3. (a) Complaint has been made that the Company has discriminated against certain employees, viz: Paul Allen, Merle Chamness, Chester Lane, Lloyd Napier, Lewis Perry, Roy Reed, and Richard Schmidt, by giving them less continuous work, reducing seniority ranking and reducing their wages, all because of their connection with the C. I. O., and that certain foremen have made statements favoring the Wayne Works Employees Association. The Company wishes to announce that they have not intended to make any act of discrimination against these employees or any other employee who are members of the C. I. O. The Company agrees to discuss the grievances of these employees with each of them, accompanied by Leslie R. Towner, or if he is not available then with a representative of said Union. (b) The Company wants to make plain that membership in the C. I. O. or the Wayne Works Employees Association, in itself, will not affect any employee as far as his employment or wages is concerned. Our employees have full and free rights under the law to join with or encourage any union they choose, and, as long as these activities do not interfere with their work, we will not let the same affect our attitude. (c) We have instructed all our foremen to treat our employees alike irrespective of their Union views, and if at any time any foreman disobeys these instructions, we will appreciate information concerning the same. A prompt hearing will be held on any such complaints and, if the foreman is found guilty of violating our instructions, he will be summarily dealt with. 4. In the event said Union shall become the bargaining agent for said company's employees by virtue of an election at said plant, then upon certification of the results of said election by said Regional Director, the labor agreement between said Company and the Wayne Works Employees Association, dated October 27, 1939, and expiring November 1, 1940, shall at once be terminated. 5. The company will post the attached notice in conspicuous places in its plant, allowing such notice to remain posted for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days; 6. The company will comply with the terms of this Agreement immediately upon being advised that the Director has approved this Settlement Agreement, and will thereafter promptly notify the Director of its compliance: 7. The Union will request that the Director for the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board permit the withdrawal of the charges heretofore filed. Pursuant to an agreement for settlement of charges of violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and at the direction of Robert H. Cowdrill, Director for the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, the employees of Wayne Works, are hereby notified that: 1. The Company will not interfere with, restrain, or coerce 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, to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; 2. The Company will not dominate or interfere with the administration of the Wayne Works Employees Association or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees or contribute support to the Wayne Works Employees Association or to any other labor organization of its employees. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2——99 3. (a) Complaint has been made that the Company has discriminated against certain employees, viz.: Paul Allen, Merle Chamness, Chester Lane, Lloyd Napier, Lewis Perry Roy Reed, and Richard Schmidt, by giving them less continuous work, reducing seniority ranking and reducing their wages, all because of their connection with the C. I. O., and that certain foremen have made statements favoring the Wayne Works Employees Association. The Company wishes to announce that they have not intended to make any act of discrimination against these employees or any other employee who are members of the C. I. O. The Company agrees to discuss the grievances of these employees with each of them, accompanied by Leslie R. Towner, or if he is not available then with a representative of said union. (b) The Company wants to make plain that membership in the C. I. O. or the Wayne Works Employees Association, in itself, will not affect any employee as far as his employment or wages is concerned. Our employees have full and free rights under the law to join with or encourage any union they choose and, as long as these activities do not interfere with their work, we will not let the same affect our attitude. (c) We have instructed all our foremen to treat our employees alike irrespective of their Union views, and if at any time any foreman disobeys these instructions, we will appreciate information concerning the same. A prompt hearing will be held on any such complaints and, if the foreman is found guilty of violating our instructions, he will be summarily dealt with. 4. In the event the United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 430, C. I. O. shall become bargaining agent for said company's employees by virtue of an election at said plant, then upon certification of the result of said election by the Regional Director of the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, the labor agreement between said company and the Wayne Works Employees Association dated October 27, 1939, and expiring November 1, 1940, is to be terminated by the agreement of the contracting parties. This Notice is to remain posted on all bulletin boards in the plant for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting. To: Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, 11th Region. Subject: Wayne Works, Inc., XI-C-451. The Board gave further consideration to the case yesterday, and refused to authorize issuance of complaint under 8 (2). Although there may be a technical violation here, the Board thinks the difficulties are too great to warrant going to hearing. It appears that complaint would be justified on the 8 (3) Roy Reed. However, in view of the Board's refusal to go perhaps you can now secure an adjustment of Reed's case. and advise me further. nw;rlp case with respect to forward on the 8 (2), Please try to do so, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 486 WILLIAMS COAL CO. (Stipulation In the Matter of Williams Coal Co. was received in evidence marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 486-A," and is on file with the committee.) (Decree and Order of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Williams Coal Co. was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 486-B," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 487 WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ELEVENTH REGION In the Matter of The Operators Association, and United Mine Workers of America District No. 23. Case No; XI-C-236 CHARGE Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the undersigned hereby charges that The Operators Association, Madisonville, Kentucky, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, sub-sections (1) and (2) of said Act, in that it has dominated or interfered with the formation or administration of the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky and has contributed financial or other support to the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky. The undersigned alleges that The Operators Association, actively instigated the formation of the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky in or about July of 1933 and has actively promoted and fostered its existence ever since. The Operators Association has entered into numerous contracts with the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky which have obligated the members of The Operators Association to keep in their employ only those who are members of the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky. This has been true even though at such times less than a majority or none of the employees of such companies have been members of the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky. The Operators Association has actively procured the formation of Local Unions affiliated with the Independent Miners Union of Western Kentucky at the Mines of the members of The Operators Association. These practices are alleged to be in violation of Section 8 (2) of said Act. The undersigned further charges that said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of said Act. Name and address of person or labor organization making the charge. (If made by a labor organization, give also the name and official position of the person acting for the organization.) UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIStrict No. 23, Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of August, 1937. (Signed) Hazel McCulley, Com. Exp. Mar. 28, 1941. (N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 487-B is a duplicate of N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 487-A.) (N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 487-C is a duplicate of N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 464.) N.L.R.B. EXHIBIT No. 487-D To: Malcolm F. Halliday. MAY 11, 1939. Subject: The Operators Association, C-322. Recommendation.-Since this respondent has apparently become inactive, and since the order against it is entirely negative, it is not worth while to commence a separate proceeding for enforcement. If, however, it is decided to petition for enforcement against one of the corespondents (Williams Coal Company, C-318; Sixth Vein Coal Corporation, C-319; Reinecke Coal Mining Company, C-32; Grapevine Coal Company, C-321) then we should join Operators Association as a respondent in the enforcement proceeding. (The writer is this day recommending enforcement in the Reinecke case.) Commerce. Good enough. Respondent is an employers' association which handles labor relations for a number of coal mines, including four co-respondents, each of which is subject to the Act under the Clover Fork case. Procedure: All right. 8 (1) and (2): The respondent conspired with its members to form Independent Mining Workers Union of Western Kentucky in 1933, and in behalf of its members executed a closed-shop contract with the Independent and set up a check-off. The contract was renewed several times after July 5, 1935. The case seems clear. The Board's Order.-Usual 8 (1) and (2) cease and desist. Also cease spiring with its members to commit unfair labor practices within Section 8 and cease giving effect to or renewing any contract with the Independent coveri employees of any of the four co-respondents. Affirmative order to withdra recognition from the Independent covering employees of any of the four co-re pondents. Affirmative order to withdraw recognition from the Independent an disestablish it as representative of employees of the four co-respondents. Th Regional Director is given leave to serve a copy of the order on each of the re spondent's members. Compliance. The Regional Director has reported that this respondent has complied with the negative portions of the order in the respect that this respond ent is now inactive and is doing nothing whatever. Letters from the last president and secretary of this respondent state that it has been dormant since early in 1938 although it has never been dissolved and still preserves a technical corporate existence. The last officers of this respondent informed the Board's regional representatives that this respondent had, in April 1938, refused to renew its cou tract with the Independent which expired then. The head of the Independer t, however, showed Field Examiner Clark a letter addressed to the Independent from this respondent in April 1938, stating that this respondent had named a scale committee to negotiate with the Independent; however, the president of the Independent stated that later in May 1938 this respondent advised him that it would not make any new contract with the Independent. There is thus some confusion when and under what circumstances this respondent ceased to deal with the Independent; however, the Regional Director reports nothing inconsistent with the general idea that this respondent has in fact ceased to do busine-s with the Independent. It should be noted that that part of the order which is in form affirmative is in fact negative and will be substantially satisfied if this respondent is as dead as its officers say. In view of the apparently substantial compliance, it is recommended that no independent enforcement proceeding be instituted against this respondent. But as suggested in the opening paragraph hereof, if it is desired to seek enforcement against any of the co-respondents it would not be much trouble to make this respondent a party and ask a decree against it in the same proceeding in a circuit court. RAP:RGK R. A. P. (Notice of motion, motion for leave to withdraw petition; and order granting leave to withdraw petition, in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the 6th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Williams Coal Co. were received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 487-E," and are on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 487-F To: B. M. Stern. JANUARY 20, 1938. From: Robert H. Cowdrill-11th Region. The above petition was filed this week by our Mr. Shenkin, although it is dated January 11. From Mr. Shenkin's memo to me I have been given to understand that due to the refusal of Mr. Ed. J. Morgan, President of the U. M. W. District #23, to permit his membership cards to be used as an exhibit at the hearing which was in progress on January 11, Mr. Shenkin thought it best to have the union file a petition for certification; make it part of the case by consolidation, thereby permitting the Board at its discretion to either certify the U. M. W. as bargaining agency or direct an election. The hearing in the matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and the United Mine Workers, XI-C- 133, was concluded January 11 and the transcripts contain all necessary information in respect to the number of employees involved in Mines #2_and_ #8 (Earl Suver's testimony-January 4) and the Board's attention is directed to a stipulation entered into on January 10 at the hearing. Such stipalation in so far as relevant may be used by the Board in ordering an election if necessary. Mr. Shenkin advises that the purpose of the stipulation was to avoid another hearing in the "R" case. Under the circumstances I see no need for the usual investigation to be made by this office inasmuch as pertinent information necessary for the Board to make decision is contained in a stipulation and the testimony before the Board at hearing. I, therefore, recommend that this case No. XI-R-91 be consolidated with case No. XI-C-133 and that further action on this petition be withheld Lil the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Report. If this conclusion is in conflict with the wishes of the Board in this matter will you please advise. RHC/em Notice of withdrawal of complaint and Amended Complaint In the Matter of The Operators Association, Case No. 11-C-236, were received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 487-G", and are on file with the committee.) Order of Consolidation In the Matter of West Kentucky Coal Co., Cases Nos. C-456 and R-615, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 487-H", and is on file with the committee.) Decision, Order, and Direction of Election in the above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 487-I", and is on file with the comnittee.) Decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. West Kentucky Coal Co., was reeived in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 487-J", and is on file with the committee. Subject: Mone Glove Company, XI-C-421; XI-R-179. You are authorized to issue a complaint in the C case. Enclosed herewith are copies of Order Directing Investigation and Hearing and Consolidation in this matter. Enclosure. nw;jeb Air Mail N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 488-B INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AUGUST 25, 1938. To: Beatrice M. Stern, Assistant Secretary. In substance, the Trial Examiner recommended that: (a) the company bargain with the'nternational Ladies Garment Workers Union as the exclusive representative of al the employees at the Brazil plant; (b) upon resumption of operations at Brazil, ndiana, offer reinstatement to a list of 37 employees; (c) make whole to the 37 employees any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the lock-out, computed fom the date of the lock-out, July 28, 1937, to the date of the offer of reinstatement; (d) post notices to the above effect. As a resultof a long period of negotiations between the union and the officials of the compa.y and, as a result of several conferences with this office, the union and the employer have requested that the following settlement be approved by the Board: 1. The company has agreed to bargain with the ILGWU as the exclusive representative of its employees at its Brazil plant nad has entered into a closed shop contract with the ILGWU, which contract provides for 100% increase in wages, and other substatial advantages to the employees in Brazil, Indiana. As a part of this agreement the company has agreed to transfer all its operations at its |