L. R B. 915), the
parties in both proceedings being the same as in the instant mattes. A certified copy of
the testimony given by Roy T Bishop, president and manager of the Company, at the
hearing which resulted in the decision of the Board in Case No. C-65, describing the
business of the Company, was admitted in evidence in the instant case, together with
a certified copy of the testimony of other witnesses, substantially paralleling Bishop's
testimony, at the hearing which resulted in the decision of the Board in Case No R-111.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 39
converting wool into yarn, and selling and distributing the yarn.
It is the only mill of its kind west of the Mississippi River. There
are approximately 100 such mills in the United States, most of them
located along the Atlantic Coast. Its mill, which is valued at ap-
proximately $200,000, normally employs* about 500 workers.,
Wool, the principal raw material used in the manufacture of yarn,
is purchased by the Company mainly from dealers in Portland, Ore-
gon, although the points of origin of about 60 per cent of all the
wool utilized by it are in States other than Oregon. Part of its
wool purchases is made by a buyer who travels in and through the
States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. On occasions, Roy T.
Bishop, president of the Company and manager of its mill, purchases
wool while in States other than Oregon. The demand for yarn, in-
dicated through orders and anticipated orders, determine the amount
and quality of wool purchased. The greater proportion of supplies,
including dyes, emulsion of oil, salt, soap, cartons, and labels, are
obtained by the Company in States other than Oregon, while boxes
and motor oil are purchased locally. Railroads, trucks, and, infre-
quently, boats are the instrumentalities for delivery of wool and
supplies to the mill. Fifteen per cent of the Company's wool pur-
chases from States other than Oregon are consigned to the Company,
the remainder to dealers, banks, and brokers.
Upon delivery to the receiving department of the mill, the raw
wool is sorted and cleaned by a series of processes ; the fibres are
combed, straightened and sorted, and then rolled into balls or tops,
some of which are dyed. The tops are stored for use in the manu-
facture of yarn as needed. Depending on the desired yarn, tops are
blended, the fibres are further refined, wound on spools, doubled
and redoubled, depending on the desired consistency, drawn fine, and
spun into yarn. The single fibres of yarn are twisted and made into
two, three, and four "ply", heeled into skeins, inspected, bundled,
and placed in a stockroom preparatory to shipment or dyeing and
shipment. The three general types of yarn so produced are hand
yarn for sale to retailers, and machine and weaving yarn for the
manufacture of fabrics. The total annual production of the mill is
valued at about $1,500,000. There are two shipping departments in
the mill, one for general shipments and another for hand-yarn ship-
ments, the latter being in the hand-yarn department. A total of 10
to 13 employees is engaged in the two shipping departments, where
the yarn is balled, bundled, labeled, and prepared for shipment.
The destination of a portion of the finished yarn is known to the
Company in some instances throughout and in others during only
a part of the above-described process. The dyeing of wool tops
and yarn in colors other than standard is done only upon order.
40 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Yarn destined for shipment to the Jantzen Knitting Mills 8 is marked
"Jantzen" "New York." Ninety-three per cent of the Company's
sales are made through its sales agencies operating on a commission
or salary basis in New York City and Los Angeles and San Fran-
cisco, California. In San Francisco its sales agency is the Maypole
Dye Works, a corporation of which Bishop is president and whose
stock is substantially owned by the Company. In the conveyance
of yarn to the three sales agencies, and to others, all forms of trans-
portation are used. The Company owns and operates a truck, and
also engages an independent trucking agency, to deliver the fin-
ished goods to railroad freight sheds, shipping docks, and other
means of transportation. The Company is consignee on 75 per cent
of all such shipments, and pays the freight charges. About 98 per
cent of the hand yarn, constituting 20 per cent -of the Company's
total production, is sold to large merchandising concerns such as
Woolworth's, Kresge's, and Penney's. Its machine and weaving
yarn is sold principally to weaving mills and knitting mills in the
North Atlantic States.
In the purchase of wool, the conversion of wool into yarn, and
the sale and distribution of yarn, the Company's operations thus
extend across the country from coast to coast in a closely integrated
economic enterprise for the purposes of trade. The Company is
vitally dependent upon interstate transportation facilities and the
continuous flow of commerce among the states. In turn, the weav-
ing and knitting industries are in part dependent upon it, approxi-
mately 80 per cent of its finished products being utilized by those
industries. Certain of the Company's employees are directly en-
gaged in the receipt, preparation for shipment, and transportation
of wool, supplies, and yarn.
II. THE UNION
United Textile Workers of America, affiliated with the Committee
for Industrial Organization, is a nation-wide labor organization
which admits to membership employees working in the textile in-
dustry. In the spring of 1934, organization was begun among re-
spondent's employees. On March 18, 1935, the Union, which had
been formed during this period, received from the parent organiza-
tion a separate charter as Local 2435 with jurisdiction over all the
employees in respondent's plant.
8 The Application for Permanent Registration under Section 12 (b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 of Securities Temporarily Registered , filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission by Jantzen Knitting Mills on March 30, 1935, although not intro-
duced in evidence, is a public document , and we take notice of the following facts stated
therein: that Jantzen Knitting Mills and its French subsidiary, Societe Anoyme "Jantzen",
manufacture and sell to retailers swimming suits ; that a subsidiary of Jantzen Knitting
Mills, Jantzen ( Australia ) Limited, manufactures and sells swimming suits and sports
wear ; and that Jantzen Knitting Mills and its subsidiaries sell their products in the
principal countries of the world , either directly or through licenses.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 41
III. PAST RELATIONS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE UNION
The history of respondent's relations with the Union has been
marked by constant strife and an unwavering determination to
defeat the self-organization of its employees. In Case No. C-65,
decided June 11, 1936 (supra), we reviewed this history up to No-
vember, 1935, and ordered the reinstatement with back pay of Sidney
Girard, president of the Union, discharged for union activities, and
the disestablishment of the Employees Council, as the creature of
respondent's determination never to recognize the Union. Respond-
ent has not complied with this order of the Board. In Case No.
R-111, decided December 9, 1936 (supra), we reviewed the history
of respondent's labor relations during September and November of
1936, found that respondent's persistent refusal to deal with the
Union had resulted in a strike of respondent's employees which
affected commerce, and directed an election to be held among the
production, maintenance, and shipping department employees at
respondent's plant. The complaint in the case before us now arises
from respondent's interference with this election and with its strik-
ing employees.
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with the election
On November 3, 1936, the Union sent Roy T. Bishop, president
and manager of the respondent, a registered letter stating that if
the respondent continued to refuse to meet with the Union to bar-
gain collectively with reference to the wages, hours, and working
conditions of the production, maintenance, and shipping department
employees at respondent's plant, the Union would call a strike to
enforce its demands. This letter was received but not answered.
On November 5, 1936, the strike began and the plant closed down.
Immediately, respondent, through its president, embarked on a
campaign to break the strike. Bishop testified that on November 5,
1936, immediately after the employees went on strike, he made a
public announcement that he would shut down the mill before he
Would bargain with the Union. On November 9, 1936, at the hear-
ing on the petition of the Union for an election and certification
of representatives, Abe Eugene Rosenberg, counsel for respondent
in that as well as in this proceeding, stated that since November
5th, respondent's operations had been definitely terminated, and
arrangements were then being made to liquidate its accounts re-
ceivable, inventory, and equipment. Contending that as a result of
this situation the issues in the proceeding had become moot, counsel
for the respondent withdrew from further participation in the hear-
ing, On November 29, a front page article in the Sunday Oregonian,
42
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
describing developments in the strike situation at the plant of the
Oregon Worsted Company, quoted Bishop as having announced that
he would close the plant and liquidate the assets.4 Bishop testified
that when the Morning Oregonian, of November 30 quoted him as
having said, "We do not care to be guinea pigs for social security
laboratory experiments," he had made the statement in connection
with his purpose to liquidate or to continue to liquidate.
On December 9, 1936, the Board issued its decision directing an
election by secret ballot to be held among the production, shipping,
and maintenance department employees who were on respondent's
pay roll next preceding the date of the strike of November 5, 1936,
to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the
Union. Of respondent's contention that the issues had become moot
because the mill was closed clown and respondent intended to liqui-
date its assets, we said "(It) does not rise to the dignity of an
argument. The operations at the mill ceased as the result of the
strike, and intentions in such industrial situations are notoriously
mercurial." The Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region sched-
uled the election for December 21, 1936.
Immediately upon receipt of the decision, Bishop directed his at-
tack against the Union's chances of victory at the election. The
Oregonian of December 14, 1936, carried the following story : "Mr.
Bishop said that he did not see how an election among the employees
could affect the present situation since the plant is closed and its offi-
cers proceeding toward liquidation. `The employees walked out or
were forced out by intimidation', said Mr. Bishop. `We were ad-
vised by the Union substantially that the only way we could start
up again would be by a recognition of the Union for collective bar-
gaining. We don't care to operate under those conditions.' " As the
day for the election drew nearer, Bishop increased the intensity of
his campaign. Between December 17 and 21, some of the girls who
were out on strike were sought out and told that unless they voted
against the Union, the plant would liquidate and they would not go
back to )work.5 On December 19, Bishop played his trump card.
The State Conciliation Board had been requested by Mayor Joseph
K. Carson of Portland, Oregon, on November 28, 1936, to entertain
the controversy between the Union and respondent. Dr. W. G. Ever-
son, chairman of the Board, communicated with the labor and em-
ployer representatives of the Board, and on December 17th, went into
the merits of the controversy. At that time, he requested Bishop to
issue a so-called "statement of opposition" with reference to the con-
troversy. On December 19th, the State Conciliation Board notified the
press and interested parties to appear. At this meeting, counsel for
4 Board Exhibit No 19
' By whom the girls were solicited is not clear from the record,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 43
respondent read and distributed to the press a prepared statement,
reading in part :
The Oregon Worsted Company has decided that it cannot rec-
ognize Local 2435 of the United Textile Workers of America as
the representative of its employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining and operate its plant at the same time * * *. The
strike was * * * declared and the Company, clue to the in-
consistent policy of the Union, its lack of stability and lack of
purpose was forced to decide to liquidate. Since said date (No-
vember 5) liquidation has been going on and is now in process.
* * * Accordingly there will be no further operation of the
Oregon Worsted Company if such operation depends upon recog-
nition of Local No. 2435 of the United Textile Workers of
America as the representative of the employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining."
Present before the State Conciliation Board when this statement
was read were two representatives from the Union, two from the
non-union employees, two members who claimed to be dissatisfied
with the Union, and representatives of two newspapers. On the next
morning, December 20, the Sunday Oregonian carried on its front
page a story quoting Bishop's decision that the Oregon Worsted
Company would remain closed rather than recognize the Union. On
page 8 of the same issue it carried a full column story, referring to
the election which was to be conducted on the following day by the
National Labor Relations Board, describing the meeting with the
State Conciliation Board, and ending with the quotation given above,
from the prepared statement read by counsel for respondent."'
The effect on the striking members of the Union was all that re-
spondent could have desired. What Bishop's public announcements,
his statements to the newspapers, and the solicitation of girl strikers
were unable to accomplish in the earlier clays of the strike, this delib-
erately prepared statement of Bishop's attorney, made to the State
Board of Conciliation, on the eve of the election, succeeded in accom-
plishing. Dorothy Vallereux, a striker, testified that she thought "it
was an idle rumor until the statement came out in the paper and I
saw the statement there". On December 20, the Union petitioned the
Regional office of the National Labor Relations Board to call off the
election, and on December 21, the day of the election, the Board
vacated its direction.
"It was cancelled at the request of the Union", announced Bishop,
through the columns of the Oregonian of the next morning. "It was
instituted through the Union itself, which is run by a small group
Board Exhibit No 8
7 Union Exhibit No. 17.
44
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of racketeers. When these racketeers realized that our employees
would vote against the Union, they hastily called the election off." 8
Were Bishop's statements and the statements of counsel for the
respondent with regard to liquidation made in good faith, or were
they made, as alleged in the complaint, falsely with the purpose of
intimidating its employees and causing them to vote against the
Union in the scheduled election? The proceedings before the State
Board of Conciliation on December 19, and the opening of respond-
ent's plant following the State Board's recommendation on December
22, 1936, help to supply the answer.
On the afternoon of Tuesday, December 22, after a day and a half
of conference, the State Conciliation Board issued the following
recommendations for settling the controversy :
THE OREGON WORSTED COMPANY,
Portland, Oregon.
,Dear Sirs: The State Board of Conciliation makes the request
of the Oregon Worsted Company to reopen its plant at the earli-
est possible date. The following terms and conditions are
recommended :
1. There shall be no restriction nor discrimination.
2. Local No. 2435 United Textile Workers will withdraw pick-
ets, also drop charges brought against the Oregon Worsted Com-
pany before the National Labor Relations Board or any other
body or court.
3. That the State Board of Conciliation will be consulted
before serious difficulty arises in the future and before any open
break.
4. Local No. 2435 United Textile Workers to present to this
Board any charges that it may have in the future against the
Oregon Worsted Company in the event such charges could be
brought before any other body or tribunal.
5. The Oregon Worsted Company will reopen its employment
opportunities without prejudice to union or non-union members.
6. We are presenting this recommendation to Local No. 2435
United Textile Workers and sincerely trust that this mill will
be opened immediately and with everybody happy.
Thanking you for your help and consideration and with sin-
cere wishes that a return to normal employment may be your
Happy Christmas for 1936.
Cordially yours,
WM. G. EVERSON, Chairman,
JOHN O'NEILL, Sec.,
CHAS. N. RYAN,
Members Oregon State Board of Conciliation.9
6 Union Exhibit No. 18.
e Board Exhibit No. 9.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 45
Dr. Everson testified that the considerations which prompted the
State Board to issue these recommendations were a study of the facts
and a desire to get the strikers back to work by Christmas. Upon
the whole record, however, and especially from the testimony of
Dr. Everson, it is clear that the State Board of Conciliation was
little more than the willing servant of Bishop and his determina-
tion to break the Union and the strike. Dr. Everson admitted, and
the record completely bears him out, that the State Board did not
go thoroughly into the merits of the controversy. It did, however,
take information from the management with reference to the wage
scale and other points in dispute without obtaining similar informa-
tion from the Union. At the time its recommendations were being
typed, Mr. Rosenberg, respondent's attorney, and Mr. Bishop, its
president, were in an adjoining room, and immediately upon being
handed the recommendations delivered in return a letter of accept-
ance conditioned only on the State Board's retaining jurisdiction
to carry out its recommendations. Dr. Everson testified that para-
graph two of the recommendations-that the Union drop charges
brought against respondent before the National Labor Relations
Board or any other body or court-"may have been suggested" by
Mr. Rosenberg, and in reference to that paragraph testified that
Union officials had furnished him copies of three decisions going to
the merits of the controversy between the Union and respondent : a
decision of the Textile Labor Relations Board, ordering respondent
to rehire certain named employees; a decision of the National Labor
Relations Board, ordering the disestablishment of the Employees
Council, as a company union, and the reinstatement with back pay
of Sidney Girard, discharged because of union activities (Case No.
C-65, supra) ; and a decision of the National Labor Relations Board
finding that because of respondent's refusal to bargain collectively
with the Union, a question of representation affecting commerce had
arisen , and directing an election among respondent's employees (Case
No. R-111, supra). Dr. Everson testified that he had read and knew
the nature of these decisions, but that he had made no inquiry as to
whether these decisions had been complied with. Dr. Everson also
testified that the State Board did not know and was not concerned
with the fact that there were pending in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County damage suits filed by certain aggrieved union
members against the respondent for alleged breach of contract.lo
As to the decisions of the Textile Board and the National Labor
Relations Board, Dr. Everson testified that he had reason to believe
that respondent had not complied with the orders therein, but had
never suggested to Bishop that he should comply.
10 In view of the State Board's ignorance of such court actions brought by union mem-
bers, it appears reasonably certain that at least the provision in paragraph 2 referring
to the dropping of charges before any court was suggested by copnsel for respondent,
46 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The attitude of the State Board toward these charges and the
decisions rendered by the Textile Labor Relations Board and the
National Labor Relations Board, was succinctly expressed by Dr.
Everson : "* * * we felt that if these people went back to work,
instead of going to work with a chip on their shoulder, we felt that
they should go back to wvork' in good faith, instead of trumping up
something else and rehashing it. We tried to eliminate all the ob-
structions that we could. We wanted them to go back to work in the
right spirit and do so without having in their mind the trumping up
of something else. * * *"
From the hostility thus exhibited by Dr. Everson toward the con-
tentions of the Union, the close cooperation between the State Board
and respondent, the failure of the State Board sufficiently to hear
the merits of the controversy, and its deliberate disregard of the
findings, orders, and decisions of two Federal agencies with reference
to past and current anti -union activities of respondent, we cannot fail
to conclude that the State Board exhibited a flagrant bias toward
respondent which utterly belied its position as an impartial agency
for conciliation. From the whole record, including the manner in
which the hearing before the State Board was conducted, the partici-
pation of counsel for respondent in the formulation of at least part
of the State Board's recommendations, and the immediate acceptance
of these recommendations by respondent, we find that respondent
caused the State Board to serve and further the interests of respondent
to the detriment of the Union. Thus, the State Board became merely
another weapon in respondent's war against the Union-a weapon
of strategic importance because ostensibly two-edged and professedly
wielded by an impartial hand.
Following the State Board's recommendations, on the night of
December 22, 1936, at 10 P. M., Bishop came to the conclusion that
lie would reopen his plant. At eight o'clock the next morning the
mill began operations, and several hundred postcards were mailed
to employees asking them to return to work. Behind the Union's
picket line the machinery was running; smoke was coming out of
the flue; there was "a look of prosperity down there", Bishop ad-
mitted, such as to make his employees think the strike was broken.
Had they returned that morning, he testified, they could have gone
to work.
It is plain from this circumstance alone that respondent's numer-
ous statements to the press, and the prepared statement of December
19, read to the State Board of Conciliation and distributed to the
press, to the effect that respondent was liquidating, were not made
in good faith, but were, on the contrary, completely false and made
for the purpose of intimidating its employees, discouraging member-
ship in the Union, and breaking the strike. Despite statements made
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 47
as early in the controversy as November 9 and frequently repeated
to the very eve of the election a month and one half later, that the
Company was in the process of liquidating its accounts receivable,
assets, and equipment, that its operations were definitely terminated,
that liquidation has been going on since the beginning of the strife,
nevertheless the plant was ready to operate with a full crew only a
few hours after the State Board had made its recommendations.
From this alone, it is clear that none of the concomitants of liquida-
tion had occurred. In addition, Bishop testified that between No-
vember 5 and December 22, no equipment had been permanently dis-
mantled. Bands were taken off the machines to ease the tension of
the leather when not in use, and rolls were loosened so that work
standing idle would not deteriorate, but the footings had not been
taken up, nor had the bolts been removed from the concrete, and the
plant was ready at all times during this period to operate on a few
hours notice. On its pay roll during this entire period, respondent
had 31 men, including officers, bookkeepers, shippers, caretakers, and
at least three of its foremen or overseers, none of whom were at any
time engaged in permanently dismantling, the plant or liquidating
respondent's inventory, accounts receivable, or equipment. From
the date of the hearing on November 9, when counsel for respondent
stated that operations had definitely terminated, respondent was con-
tinually engaged in purchasing and taking options on wool. On
December 18, the day before it presented a prepared statement to the
State Board, declaring that it had been forced to liquidate, respond-
ent was in attendance at an auction sale- where large quantities of
wool were being sold. Although Bishop denied that he had refused
to sell a large quantity of wool on hand, to a prospective customer,
who came to buy and left without buying, his denial is not convincing,
especially in view of the reluctant, contradictory, and evasive testi-
mony of the witness on almost every major point in dispute. It is
plain from the record, and we so find, that at no time did respondent
intend to liquidate its property and that its widely publicized threats
were intended as a means of interfering with, coercing, and restrain-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and of wilfully impeding and interfering with the elec-
tion which had been directed by this Board.
B. Attempts to discredit the Union
Between December 31, 1936 and January 2, 1937, during the course
of the strike, four "loyal" employees working at respondent's plant
discovered crudely fashioned dynamite bombs attached to the engines
of their automobiles. The bombs were all of 'similar manufacture,
and similarly attached. They were unquestionably placed according
to a single plan.
48 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Clarence Hopp, foreman and overseer in respondent's plant, testi-
fied that he found such a bomb in his car shortly after noon on De-
cember 31, 1936. He testified that when he drove his car to work that
morning, the car was functioning normally; that he parked his car
in a shed located on the grounds of respondent's plant; that shortly
after noon he drove the car from the plant to downtown Portland,
a distance of approximately five miles; and that he then turned the
car over to his wife, who remarked to him that the engine was not
"hitting right." He testified that on his way back to the plant, as he
passed the Francis Motor Company, it occurred to him to drive in
and ascertain the trouble. He was alone. He stated that immedi-
ately after driving in to the garage, without waiting for an attend-
ant, he lifted the hood of the car and found a stick of dynamite, five
inches long and two inches in diameter, set below the fan belt, be-
tween the cylinder block and the radiator, and attached to the motor
by two wires, one running to a spark plug, the other to a cylinder
block nut. He testified that he pulled the stick of dynamite out by
the wires, threw it in the back of the car, and drove back to the plant.
No one at the Francis Motor Company, he testified, had worked on
the car or seen him enter or leave. On his return to respondent's
plant, Hopp testified that he showed the bomb to Arthur Sirianni,
plant electrician. Sirianni pulled the wires out of the dynamite,
took the dynamite cap into his shop, and while exploding it, injured
himself slightly.
Immediately after it became known that a bomb had been found in
Clarence Hopp's car, Carl Johnson, another "loyal" worker, em-
ployed in the maintenance department in respondent's plant, ran out
to the shed where he had parked his car beside that of Clarence Hopp
and found attached to the engine of his car a similar bomb, similarly
wired. Captain William C. Epps of the Portland Police Depart-
ment, who had been called to respondent's plant by Bishop, testified
f hat in the presence of Johnson and others he had ordered the police
officers in charge not to remove the dynamite before the motor had
been examined for fingerprints and the bomb had been photographed.
Despite these orders, Sergeant Dodele of the State Police and John-
son detached the bomb, without objection from the other officers, and
delivered it to the officers of the city police.
Later that day, according to the testimony of Detective O. A.
Powell of the Portland Police Department, Walter Koenig, another
"Joyal" employee, who had been working at respondent's plant dur-
ingthe strike, noticed that the hood of his car, which had been
parked for two days in the garage at his home, had been disturbed,
and upon examining the engine discovered a similar bomb, similarly
wired to the motor. Detective Powell, who began his investigation
for the Police Department on the next day, after uniformed police
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 49
had been there, saw neither the automobile nor the bomb, because
Koenig had moved the car to the home of a relative and had thrown
the dynamite into the river.
On the morning of January 1, 1937, according to the testimony
of Detective Powell, A. J. Hoenish, also a "loyal" worker, employed
as a night watchman at respondent's plant and a cousin of Clarence
Hopp, was pushing his car out of the garage at his home when he
found, attached to its motor, a similar bomb, wired in the same man-
ner as the other three bombs. Detectives Powell and W. E. Williams
testified that Glen Harms, Bertillon expert for the Portland Police
Department, had removed the bomb, and thrown the dynamite stick,
cap, and wiring into the river. The officers made no investigation
beyond asking Hoenish when and how he found the bomb.
On January 2, 1937, Bishop issued the following statement which
appeared in an article on the front page of the Oregon Journal of '
that date: "Whoever is placing the bombs in our workers autos is
prompted by a small group of racketeers who have instigated the
whole controversy. They are now using the same kind of tactics
employed to get company employees to join the Union. And now
they are trying to scare company officials the same way. I have no
idea who the individuals are. I understand the police have taken
fingerprints off several bombs and are working from that angle. Our
employees, those working and those on the outside are homemakers.
They have no part in such terroristic activities. It is the work of
racketeers." 11 From the context of this statement and from Bishop's
testimony, it is clear that in referring to "a small group of racketeers"
Bishop was accusing the leaders of the Union, and his purpose, as
he himself testified, was to put union activities generally and a
"group of Union racketeers" into disrepute.
The record abundantly proves that the bombs were placed in the
automobiles, not by union members or sympathizers, but by those
working in respondent's mill, and that Bishop not only knew that
there were no circumstances tending to link the Union or any of its
members with those acts, but had admitted to the detectives of the
Portland Department that those working in the mill were probably
the ones responsible.
Both Clarence Hopp and Carl Johnson, whose cars had been
parked in a shed located on the grounds of respondent's plant on
December 31, testified that their cars were functioning normally on
the way to work that morning. The circumstances plainly indicate
that the dynamite bombs had been placed in the cars after they
arrived on company property and were parked in the shed. Several
police officers, stationed at various points at or near the plant, to keep
" Union Exhibit No. 14.
50 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watch on the pickets, testified that they patrolled the premises
throughout the morning, from before the time Hopp and Johnson
drove their cars into the plant until after the bombs were discovered,
that they had a clear view of the shed from where they were patrol-
ling, that there was also a clear view of the shed from the platform
or floor of the mill, and that during this time they saw no
stranger or picket from outside enter the plant. Officer Michael E.
Lillis of the Portland Police Department , who had patrolled the pre-
mises all morning with Officer Burmeister, stated that he did not think
it would have been possible for any outsider to come in and place a
bomb in the car, that he was familiar with the faces of the employees
working in the plant and that he would have recognized and halted
any stranger who appeared on the premises . Detectives Strong and
Westcott of the Portland Police Department reported that they were
unable to find anyone that saw any outsider or ex-employee around
the yard.' 2
On the other hand, Arthur Sirianni , plant electrician , whose duties
gave him the freedom of the plant, had been engaged, from ten
o'clock of that morning until after the bombs were discovered, in
installing a heater in a police car, in close proximity to the shed
where Johnson's and Hopp's cars had been parked. . Sirianni ad-
mitted that with the exception of the officers he was the only person
in the vicinity of the cars that morning . He also testified that he
had never seen a stick of dynamite before, and if there had been
any dynamite used at the plant in the past, he never had had any
dealings with it. This testimony was flatly contradicted by a wit-
ness who testified that in the spring of 1935, when an old boiler
factory at respondent 's plant was being razed , he had seen Sirianni
using dynamite. Sirianni further denied any knowledge of or com-
plicity in the placing of the dynamite bombs. In view, however, of
the evasive, almost hysterical, and decidedly untrustworthy nature
of his testimony , we are satisfied that, at the very least, Sirianni
knew more about the placing of the bombs than he was willing to
reveal, and that his inadvertent injury when he exploded the dyna-
mite cap found in Hopp's car arose from his haste to destroy valu-
able evidence which might have assisted in leading to the apprehen-
sion of the person responsible for placing the bombs in the other
cars.
Of the four "loyal" employees , Clarence Hopp was the only one
to start his motor or drive his car after the dynamite had been
placed in it. From the description given of the bomb, its size and
dimensions , and from the description of the front part of the motor
from which it was supposed to have been taken, we are convinced
" Respondent ' s Exhibit No ], Ancillary Proceeding.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 51
that the testimony of the witness Hopp is not to be credited. There
is sufficient evidence in the record of experiments made by an expert
for the Union with dummy bombs of the same size and dimensions,
attached in the same way, to the same model of motor, to indicate
beyond a reasonable doubt that such an object could not have been
placed where the witness testified that he found it without having
made its presence known and without having been torn to bits by
the revolving fan.
On the clay the bombs were found, the detectives who interviewed
Bishop reported that he was unable to give them any information or
suspicion as to who had placed the bombs. Later, however, when
they advised Bishop that they suspected the employees who had
returned to work, he stated that he knew all these employees, knew
something about their background either through church or family
affiliations, and trusted every one of them. At the time Bishop
made this statement, however, he admitted to the detectives that "it
looks like the work of someone from inside" and discounted the
possibility of someone coming in from outside the plant to do it. 13
From the whole record we find that Bishop's statement, appearing
in the Oregon Journal of January 2, 1937, placing the blame for the
dynamite incidents upon the Union, and accusing the Union leaders
of being racketeers responsible for terroristic activities, was utterly
without foundation, contrary to the available information, and un-
scrupulously issued for the purpose of bringing the Union into dis-
repute, discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing respondent's employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On December 31, 1936, before the police investigation, respondent
made a gift of an automobile heater to Lieutenant Benjamin F. Wade
of the Portland Police Department, one of the officers in charge of
the police detail at respondent's plant. This heater was installed by
Arthur Sirianni on the morning when the bombs were found. No
charges of any kind were made to Lieutenant Wade or to the Police
Department for either the heater or its installation. Following the
discovery of the bombs, the Portland Police Department sent three
groups of investigators to respondent's plant and to the homes of
A. J. Hoenish and Walter Koenig, where for several clays they pur-
ported to conduct an investigation. Despite the admission of Bishop
that it looked like the work of some one from the inside, no attempt
was made to find out whether any of respondent's "loyal" employees
had access to any dynamite stored in respondent's plant. Despite
the fact that "loyal" employees told stories which were inherently
improbable, removed three of the bombs before they were seen by
n Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, Ancillary Proceeding
52 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the detective or police, threw one bomb in the river, and destroyed
the cap of another, no satisfactory investigation was made of their
motives or movements prior to the discovery of the bombs. In the
case of the bomb found in Carl Johnson's car, Sergeant Dodele testi-
fied that he did not compare it with the bomb found in the adjacent
car belonging to Clarence Hopp, because he did not want to inter-
fere with the Portland Police ; but he pulled out the bomb from
Johnson's car, despite the orders of Captain Epps of the Portland
Police not to remove it before it had been photographed and finger-
printed. The bomb found in the car belonging to A. J. Hoenish
was thrown into the river, cap, wiring, and all, by detectives from
the Portland Police Department. The record plainly discloses that
the police and detectives made superficial examinations, evasive re-
ports, destroyed the evidence, and in general acted in such a manner
as to cast grave doubt on the good faith and motive behind the
purported investigation.
C. Use of violence
On the afternoon of February 2, 1937, pickets threw snowballs and
cried "scab" at "loyal" workers as they left the plant. No arrests
were made and no one was seriously injured. Seven police officers and
approximately 60 pickets were on duty. On the next afternoon Bishop
went to the Police Department and asked for additional protection.
The number of police officers was increased to 35. The number of
pickets remained the same. At 4: 30 p. m. on February 3, as the
"loyal" workers left the plant, some in a high-boarded truck, others
walking, Claude Stennet, a union employee of respondent and one of
the pickets, shook his overcoat and cried "Boo, Jakie !" at one of the
"loyal" employees. Seven eye witnesses testified that immediately
following this, as Stennet turned away, a policeman identified as Offi-
cer Cambas of the Portland Police Department struck him repeatedly
on the head with his club from behind and beat him down into the
snow until he was unconscious. "Chuck" Reimer was standing nearby.
"For God's sake", he said, "Don't hit that man any more." Reimer, a
former president of the Union, was employed at a brewery nearby
and had not been an employee of respondent's since 1934, when
respondent refused to comply with a decision of the Textile Labor
Relations Board ordering his reinstatement.14 Another policeman,
identified as Officer Officer (sic), who stood near Officer Cambas,
shoved Reimer away and told him to "go on up the line." Reimer
answered "0. K." and moved off. He had gone only a short distance
when Officer Cambas said, "Let's get him." The two officers ran after
14 In the Matter of Oregon Worsted Co, Textile Labor Relations Board, Case No. 58,
Final Decision, dated April 23, 1935.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 53
Reimer, overtook him, and beat him with their clubs on the head from
behind, until his face, head , and shoulders were covered with blood,
and the snow where he fell was blotched with blood stains.
The testimony of seven eye witnesses , testimony unrefuted although
ample opportunity was given for possible refutation , conclusively
demonstrates that these beatings by the police were without cause or
justification , that they were planned and encouraged by Bishop, and
that they were executed by the Police Department in cooperation with
Bishop for the purpose of terrorizing union members and breaking
the strike.
The activities of the pickets on February 3, 1937, were in no way
different from the activities, of the pickets on previous days ; in fact
several witnesses testified that the pickets were unusually quiet that
day. Alvin Rea, special agent for the Industrial Relations Associa-
tion of Portland, an employers ' organization , testified that he had
been at respondent 's plant at least three times a week since the strike
started and that he had seen no violence for which he would have made
an arrest . Rea has full police powers.
Immediately prior to the police brutalities of February 3, Captain
Epps, the police officer from whom Bishop had sought additional pro-
tection a few hours before, advised 14-year-old "Bob" Gilbert and
several other boys , who were throwing snowballs near the picket line,
"You had better go home, this is no place for kids. We are not going
to monkey around . We mean business ." After Claude Stennet was
beaten, a police officer told Mrs. Erna Erickson , a striker , who went to
Stennet's assistance , "You strikers must be taught a lesson."
Bishop watched the activities of the police from his office window.
As Reimer and Stennet were being placed in the patrol wagon in
front of respondent 's plant, later to be locked up on charges of dis-
orderly conduct , Bishop approached the police , said something to
Lieutenant Wade about "getting results" and added , referring to
Reimer, "You made a mistake , you've got the wrong man." Bishop
denied having made this statement , but three witnesses , two of them
disinterested , testified that they heard him say it. Bishop testified
that he had known Reimer and his family for a number of years, that
he always considered Reimer with a kindly attitude and bore him no
ill will, but that even after he had seen Reimer covered with blood
and badly injured by police clubs, he had approved of what had
occurred.
The testimony relating to the beating of Reimer and Stennet was
admitted by the Trial Examiner over the objection of counsel for
respondent that it occurred after the charge was filed and the com-
plaint issued. The testimony was properly admitted to corroborate
by subsequent acts the testimony supporting the specific allegations bf
49446-3$-vol 111-5
54 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint. Thus, the cooperation of the Portland Police Depart-
ment with respondent on February 3, 1937, throws additional light
on the activities of the Police Department and its purported investiga-
tion of the dynamite bomb incidents in January 1937.
D. Membership in the Industrial Relations Association
In September 1935, when the Industrial Relations Association of
Portland was formed, respondent became one of the original members
at an annual fee of $250. Later, respondent cancelled its direct mem-
bership in the Association and became a member through the Pacific
Coast Wool Manufacturer's Association, receiving the same services
as before. It is still a member, and still receives the services of the
Industrial Relations Association.
The business of the Association is labor relations. It discourages
the making of contracts with unions, is opposed to the majority rule
in collective bargaining, believes in the open shop, and pledges itself
to the "protection of every man in the exercise of his right to,work."
It provides labor spies to employers engaged in thwarting union activi-
ties and furnishes financial aid, private guards, and police protection
to employers engaged in breaking strikes.
During the strike at respondent's plant the Association furnished
to respondent the services of Alvin Rea, special agent of the Associa-
tion, deputized since April 1936, as a special police officer by the
Portland Police Department and by the State of Oregon. Rea's duties
were to confer with Bishop, the police, and Mr. F. Van Landingham,
respondent's personnel manager, and to report these conferences to
the Chief of the Portland Police Department and to Edwin C. Pape,
manager of the Association. In the performance of these duties, Rea
appeared at respondent's plant at least three times a week. Several
times, he escorted "loyal" workers through the picket line.
As one of its services to employers, the Association keeps on file a
list of the names of union members, acquired by means of corrupting
union members to act as labor spies. On occasion, Rea has furnished
these names to Detective Walter O'Dale, in charge of the investigation
of radical activities for the Portland Police Department, who keeps a
file of the names of communists and radicals. O'Dale's list of names
is also acquired in part by means of spies, some of whom, he testified,
"may or may not be" members of unions. These spies are paid by
O'Dale from funds supplied by the Chief of Police. The reports of
police spies are confidential and not available, except to employers and
to the Industrial Relations Association. At the hearing, the City
Attorney refused, in response to a subpoena daces tecum issued by the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 55
Board, to produce reports of espionage, in the possession of Detective
O'Dale, carried on among respondent's employees.
During the course of the strike, Bishop frequently consulted Pape
and Horace B. Mecklem, president of the Association. He consulted
Pape when he closed down the plant on November 5, 1936, and again
before deciding to open the plant on December 23, 1936. He consulted
Pape with regard to suggestions that had been made to him, his policy
on various phases of the strike, and principally, on the question of
wages, hours, and working conditions.
The testimony of Mecklem, Pape, and Bishop as to the relations
between respondent and the Association was evasive, inherently im-
probable, and inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses,
including that of the Association's paid agent,.Alvin Rea. The evi-
dence on this point satisfies us that the Association had more to do
with the respondent's policy toward the strike and its conduct than
either Bishop or the officers of the Association were willing to reveal.
The evidence, however, is so incomplete that we are unable to find, on,
this record, that respondent's membership in or relations with the
Association constituted a violation of any of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
V. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The strike of respondent's employees which occurred on Novem-
ber 5, 1936, resulted in a complete shut-down of the mill. Pickets
were placed around the grounds of the Company and all movements
of goods to and from the mill ceased. Approximately 40,000 to
50,000 pounds of finished yarn, 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of which were
boxed, labelled, and ready to be shipped, and which otherwise would
have been transported to various parts of the United States, re-
mained in the mill. On January 2, 1937, a week after the mill had
reopened, 350 remained on strike and the mill operated with a crew
of only 50. Once before in September and October 1934, a strike
led by the Union seriously affected the stream of goods flowing to
and from the mill.15
Upon the whole record, we find that the activities of respondent
set forth in Section IV above, occurring in connection with the op-
erations of respondent described in Section I above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and have led and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
15 This paragraph is taken from the decision of the Board in Case No R-111 ( supra).
56 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
We have found that respondent impeded and interfered with the
election which the Board by its decision in case numbered R-111
(supra) directed to be held among respondent's employees on De-
cember 21, 1936. In the light of the purposes of the Act and the
experience upon which it is based, we are justified in assuming that
had the election been held when scheduled, respondent's striking
employees would thereafter have returned to work. It does not
lie in the mouth of respondent, whose conduct precluded that pos-
sibility, to assert the contrary. In Matter of Columbia Enamelling
and Stamping Company'16 we ordered the reinstatement of striking
employees as of the day when the employer frustrated attempts at
conciliation, on the ground that by so acting the employer interfered
with a possible settlement of the strike which would have put the
men back to work. In the case before us now, relief is predicated
on similar but even stronger grounds, since respondent's acts of
intimidation, coercion, and restraint occurred in the light of the
Board's direction of an election.
We shall, therefore, order respondent to offer reinstatement to
those of its employees who were on strike on December 21, 1936, the
day on which the election would have been held, dismissing if neces-
sary all employees hired after that date. Our order will also pro-
vide that employees whose application for reinstatement is refused
by respondent in violation of the order herein shall be entitled to
back pay accruing from the date of the refusal of the application
to the date of reinstatement, less any amount earned during that
period.
CONCLUSIONS or LAw
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding, the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law:
1. United Textile Workers of America, Local 2435, is a labor or-
ganization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the
Act.
2. The strike of the employees of respondent is a labor dispute,
within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (9) of the Act.
3. The employees of respondent who are on strike are employees
of respondent, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (3) of
the Act.
4. Respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
16 I N. L. R. B. 81.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 57
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivisions
( 6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Oregon Worsted Company, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
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 purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act;
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
a. Upon application, offer to those employees who were on the
pay roll on November 5, 1936, and on strike on December 21, 1936,
and who have not obtained regular and substantially equivalent
employment elsewhere, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
or privileges, dismissing, if necessary, all persons hired for the first
time since December 21, 1936, to perform the work of such employees;
and place those for whom employment is not available on a preferred
list to be offered employment as it arises on the basis of seniority by
classifications before any other persons are hired;
b. Make whole all employees who were on the pay roll on November
5, 1936, and on strike on December 21, 1936, for any losses they may
suffer by reason of any refusal of their application for reinstatement
in accordance with paragraph 2a herein, by payment to each of them,
respectively, a sum equal to that which each of them would normally
have earned as wages during the period from the date of any such
refusal of their application to the date of reinstatement, less the
amount, if any, which each, respectively, earned during said period;
c. Post in conspicuous places throughout the Oregon Worsted Com-
pany's Portland plant a notice stating (1) that the Oregon Worsted
Company will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid and stating
(2) that such notices will remain posted for a period of at least
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
58 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
d. Prepare on the stationery of the Oregon Worsted Company a
statement for the press that the Oregon Worsted Company will not
in any way interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, and distribute such statments by registered mail to the
three Portland, Oregon, daily papers, namely the Oregonian, the
Journal, and the News Telegram;
e. Prepare and distribute to all striking employees a statement that
the Oregon Worsted Company will not in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce its employees, in the exercise of the rights of 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.purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act;
f. Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
respondent has taken to comply herewith.