Byron-Jackson Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 1142 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of BYRON-JACKSON CO., A CORPORATION and STEEL
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Case No. C-377.-Decided March 15, 1939
Oil Well Tool and Pump Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion-Discrimination : lay-offs and discharge , to discourage activity in
behalf of union ; found ; assigning one employee to night shift and discharging
another employee subsequent to reinstatement after prior lay-off; not sus-
tained-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. David Persinger, for the Board.
Latham, Watkins cfi Bouchard, by Mr. Paul R. Watkins, of Los
Angeles, Calif., and Chickering i Gregory, by Mr. Donald Y. La-
mont, of San Francisco, Calif., for the respondent.
Mr. Anthony W. Smith, of Washington, D. C., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Victor A. Pascal, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Steel Workers
Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Towne Nylander,
Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia), issued its complaint dated October 15, 1937, against Byron
Jackson Co., Huntington Park, California, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served
upon the respondent and the S. W. O. C.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as
amended, alleged in substance that the respondent discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William Burstall,
Clarence Schuster, and William Jones, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization, and, by these and other acts, inter-
11 N. L. R. B., No. 103.
1142
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1143
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent filed
an answer which, in substance, contested the Board's jurisdiction of
the subject matter and denied the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, on October 21, 1937, and pursuant to adjournment on No-
vember 22 and 23, 1937, before Clifford D. O'Brien, the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
gave the parties opportunity to present oral argument and to file
briefs. The respondent filed a brief with the Trial Examiner which
has been considered by the Board.
On January 21, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in
which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and recommended that
the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, offer
full reinstatement to Schuster, and make whole all three employees
named in the complaint for loss of pay resulting from the respond-
ent's discriminatory acts.
On January 31, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of
oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on
March 1, 1938. The respondent and the S. W. O. C. were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has
considered the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the findings, conclu-
sions, and order set forth below finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Byron Jackson Co., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, distribution, installation, and servicing of oil-well
tools, centrifugal pumps, and turbine pumps. It owns and operates
plants at Berkeley, Huntington Park, and Vernon, California, and
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Bethlehem , Pennsylvania . The Vernon plant , referred to in the
complaint as the scene of the respondent 's unfair labor practices,
manufactures oil-well tools. The Huntington Park and Berkeley
plants manufacture centrifugal pumps and the Bethlehem plant fab-
ricates and assembles pumps manufactured locally and in Califor-
nia. The respondent also conducts the business of Byron Jackson
Co. of Texas, a Texas corporation dissolved on June 28, 1937, which
maintained a warehouse and sales office at Fort Worth , Texas, and
was engaged in selling and installing the respondent's centrifugal
and turbine pumps and in selling oil-well tools in various States.
Warehouses not connected with its plants are maintained by the re-
spondent at Bakersfield and Ventura, California, and at Fort Worth,
Texas. The respondent has sales offices or sales representatives in
Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, Louisiana, and New York, and
employs between 30 and 50 salesmen in 20 to 30 States, occasionally
sending sales engineers to foreign countries.
In its manufacturing operations, the respondent uses castings and
forgings which it secures in California and steel which it secures
from sources both within and outside of California.
In 1936, the value of the respondent 's sales was in excess of $3,000,-
000. Its president testified that its sales during 1937 would exceed
that amount. The respondent's products are sold in California and
in the oil-producing territories of the midwestern and eastern sec-
tions of the United States. Approximately 20 per cent of the re-
spondent's products are sold to supply companies which, in turn,
resell part of the products to their customers in various foreign
countries, including Venezuela, Colombia, Trinidad, Cuba, Rumania,
India, and Dutch East Indies. Approximately 30 to 40 per cent of
the respondent's finished products are shipped by it to destinations
outside the State of California.
At the Vernon plant 139 men were employed during the week of
May 10, 1937, and 107 men on November 23, 1937.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affil-
iated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called
the C. I. 0., admitting to its membership shop employees at the
respondent's Vernon plant.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background of the unfair labor practices
On the morning of May 10, 1937, two pieces of cardboard, each
marked in columns headed "C. I. 0." and "Shop Union ," were cir-
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1145
culated among the employees at the respondent's Vernon plant at
which the three men named in the complaint were working. At
about 8: 30 that morning, Charles Carlberg, a shop employee, handed
one of the cards bearing the signature of 0. H. Dimmitt, another
employee, to William Jones, stating that he wanted to find out "how
the boys felt about the union." Jones signed the cardboard in the
C. I. 0. column and placed it on his bench in the tong department.
Substantially all the men in the department placed their signatures
under his. Jack Hunter, the shop foreman, saw the card lying near
Jones' machine and noticed that it bore approximately 12 signatures.
Hunter thereupon reported the presence of the signed cardboard to
his superior, Herbert H. Grau, the respondent's works manager, who
instructed him to "pick it up." Both Hunter and Grau testified that
circulation of the cardboard in the shop during working hours vio-
lated the respondent's rules.
Later in the morning, Hunter took the list from Jones and there-
after gave it to Grau, who retained the list until its production at the
hearing. Jones testified and we find that during the afternoon of
May 10 Hunter accused Jones of responsibility for the list.
At about 10 o'clock the same morning, Jack Kaufman, a shop em-
ployee, handed. Clarence Schuster the other cardboard which bore
only Kaufman's signature and had been marked in two columns in
the same manner as the cardboard Jones had received. Schuster
placed his signature beneath Kaufman's and the second list was
thereafter circulated in the hook, elevator, and pattern departments
for signature by other employees. During the noon hour, Hertell,
an engineer in the office, saw William Burstall hand it to Mike Kerz-
ner, a welder. Shortly after lunch, Carlberg gave it to Hunter.
Hunter delivered this list also to Grau who retained it until it was
produced at the hearing. All the signatures on both cards appear
in the C. I. 0. column.
According to Burstall, at about 10 o'clock the next morning, Hunter
accused him of being an organizer for the C. I. 0. and of forcing men
to sign the lists, and later demanded to know his grievances. Burstall
testified that he denied forcing men to sign the cardboard or having
any grievances, whereupon Hunter asked him why he had signed
"the petition with the C. I. 0." and he answered that he had a right
to join such organizations as he desired. Schuster testified that, be-
tween 11 and 12 o'clock on May 11, Hunter said to him, "I see your
name on this petition. What is your grievance," and later made the
same remarks to Dave Rogers, another employee. Hunter admitted
that he had accused Burstall of having influenced or "almost forced
a man to sign the petition" but denied having had a conversation with
him in which the C. I. 0. was mentioned or having spoken with any
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the employees with reference to the list. Burstall and Schuster's
versions of their conversations with Hunter are consonant with the
respondent's hostility to the efforts of its employees toward self-or-
ganization, hereinafter revealed. We credit them as substantially
true.
At about noon on May 12, 1937, the S. W. O. C. held a meeting out-
side the plant at which membership application blanks were dis-
tributed. Shortly before the meeting, Grau, the respondent's works
manager, asked Schuster why he had not been invited to attend, and
thereafter attended the meeting. According to his own testimony,
Grau secured a membership application which he filled out and
submitted.
Grau testified that he instructed Hunter to "pick up" one of the lists
because its circulation in the plant during working hours was for-
bidden. But Hunter did not content himself with confiscating one list
and accepting the other. Armed with this evidence of the identity of
employees who favored the S. W. O. C., he singled out individuals
for interrogation and accusation-an obvious method of indicating
the respondent's hostility toward the organizational activities of its
employees and of discouraging those activities. Grau's attendance
at the S. W. O. C. meeting, too, violated the right of the employees to
organize without employer interference. It enabled him to ascertain
which of the employees were active in behalf of the S. W. O. C.
and had the necessary effect of discouraging membership in the
organization.
Shortly after Grau attended the S. W. O. C. meeting, Jones,
Schuster, and Burstall were deprived of their jobs.
B. The discriminatory lay-offs and discharge
William Jones started to work at the Vernon plant in 1920, before
it was taken over by the respondent. He was dismissed in July 1931,
reemployed in August 1933 and, apart from slack periods, worked
steadily until his alleged discriminatory lay-off on May 13, 1937.
Prior to his lay-off, Jones operated a milling machine on the day
shift in the tong department, occasionally assisted on the drill press,
and sometimes instructed new men in their work. In January 1937,
he was receiving a wage of 73 cents an hour which was increased to 75
cents an hour in March. As noted in Section A above, Jones was an
active participant in securing the employees' signatures on behalf of
the S. W. O. C. and was accused by Hunter of being responsible for
the signatures.
On May 13, 1937, the day following the meeting of the S. W. O. C.,
Hunter laid off Jones for 2 weeks saying that, as work was short
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1147
and Jones was a "chronic asker for raises," he was being accorded an
opportunity to find more suitable employment.
Jones returned to the plant on June 1, but Hunter refused to re-
employ him. When Jones again asked Hunter for reemployment, on
June 21, he was first told that he would not be put back to work, but,
after he stated that the "Labor Relations Board" had sent him to the
respondent, Hunter told him that he would be put back to work in
3 or 4 days. Jones was rehired on the night shift on June 28, 1937,
and worked steadily until September 9, 1937. Since the latter date,
he has not worked steadily.
It appears that in May 1937, the respondent was obliged to lay off
some employees for business reasons. Hunter testified that, as Jones
was dissatisfied with his wages, he had selected Jones to be laid off in
order to give him an opportunity to better himself. We note that the
acceptance of this opportunity was obligatory upon Jones. We find
that the respondent selected Jones for lay-off and laid him off from
May 13 to June 28, 1937, not because he was dissatisfied nor because
Hunter wished to afford him an opportunity to seek other employ-
ment, but solely because the respondent objected to his activities on
behalf of the S. W. 0. C.
The complaint alleges that after reinstating Jones the respondent
discriminatorily discharged him on September 9, 1937, and there-
after refused to reinstate him. Jones testified that he has been
employed by the respondent since that date but that he has not
worked as steadily as other employees with less seniority. The
record shows that on about September 9 there was a decrease in the
respondent's business and that on November 23, 1937, only 107 men
were employed at the plant as compared to 139 on May 10. There
is no substantial evidence that the respondent discriminated against
Jones by discharging him on September 9, 1937, or in failing to
accord him steady employment thereafter. The allegations of the
complaint concerning Jones' alleged discharge on September 9, 1937,
will therefore be dismissed.
Clarence Schuster was employed by the respondent in March 1936
as a die grinder at a wage of 45 cents an hour. Shortly thereafter,
he was assigned to operate a radial drill in the hook department and
performed this work until he was laid off, his duties occasionally
including "breaking in" new employees. By May 12, 1937, his wage
had been increased to 75 cents an hour. As noted in Section A above,
Schuster signed and participated in circulating one of the lists, was
questioned by Hunter concerning his "grievance," and was ques-
tioned by Grau concerning the S. W. 0. C. meeting.
According to Schuster, shortly before quitting time on May 12
Hunter told him that he was being laid off so that he might find a
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
better position. Schuster further testified that, although he stated
that he was satisfied with his position, Hunter insisted that he was
dissatisfied and told him that if he was unsuccessful in finding better
employment he would be rehired on June 1. Hunter testified sub-
stantially to the same effect, stating that he had told Schuster that,
as work was getting a bit short and he was a "chronic asker for raises
of pay" it would be better for him to search for more suitable em-
ployment and, if he was unsuccessful in his search, he should return
in 2 or 3 weeks or by June 1.
Schuster returned to the plant on May 14 and spoke with Grau
and Hunter but failed to secure reemployment. Hunter and Lloyd
Dudley, a timekeeper, testified that Schuster asked for his severance
slip when he returned to the plant on June 1, but left before it had
been filled out. Schuster first testified that Hunter told him that he
"was through" and gave him a severance slip on June 1, but later
recollected that Hunter had given him the slip indicating his sev-
erance on June 1 about the middle of June. The respondent con-
tends that, by asking for his severance slip, Schuster resigned. In
view of his continued requests for reinstatement, we find that
Schuster did not ask the respondent for the severance slip.
In further support of its contention that it had not discharged
Schuster, the respondent introduced in evidence Schuster's applica-
tion for employment with Emsco Derrick and Equipment Co. dated
May 24, 1937, wherein he stated that he had left the respondent's
employ in order to better himself, and adduced other evidence in-
dicating that, in applying for other employment, Schuster stated
that his employment with the respondent had been terminated under
circumstances not indicating a discharge. Under all the circum-
stances, we regard such evidence as indicating only that, in search-
ing for other employment subsequent to May 12, 1937, Schuster at-
tempted to conceal from prospective employers the fact that the
respondent had discharged him. In July or August 1937, Schuster
again saw Grau who refused his request for employment but stated
that he would speak with Hunter about rehiring him. Schuster
was not reemployed by the respondent.
The respondent contends that it selected Schuster to be laid off
both because he was "dissatisfied" and because his work was unsatis-
factory.
The evidence of Schuster's alleged inefficiency is unconvincing.
Inasmuch as Schuster's wages were increased from 45 cents an hour
to 75 cents an hour between March 1936 and May 1937, and inasmuch
as the respondent assigned him to "break in" new employees, we con-
clude that Schuster was not laid off for unsatisfactory work.
As to Schuster's alleged dissatisfaction, the observations made
above with reference to Jones' lay-off are also applicable to Schuster.
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1149
Upon the entire record, we find that the respondent discharged
Schuster on May 12, 1937, and thereafter refused to reinstate him
for the reason that he had assisted the S. W. O. C. and had engaged
in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection.
Schuster found work from time to time since his discharge and
was employed at the time of the hearing at a rate of pay exceeding
that which he received from the respondent. He desires reinstate-
ment to his former position with the respondent because his present
employment requires him to travel a greater distance from his home
and requires him to work at night.
William Burstall was employed by the respondent in February
1934 at a wage of 65 cents an hour. By May 1937, when he was en-
gaged in operating various machines in the shop, his wage had been
increased to 78 cents an hour. Burstall applied for membership in
the S. W. O. C. on May 5, 1937. As we have found in Section A
above, on May 10, 1937, Hertell observed Burstall circulating one of
the cardboard lists and, the next day. Hunter accused him of having
signed the list, of having forced others to sign it, of being dissatis-
fied, and of being an organizer for the C. I. O. The same afternoon,
Hunter transferred him from the day to the night shift. About 8 :30
p. m. on May 13, 1937, Hunter greeted Burstall with the question,
"Well Bill, I suppose you know what I am here for?" Upon receiv-
ing an affirmative answer, Hunter said that the respondent was going
to initiate a new policy and that he was compelled to lay off Burstall
for 2 weeks. Hunter told Burstall that his work was satisfactory,
that business was slow, and that, as Burstall was dissatisfied with
his wage, he should try to better himself by looking for another job.
He added that if Burstall was unsuccessful in his search, he should
return to work in 2 or 3 weeks. On this occasion Burstall said that
he did not care to work for a company which had treated Jones as
had the respondent. We do not view Burstall's remark as acquies-
cence in the lay-off but merely as an expression of resentment against
the respondent's discrimination against Jones.
Burstall returned to the plant on May 20 and received his pay
check from Hunter. Burstall testified that, on asking for reemploy-
ment on May 27, Hunter told him that as there was still some "un-
rest" in the shop, he would not be rehired and that he should con-
tinue his search for employment. Hunter, howeveir, testified that on
the occasion in question he had told Burstall only that there was no
work for him at the time but that there might be in a few days;
that Burstall said he was going east on a trip; and that he told
Burstall to see him when he returned. We credit Burstall's version
of the incident.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About June 10, Burstall again applied for reinstatement and
Hunter told him that he could not be reemployed as long as he was
dissatisfied. When Burstall saw Hunter on dune 21 Hunter said
that business had not improved as much as he thought it would,
but told Burstall to return the following Thursday. On June 24,
1937, Burstall was put back to work on the night shift and was regu-
larly employed by the respondent until the date of the hearing.
During Burstall's employment prior to his lay-off, he was occa-
sionally transferred back and forth between the day and the night
shift. The complaint will be dismissed in so far as it alleges that
the respondent's assignment of Burstall to the night shift consti-
tuted discrimination in regard to his hire and tenure of employment.
As to Burstall's lay-off from May 13 to June 24, 1937, Grau testified
that, as Burstall had been asking for an increase in salary, he was
given "a few days off like that" to accord him an opportunity to bet-
ter his position. Hunter likewise testified that Burstall had been
laid off so that he might better himself, as he was dissatisfied with
his wages. The observations made above with reference to Jones'
lay-off and Schuster's discharge are also applicable to Burstall.
Upon the entire record we find that the respondent laid off
Burstall from May 13 until June 24, 1937, for the reason that he as-
sisted the S. W. O. C. and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection.
We find that the respondent, in discharging Schuster and laying
off Burstall and Jones, discriminated in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and with foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
As we have found that the respondent discriminatorily laid off
Burstall and Jones on May 13, 1937, and refused to reinstate Burstall
until June 24 and Jones until June 28, 1937, we shall order the re-
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1151
spondent to make said employees whole for the loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of their respective lay-offs by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of his lay-off to the date of his
reinstatement, less his net earnings' during said period. Having
found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Schuster on
May 12, 1937, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, we shall order
that the respondent reinstate him to his former or to a substantially
equivalent position and make him whole for any loss of pay he has
suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum equal
to the amount 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 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of William Burstall, William Jones, and Clarence Schuster, and
thereby discouraging membership in Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8, (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affect.
ing 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,
' By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , Local 2590, 8 N L R . B 440 Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief projects
are not considered as earnings , but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from
the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate
fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal , or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respond-
ent, Byron Jackson Co., Huntington Park, California, and its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Steel Workers Organizing Com-
mittee or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, 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 con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Clarence Schuster immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or to a substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Clarence Schuster for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages
during the period from May 12, 1937, the date of his discharge, to the
date of such offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said
period, and make whole William Burstall and William Jones, respec-
tively, for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of his
lay-off by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages from May 13, 1937,
the date of his lay-off, to the date of his reemployment, less his net
earnings during said period; deducting, however, from the amount
otherwise due to Clarence Schuster, William Burstall, and William
Jones, monies received by said employees during said periods for work
performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-
relief projects, and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropri-
ate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other
government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-
relief projects;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places in its Vernon plant
notices stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner
aforesaid, and will take the affirmative action required by paragraphs
2 (a) and (b) of this Order, and maintain such notices for a period
of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting;
BYRON-JACKSON CO. ET AL. 1153
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS PURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in so far as it alleges
that the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act by assigning Burstall to the
night shift and by discharging Jones on September 9, 1937, be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.