The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1938-09-08

|
fanfare Hollywood has done it again.
since Fast Company"
Organization" To union representa-
tive, Gerber also said: "Why don't you
admit defeat and advise your men to
file their applications SO that they can
earn an honest livelihood Gerber
also asked the men to withdraw the
charges that you filed with the
Board) as Union Organization, and
we will then deal with you as group"
This the men refused to do, because:
eve still belong to the Union"
10. However, on September IA, 1886,
concurrent with the termination of the
strike, contract was entered into be-
tween respondent and the representa-
tives of it's employees. (Bd. Elk. 10) Re-
spondent agreed ''to employ all en-
ployes on the list (attached thereto)
at the positions thereon indicated be-
fore anyone else is employed" Respon-
dent further agreed to notify them
"when such position is available and
to employ them if they report within
three (3) days" If party failed to
report or refused the position, the next
available man on the list would be no.
titled. The agreement was to expire
after all the men on the list had thus
been given an opportunity to work.
II. Thereafter respondent did rein
state some of the employees named in
the contract. But at least 80 of the
men so listed were not reinstated and
have not been reinstated to this day.
Nevertheless, respondent hired ap-
proXimately 20 new employees between
the day of the contract, and March II,
1897. 1t is thus clear that respondent
failed to reemploy men named in the
contract of September Ia, 1886, before
hiring "anyone else" and in doing so
violated said contract.
II. Subsequent to the afore-mention-
ed agreement of September IA, 1886,
Raymond Alexander, president of the
Central Trades and Labor Council in
the city of Kokomo, called upon Leo
Williams, the general manager of the
respondent company to complain that
the former employees of the respon-
dent were not being reemployed ac-
cording to the terms of the agreement.
Williams said there were certain men
whose names appeared on the list to
be reemployed who would never be
taken back because they were so
prominent in union organizations. He
specially mentioned Everett Tucker,
the then president of the complain
ant local and said if it weren't for his
union position he would now be work
ing for the respondent. Russell Won
Cannon, the secretary Of the Local was
also named as one of the men who
would not be reemployed
13. Because Of respondents refusal
to comply with the agreement afore-
mentioned, the Union again called a
strike on March II, 1887, as announced
by a notice to the Company and by
posting a dodger ed. Ex. 14) char
acteriZing the respondent as UNFAIR
1t further declared: "This company
has violated and disregarded an agree
ment which ended two years strike
Status of strike has again been de-
clared by l.. U. 26, N. B. of O. p"
This strike has continued to the pres
ent time.
IA. At various dates thereafter, re-
spondent mailed to various Individual
employees notices saying:
You may arrange to call at our
employment office and make ap-
plication for position as caster.
Your failure to adhere to this
request within 3 days will Indicate
to US that you are no longer inter
ested in employment in our COM
pany.
These letters were sent on April 8,
April 7, April 13, May 13, and per-
haps other times, to employees then on
strike and seeking to bargain col
lectively through the Union. ed Ex.
6, 3, 7, 9, and 13).
Is. By refusing to deal with the
Union and by refusing to deal with
his employees as group and by SIM
liar anti-union statements made on
August is, 1886; by violating its con-
tract of September IA, 1886; by the
general managers statements that re-
spondent would not reinstate certain
| IClilplON6S DpCduSC Ol IllclI
in union organization; and by in
dividually requesting employees then on
strike to apply for work or be termin-
ated, as set forth above, respondent
has interferred with, restrained and
coerced it's employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
B. Domino ton and Interference With
a Labor Organizat ton
16 Shortly after the lay-off of the
union men in January of 1885, Or
vile Sargent, foreman of the store
room, notified many Of the rlen then
working that there would be meet