Columbian Carbon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

I
In the 'Matter of COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 463
Case No. C-2406.-Decided February 25,1943
Jurisdiction : carbon black, carbon, and carbon products producing industry.
,Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Rest? annt, and Coercton: increase in severity of discipline upon
appearance of union, intended to induce employees to abandon support of,union;
anti-union statements of foremen
Discnniinatzon: discharge of prominent union member soon after he became active
in union.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor practices; reinstatement and
back pay ordered ; posting of notices in eight plants under central management
ordered when unfair labor practices at two of the plants tended to interfere
with employees' union activity throughout all plants.
Mr. Robert F. Proctor, for the Board.
Morgan, Culton, Morgan d Britain, by B. M. Britain and D. H. Cul-
ton, of Amarillo, Tex., for the respondent.
Mr. C. Massingale, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Oil Workers.
Miss Mary E. Perkins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE,
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Oil Workers International
Union, Local No. 463, herein called the Oil Workers, the National La-
bor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), issued its complaint
dated September 16, 1942, against Columbian Carbon Company,
Pampa, Texas, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notices of the hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Oil Workers.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent on or about October 26, 1941, dis-
47 N L. R, B, No 127 '
1010
COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY 1011
'charged R. T. Glosson and has since that date failed and refused to
employ him because he joined or assisted the Oil Workers or engaged
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
.or other mutual aid and protection; and (2) that thereby, and by
cer:tain other' specified acts, the respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
.Section 7 of the Act. - On September 25, 1942, the respondent filed its
answer, admitting certain facts as to its corporate organization and
the character of its business, and conceding that it was engaged in,
interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The respondent,
-however, denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Amarillo, Texas, on Sep-
tember 28 and 29,,1942, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board
and the respondent were' represented by counsel, and the Oil Workers
Vas represented by a union official. All parties 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. The respondent rested at the close of the Board's p'res-
-entation and did not call witnesses to the stand. Its participation
in the hearing-was limited to cross-examination of the Board's wit-
nesses. At the opening of the hearing the Board moved to strike
-from the respondent's answer certain allegations setting forth its con-
tractual relations with the Oil Workers.' This motion was denied.
-During the hearing, the Board moved to substitute the name of R. W.
Koonce for that of O. E. Keplinger named in,the Board's complaint.
this motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board
moved to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to the
:spelling of'hames, dates, and minor errors. This motion was granted
without objection. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. 'The
:rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated'
_Nqember 6, 1942, copies of which were duly served on both the
parties. He found that the respondent had engaged and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section. 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom; that
it offer- reinstatement to, and make whole, R. T. Glosson;, and that
it take certain other affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. - '
On November 23, 1942, the respondent filed its exceptions- to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. The
' See Section III A , below.
' 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board has -considered the exceptions and brief, and insofar as the
exceptions ai e 'inconsistent with • the findings, conclusions, 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
The respondent, Columbian Carbon Company, was incorporated
prior to 1925 in the State, of Delaware. It is engaged in the production
of carbon black, carbon, and carbon products. Its principal office
is located in New York .City and it has plants in various States of
the United States. Eight of these plants are located in the Panhandle
area of Texas. - A central office for their supervision is located at
Pampa, Texas. These plants produce carbon black by burning the
natural gas derived from wells in that area.
During the years 1940 and 1941, which were normal years of opera-
tion, the respondent's eight plants in the Panhadle area produced
approximately 135,000,000 pounds of carbon black annually. More
than 95 percent of this output was shipped by interstate common car-
riers to points outside the State of Texas. The,respondent admits
that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
In its 8 Panhadle plants the respondent normally employs between
155 and 160 production, maintenance, and construction employees-
In-addition it has about 25 office, sales, and supervisory employees.
At its Wescar plant it employed at the time of the hearing about 56
production, maintenance, and construction employees, and about 8
office, sales, and supervisory employees.2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union and its Local No. 463 are labor
organizations admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In the' spring of 1937 a petition was circulated among the employees
of the Wescar ' plant addressed to Dan Glaxner who, both then and at,
the time of this proceeding, was general superintendent of the respond-
ent's eight Panhandle plants. This petition requested that the hours
of labor be rearranged to provide for five 8-hour days and that the
2 These findings ate based on a stipulation of the parties which was incorporated in the
record , and on allegations in the complaint admitted by the respondent in its answer.
J
COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY` 1013
respondent grant a 10-day vacation, with pay. One paragraph in the
petition read : ,
"We are not motivated in these requests by any union activities
or the like, but only through a spirit of well being and fair play.3
After consideration of these requests Glaxner called a meeting on
April 28, 1937. He stated that the Company_would accede to the pro-
posed hourly and daily schedule and that, while they would not grant
the 10-day vacation with pay, the Company would give a wage increase
,of 5 cents per hour in lieu thereof. Uncontradicted testimony by Yates
as to the content of Glaxner's speech is recorded as follows : "He said
that he was glad the employees had not organized into, a union because
he thought we could get together under similar instances as this and
work out our difficulties without organized labor, and that he preferred
to work it out that way rather than with an organized labor union and
have confusion. He just believed we could work it out better by bring-
ing our complaints to him." Although there had been no attempt to
,organize the employees of the respondent's Wescar plant at this time,
an organizing campaign, was under, way at a nearby plant operated by
another company.
The evidence shows that after 1937 there was no union activity in
any of the respondent's Panhandle plants until October 1941. At that
time the Oil Workers began an organizational campaign in the Wescar
plant. After that plant was "pretty 'well organized" the campaign
was extended to the seven other plants. By March°1942, as J. W. Poe,
secretary of Local No. 463, testified, it had "between three and four
hundred" -members. ' This local admits employees at the respondent's
eight Panhandle plants to membership.
On January' 5, 1942, the Board held a hearing on a petition filed
with it by the Oil Workers for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives for the employees at the respondent's Panhandle plants.
The Board rendered it's decision on February 10, 1942, directing that
an election be held 4 The Oil Workers won the election and on March
18, 1942, •the Board certified this union as the exclusive representative
,of the respondent's employees iii its eight Panhandle plants for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment." As appears in the
respondent's answer, negotiations were subsequently entered into be-
tween it and the Oil Workers which resulted in a contract dated March
3W D Yates, an employee with about 14 years' service, testified that this paragraph was
included because the employees "thought by putting it in there they made a favorable im-
pression with Mr. Glaxner."
4 See Matter of Columbian Carbon Company and Oil TVoikers International Union, Local
Nos 463 and 235, 38 N. L. R. B. 1060.
39, N: L R B 922.
1014 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOiR RELATIONS BOARD
25, 1942, effective as of March 1, 1942. The answer further states that
since this contract became effective relations between the respondent.
and-its employees have, been administered under its' provisions.,
B. Acts ' o f interference, restraint, and coercion
The respondent did not call witnesses to the stand. - The evidence:
presented by the Board's witnesses was unrefuted and, was credited--
by the Trial Examiner. ' • ,
Various witnesses, testified, and we find, that with the advent of the-
Union at the Wescar plant there' was a marked increase in the severity
of the discipline exercised by the-respondent's supervisors.' These wit-
nesses stated that thereafter'tbe foremen insisted that lunch time taken.
by the employees should. be strictly limited,to the 15 minutes. which had.
been the nominal allowance of, time. Moreover, the foremen insistedr
that the employees should report exactly on time -and- should not leave
until their, tours of .duty had,expired. _ Foremen kept written notes
of the exact number of, minutes, the employees spent in the locker
rooms prior to reporting, to 'their particular jobs. Men reporting late
had their pay reduced, although previously the respondent had been.
very lenient with such offenders. Men were reprimanded for smoking-
while on duty although this had been a current practice in the plant,
before the union organization activities began. Poe, secretary of the,
Oil ,Workers, testified that when organization started in the respond-
ent's other Panhandle plants 6 the same change in attitude was apparent..
The circumstances under which this abrupt change in policy took.
place convince us, and we find, that the respondent increased the severity
of its discipline in order to, demonstrate its hostility to the Oil
'Workers and to induce the, employees to abandon their support of ,
that organization.'. That it was; so understood by the employees is,
evidenced by statements made to Yates by employees who withdrew
from the Oil• Workers after Glosson's discharge. Yates testified that
I
eThe Oil workers commenced its organizing dive at the Wescar plant , and later extended'
it to the other plants of the respondent. -
.
Y The respondent offered no evidence to show that this was not its purpose . The record'
shows that'sometime after the middle of November 1941 the` respondent raised its hourly
rate from 82 cents to 95 cents On one occasion in November an employee , Mixon, was not
allowed to go-to work after he reported 5 minutes late for his shift , although he had not
previously been penalized for being late Subsequently , Mixon's foreman made a statement
to another employee implying that lie had dealt more severely with Mixon on this occasion
because of the higher rate Mixon w-is then receiving The respondent suggests in its brief
that this suffices to explain its entire change in attitude with respect to minor infractions
of its rules by the employees Not only are we unconvinced that such a change in rate
could have brought about the universal tightening of discipline shown by the record,- but
we must in any event reject this explanation ; since all of the witnesses testifying' on-thus
point stated that the 'change in policy became apparent immediately after the Oil workers
commenced its drive early in October ,'while it,appears that,no change in the-respondent's.
hourly rate was effected until at least the middle of November.
COLUAIBIA3 CARBON COMPANY 1015
several of the latter told him,that they were dropping out of the Oil
Workers because, among other things, "it looked like the foremen might
get so rough with them they would all have to leave."
In making these findings, we are not concerned with the manner or
extent of the respondent's enforcement of its plant rules. We do not,
question the essential right of the respondent to promulgate and en
force such rules as it deems necessary to the efficient conduct of its
,business. It cannot, however, in the name of plant discipline, attempt
what is prohibited by the. Act : to restrain or coerce its employees from
freely supporting a labor organization. Such Was its purpose here.
A. J. Fritts, who had been employed as an extra hand in the.Sunray.
plant, testified that in the early part of January 1942, he was taking
O. Q. Hall, a foreman in the Sunray plant, and Jack Mackey, an em-
ployee and a neighbor of Foreman Hall, home in his car. Hall in-,
quired of Mackey where he could find black pullers. Mackey suggested
Fritts and one Morris, who also had been employed by the respondent:
Fritts testified further that "He [referring to. Hall] said he couldn't
do it. Couldn't, hire' any, union men." Mackey fully corroborated
Fritts' testimony. His testimony regarding this incident reads as fol-
lows; "He says, 'Jack, where, can I ' get some` good black pullers?' , I
pointed to Mr. Fritts and Mr. Morris, who was also laid off. He said,
`Can't use them; wrong kind; until the union is settled,', or"soniethirig
like that, `Can't work."' I - 1 ' . '
The respondent contended in its cross-examination that these re-
marks by Hall were merely jocular and should not have been taken
seriously. Fritts, however, stated that at the time the' remarks were
made he believed Hall was serious . Mackey, when asked whether or
not he thought Hall was very serious when he made that remark, said
"I didn't, but I do know one thing; they was laid off and 'they didn't
get back on, I know that." 8 We find that Hall's` statement, whether
or not made in a friendly manner, was taken seriously by the em-
ployees and was calculated to discourage support of the Union.
Yates testified that he had a conversation with Fletcher V. Thomp-_
son, a foreman in the respondent's Wescar plant, 2 or' 3 weeks after
the discharge of R. T. Glossop, discussed below.. Yates' testimony re-
garding the incident is recorded 'as follows: "He asked, if Buster'
Glosson wasn't one of the Union solicitors, and grinned. I said, `Yes
;8 Other ' testimony given by Fritts indicates the'serous riatme of Hall 's statement . Fritts
testified that he had been regularly employed in the respondent 's Sum ay warehouse for some
7 months, that he then joined the Oil workers , and was laid off a month later . ' Thereafter
be applied to the superintendent of the Sunray plant for employment , but was told by the
latter that he did not need anyone The respondent , however , at that time and following
Fritts ' application , hired on some 30 men at its Sunray plant , including some to do the-
same work that Fritts had been engaged in. Fritts did not receive employment with the
respondent until after the Oil Workers , as a result of its negotiations with the respondent
in March 1942 , had established a list " of,men having seniority and entitled to reinstatement.
a
1016 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sir.' Then he said `I just wanted to know if he wasn't one of these
union men that had been gotten rid of.'
The record contains testimony by Poe, an employee in the Wescar
plant who, at the time of this hearing, was secretary of the local
organization. He testified that during the period of union activities
about October 12 to 15, 1941, Thompson, when his attention'was called
to a certain Oil Workers' handbill posted on the bath house wall and
he wits asked what his opinion of it was, replied : "I don't think much
of it" and further said : "The C. I. O. is one of the most Hitler dic-
tatorial outfits, and we certainly don't want any of that around here."
We credit the testimony of the, Board's witnesses, and find, as/did
the Trial Examiner, that the above events and incidents took place
substantially as we have set them forth. We further find that by
seeking to discourage union activity through a new policy of rigid
enforcement of plant rules, and by the anti-union statements of O. Q.
Hall and Fletcher V. Thompson, its supervisory officials, the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The, discriminatory discharge
R. T. Glosson ° was first hired by the respondent on June 11, 1935,
as a black puller at the I efors No. 77 plant. His employment there
term mated on January 1, 1938. In, March 1938 Glosson was rehired
at the Wescar plant to tend hothouses. On April 30 he was trans-
ferred to black pulling. In this operation Glosson 'worked on the
pro-rater, or swing shift, working 2 midnight, 1 day, and 2 evening
tours.10 There is nothing in the record-to suggest that Glosson failed
to perform his work at either of the plants in other than a completely
satisfactory manner.
The Oil Workers began organizational activities at the Wescar plant
early in October 1941. Ten or twelve men joined the Union on the
evening of October 16. Glosson was on duty at the time and did not
join until the next day. Immediately thereafter' he became in effect
the organizer for the Oil Workers." He carried blanks and solicited
applications for union membership. Ten or twelve men were directly
signed,up by him. These activities he continued-until his discharge
on October 26, 1941.
Glosson was scheduled for the midnight shift on Saturday evening,
October 25, 1941. During the afternoon he went to a nearby city and
about 6• or 6: 30 in the evening was arrested and confined at the City
0 Known in the plant as Buster Glosson and frequently so referred to In the transcript.
10 In the i espondent 's plants shifts were referred to as "touyc "
J W Poe , secretary of the local , - testified concerning Glosson ' s union activities • "He
has done more work than all'the rest of us put together "
COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY 1017
Hall for 'drunkenness. Glosson's uncontradicted testimony is to the
effect that the city officials, who were friends of his, promised him, that
lie would be released about 11, in time for his midnight tour of duty.
However, he was not'released until after 8: 30 the following Sunday
morning. Since there was no guard present during the night hours,
he could not reach a telephone in order to notify the Company that
he would necessarily be absent. He had not called earlier because no
one was at the plant at that time. _
Immediately after his release Glosson went to the plant and "reported
to his foreman, Fletcher V. Thompson. As Glosson stated in his testi-
mony, "I told him I got drunk and was put in the City Hall. and
couldn't get out." Thompson made no comment. Later that day
Glosson reported for the midnight shift. Nibht Foreman William
Bell did not allow him to work, but referred him to Superintendent.
Charlie Thompson. Thompson was not available at that hour and
Glosson did not see him until the next day. Glosson then inquired.
why he was not allowed to work and Superintendent Thompson told
him that he had received numerous complaints from Bell and other
foremen about the employees not reporting for their tours. Thompson
indicated that he discharged Glosson with intent to support those
subordinate officials. Glosson protested that this was a policy new in
-his experience and that he had had no warning that his absence would
involve such drastic punishment. Glosson's protest that the policy
was a novel one is corroborated by the reply made by his night fore-
man, Bell, to an inquiry by an employee, T. G. Mulanox, whether
Glosson had any warning that his failure to report for his tour might
result in his discharge. Bell replied : "Glosson couldn't have been
warned about [the] effect of not reporting to work because this had
never happened before."
It otherwise appears from the record that failure to report for tours
of duty had been a prevalent practice in the Wescar plant. Yates
testified, and we find, that during a period when he had been on, call
24 hours a day, he had very frequently been called to fill the places of
absent men. Yates further testified that none of the men whose places
he filled were discharged,,and that in his 14 years of employment with
the respondent he recalled only two or•three discharges for any cause,
Glosson's being the only discharge for failure to report. Homer
Jefferson, an employee at the Wescar plant who. did not engage in
union activities, failed to keep a promise to report at 4 p. m., for an
evening tour of duty in July or August 1941. Jefferson was delayed
on an automobile trip, and did not arrive home until 7 p. in. On the
excuse that he was "too tired"'to work, he did not report at the plant. -
No disciplinary action was taken by the respondent. This is shown
by, the testimony of Mulanox,Jefferson's brother-in-law.
i
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. T. Rogers, an employee at the Wescar plant, took no part in
union activities. Unrefuted evidence shows that he failed to report for
duty on May 7, 1942, and for two succeeding shifts. It appears affirm-
atively that his absence from at least one of these shifts had not been
anticipated by the respondent." He thereafter returned to work and
incurred no penalties. The evidence shows also that Rogers, at a date
not definitely established by the record, reported for duty in a state
of intoxication which made it unsafe for him to work. The lenient
attitude of the respondent toward drunkenness is evidenced by the fact
that Rogers was allowed to work his tour and that no disciplinary
action was taken. It is further in evidence that an employee, Pete
'B'rown, who "liked whiskey," failed to report "a dozen times" before he
was released.' -
' -
i
Glosson's record with regard to previous failures to report for duty
was ascertained' in the course of his cross-examination. It appears
.that he had missed a tour. "two or three years before" and again on July
.7; 1941. On both of these occasions, however, he had phoned in to
'report that he would not be able to work. Glosson was not penalized
'on either 'occasion. It is also shown that he had on some occasions
"slept over "14 and a messenger -had been dispatched to his home in a
company house near the Wescar plant 15 to 'call him. On these occa-
sions he was only a few minutes late and the respondent took no dis-
ciplinary action.
Three 'or four days after his disch irbe Glosson• applied to 'Glaxner
for employment on a construction job at Eunice,,New Mexico. Glax-
ner was accompanied by H. H. Reardon; general superintendent of the
respondent's Monroe, Louisiana, division. Glaxner refused Glosson's
application, saying : "I guess you had better set a while and straighten
up . . . about not coming on tours. We want men to work; we want
them to be there." Glosson made no further personal applications for
reemployment.', Instead he turned the matter over to the Oil Workers
,for such action as that organization desired to take.
The record shows that Glosson's discharge had very serious effects
-in discouraging membership in the Union. Glosson testified. that im-
mediately preceding his discharge the Oil' Workers had "well over a
majority" in the Wescar plant. Yates, who was active in the Oil
Workers at the time of Glosson's discharge and familiar-with the affairs
of the organization, testified that at the time of the discharge all but
•5 of the respondent's employees eligible to belong to the Union were
W The respondent failed to bring foiwaid evidence that in any of the cases set forth here
the employees who failed to report for duty without penalty had been, excused
Is The date of Brown's discharge is not fixed in the iecoid
" It will be noted in this connection that Glosson's schedule on the pro-rater shift involved
'considerable difficulty, in arranging his horns for sleep.
m The record shows that the great majority of the Wescar employees live in company
houses within 300'yards of the plant.
COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY - 1019
mnembers. Yates stated, and we find, that immediately after Glosson's
discharge "A number of the boys came to me to get some action right
:away or they were going to quit." ' Yates further stated that "the boys
began to lose interest-in other words got cold,feet." Two men 10 told
Yates personally, in effect, "that they did not want to get what Glosson,
,got by belonging to the Union." At the time of the Board election,
in March 1942, the number of non-union employees at the Wescar plant
had increased to 10 or 12.
The evidence shows that Glosson was a capable workman. whose work,
as hothouse tender and black puller had not been criticized during over
6 years' service. - He was entrusted with the conduct of the Oil Work-
,ers' organizing campaign in the respondent's Wescar plant and,from
October 17, 1941) when he joined this Union, to the date of his discharge
on October 26, 1941, he was the most prominent employee in union
activities. Such activities, in a small plant hiving only 56 production,
maintenance, and construction employees, Iilust have come to the
attention of the respondent'•s supervisors.
This inference finds support in the incident set forth above when
Foreman Thompson, Glosson's immediate supervisor, commented 'on
the Oil Workers' handbill in terms which plainly indicated both' that
he knew of union activities in the plant and that his attitude was one
of definite opposition.- We note further that Fletcher Thompson, in
his remark to Yates after Glosson's discharge, indicated that he was
,aware that union'men had "been gotten rid of" and that such-action
met with his approval. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, after con-
sideration of the record, that the respondent had knowledge of
;Glosson's union activities.
• Glosson's discharge followed closely the commencement of his union
activities. Slightly over a week elapsed between the dates of his join-
ing the Union and his discharge. While Glosson was admittedly guilty'
of failing to report for his tour of duty at midnight on October 25,
similar offenses by non-union employees, both before'and after' that
date were condoned by the respondent without disciplinary action be-
ing taken. The evidence further shows that the respondent was sim-
ilarly lenient in the treatment of the offense of drunkenness when other
employees not active as union organizers were involved. We conclude
that the respondent, whose anti-union attitude is apparent, seized upon
the excuse afforded by Glosson's failure to report at midnight October
'26, 1941, to dismiss Glosson from the Wescar plant. Although he had
maintained an acceptable standard of performance through more than
years of employment, the respondent dismissed him arbitrarily, with-
out previous warning and contrary to its , established custom in
i
' Yates testified that these employees were George Moore and J K Harwell 'At the time
of the hearing, they had left the employ of the respondent and were not available as witnesses,.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J
handling similar offenses . We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
the discharge of R. T. . Glosson on October 26 , 1941, was discriminatory
and was intended to have, and did have,-the effect of discouraging
membership in the Oil Workers . We further find that by thus dis-
criminating in regard to Glosson 's hire and tenure of employment the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights,guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
I
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III Band C,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent,
described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to 'trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening, and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of'the employment of R. T. Glosson because of his union
membership and activity. To effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall
order the respondent to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority and other'rights and privileges, and to make him whole
for any loss, of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's,
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages,
from October 26, 1941, the date of'his discharge, to the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 11 during said
period.
The, respondent's proven , acts of discrimination, restraint, and
coercion in the Sunray and Wesdar plants necessarily tend to inter-
fere with, restrain, and coerce its employees' union activities through-
out its eight Panhandle plants. The Oil Workers organizational
campaign extended over these eight plants and they are under the
N
"By net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and boat d , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere
than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge
and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere Sec Matter of Crossett
Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber
and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L R B 440 Monies received for work per-
formed upon Federal, State county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be con-
sidered as earnings. See Republic Steel Corporation v N.'L R B., 311 U. S. 7.
r
J
COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY 1021
central supervision of- the Pampa divisional office. Accordingly, ,we
shall require the respondent to refrain from interfering with; re-
straining, or coercing its employees in each of the eight Panhandle
plants through unfair labor practices similar to those which it has
been found herein to have committed. '
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oil VVbrkers International Union, Local No. 463, 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 R. T. Glosson and thereby discouraging membership in Oil
Workers International Union, Local No. 463, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3'. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, 'the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor, practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER'
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,'
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Columbian
Carbon Company, Pampa, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Oil Workers International Union,
Local No. 463, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging any of its employees or in any other manner discriminat-
ing in regard to hire acid tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coer-
cing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, joint, or assist labor 'organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds-will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL `LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
(a), Offer to R. T. Glossop immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or'a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole R. T. Glosson for any loss of pay he may have'
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him by
the payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he nor-
mally would have earned as wages during the period from October 26,:
1941, the date of his discharge, to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 18 during-said period;
(c) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its eight
plants in the- Panhandle of Texas, and maintain for -a period of at
least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to
its employees 1stat'ing: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the,
conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in
paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent
will take the affirmative action set forth, in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b)
of. this Order ; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to
become or remain members of Oil Workers International Union, Local
No. 463, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Ma. Wii M. LEisansoN took no part in the consideration of the
above decision and order.
18 See footnote 17, supra.
0