Opinion ID: 1548941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discriminatory Refusals to Reinstate.

Text: As has already been pointed out, the International Union on May 8, 1935, had closed the mines, mills and smelters in the District by calling a strike. This strike, concededly, was not attributable to an unfair labor practice of petitioners. The Tri-State Union, which petitioners are found to have dominated and supported, caused or contributed to the reopening of petitioners' properties. On July 5, 1935, the petitioners were operating with about 500 men. Their operations were not fully manned, and the evidence is that some men were taken on, so that by November 1, 1935, they were employing 864 men. The Board found, justifiably, that petitioners from July 5, 1935, to November 1, 1935, had jobs available. It also found that the strike was in effect on July 5, 1935; that picketing by the International Union continued throughout the year 1935; and that the strike, up to the time of the hearing before the Examiner, had not been formally terminated. The Board determined that, in the absence of the unfair labor practice of petitioners in imposing an illegal condition upon reinstatement (membership in the Tri-State Union), they would have put back to work and paid wages to a portion of the group affected by the reinstatement and back-wage provision of its order. The theory upon which the Board proceeded was that, since the petitioners on July 5, 1935, were imposing this illegal condition upon reinstatement, and since the striking employees understood that they could be reinstated only by giving up their membership in the International Union and joining the Tri-State Union, it was not necessary to establish, as the basis for a finding of discriminatory refusal to reinstate, that each of the striking employees had applied for reinstatement or was willing or able to return to work or that his failure to work for and to earn wages from petitioner after July 5, 1935, was attributable solely to petitioners' unfair labor practice with respect to reinstatement. Most of the striking employees who are affected by the Board's order did not testify that they would have been willing to return to work for petitioners on July 5, 1935, or at any time before November 1, 1935, had it not been for petitioners' unfair labor practice. The petitioners contend that the evidence does not support the Board's finding of discriminatory refusal to reinstate such employees. This because they were on strike from July 5, 1935, to November 1, 1935, for the purpose of enforcing the demand of the International Union that it be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of the employees of petitioners, a demand which petitioners could not lawfully comply with, since the International Union did not represent a majority of petitioners' employees. Petitioners also contend that there is no evidence that the International Union was willing at any time before November 1, 1935, that its members should return to work unless such recognition was accorded, and no evidence that its members would have been willing to return to work without its consent. Petitioners point to the conference which the evidence shows took place on July 16, 1935, between G. W. Potter, representing the petitioners, and officials of the International Union, including Brown, its president. It appears that at this conference, in response to an inquiry by Potter as to the demands of the International Union, Brown stated, We    make the same demand and just one: that in consideration of the fact that our organization has enlisted in its membership a substantial majority of the employees in this district, we are again demanding the right to act as sole collective bargaining agents for the employees; that Potter stated that his information was that the International Union had only a minority of the employees, and proposed that the members of the International return to work, build up their numerical strength, and then make their demands for recognition upon petitioners; and that Brown then stated that those terms were acceptable if Potter would further agree in writing to recognize them as their duly authorized collective bargaining agents. Petitioners contend that what was said at this conference negatives the charge that there was a discriminatory refusal to reinstate the striking members of the International Union, and shows that their employees who were members of that organization remained away, not because of any unfair labor practice of petitioners, but because of the strike. Petitioners also called attention to a statement made by Brown's successor as president of the International Union in his annual report in 1937 with reference to the strike: The situation in the Tri-State District is a serious one and has many ramifications. In my opinion the strike was ill-advised. The strike should have been called off as soon as the Militia arrived upon the scene, getting the men back to work and reorganizing so that they could be successful at some future date. With respect to the July 16, 1935, conference, the Board found that Potter's offer to return the strikers to work was not made in good faith and was subject to the implied condition that all members of the International Union returning to work should join the Tri-State Union. This Court is of the opinion that if the evidence sustains the Board's finding that the striking employees would on July 5, 1935, or thereafter while jobs were available, have applied for reinstatement and would have returned to work except for the illegal condition of reinstatement imposed by petitioners, the Board had authority to make an appropriate order with respect to reinstatement and back wages. See and compare, National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 94 F.2d 138; National Labor Relations Board v. Sunshine Mining Co., 9 Cir., 110 F.2d 780; National Labor Relations Board v. American Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 61. We are agreed that with respect to employees included in the reinstatement and back-wage provisions of the Board's order, who were shown to have indicated a willingness to return to work at any time after the strike and before November 1, 1935, the Board's order should be sustained. The members of this Court differ only as to the power of the Board to order the reinstatement, with back pay, of the striking employees who did not testify that they ever asked for reinstatement or would have asked for reinstatement prior to November 1, 1935, had it not been for the fact that they knew of the requirement that they join the Tri-State Union. A majority of the Court agree with the Board's view that, under the evidence, it was not necessary for the striking employees to have made application to return to work in order to be entitled to reinstatement and to an allowance of back pay. They regard the following findings and conclusions of the Board as clearly warranted by the evidence: Every one of the approximately 200 claimants who testified stated, and we find, that it was their understanding that a blue card was necessary for reemployment, or for retaining employment. Under these circumstances we find that the striking employees were under no obligation to make the useless gesture of applying for their jobs. A majority of the Court approve the ruling of the Board, quoted by it in its decision, that Willingness to reinstate employees only on the conditions above described, conditions which the respondent [the employer] had no right to attach, is equivalent to absolute refusal to reinstate. The majority further agree with the Board that, in view of the illegal condition which the petitioners had imposed upon the right to reinstatement, it was not necessary to prove that each individual employee was willing and able to return to work. The majority think there had been sufficient individual applications for reemployment on the part of International Union members prior to July 16, 1935, to indicate the need and desire of the men generally for reemployment, if the illegal condition was removed. It was a proper inference, say the majority, that the conference of July 16, 1935, was not held by the petitioners in good faith or with any intention to permit the strikers to return to work without joining the Tri-State Union; and that, while some of the International Union leaders, as a front, sought to re-assert their strike demands in the conference, it was clearly obvious that the International Union had by that time been so completely outmaneuvered by the tactics of the petitioners that its original demands had become only a minor and feeble note in the succeeding events. In this situation, according to the majority of the Court, the Board was justified in holding that, except as to such particular individuals as had indicated that they were not willing to return to work unless the International Union was recognized, the men as a group could properly be regarded as desirous of returning and as entitled to do so, in the absence of any express showing to the contrary. And since the men as a group, with individual exceptions who were eliminated by the Board, were thus entitled to reemployment, the questions of reinstatement and back-pay allowance, under the statute and under the ruling in Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 61 S.Ct. 845, 849, 85 L.Ed. ___, related, in the view of the majority of this Court, solely to the means to be employed to effectuate the policies of this Act (chapter). Of the form and scope of these means, the majority think the Board was the sole judge. The writer of this opinion disagrees with the majority only with respect to the reinstatement and back-wage provisions of the Board's order in so far as those provisions cover the striking employees who were not shown to have been willing to abandon the strike and to return to work prior to November 1, 1935. The disagreement of the writer is based upon the conclusion that that portion of the Board's order is punitive, and not remedial, because of the absence of evidence to justify a finding that the loss of wages suffered by these members of the group was attributable to the unfair labor practice of petitioners, and was not attributable to the strike, for which the petitioners were not responsible. See and compare, National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240, 258, 59 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed. 627, 123 A.L.R. 599; Republic Steel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 7, 10-13, 61 S.Ct. 77, 85 L.Ed. ___. Petitioners contend that the Board's method of apportioning wages, the loss of which it has attributed to the unfair labor practice of petitioners, among the members of the group covered by its order, was unauthorized. We cannot see that petitioners are prejudiced in any way by the Board's method of apportionment, and we think that the Board was within its rights in determining what distribution of back wages among the members of the group found to have been discriminated against with respect to reinstatement would best effectuate the policies of the Act. The petitioners challenge the Board's authority to include in its order certain striking employees who were convicted in military courts of rioting or who were indicted for crime in other courts. We think petitioners' contentions in this regard are without substantial merit. They raised no such issue in their answer, and the evidence does not show that they had any rule or policy against the employment of such persons or that their refusal or failure to reinstate any of the striking employees was based upon his conviction or indictment. See and compare National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U.S. 318, 341-342, 60 S.Ct. 918, 84 L.Ed. 1226. The petitioners further contend that the Board was guilty of laches. The controversy before the Board was initiated without serious delay, and, while it was long drawn out, there is no substantial basis for believing that the Board's powers were in any way impaired by the lapse of time during which the proceedings were pending and undisposed of. We think it is unnecessary to discuss further questions. The Board has requested certain modifications of its order, largely formal in character. These requests are granted. The decree of this Court will be that the order of the Board, with the modifications requested by it, be affirmed and enforced.