6. That in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, fire bosses in coal mines must hold certificates of authorization from the Department of Mines of the said Commonwealth, before they can lawfully engage in such work (N. T. 25, 70).

7. That the duties of a fire boss are to enter the mine three hours before the other employees, to examine and test the mine for its safety, to file a report thereon to the employer but not to the Mining Department of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and if the mine is unsafe, to shut the heading before a report is filed so as to prevent employes from entering it (N. T. 25, 26, 27, 53).

8. That on or about April 1, 1941, the operations of the bituminous coal field in the Cambria County district, including Mine No. 2 of the C. A. Hughes & Company were suspended (N. T. 37, 38).

9. That prior to the suspension of the said No. 2 Mine, approximately six hundred and sixty-five diggers were employed therein (N. T. 100).

10. That on or about April 29, 1941, the operations of the said No. 2 Mine were resumed (N. T. 37, 38, 89, 90).

11. That although the said No. 2 Mine operated full time after resumption of operations, due to the men inducted into the military services of the United States and due to the increased number of absentees, the number of coal diggers employed at the mine reduced from six hundred and sixty-five to six hundred and fourteen (N. T. 88, 89, 100).

12. That after its resumption, the operation of the said No. 2 Mine of C. A. Hughes & Company was changed from three sections or divisions to two sections or divisions (N. T. 69).

13. That prior to June 20, 1941, John Drinosky had been employed by C. A. Hughes & Company at its No. 2 Mine for a period of eight years, the first six years of which as an all-around man and the latter two years as a fire boss (N. T. 19, 20, 37).

14. That for a period of approximately two years prior to June 20, 1941, Clifford Watson had been employed by C. A. Hughes & Company at its No. 2 Mine as a fire boss (N. T. 52, 53).

15. That the said John Drinosky and Clifford Watson hold certificates from the Department of Mines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, authorizing them to be employed as fire bosses (N. T. 25, 70).

16. That on or about June 11, 1941, the aforesaid Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County was organized (N. T. 5, 9).

17. That on June 14, 1941, Clifford Watson joined the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County and on June 15, 1941, John Drinosky also joined the said organization (N. T. 8, 20, 53, 54).

18. That the said C. A. Hughes & Company is opposed to labor organizations of the type of the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County on the ground that they are impracticable (N. T. 97, 98, 99, 115).

19. That immediately following his affiliation with the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County, John Drinosky openly solicited membership in the said organization among fire and assistant fire boss employees of the C. A. Hughes & Company and succeeded in securing signatures of approximately twelve such employees to application cards for membership therein (N. T. 35, 36, 46).

20. That on June 19, 1941, at the request of R. H. Moore, president, James Campbell, the superintendent, questioned the majority of the fire boss employees of Mine No. 2 in regard to their union membership (N. T. 105, 108, 109).

21. That on the 19th day of June 1941, one day after John Drinosky had joined the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County, James Campbell, the superintendent of the No. 2 Mine, asked John Drinosky if he had joined the union, and upon being answered affirmatively, the said James Campbell walked away without further comment (N. T. 20).

22. That on June 19, 1941, James Campbell also asked Clifford Watson if he had joined the union, and when Clifford Watson replied in the affirmative, the said James Campbell remarked that that was all he wanted to know and then walked away (N. T. 54).

23. That on the 20th day of June 1941, the day following the questioning of John Drinosky by James Campbell regarding his union membership, as the former was about to enter No. 2 Mine for work, the said James Campbell told John Drinosky not to enter the mine, and when the latter asked for the reason, James Campbell merely replied "because" and, as a result thereof, the said John Drinosky went home (N. T. 21, 29, 39).

24. That during the evening of June 20, 1941, John Drinosky again went to Mine No. 2 to ascertain the reason for his dismissal, and when he again asked

James Campbell why he had been discharged, the latter replied, "Well, you want to quit, don't you?" (N. T. 22, 39).

25. That on the evening of June 20, 1941, Angelo Remini, as assistant at the No. 2 Mine, went to the home of Clifford Watson and told the said Clifford Watson "You are through up there," and that the "boss" had sent him to the said Clifford Watson (N. T. 54, 55).

26. That immediately after receiving the information from Angelo Remini that he was through, Clifford Watson went to the home of James Campbell and asked him what it was all about, whereupon the said James Campbell answered "you are through there as far as I am concerned," and when Clifford Watson asked if his work was satisfactory, James Campbell answered that it was, and when Clifford Watson further asked for a recommendation, James Campbell replied that he would have to think about it (N. T. 55).

27. That on June 20, 1941, the said C. A. Hughes & Company dismissed John Drinosky and Clifford Watson as fire boss employes of its No 2 Mine (N. T. 106).

28. That on June 21, 1941, one day after the dismissal of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson, the employes of C. A. Hughes & Company, including fire bosses, received an increase in wages (N. T. 75, 76, 85).

29. That on June 21, 1941, the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County appointed a committee consisting of August Koza, John Kolezar, Louis Cornell, Steve August, and John Shaner for the purpose of seeking the reinstatement of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson (N. T. 22, 23, 55, 78).

30. That on June 21, 1941, the aforesaid committee interviewed James Campbell and asked him why John Drinosky and Clifford Watson were dismissed, to which the said James Campbell responded that he was making some changes, that he did not have to recognize their organization, that they did not have a charter, that such an organization was attempted before and was "smashed," that the company had enough money to smash the union, and that the company would smash their organization if it could (N. T. 22, 23, 24, 35, 56, 57, 78, 96, 107, 113, 116).

31. That in the interview between the committee and James Campbell of June 21, 1941, the committee also asked James Campbell if John Drinosky and Clifford Watson could be reinstated and the said James Campbell shook his head, no (N. T. 56, 77, 78).

32. That during the same interview between the committee and James Campbell and which John Drinosky and Clifford Watson also attended, the said Clifford Watson asked James Campbell for the reason of his dismissal and James Campbell merely replied, "Why, you walked past me today in a hurry as though you had somebody dead outside and didn't even speak to me" (N. T. 23, 55, 56, 67).

33. That the Saturday following his dismissal John Drinosky asked the said C. A. Hughes & Company to reinstate him to his former position but the said C. A. Hughes & Company refused to do so (N. T. 34).

34. That the C. A. Hughes & Company, at and subsequent to the said dismissals, did not offer to employ John Drinosky or Clifford Watson in some capacity other than fire bosses, although Mine No. 2 was operating full time with a reduced personnel (N. T. 112, 113, 114).

35. That during his tenure of employment with C. A. Hughes and Company no superior of John Drinosky ever complained about the work of the said John Drinosky (N. T. 27, 28, 32, 33).

36. That on July 16, 1941, after his dismissal, John Drinosky received the following written recommendation signed by R. H. Moore, president, from the C. A. Hughes & Company: "To whom it may concern: This will recommend to you John Drinosky, who was employed as a Fire Boss by our Company for several years. He is an industrious worker of temperate habits" (N. T. 33, 34, 42; Complainants' Exhibit No. 4).

37. That approximately four months prior to his dismissal on February 26, 1941, Clifford Watson failed to remove or to report the exact location in No. 2 Mine of a loaded car standing at the top of a small rise with a dip on each of its sides, and subsequently another car struck the loaded car causing it to run down grade and hit one Morris Melotti, an employee, who was injured and incapacitated for a period of four or five months and from which injuries the said Morris Melotti has not yet fully recovered (N. T. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67).

38. That the brakeman on the car which struck the loaded car on the riser could have avoided the injury to Morris Melotti had the said brakeman performed

his duty to look as to whether all the men had left the main heading (N. T. 61, 62, 148).

39. That the record does not disclose that the brakeman involved in the aforesaid collision was dismissed (Record).

40. That Ira Bradley, the general foreman, reprimanded Clifford Watson for the accident of February 26, 1941, but the said Clifford Watson was not laid off, suspended, or dismissed (N. T. 62, 67).

41. That with the exception of the reprimand received by Clifford Watson for the accident of February 26, 1941, no superior of Clifford Watson ever complained to him about his work during the entire tenure of the said Clifford Watson's employment with C. A. Hughes & Company (N. T. 63).

42. That at the time of his dismissal, the said C. A. Hughes & Company did not inform Clifford Watson that he was dismissed because of the accident of February 26, 1941 (N. T. 63).

43. That on or about June 27, 1941, Clifford Watson went to the home of James Campbell for the balance of wages due him, and asked James Campbell if the reason he was not previously paid was because there was a chance of getting his job back, and the said James Campbell replied that he thought he had been paid, but that insofar as he, James Campbell, was concerned, he, Clifford Watson, was through and could not get back his job (N. T. 57).

44. That at the time of their dismissals, John Drinosky and Clifford Watson were older in point of service than several other fire bosses employed by C. A. Hughes & Company and who were not discharged (N. T. 47, 91).

45. That John Drinosky and Clifford Watson presently desire to be reinstated to their former position as fire boss at the No. 2 Mine of C. A. Hughes & Company (N. T. 45, 73, 74).

46. That on July 5, 1941, after the dismissals of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson, John Sapotta was employed as a fire boss in the said No. 2 Mine, the said John Sapotta being employed when another fire boss voluntarily terminated his employment (N. T. 40, 41, 119, 120, 122).

47. That prior to June 20, 1941, fourteen fire bosses were employed at the said No. 2 Mine, but after the aforesaid two dismissals and continuing to the time of the hearing in the instant case, twelve fire bosses were employed (N. T. 90).

DISCUSSION

The C. A. Hughes & Company contends that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction in the premises because (1) fire bosses hold certificates from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are legally required to be employed, and (2) because the said fire bosses are part of the management of the mine and police its safety as well as the contract between the operators generally and the United Mine Workers of America.

These contentions are without merit. Merely because fire bosses hold certificates from the Department of Mines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not bar them from joining, forming, or assisting labor organizations. There is nothing in the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act" which deprives them of the right to collective bargaining. Motion-picture operators, barbers, and persons employed in many other occupations must also be licensed by the Commonwealth. These latter employes may and, in many instances, are unionized and have been held to be organized legitimately.

The testimony does not disclose that the fire bosses are part of the management. They are employes within the meaning of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act." Because they police the safety of the mine does not make them a part of the management. Moreover, the testimony does not disclose that they police the contract existing between C. A. Hughes & Company and the United Mine Workers of America, nor does it disclose that policing such a contract is one of their duties.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, after due consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, concludes and finds:

1. That C. A. Hughes & Company, a Corporation, is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 3, subsection (c), of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

2. That the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County is a "Labor Organization" within the meaning of Section 3, subsection (f) of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

3. That Johny Drinosky and Clifford Watson are "employes" of C. A. Hughes & Company within the meaning of Section 3, subsection (d) of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

4. That C. A. Hughes & Company has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employes in the exercise of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 6, subsection 1, clause (a) of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

5. That C. A. Hughes & Company did not terminate the employment of John Drinosky and Clifford Watson because of their association with and activities on behalf of the labor organization known as the "Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County" and for the purpose of discouraging membership therein within the meaning of Section 6, subsection 1, clause (c) of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

ORDER

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, therefore, after due consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole,

HEREBY ORDERS AND DIRECTS that C. A. Hughes & Company, and its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:

1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employes in the exercise of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining as guaranteed in Section 6, subsection (1), clause (a) of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the “Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act":

(a) Post a copy of this decision and order within five days from the effective date hereof at a conspicuous place readily accessible to its employees in its place of business at Mine No. 2, Senscreek, Cambria County, Pennsylvania, and have the same remain as posted for a period of ten consecutive days.

(b) Furnish satisfactory evidence to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, by affidavit or affidavits, of compliance with this decision and order within twenty days from the effective date hereof.

AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED AND DECREED that in the absence of any exceptions filed within fifteen days from the date hereof, this decision and order shall become and be absolute, as of course.

SIGNED, SEALED, AND DATED at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, this thirty-first day of March 1942. [SEAL]

S/

PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
L. G. LICHLITER,

S/ HARRY GIFFORD,
S/ WILLIAM L. DICKEL,

Mr. KRIMSLY. I am now going to quote several very brief sections so that you won't find it necessary to read the decision, which is very lengthy.

The company contended that assistant mine foremen, fire bosses, weigh bosses, and tipple bosses, and so forth, were all supervisory employees and were State officials and are, therefore, not employees within the meaning of our act. Quoting from the fifth finding of fact, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board found

5. That assistant mine foremen, fire, weigh, and tipple bosses, clerks and, in general, all persons who are employed in and about coal mines in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, but who are not eligible to membership in the United Mine Workers of America, are eligible to membership in the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County.

Then quoting from the discussion on page 9, the Board said the following:

The C. A. Hughes & Company contends that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction in the premises because (1) fire bosses hold certificates from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are legally required to be employed, and (2) because the said fire bosses are part of the management of the mine and police its safety as well as the contract between the operators generally and the United Mine Workers of America.

These contentions are without merit. Merely because fire bosses hold certificates from the Department of Mines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would not bar them from joining, forming, or assisting labor organizations. There is nothing in the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act" which deprives them of the right to collective bargaining. Motion-picture operators, barbers, and persons employed in many other occupations must also be licensed by the Commonwealth. These latter employees may, and in many instances are, unionized and have been held to be organized legitimately.

The testimony does not disclose that the fire bosses are part of the management. They are employees within the meaning of the "Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act." Because they police the safety of the mine does not make them a part of the management. Moreover, the testimony does not disclose that they police the contract existing between C. A. Hughes & Company and the United Mine Workers of America, nor does it disclose the policing such a contract is one of their duties.

Mr. KRIMSLY. The Board thereupon made its conclusions, and I quote from the second conclusion of the Board:

2. That the Mine Officials and Maintenance Men Union of Cambria County is a "Labor Organization" within the meaning of Section 3, subsection (f) of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act."

Now, that decision coming from a duly constituted Labor Relations Board is certainly a complete refutation of the position that was taken here recently by Mr. Mays.

The CHAIRMAN. Has that decision by the Pennsylvania State Labor Relations Board been reviewed by any court in Pennsylvania?

Mr. KRIMSLY. It has not been reviewed by any court. The question has not been taken any further to my knowledge.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do the courts in your State have the right to review those adjudications concerning the facts?

Mr. KRIMSLY. Yes. Well, they can only review concerning questions of law.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then questions of fact are conclusive on the courts? Mr. KRIMSLEY. They are conclusive, just as the finding of a jury would be conclusive.

The CHAIRMAN. The verdict of a jury rendered under proper instructions, of course, is conclusive.

Mr. KRIMSLY. Well, the verdict of a jury is final except for errors of law which are made by the court.

Now I will address myself to the Smith bill, and I will endeavor to take up the act section by section and will try to review it as I see it. as a lawyer who is somewhat experienced in labor cases.

Subsection (c) of section 1 provides in brief that it is essential that those charged with the duty of managing and directing the industrial enterprises of the country in mining, agriculture, manufacture, construction, and distribution shall have and be protected in the exercise of adequate authority to insure uninterrupted service by those employed in such undertakings. This section places the power and authority disproportionately and exclusively in the hands of the company. It does not allow for the peaceful participation and cooperation of labor in the industrial effort. Labor is thus deprived of any responsibility to promote the better prosecution of the war. This section has a sinister connotation and implication. It now implies that the employers, the company, at the present time lack authority in the conduct of their business, which, of course, is absurd and utterly ridiculous. If what we are arguing against are strikes, slow-downs, and so forth, the company has now and has always had the resort and the