Ralston Purina Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 769 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1642, A. F. L.
Case No. C-2648.-Decided July 28, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 14, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action as set out in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of the exceptions.
None of the parties requested oral argument before the Board. The
Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the hear-
ing and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
With its exceptions, the respondent filed motions to amend its an-
swer so as to interpose, in the alternative, the affirmative defense that
it justifiably discharged Fred Schmidt, one of its employees; to cor-
rect the record and the Intermediate Report so that the name Douglas
Eckrich shall appear as Douglas Record ; and to have admitted into
evidence and marked as Respondent's Exhibit 2, the employment
record of Fred Schmidt, a copy of which was attached to the respon-
dent's motion. These motions are hereby granted.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the exceptions and qualifications noted below :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent violated the
Act by certain specified acts and statements of its supervisory em-
ployees. We agree, and find further that the respondent engaged in
other similar acts and conduct. Thus, according to the uncontra-
dicted testimony of employees Fred. Schmidt, Foreman Bob Moore,
on or about January 4, 1943, questioned Schmidt as to the Union,
asking him why he (Schmidt) wanted "to put a union in" and where
51 N L R B, No. 123.
769
770 DECISIONS OF NAT'IOTITAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a proposed meeting of the Union was going to be held. Also uncon-
tradicted is the testimony of employee Clarence Morton to the effect
that early in 1943, after the' Union began its organizing activities,
Foreman Jim Amos asked him what union he belonged to, "C. I. O.
or A. F. of L." We find that by the aforesaid acts and statements of
the respondent's foreman, whose supervisory status was not disputed,
the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise, of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent's notice posted
on May 11, 1943, constituted interference with, restraint, and coercion
of the employees, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. We
do not agree. The notice set forth the status of the negotiations
between the Union and the respondent on the date when it was posted.
The statement in the notice to the effect that the Union had "decided
to give up a chance to get a wage increase in order to try for some type
of `union shop"' was not such a deviation from the actual situation
which existed at the time when the notice was posted as to yield the
unqualified conclusion that it was false. Under the circumstances, we
find that by posting the notice in question, the respondent did not
interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in violation of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record. in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Ralston Purina Company,
St. Louis, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Longshoremen's
Association, Local 1642, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization
of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees, or in any other 'mann'er discriminating in regard to 'their`
hire or tenure or any terms of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizationsi to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of-the'Act:
(a) Offer to Fred Schmidt immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or, substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 771
(b) Make whole Fred Schmidt 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 that which he normally
would have earned as wages from January 9, 1943, the date of the
discrimination against him, to the date of the respondent's offer of
reintstatement, less his net earnings during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
in St. Louis, Missouri, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating that: (1) the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered 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 employees of the respondent are free to become and remain
members of International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1642,
A. F. of L., and that the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that
organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith. -
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harry G Carlson, for the Board.
Mr Laie,rence B Murdock, of St. Louis, Mo , for the respondent.
Mr. Lawrence W. Long, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on January 13, 1943, by International Longshoremen's
Association , Local 1642 ( A. F. of L .), herein called the Union , the National
Labor: Relations Board, herein called the Board , by its Regional Director
for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis , Missouri ), issued its complaint dated
May 17, 1943, against Ralston Purina Company, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 8 (1) ahd
( 3), and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , accompanied by a notice
of hearing , were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent , through its supervisory employees : (1) from about December
20, 1942 , until the issuance of the complaint , made statements derogatory to the
Union , questioned its employees concerning their membership in the Union, and,
on or about January 14 , April 20, and May 11 , 1943, posted notices on its bulletin
boards for the purposes of dissuading its employees from joining and assisting
the Union , destroying the majority status of the Union , and avoiding the re-
540612-44-vo l. 51--50
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent's obligation to bargain collectively with the Union; and (2) on or
about January 9, 1943, discharged Fred Schmidt, an employee, and thereafter
failed and refused to re-employ him, because of his membership in and activity
on behalf of the Union.
On May 27, 1943, the respondent filed its answer admitting certain allegations
of the complaint with respect to the nature of its business but denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. As to Schmidt, the answer asserted that
he voluntarily quit the respondent's employ.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on May 27 and
28, 1943, before the undersigned, Horace A. Ruckel, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were repre-
sented by counsel, and the Union by an organizer. All parties participated In
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At'the
close of the hearing the undersigned granted, without objection, a motion by
counsel for the Board to conform the complaint to the proof in formal matters,
and reserved a ruling on a motion by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the
complaint. This motion is now denied. The parties were advised that they
might argue orally before the undersigned and that they might file briefs with
the undersigned. upon request made before the close of the hearing. No request
to argue orally or to file briefs was made.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,'
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Ralston Purina Company, is a Missouri corporation having its
principal office and place of business at St. Louis, Missouri. It is engaged in the
milling, mixing , processing , sale, and distribution of feed and cereals. In addi-
tion to -maintaining and operating a mill, warehouse, and grain elevator in St.
Louis, the respondent maintains and operates 22 other mills, warehouses, and
grain elevators in other cities in various parts of the United States. During
the year 1942 the respondent, at its St. Louis mill, purchased material for the
milling, mixing, and processing of feed and cereals having a value of approxi-
mately $14,000,000. Of this material an amount having a value of -approximately
$9,000,000 was purchased from points without the State of Missouri. During the
same period the value of the respondent's sales of finished products amounted to
approximately $13,500,000, of which approximately $12,000,000 in value was sold,
and transported to points outside of the State of Missouri. .
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1642, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership
employees of the respondent. '
. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began organizational activities at the respondent's plant during the
latter part of December 1942, 'when Lawrence Long, business agent for the
Union, got in touch with Fred Schmidt, one of the respondent's employees, whose
alleged discriminatory discharge on January 9, 1943, is hereinafter discussed.
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 773
Long and Schmidt arranged an organizational meeting for the respondent's em-
ployees, which took place on January 3. By January 9, 35 of the respondent's
employees had joined the Union. The applications of 25 of these members were
obtained by Schmidt 1 On April 16, 1943, a Board election was held which the
Union won, and on April 30 the Board certified the Union as the sole bargaining
representative for the respondent's employees within the unit found to be ap-
propriate. Shortly, thereafter, bargaining negotiations were entered into by
representatives of the respondent and the Union.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The beginning of the Union's organizational campaign -was not long in coming
to the attention of the respondent's supervisory employees. Jack Hartman,
expeller operator in the soy bean unit, testified that on numerous occasions during
the first few days in January Douglas Eckrich, timekeeper in the office of Fred
White,' asked Hartman how the Union was progressing. On one occasion
Eckrich told Hartman, according to the latter's undisputed testimony, that
Hartman and Schmidt had been "picked out" as the leaders of the Union, and
stated that if the Union did not "go over" it would be "too bad" because "we
was all on the list." Hartman testified that by this latter statement he under-
stood Eckrich to mean that the employees who had joined the Union would be
discharged. Eckrich did not testify and the undersigned accepts Hartman's
testimony as true.
Alvin Duren, who joined the Union during the early part of January, testified
th it during the latter part of that month Superintendent White called him into
his office and stated to him that he had heard that Duren was the "main man"
in the organization of the employees. When Duren admitted having an interest
in the Union, White told him that it was "bad business" to talk about the Union,
and that it might "cause trouble." Herbert Robinson testified that about the
middle of January, White approached him while at work and asked him what
he thought of the Union, stating that he, White, did not "see where it would do
us much good." White, when called-as a witness, admitted making substan-
tively the remarks attributed to him by Duren. In explanation, he stated that
his purpose in talking to Duren was "to put a stop to the talk that was going
around and keeping the men just on pins and needles all the time as far as safety
and their work was concerned." a White, while testifying, did not deny the
statements attributed to him by Robinson, and the undersigned finds that the
statements were made as testified to by Robinson.
The undersigned finds that by the statements of Eckrich and White, above
described, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
i This finding is based upon the uncontradicted and credible testimony of Long and
Schmidt.
2 White was the respondent's plant superintendent Eckrich kept a record of the time
spent on the various production processes in the mill and turned his time sheets over to
White. He also transmitted orders from White to Hartman and other employees. It is
clear from the record that the employees generally regarded Eckrich as a spokesman for
the management and the undersigned finds that he was. Eckrich's supervisory status was
not disputed by the respondent.
+ White did not elaborate further on the relationship between discussion of the Union and
the safety of the respondent's employees. There is no evidence in the record that their
safety was impaired by such discussion, and the undersigned finds that the reason advanced
by White for speaking to Duren was not in accordance with the facts.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 15, 1943, the respondent posted on its bulletin board in the mill a
notice in substance as follows :
To Our Mill Employees
Several employees have asked the question, "Do I have to join the Union
to hold my job?" Our answer is-
1. You are free to join, or not to join, a union, as you wish. The Company
fully respects this privilege. Your opportunity with the company will be
the same, whether you are a union member or not.
2. You do not have to join a union to work at Purina Mills.
On April 20, after the Union had won the election, the respondent posted another
notice, in substances as follows :
Since the employees of this plant voted for representatives by the A. F.
of L. some men have the idea that union membership is compulsory in order
to be employed by this company.
It is our intention to continue to operate this plant as an "open shop."
Each employee is to decide for himself whether he should or should not
join a union.
You do not have to join a union to work for Purina Mills.
Shortly after the election the respondent and the Union entered into bargaining
negotiations and several meetings were held attended by Long, in behalf of the
Union, and White and George Noxon, manager of mill production, on behalf of
the respondent. Long submitted a proposed contract to the .respondent which,
in turn, submitted counter-proposals to Long. • On May, 11, the respondent posted
on its bulletin board a third notice as follows :
To Our Employees
Since none of the mill employee representatives were present at yester-
day's negotiations with the A. F. of L. Unions, we want to let everyone
know why the negotiations were broken off and the case referred to the
War Labor Board.
Yesterday, the company. presented a reasonable, contract that. included
the Company's offer to go to the War Labor Board and request a 70 per
hour increase for all employees. About the only chance we have of getting
an increase is to have the company and the union both request the increase.
The Union Business Agents decided to insist on a "closed shop" contract
which this company refuses to sign. The Ralston Purina Company feels
that union membership is a personal matter for each man to decide for
himself, and that union membership will not be a, condition of employment..
When the Union Agents took their stand, the company withdrew its-offer
of both contract and pay increase.
The Union Agents decided to give up a chance to get a wage increase in
order to try for some type of "Union Shop."
The company knows that the War Labor Board will not order a "Cldsed
Shop", but they may force the company to sign a "Maintenance of Member-
ship" contract. Such a contract gives each man a time, usually 15 days,
to decide whether he wants to belong to the union. If he so decides, the
company will have to deduct union dues from his pay check. And he must
remain a member of the union to work here. If, in this 15 days, lie decides
not to join the union, he can work here and not belong to the union. Under
such a contract, new men coming into the organization would have to de-
cide what they wanted to do before they become permanent employees.
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 775
We know that all of our employees are interested in these negotiations,
and the company wants all men to know the facts.
The complaint alleges that the respondent posted these three notices "for the
purpose of dissuading the respondent's employees from joining or assisting the
union, and for the purpose of undermining the majority status of the union and
avoid its obligations under collective bargaining."
The undersigned finds that the first and second of the above notices stated
substantially the rights of the respondent and its employees under the Act, and
that, by posting them, the respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce
its employees in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
The truth of certain of the subject matter of the third notice is in dispute.
Long denied, while testifying, that the Union "decided to give up a chance to
get a wage increase in order to try for some type of `closed shop.'" Noxon
testified, however, that a representative of the Union at a meeting with the
respondent's representatives on May 10 stated that there "was no use of the
union discussing any other provisions until that issue was reached" and that
the Union intended to refer the matter to the War Labor Board. Conferences
were resumed, however, on May 16. At the time of the hearing, a tentative
agreement had been reached on some provisions of the proposed contract,
although eight proposed provisions of the-Union's proposed contract, including
the matter of wages, were still under discussion.
The undersigned finds that as a result of the divergent views of the parties
with respect to the closed shop as revealed at the meeting on May 10, the negotia-
tions were temporarily at a standstill. But they had not been abandoned. It
was, hence, not true that the "Union's agents decided to give up a chance to
get a wage increase in order to try for some type of `Union Shop.' " Regardless,
however, of the truth or falsity of this and other statements in the notice of
May 11, the whole tenor of the notice, particularly the charge that the Union
gave up its chances for a wage increase for the employees in an effort to
obtain a closed shop, was such as to tend to destroy confidence in the Union
and to weaken it as a' bargaining agent for the employees. The employees had
chosen the Union as their bargaining representative. It was no proper concern
of the respondent whether its employees' representative was acting wisely or
not in its conduct of negotiations. The respondent, by going over the head of
the Union and making an ex parte statement to the employees of the character
of the notice in question, interferred with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act -
C. The discharge of Fred Schmidt
Schmidt first came to work for the respondent in 1936 as a cereal packer.
Shortly thereafter lie was transferred to work as a helper on the experimental
mixer and in September, 1937, was put in charge of the mixer. In March 1941
he was assigned to the job of stock checker, a position which he continued to
hold, with an interruption of about a month, until January 9, 1943, when his
employment was severed under circumstances hereinafter discussed.
As a stock checker, Schmidt's principal duties were to take inventory of all stock
left on the floors of the mill at the end of each day and report the result to Eck-
rich, timekeeper in the office of White, plant superintendent.
On January 4, White sent Schmidt the following notice :
Floor check for Mon. 1/4/43 shows 21 miscounts . That is a very poor be-
ginning . I intend to eliminate the fl. check errors this year and fully expect
an improvement on the counting end of it.
776 DEGIShONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 6, White sent Schmidt another notice as follows:
13 errors in count-last Hite-That's still too far off.
On the evening of January 8 White sent Schmidt a note asking him to see White
at his office on the following morning. White admitted while testifying that his
purpose in summoning Schmidt to his office was to discharge him, and that he'had
had his final pay check made out. The testimony of White and Schmidt is in
some conflict, however, as to what White told Schmidt when the latter entered
the' former's office` on the morning of January 9. According to the version of
both Schmidt and White, White told Schmidt that the latter's floor check was in
"bad ,shape," and that the respondent would have to get a new checker, where-
upon Schmidt protested that it was difficult for him to get an accurate check be-
cause of the disorderly condition of the mill floor, and stated that he had from
time to time left notes for White, calling his attention to this condition,- notes
which White denied having received. The testimony of White and Schmidt
differ substantially only in that, according to White's testimony, after he had
told Schmidt that he was going to take Schmidt off the checking job, but before
he could hand Schmidt his check, Schmidt said that if White did not like the way
he was handling the checking job he "was going to just quit." Schmidt denied
stating that he was going to quit.
The respondent contends that Schmidt voluntarily quit his employment. The
undersigned'finds this contention unsupported by'the evidence. In view of White's
admission that he Intended to discharge Schmidt when he called him into his
office, and that he at no time changed his intention ; and in view of the fact that
Schmidt's alleged offer to quit followed White's statement that he was going to
get a new checker ; the undersigned finds that whatever else White may have
said, or the order in which he may have said it, he in fact discharged Schmidt'
On January 12 Schmidt called on Noxon and asked to be reinstated to his job.
Noxon, according to Schmidt's uncontradicted and credible testimony, which the
undersigned accepts as true, asked Schmidt how long he had known Long, busi-
,uess agent for the Union, and if he thought that Long could do him "more good"
than the respondent. When Schmidt replied that he believed Long could, " in the
long run ," Noxon said, "Well, I think you better go out and get another job."
Noxon promised, however, to take the matter up with White, but when Schmidt
talked with Noxon again on the following day Noxon told him that there was no
place for him in'the respondent's plant.
At the hearing the respondent contended that even if it discharged Schmidt,
his discharge , and the respondent's refusal to reinstate him. were justified be-
cause of'Schmidt's poor floor count, and were not motivated-by Schmidt's activity-
in behalf of the Union. The undersigned finds the contention to be without merit.
Schmidt's leading role in the organization of the respondent' s employees has
been previously described. Eckrich's statement to Hartman, previously related,
that he and Schmidt had been "picked out" as the leaders of the Union, and the
record as a whole, leaves no doubt that the respondent was aware of Schmidt's
union activity. It is noteworthy that White's warning of January 4 to Schmidt,
the first of the kind which had been given Schemidt since the previous November,'
4 Noxon, manager of mill production considered that Schmidt had been discharged as is
shown by a letter from Noxon to Carlson, Board's attorney, dated April 29, in which
Noxon stated that Schmidt's employment was "terminated for what we feel are very good
reasons."
6 On August 21, 1942, White sent Schmidt a note listing a number of miscounts made by
Schmidt during the previous two weeks, and stating that he expected to see a "marked
improvement," and on November 25 White wrote Schmidt again reprimanding Schmidt for
the condition of the mill floor.
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 777
was on the day following the first organizational meeting of the Union, arranged
by Schmidt and Long. White's note of January 6 reported only 13 errors in
Schmidt's floor count of January 5, as contrasted with 21 errors in his count of
January 4 This was not only an improvement over the count the previous day,
but was less than the number of from 15 to 17 errors which White testified was
the "normal expectancy" of error in counting stock.° White further testified
that he had no definite recollection of the accuracy or inaccuracy of Schmidt's
count on January 6, 7, and 8, the days immediately preceding Schmidt's discharge
and' did not recall having discussed this with Schmidt. It is a reasonable con-
clusion, and one which the undersigned draws, that the counts on these days
were satisfactory or White would have called them to Schmidt's attention.
The above facts, coupled with Noxon's question to Schmidt on January 12 as
to whether he thought that the respondent or Long, the Union's representative,
could do Schmidt the "more good," convinces the undersigned, and he so finds,
that the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Schmidt not
because of his efficiency as an employee but because of his' membership in and
activity on behalf of the Union.
The undersigned finds that by the discharge of Schmidt because of his union
membership and activities, and by thus discriminating in regard to his hire and
tenure of employment, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise, of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, 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. IHE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that the respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds
to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent discharged and thereafter refused to
reinstate Fred Schmidt for the reason that he joined and assisted a labor or-
'ganizatlon and engaged-in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining and other mutual aid and protection. It will therefore be recommended
that the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that the respondent make
Fred Schmidt whole for any loss of pay lie may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that
which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to
the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings i during
said period.
° White also stated that some error was to be expected in 99 cases out of 100 in counting
stock: I _
4 By "net earnings " Is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1642, A. F. of L. 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 employment of Fred
Schmidt, thereby discouraging membership in International Longshoremen's
Association, Local 1642, A. F. of L., the respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent Ralston Purina Company, St.
Louis, Missouri, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Longshoremen's Association,
Local 1642, A. F. of L. or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their' hire or tenure or any terms of employment :
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em=
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, joint, 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 Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Fred Schmidt immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Fred Schmidt for any loss of pay he may have suffered, by
reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in
the Section entitled "The remedy," above ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant in St Louis,
Missouri , and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from
the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that: (1) the respondent
will not engage in conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations ; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and
(b) of these recommendations ; and (3) that the employees of the respondent
are free to become and remain members of International Longshoremen's Asso-
ciation, Local 1642, A. F. of L., and that the respondent will not discriminate'
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 shall
be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 779
against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of that
organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten '(10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an,order requiring the respondent to, take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended , effective October 28,
1942, any party may withing fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
As further provided in said Section 33 should any party desire permission to
argue, orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the
Board within ten ( 10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to
the -Board.
HoxacE A. RuexEr.,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 14, 1943.