The Good Coal Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 136 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of THE GOOD COAL COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA , DISTRICT 19
Case No. C-509.-Decided April 8, 1939
Coal Mining Industry-Interference , Restraint, and Coercion : expressed op-
position to outside unions ; drafting and circulating anti-union petition ; threaten.
ing employees with eviction and loss of employment if remained or became
members of Union ; instructions to foreman to watch union activities and to
find a pretext to discharge union employees-Company-Dominated Union:
association the result of respondent 's expressed opposition against "outside
organizations" and statements and acts favoring an independent association;
respondent continued to dominate and interfere with the Association after its
formation ; ordered disestablished-Discrimination : respondent refused to rein-
state employees who failed to work on Labor Day in consequence of and in
connection with labor dispute, constitutes a discrimination ; four employees
remained away from work for reasons not connected with the dispute likewise
found to be discriminated against ; complaint dismissed as to nine employees
found not to have been discriminated against and as to a foreman found not to
have been discriminatorily discharged-Reinstatement Ordered: employees dis-
criminatorily refused reinstatement and employees who struck in sympathy with
those refused reinstatement , dismissing newly hired employees , if necessary ;
preferential list ordered ; to be followed in further reinstatement-Back Pay:
awarded ; employees discriminatorily refused reinstatement -Unit Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining : production employees working in and about mine, ex-
clusive of office, commissary , and supervisory employees-Representatives : proof
of choice : membership lists compiled from official membership book of Union
and testimony of union secretary-Collective Bargaining : refusal to consider
union recognition ; refusal to consider any proposal by Union relative to proof of
its majority status ; display of hostility to Union.
Mr. Leonard Shore, for the Board.
Mr. Cleon K. Calvert, of Pineville, Ky., and Mr. William Sampson
and Mr. James Sampson, of Harlan , Ky., for the respondent.
Mr. Gus B. Bruner, of Harlan , Ky., for the Association.
Mr. James S. Golden, of Pineville, Ky., for the U. M. W.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Mine Workers of America,
District 19, herein called the U. M. W., the National Labor Relations
12 N. L. R. B., No. 19.
136
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 137
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued its complaint dated Novem-
ber 16,1937, against The Good Coal Company, Lisle, Kentucky, 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), (2), (3), and (5) 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 notices of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent, upon the U. M. W.,
and upon the Wallins Creek Employees' Association, herein called the
Association, a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the respondent.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent had (a)
intimidated and coerced its employees in order to discourage their
joining the U. M. W.; (b) dominated and interfered with the forma-
tion and administration of the Association and contributed financial
and other support to said Association; (c) discriminatorily dis-
charged 134 named persons on or about September 6, 1937, and E. P.
Jackson on or about October 14, 1937, and since refused to employ
said individuals, for the reason that they joined and assisted the
U. M. W. and engaged in concerted activities with other employees,
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection; and (d) on or about June 5, 1937, and at all times there-
after, refused to bargain collectively- with the U. M. W. as a repre-
sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit.
On November 20, 1937, the respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint, denying that its operations affect interstate commerce and
denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the complaint was held in Wallins
Creek, Harlan County, Kentucky, from December 3 to December 7,
1937, before Harlow Hurley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Board. The Board, the U. M. W., the respondent, and the Asso-
ciation, which intervened in the proceeding, were represented by
counsel 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 Board's case, counsel for the Board moved
to dismiss the allegations of the complaint with respect to those per-
sons named therein who failed to appear when called or who were
not called to testify. Counsel for the Board also moved that the com-
plaint be amended to conform with the proof. The Trial Examiner
granted these motions. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the
close of the hearing, the Association moved that certain paragraphs
of its petition for intervention be taken as true and confessed upon
the ground that the allegations were not denied by the Board. The
Trial Examiner overruled this motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the close of the hearing, the respondent moved that the complaint
be dismissed on the grounds : (1) that the respondent is not engaged
in interstate commerce; (2) that the evidence does not sustain the
complaint. The Trial Examiner overruled the motion. The ruling
is hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Exam-
iner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On March 28, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served on all parties, in which he
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), and (5)
of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist
from its wifair labor practices; that it make whole and offer 117 of
the persons named in the complaint immediate and full reinstatement
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
that it disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the Association
as collective bargaining representative of its employees; that upon
request it bargain collectively with the U. M. W. as the exclusive
representative of its production employees; and that it take certain
other affirmative action to remedy the situation brought about by
the unfair labor practices.
Thereafter the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report. On May 6, 1938, the Board advised the respondent, the
Association, and the U. M. W. of their right to apply for oral argu-
ment or permission to file briefs regardless of previous notification or
rulings by the Trial Examiner. The parties did not avail themselves
of this opportunity. The Board has reviewed the exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and, save as consistent with the findings, con-
clusions, and order hereinafter set forth, finds the exceptions to be
without merit.
Upon the entire record of the case, the Board make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT.
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Good Coal Company, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in
the business of mining and selling coal. It operates a mine in Lisle,
Harlan County, Kentucky, which is leased on a royalty basis from
The Harlan Wallins Corporation. The coal is sold chiefly to Southern
Coal & Coke Company, located at Knoxville, Tennessee; the Midland
Coal Company, located at Cincinnati, Ohio; and the Continental
Collieries, located at Cincinnati, Ohio. The sales to these companies
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 139
are f. o. b. the tipple and all shipments on orders from these companies
are made in cars of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad and con-
necting carriers.
The respondent mines approximately 160,000 tons of coal each
year. It was stipulated that the shipments of coal of the respondent
for the month of July 1937 were typical of the shipments for any
month of the respondent's operations. During July 1937, the re-
spondent shipped 390 cars of coal, approximately 50 tons per car.
More than 80 per cent of such coal was shipped to Alabama, Georgia,
Tennessee, Indiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Illinois, Mich-
igan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The sales were made chiefly to the com-
panies named above.
The respondent, for use in its mining operations, purchases sand,
oil, powder, and carbide, substantially all of which are obtained
outside of the State of Kentucky.
The respondent conducts a commissary in connection with its opera-
tions and maintains approximately 113 houses which it rents to em-
ployees. The supplies for the commissary are obtained by the
respondent for the most part from outside Kentucky.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America, District 19, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership persons employed in the mining in-
dustry in Tennessee and in the southeastern part of Kentucky,
exclusive of supervisory employees, office employees, and commissary
clerks. It is affiliated with the United Mine Workers of America,
air international labor organization, which is in turn affiliated with
the Committee for Industrial Organization. It comprises various
local labor organizations, including Local No. 1255 at the mine of
the respondent.
Wall ins Creek Employees' Association is an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization, admitting to its membership all employees of the re-
spondent, excluding supervisory, office, and commissary personnel.
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In February 1937 the respondent called a meeting of its employees
ostensibly for the purpose of raising funds for the Red Cross and
discussing the establishment of a burial fund for employees. E. P.
Jackson, who at the time of the meeting was employed by the re-
spondent as a mine foreman, testified that at the meeting J. L.
McIntyre, the respondent's vice president and superintendent, asked
the employees "not to get tied up with the union that was floating
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
around the country" and stated that "when it came before them that
they needed an organization that he would help them to get or-
ganized and get them a charter and pick their committees . . "
McIntyre admitted that he had made remarks of such character and
further testified as follows :
I asked the men there, told them that there seemed to be quite a
bit of newspaper and press about organizing the coal fields, and
especially Harlan County, and that I didn't want them to sneak
around behind my back and organize. When the time come
and Harlan County was going to be organized, I would see to it
they was properly organized in any way, shape and form and get
some good representatives out of their lines, and we would go
along in a peaceful way.
McIntyre also admitted that during the early part of 1937 he had
drafted for circulation among the employees a petition which read
as follows :
We, the undersigned and employees of the above company,
have elected to deal collectively with our company. We do not
wish to be intimidated with or from outside source, which has
been prevalent in the past few weeks. We feel we have been
dealt with fairly both in conditions and wages and wish to
continue under the same conditions in the future.
McIntyre testified that he did not recall to whom he gave the peti-
tion for circulation, but that he didn't want the foremen to handle it.
He further testified that the purpose of the petition was to ascertain
"how the men felt toward the way they were being treated by the
Good Coal Company" and "whether or not they had any grievances
against the company they wanted to air." Theodore Parker, an
employee, testified that George Brock, an entry foreman, gave him
a copy of the petition and got him to sign it. This testimony was
not controverted. We think it clear that the act of the respondent
in drafting the said petition for circulation among the employees
and the act of Brock in soliciting employees to sign it, particularly
at a time when attempts were being made to organize the employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining, constituted an interference
with the rights guaranteed employees by the Act and we so find.
Louis Stines, an employee, testified he received a notice from the
respondent to vacate his respondent-owned house in February 1937
and that, when he consulted McIntyre respecting the reason for the
notice, McIntyre replied, "they tell me you belong to the United
Mine Workers and if you do ... the notice is good." Stines fur-
ther testified that he denied belonging to the United Mine Workers
and that McIntyre then stated "I have got a way of checking up
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 141
and finding out ... If you do, the notice stands good, but if you
don't, ignore the notice and go back to work." George Stines, an
employee, testified that he also received a notice to vacate his house
and that he had a conversation with McIntyre similar to that testified
to by Louis Stines. Although McIntyre denied that he had engaged
in discrimination against any union, he did not refer in his testimony
to the above acts and conversations. We conclude that McIntyre
made the remarks testified to by the Stineses.
E. P. Jackson testified that on August 20, 1937, McIntyre handed
him a list of members of the Association which had previously been
formed and told him that he should favor the men whose names
appeared on the list. Jackson further testified that McIntyre in-
structed him not to discharge any man because of his union affilia-
tion but stated that "we could always fire on some other grounds"
and that McIntyre pointed out certain specific members of the union
he wanted "some good reason" found whereby they could be dis-
charged. Jackson also testified that, in accordance with the instruc-
tions from McIntyre, he told the assistant foremen to watch and re-
port to him concerning the activities of the employees. McIntyre
denied that he had given any list of employees to Jackson or that
he had made the statements or given the instructions testified to by
Jackson. In view of the admitted hostility of McIntyre to union
organization and the other acts of intimidation and coercion on his
part, we conclude that he engaged in the acts and gave the instruc-
tions as testified to by Jackson.
We find that, by the activities and statements above set forth, the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Interference with and domination of the Association
We have noted above that, at the meeting called by the respondent
in February 1937, McIntyre expressed opposition to outside organi-
zations and stated that at a proper time he would help the employees
to organize and to get a charter and pick their committees.
About the latter part of June 1937, Cecil Barnes, an employee at
"Totz," a neighboring coal mine where an unaffiliated union had-
been organized, was instructed by such union to communicate with
McIntyre relative to organization of the employees of the respondent.
Barnes testified that he spoke to McIntyre about the advantages of
such a union and that McIntyre remarked, "It is what I have been
trying to get the coal operators' association of Harlan County to do
for 5 or 6 years." Barnes further testified that McIntyre stated that
he "would see the men and get them to work on it," but that it would
be necessary for him (McIntyre) to remain in the background in
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order that it would not appear that the respondent has participated
in the formation of such an organization . Shortly thereafter, at
Barnes' request , McIntyre gave him a job at the respondent 's mine.
McIntyre was not questioned with respect to the remarks Barnes
testified that he made, but stated merely that Barnes "run me to death
for about 2 weeks" about a job at the respondent's mine and that
Barnes "went through that rigamarole about his association up there
all the time , for an indication he wanted to get a job down here."
McIntyre testified that he finally gave Barnes a job "to get rid of him
off my porch ." Under all the circumstances , we conclude that
McIntyre's explanation regarding the reason for employing Barnes
cannot be accepted and that McIntyre made the remarks testified to
by Barnes.
On or about August 6, 1937 , the Association was formed and in-
corporated under the laws of the State of Kentucky . E. P. Jackson
testified that about this time Clyde Thorpe, an employee of the re-
spondent who became vice president of the Association , stated, in
reply to a question by Jackson as to where he was going , "I am go-
ing out to Harlan with McIntyre and Bill Collins 1 ... We are
going to go up and get that company charter (sic)" Jackson fur-
ther testified that shortly thereafter he saw McIntyre , Collins, and
Thorpe get into an automobile and drive off ; that 2 days later Thorpe
stated that the charter had been obtained . McIntyre , Collins, and
Thorpe denied at the hearing that they had at any time driven to
Harlan together . McIntyre also denied that he had anything to do
with the obtaining of the charter or the formation of the Association.
Elmer Osborne , an employee of the respondent and president of the
Association , testified that he and Bill Collins went to Harlan and
employed G. B. Bruner , a Harlan attorney , to secure the charter for
the Association . In view of the other facts presented herein, we find
it unnecessary to determine whether McIntyre in fact went with
Thorpe and Collins to aid in securing a charter for the Association.
About the time the charter was obtained by the Association , it held
a number of meetings, bylaws were adopted , officers were elected, and
committees were appointed.
We have found above that about August 20, 1937 , shortly after the
formation of the Association , McIntyre handed Jackson a list of the
members of the Association stating that such persons were to be
favored and also instructed Jackson to attempt to find reasons for
discharging certain members of the U. M. W.
Jackson testified , moreover , that following the formation of the
Association McIntyre instructed him to shift Obe Alred, a U. M. W.
member, to a less desirable place in the mine and to replace him with
1 An employee who became secretary -treasurer of the Association.
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 143
John Price, a member of the Association, in order that the latter
might "exercise influence over the men." Although McIntyre denied
that he at any time instructed his foremen to favor the Association
or to discriminate against the members of the U. M. W., he -did: not
testify as to whether he had instructed Jackson to put Price in the
position which Alred had held. We conclude that McIntyre did
so°and gave the instructions testified to by Jackson.
We conclude that the formation of the Association resulted from
the opposition which McIntyre expressed against "outside organi-
zations" and his statements and acts favoring an organization such
as the Association 2 and that after the formation of the Association
the respondent continued to dominate and interfere with it by virtue
of the various acts and statements set forth above.
We find that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the formation and administration of the Association and has con-
tributed support to it; that in and by such acts the respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in rights guar
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
C. The refusal to bairgaM collectively
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that the production employees of the
respondent who work in and about its mine constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The office, commis-
sary, and supervisory employees of the respondent are not eligible to
membership in the U. M. W. and these employees would be excluded
from the unit by the U. M. W. as non-production employees. The
respondent raised no objection to the aforesaid unit in its answer to
the complaint or at the hearing.
We find that the production employees of the respondent who work
in and about its mine, exclusive of office, commissary, and supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the respond-
ent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the U. M. W. of a majority in the appropriate
unit
It was stipulated at the hearing that the respondent employs
approximately 182 production employees in and about its mine. Lige
Helton, secretary of the U. M. W. local at the respondent's mine,
2 See Matter of Crawford Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing
Committee, 8 N. L. A. B. 1237.
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified from records of the local that the local and thus the U. M. W.
had 67 members among the production employees of the respondent
on May 17, 1937; 98 members on May 24, 1937; 131 members on May
31, 1937; 139 members on June 8, 1937; and 141 members on June 15,
1937. There was also introduced in evidence a list of the members
of the U. M. W. local as of September 6, 1937, containing the names
of 158 production employees of the respondent. Raymon Reynolds,
financial secretary of the U. M. W. local, testified that the list was
compiled from the local's official membership book. The respondent
did not question the testimony of Helton or the authenticity of the
membership list submitted by the U. M. W.
Reynolds testified that the approximately 25 members of the
U. M. W. who worked after September 6, 1937,3 were thereafter not
considered to be members of the U. M. W. Even if such persons
were deemed no longer to desire representation by the U. M. W., the
majority status of the U. M. W. would not be affected thereby.
We have noted above that the Association was organized in August
1937 and the Association claimed at the hearing that it represented
a large number of the employees of the respondent. We have found,
however, that the respondent dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Association. Under such cir-
cumstances, the fact that an employee may have changed his affilia-
tion from the U. M. W. to the Association is not to be given weight
in determining the desires of such employee with respect to
representation 4
We note in Section D below that the respondent on September 7,
1937, discharged a large number of employees who did not work on
September 6, 1937, and it apparently thereafter employed persons to
fill the positions of the discharged employees. Since we find, how-
ever, that the respondent by virtue of the discharges engaged in an
unfair labor practice, the majority status of the U. M. W. is not
affected by the discharges or by the taking on of any new personnel
thereafter to fill the positions of the persons discharged.
We find that on and about June 5, 1937, and at all times thereafter,
the U. M. W. represented a majority of the employees of the respond-
ent in the appropriate unit. By the authority of Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the U. M. W. is therefore the exclusive representative of the
production employees of the respondent who work in and about its
mine, exclusive of office, commissary, and supervisory employees, for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, hours
of work, and other conditions of employment.
7
8 The events which took place on and about September 6, 1937, are discussed in detail
in Section D below.
* See Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S. A.) (a Corporation) and Textile
Workers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0., 4 N. L. R. B. 604.
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 145
3. The refusal to bargain collectively
About June 5, 1937, a committee designated by the U. M. W.
requested McIntyre, the respondent's vice president and superintend-
ent, to allow the U. M. W. to use for its meetings a schoolhouse owned
by the respondent. The committee in making this request informed
McIntyre that the U. M. W. represented a majority of the respond-
ent's employees. McIntyre refused to allow the U. M. W. the use
of the schoolhouse and at the hearing admitted that he had stated at
the time that he would not recognize the U. M. W. "under any cir-
cumstances." W. S. Hunter, a member of the committee testified
that McIntyre told the committee,
Well, I think you boys got in a hell of a damn hurry ... I
told you up there in the meeting at the schoolhouse that when
the proper time comes, that I would help you select your com-
mittee, go with you and help you get your charter . . . you can
look at this Black Mountain union up here ... They are all
the time raising hell ... I don't want no such organization
as that in our camp ... We only have a few thousand dollars
in our company, and before I will recognize the United Mine
Workers, I will drag my steel, sell my machinery ... close
the drift mouth and quit."
This testimony, which was corroborated by that of Herman Jones,
another member of the committee, was not refuted by McIntyre.
We find that the latter made the statements attribued to him.
On August 5, 1937, the U. M. W. by a vote of its members in-
structed the committee, previously selected, except that Theodore
Parker was appointed in the place of Charles Hunt, again to com-
municate with McIntyre and to ascertain whether he would accept
the word of the U. M. W. that it represented a majority of the re-
spondent's employees or would desire a "labor vote." The committee
saw McIntyre on the same afternoon and offered to prove by its
check-off slip that the U. M. W. represented a majority of the em-
ployees or, if this form of proof was not satisfactory, to have a "Labor
Board count." Parker testified that McIntyre replied, "To hell with
the Labor Board count. They couldn't have a damn union ... go
back and tell them fellows he wasn't going to have a damn thing
to do with it ... That if they wanted to strike to go ahead and
strike, he had broke it in twenty-four hours, and he could do it
again." When questioned at the hearing as to the accuracy of the
testimony relative to the meeting of August 5 with the committee,
McIntyre stated, "I haven't disputed it." We find that McIntyre
made the statements attributed to him.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear that the committee of the U. M. W. at the meetings
with McIntyre on June 5 and August 5, 1937, sought, among other
things, recognition of the Union as the bargaining representative
of the respondent's production employees and offered to prove that
the U. M. W. represented a majority of such employees. This action
of the U. M. W. committee was a logical step in the collective bar-
gaining process. McIntyre on behalf of the respondent, refused to
grant the U. M. W. recognition as bargaining representative, refused
to consider any proposals by the U. M. W. concerning the furnishing
to the respondent proof of its majority status, and by his display
of hostility to the U. M. W. precluded further attempts of the U.
M. W. with regard to collective bargaining.5
We find that on or about June 5, 1937, on August 5, 1937, and at
all times thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively
with the U. M. W. as the representative of its employees in an ap-
propriate unit. We further find that thereby and by virtue of the
statements which McIntyre made to the U. M. W. committee the
respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discriminations in regard to hire and tenure of employment
The complaint alleges that the respondent on or about September
6, 1937 , discharged 134 named employees, and on or about October
14, 1937, discharged E. P. Jackson , for the reason that said employees
joined and assisted the U. M. W. and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection . At the hearing, upon motion by
counsel for the Board , the allegations of the complaint were dis-
missed as to 19 of the said 134 individuals .e There remain, there-
fore, for consideration the cases of 115 of the said 134 individuals
and the case of Jackson.
Monday, September 6, 1937 , was Labor Day and a large number
of the employees of the respondent planned on that day to attend
a Labor Day rally under union auspices . On the preceding Friday,
Jackson , the general mine foreman, informed McIntyre that many
of the employees did not intend to work on Labor Day. McIntyre
replied that the mine would be operated even if only three men ap-
peared for work. On Saturday , September 4, 1937, the respondent
posted a notice which stated that the respondent would operate on
Labor Day . McIntyre testified that the respondent also blew the
5 See Matter of Piqua Munising Woods Products Company and Federal Labor Union
Local 18787, 7 N. L. R . B., 782 ; Matter of Burnside Steel Foundry Company and
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel , and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge No.
1719, 7 N. L. R. B. 714.
6 The names of the said 19 persons are set forth in Appendix A annexed hereto.
T FIE GOOD COAL COMPANY 147
mine whistle on Sunday, September 5, and that this indicated that
the mine would operate on the following day. On Sunday, Sep-
tember 5, the U. M. W. met and unanimously decided not to work
on Labor Day, but instead to attend the Labor Day rally. A com-
mittee which was designated by the U. M. W. to notify McIntyre
of this decision decided that to do so would be useless inasmuch as
they were informed by one of the employees that McIntyre had
decided to operate the mine in any event. McIntyre testified that
it was custom in Harlan County to operate on Labor Day and that
it was necessary to operate on the Labor Day in question because of
certain coal orders which had just been obtained by the respondent.
McIntyre further testified that it was a rule of the respondent that
employees who stayed away from work without permission would be
discharged. Numerous witnesses, including Jackson, who until his
discharge held the position of general mine foreman, denied knowl-
edge of any such rule. George Stines, an employee, testified that he
had been absent from work before without permission without any-
thing happening. We conclude that the employees had never been
informed of the rule which McIntyre testified existed at the respond-
ent's mine.
On Labor Day, September 6, approximately 40 employees reported
for work and approximately 140 remained away. McIntyre posted
a notice which read as follows :
SEPT. 6, 1937-ABOUT 9:30 A. M.
Notice to all employees who did not report for work, Monday,
September 6, 1937, will please consider themselves discharged
and report to office for settlement.
J. L. MCINTYRE,
General Manager.
The approximately 40 employees who reported for work on Septem-
ber 6 worked throughout the day.
On Tuesday, September 7, 1937, practically all the employees who
had been absent on the previous day reported for work. Acting upon
instructions from McIntyre, Jackson refused to allow the men to
enter the mine. Shortly thereafter McIntyre arrived, accompanied
by a number of deputy sheriffs, and announced that "all you men
that didn't work yesterday, obey your notice, go to the office and get
your money and settle up. I worked without you yesterday and will
do without you today and from now on." Thereafter, a number of
the men who worked on Labor Day refused to work until the dis-
charged men had been reinstated and left the mine.
By an Act of the Congress of the United States, "the first Monday
in September in each year, being the day celebrated and known as
Labor Day, is made a legal public holiday in the same manner as
Christmas, the first of January, the 22nd day of February, the 30th
169134-39-vol 12 -11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day of May, and the 4th of July, are now made by law public holi-
days." 7 Although the said Act does not prevent a private employer
from operating his business on Labor Day, it clearly recognizes the
day as one of special significance to labor. It is well known that
industry in general ceases its operations on Labor Day and that labor
in general engages in special celebrations on that day. It was under
these general circumstances that a majority of the employees of the
respondent decided not to work on the Labor Day in question and
that the respondent decided to operate its mine on that day. It is
clear that the respondent and the employees each knew of the posi-
tion of the other in this matter and that each party intended to
adhere strictly to its position. We find that there existed as a result
of these conflicting positions of the parties a current labor dispute
with respect to the terms and conditions of employment.
It was as a consequence of and in connection with the aforesaid
labor dispute that the U. M. W. held its meeting on Sunday, Septem-
ber 5, and unanimously voted not to work on Labor Day. The vote
was in effect a vote to strike on Labor Day in protest against a con-
dition of employment which the respondent had decided to impose
and which, by notice, the respondent had stated would be imposed.
The persons whose names are listed in Appendix B annexed
hereto did not work on Labor Day as a consequence of and in con-
nection with the labor dispute. These persons therefore retained
their status as employees 8 and such status was not affected by the
attempt of the respondent on September 6, 1937, to discharge them.9
All the persons named in Appendix B attempted to return to work
on September 7, but the respondent refused to permit them to do so.
This refusal was based solely upon the ground of the failure of the
men to appear for work on Labor Day. Inasmuch as the failure of
the men to work on Labor Day was a consequence of and in connec-
tion with the current labor dispute and since the respondent had not
at the time it refused to allow the men to return to work filled their
positions, the refusal constituted a discrimination against the men,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.19
Two employees, John Wenger and Stonewall Jackson, did not
work on Labor Day because of illness. A. third employee, Roy Stur-
gill, did not work on Labor Day for the reason that several days
prior thereto he had been laid off pending an investigation by the
7 28 stat. 96.
g National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, Section 2 (3) ; National Labor Relations
Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company , 304 U. S. 333 ( 1938).
9 Matter of Stackpole Carbon Company and United Electrical & Radio Workers of
America, Local No 502, 6 N L R B. 171; Matter of Amemcan Manufacturing Concern and
Local No. 6, Organized Furmture Workers, 7 N. L R B. 753.
io See National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, 304
U. S. 333 ( 1938 ) ; Matter of McKaig-Hatch, Inc. and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel, and Trop Workers of North America, Local No. 1139 , 10 N. L. R. B. 33.
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 149
respondent of an accident which had occurred at the mine. A fourth
employee, Roscoe Jones, had received permission to visit friends on
Labor Day and he was absent from work on Labor Day for this
reason. On September 7 he returned to work and together with the
employees listed in Appendix B was refused reinstatement. At the
time of the respondent's refusal to permit the men listed in Appen-
dix B and Roscoe Jones to return to work, Jackson informed McIn-
tyre that a number of men had been absent from work on Labor Day
due to illness or because they had been laid off. McIntyre replied
that, "he was taking no excuses from anyone" and further stated,
"don't mete out anything. We will put them on the run. If they
was in our place, they would put us on the run." It was thus the
position of the respondent that, because of the concerted activity of
employees, anyone who did not appear for work on Labor Day could
not return to work. The testimony of Wenger, Jackson, and Stur-
gill, shows that they knew that this was the position of the respond-
ent and that for this reason they did not appear for work on Sep-
tember 7. Under such circumstances, we find that application for
employment on September 7 by the three employees would have been
futile and wa3 therefore unnecessary. We find that the respondent
refused to allow Wenger, Jackson, Sturgill, and Jones to return to
work on September 7 because of the concerted activities of employees
of the respondent on Labor Day and that the respondent thereby
discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
said persons within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
At varying periods after September 7 the respondent offered to
allow Lige McLain and Elmer Cook, two employees named in
Appendix B, and Wenger, Jackson, Sturgill, and Jones to return to
work. The employees refused to do so unless the other employees
who had been discriminated against were also allowed to return to
work. We conclude that an offer of reinstatement to some of a
number of employees who have been discriminated against as a result
of concerted activity such as here involved together with a clear
manifestation that the other employees who have been so discrimi-
nated against will not be allowed to return to work, does not consti-
tute any real offer of reinstatement within the purview of the Act."
We find therefore that the rights of McLain, Cook, Wenger, Jackson,
Sturgill, and Jones, are unaffected by the offers of reinstatement
which were made to them by the respondent.
A number of employees, including Jim Scott, Charles Slagle,
Morris Slagle, Emmet Slagle, Burley Stevens, George Slusher, Roose-
velt Slusher, John Wynn, and Curtis Simpson, worked at the re-
spondent's mine on Labor Day, but went out on strike at varying
'}See Matter of Sunshine Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, 7 N. L. It . B. 1252.
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dates shortly thereafter because of the respondent's refusal to allow
the other employees to return to work and because of the conditions
resulting from such refusal. The strike of these employees was,
therefore, due to the unfair labor practice of the respondent. We
find that these employees have not been discriminated against within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. They are, however, entitled
to reinstatement to their former positions as set forth in the Section
entitled "The remedy" below.
We find that the respondent, by refusing to allow the persons
named in Appendix B, and John Wenger, Stonewall Jackson, Roy
Sturgill, and Roscoe Jones to return to work on September 7, 1937,
discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization; that in
and by said discriminations the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.12 We further find that the em-
ployees, including Jim Scott, Charles Slagle, Morris Slagle, Emmet
Slagle, Burley Stevens, George Slusher, Roosevelt Slusher, John
Wynn, and Curtis Simpson, who ceased work shortly after September
7, 1937, as set forth above, did so because of unfair labor practice on
the part of the respondent.
E. The allegedly discriminatory discharge of E. P. Jackson
Jackson was employed by the respondent as general mine foreman
when it commenced operations in September 1936. Prior thereto, he
had worked under McIntyre for about 12 years at a mine operated by
the respondent at Kildav, Harlan County, Kentucky. Jackson was
never a member of the U. M. W. and, as we have noted above, actively
assisted the respondent in its discriminations against the employees
and the U. M. W.
About September 14, 1937, Jackson was demoted by McIntyre from
his position of general mine foreman to that of trackman. Jackson
testified that McIntyre stated at the time, "I want you to change
places with Mr. Asher and go to the other side of the mine . . . we
are going to have to do a lot of things on that side of the mine that
will be too embarrassing for you." On the morning of September 22,
1937, Jackson was discharged by George Clontz, who, together with
Walter Asher, had taken over Jackson's duties as general mine fore-
man. Clontz asserted that the time that he discharged Jackson that
the latter had failed to "fix a joint" as he had been instructed. Jack-
son testified that due to the existence of certain other broken joints he
12 The facts with regard to the employment of the persons listed in Appendix B,
Wenger , Jackson, Sturgill, and Jones , from September 7, 1937, to the date of the
hearing, are set forth in Appendix C, annexed hereto.
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 151
had been unable to carry out all the work assigned him although he
had worked about an hour overtime the previous night. He also
testified that he had made a full report of the matter to Clontz the
night prior to his discharge.
Clontz was not questioned at the hearing concerning the discharge
of Jackson. McIntyre testified, however, that Jackson was demoted
and subsequently discharged "for inefficiency." He testified further
that Jackson had during the course of his employment under him at
Kildav been demoted about four times for "inefficiency and not prop-
erly looking after the mine, laying off on Mondays drunk."
Although the facts disclosed by the record are sufficient to raise a
doubt as to the reason for Jackson's demotion and discharge, we
conclude that no sufficient showing has been made that they were
prompted by any union activities of Jackson or were for the purpose
of discouraging membership in any labor organization. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the allegations of the complaint with respect to
Jackson.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and have led and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in 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 and to restore as nearly as possible the condition which existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the Wallins Creek Em-
ployees' Association. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act
and free the employees of the respondent from such domination and
interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute a continuing
obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed
them by the Act, we shall order the respondent to withdraw all recog-
nition from said Association as representative of the respondent's
employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of work, and other
conditions of employment, and to disestablish it as such representa-
tive. We shall also order the respondent, upon request, to bargain
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collectively with the United Mine Workers of America, District 19,
as the the exclusive representative of all the employees of the respond-
ent who work in and about its mine, exclusive of office, commissary,
and supervisory employees.
We have found that the respondent on September 7, 1937, dis-
criminated against the employees listed in Appendix B and against
John Wenger, Stonewall Jackson, Roy Sturgill, and Roscoe Jones in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment. Accordingly, we
shall order the respondent to make these employees whole for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of
the discrimination on September 7, 1937, to the date on which the
respondent offers him reinstatement or placement on a preferential
list, as hereinafter provided, less his net earnings 13 during said
period. We shall also order the respondent to offer these said em-
ployees reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, in the manner set forth below, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges.
We have found that employees, including Jim Scott, Charles Slagle,
Morris Slagle, Emmet Slagle, Burley Stevens, George Slasher, Roose-
velt Slusher, John Wynn, and Curtis Simpson, went on strike shortly
after September 7, 1937, as a result of the respondent's unfair labor
practice in refusing work to employees following Labor Day. We
shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint alleging that the
respondent has discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of
employment of these persons, but shall order the respondent, upon
application, to offer reinstatement to these employees to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, in the manner set forth below,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.14
The reinstatement of the employees who are entitled to reinstate-
ment as set forth above shall be effected as follows :
All, or such number as may be necessary, of the persons hired by
the respondent after September 7, 1937, and not in the employ of the
respondent on said date, shall be dismissed to provide employment
18 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, 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 are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be
deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal , State, county , municipal , or other govern-
ment or governments which supplied the funds for said work -relief projects.
14 See National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. (2d) 862
C. C. A. 2d), cert. denied 58 S. Ct. 1046.
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 153
for those to be offered, and for those who under our order apply for,
reinstatement. If thereupon, despite such reduction in force, there
is not sufficient employment immediately available for the employees
presently employed by the respondent, excluding those so dismissed,
and the employees to be offered and the employees who under our
order apply for reinstatement, all available positions shall be dis-
tributed among the employees presently employed, except those so
dismissed, and the employees to be offered and the employees who
under our order apply for reinstatement, in accordance with the
respondent's usual method of reducing its force, without discrimina-
tion against any employee because of his union affiliation and activ-
ities, following such a system of seniority or other procedure to such
extent as has heretofore been applied in the conduct of the respond-
ent's business. Those employees remaining after such distribution,
for whom no employment is immediately available, shall be placed
upon a preferential list with priority determined among them by such
system of seniority or other procedure as has been heretofore followed
by the respondent, and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list,
be offered employment in their former or substantially equivalent
positions; as such employment becomes available and before other
persons are hired for such work.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONOLusIONS OF LAW
1. United Mine Workers of America, District 19, affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization, and Wallins Creek Em-
ployees' Association, are labor organizations, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and admin-
istration of Wallins Creek Employees' Association, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the persons named in Appendix B and of John Wenger,
Stonewall Jackson, Roy Sturgill, and Roscoe Jones, thereby encour-
aging membership in Wallins Creek Employees' Association, and dis-
couraging membership in any other labor organization, including
United Mine Workers of America, District 19, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. The production employees of the respondent who work in and
about its mine, exclusive of office, commissary, and supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. United Mine Workers of America, District 19, is and at all times
after June 5, 1937, has been the exclusive representative of all the
employees of the respondent in such unit, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about June 5, 1937, and at all times thereafter,
to bargain collectively with United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict 19, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in such
unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. 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 prattices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, and each of them, are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of E. P. Jackson, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (3) 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 the
respondent, The Good Coal Company, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the administra-
tion of Wallins Creek Employees' Association, or with the formation
or administration of any other labor organization of its employees,
or from contributing support to the Association or to any other labor
organization of its employees;
(b) Recognizing the Wallins Creek Employees' Association, as
representative of any of the respondent's employees for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of
employment ;
(c) Discouraging membership in United Mine Workers of Amer-
ica, District 19, or any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment;
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Mine Workers
of America, District 19, as the exclusive representative of the pro-
duction employees of the respondent who work in and about its mine,
exclusive of office, commissary, and supervisory employees;
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 155
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
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 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) Refrain from recognition of Wallins Creek Employees' Asso-
ciation as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of work, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and completely disestablish Wallins Creek Employees' Asso-
ciation as such representative;
(b) Make whole the persons named in Appendix B and John
Wenger, Stonewall Jackson, Roy Sturgill, and Roscoe Jones for any
loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimi-
natory refusal to employ them on September 7, 1937, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned as wages from September 7, 1937, to the date on which the
respondent offers him reinstatement or placement on a preferential
list, as hereinafter provided, less his net earnings during said period;
deducting, however, from the amount thus to become due him, monies
received by him during said period for work performed upon Federal,
State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over
the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments
which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Offer to the persons specified in subsection (b) above and, upon
application, to all persons, including Jim Scott, Charles Slagle, Morris
Slagle, Emmet Slagle, Burley Stevens, George Slusher, Roosevelt
Slusher, John Wynn, and Curtis Simpson, who shortly after Septem-
ber 7, 1937, ceased to work because of the respondent's refusal of
employment to the persons specified in subsection (b) above, rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, or
placement upon a preferential list, such reinstatement or placement
upon a preferential list to be in the manner set forth in the section
entitled "The remedy" above;
(d) Make whole the persons specified in subsection (c) above, ex-
cept those also specified in subsection (b) above, for any loss of pay
they may suffer by reason of the respondent's refusal, if any, following
the issuance of this Order, to reinstate or place them upon a preferen-
tial list, pursuant to subsection (c) above, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned as wages during the period from five (5) days after his applica-
tion for reinstatement to the date on which he is reinstated or placed
upon the preferential list, less his net earnings during said period;
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Mine Workers
of America, District 19, as the exclusive representative of the produc-
tion employees of the respondent who work in and about its mine,
exclusive of office, commissary, and supervisory employees, in respect
to grievances, rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other conditions
of employment;
(f) Immediately post notices in conspicuous places in and around
its mine, and maintain such notices for a period of sixty (60) con-
secutive days, stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner set forth in 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), and that it will
take the affirmative action set forth in 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
of this Order;
(g) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing
within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint,
in so far as they allege that the respondent has discriminated in regard
to hire and tenure of employment of E. P. Jackson, Jim Scott, Charles
Slagle, Morris Slagle, Emmet Slagle, Burley Stevens, George Slusher,
Roosevelt Slusher, John Wynn, and Curtis Simpson, be, and the same
hereby are, dismissed.
Leonard Abner
Luther Ellis
Roger Frazier
Walter Fusten
Raymond Holt
John Hopkins
J. Kinchley
Ed Love
Albert Madden
Oscar B. Maples
Roy Abner
J. P. Aired
O. S. Aired
Don Anderson
S. T. Anderson
Earl Ayers
E. G. Bailey
APPENDIX A
Roy Meek
Champ Miller
James Miller
Morgan Miller
Jim Riddlespurg
Manford Saylor
John Simpson
Garnett Slagle
E. W. Stetzer
APPENDIX B
Plez Bailey
Cecil Barnes
Clayborn Bowling
Isom Bowling
Sneedon Bowling
Heanon Brown
Rufus Buell
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY 157
Henry Bundy
George Caldwell
Walter Campbell
Jesse Carrol
E. G. Clay
Dillard Clotfilter
Luther Collins
Elmer Cook
Fred Crawford
Ernest Cureton
Sam Cureton
Henry C. Dawn
John Disney
Everett Dozier
John Eagle
Roy Ferril
George Hackler
Tom Harber
Conda Hatmaker
Earl Hawkins
Elijah Helton
Glen Helton
.Rader Helton
Elmer Hensley
Ed Howard
F. F. Howard
Alfred Hunt
W. S. Hunter
James Jackson
Randal Jarvis
Lee Jeffreys
Frank Johnson
Arlie Jones
Elton Jones
Herman Jones
Killus Jones
Leander Jones
Oliver Jones
W. M. Kelly
Clayton Kirby
Tom Kirklin
J. W. Knuckles
Bill Lamb
Austin Lawsom
Laurence Lawsom
Sherman Lawsom
W. D. Lawsom
Sherman E. Mardis
Roy McGregory
Theodore McGregory
Lindsey McKnight
Jim McKnight
Joe McLain
Lige McLain
A. B. Noe
Alonzo Noe
Greene Noe
James Noe
Carl Nottingham
Theodore Parker
Tillman Perry
Lowell Price
Estil Rapier
Fred Reynolds
Raymon Reynolds
Bill Ridemour
Bill Risden
Dee Scalf
Estes Shackelferd
C. E. Skiles
Walter Smith
Ben Spurlock
Elmer Spurlock
George Spurlock
George Stines
L. D. Stines
Louis Stines
George S. Sullivan
Cecil Tallent
Noah Trent
Louis Vaughn
Clarence Waldin
Rosco Wardrup
John Watson
Jess Winger
W. H. Wormsley
F. L. Wright
James H. Wyrick
J. T. Wyrick
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
From September 7, 1937, to the date of the hearing, John Wenger,
Stonewall Jackson, Roscoe Jones, and the following persons named
in Appendix B had either obtained no employment or had done only
a few so-called odd jobs:
E. G. Bailey Oliver Jones
Plez Bailey Joe McLain
Henry Bundy Lige McLain
E. G. Clay Carl Nottingham
Elmer Cook Theodore Parker
Elijah Helton Dee Scalf
Ed Howard Walter Smith
James Jackson Louis Stines
Arlie Jones George S. Sullivan
Elton Jones Roy Sturgill
Killus Jones Louis Vaughn
Leander Jones
It was stipulated at the hearing that the following persons named
in Appendix B had not secured any substantially equivalent em-
ployment:
Roy Abner
J. P. Aired
O. S. Aired
Don Anderson
S. T. Anderson
Earl Ayers
Cecil Barnes
Clayborn Bowling
Isom Bowling
Sneedon Bowling
Heanon Brown
Rufus Buell
George Caldwell
Walter Campbell
Jesse Carrol
Dillard Clotfilter
Luther Collins
Fred Crawford
Ernest Cureton
Sam Cureton
Henry C. Dawn
John Disney
Everett Dozier
John Eagle
Roy Ferril
George Hackler
Tom Harber
Conda Hatmaker
Earl Hawkins
Glen Helton
Rader Helton
Elmer Hensley
F. F. Howard
Alfred Hunt
W. S. Hunter
Randal Jarvis
Lee Jefferys
Frank Johnson
Herman Jones
W. M. Kelly
Clayton Kirby
Tom Kirklin
J. W. Knuckles
Bill Lamb
Austin Lawsom
Laurence Lawsom
THE GOOD COAL COMPANY
Sherman Lawsom
W. D. Lawsom
Sherman E . Mardis
Roy McGregory
Theodore McGregory
Lindsey McKnight
Jim McKnight
A. B. Noe
Greene Noe
James Noe
Tillman Perry
Lowell Price
Estil Rapier
Fred Reynolds
Raymon Reynolds
Bill Ridemour
Bill Risden
Estes Shackelferd
C. E. Skiles
Ben Spurlock
Elmer Spurlock
George Spurlock
George Stines
L. D. Stines
Cecil Tallent
Noah Trent
Clarence Waldin
Rosco Wardrup
John Watson
Jess Winger
W. H. Wormsley
F. L. Wright,
James H. Wyrick
J. T. Wyrick
159
The record contains no showing as to the earnings, if any, of these
persons during the period from September 7, 1937, to the date of the
hearing.
About a month prior to the hearing Roy Sturgill secured employ-
ment at the Clover Splint Coal Company; however there is no evidence
of his earnings while there employed.