Lake Superior Lumber Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 18-C-1216.-Decided December 22, 1947
Mr. Clarence A. Meter, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Board.
Mr. John B. Bennette, of Ontonagon, Mich.; for the respondent.
Mr. Harold E. Arnold, of Ironwood, Mich., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER'
On December 2, 1946, Trial Examiner Victor Hirshfield issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.2 Thereafter, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
' The power of the Board to issue a decision and order in a case such as the instant one
where the charging union has not complied with the filing requirements specified in Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , was decided by the
Board in Matter of Marshall and Biuee Company, 75 N. L R B. 90
P Those provisions of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, which
the Trial Examiner herein found were violated , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1) and
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended by Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
3 Our adoption of the Trial Examuiet 's findings of disciinunation with respect to Steve
Knoll is based solely on the circumstances surrounding his discharge.
75 N. L R. B., No. 72.
621
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Lake Superior
Lumber Corporation, Ontonagon, Michigan, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminatorily discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or a4 y term or condition of their
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Woodworkers of
America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Offer Steve Knoll immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to,
his seniority or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make Steve Knoll whole for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered because of the respondent's discrimination against him, by pay-
ment to him of a suns of money equal to the amount he would normally
have earned as wages during the period from May 24, 1946, to the
date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings.
during said period;
(c) Post at its lumber camps and its office at Ontonagon, Michigan,
copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies_
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eight-
eenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's rep-
resentative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to^
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
4In the event that this Order is entoreed by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice, before the -words "A Decision and Order," the words
"A Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 623
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) clays from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Steve Knoll
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any terns
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER COMPANY,
By ------------------------ ------------
Dated ------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Noun-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be oftered full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be'altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Clarence A. Meter, of Minneapolis, Minn , for the Board.
Mr. John B. Bennett, of Ontonagon, Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. Harold E. Arnold, of Ironwood, Mich., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon all amended charge duly filed by the international Woodworkers of
America, C. I 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region.
(Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its complaint dated September 30, 1946, against
Lake Superior Lumber Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent bad engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) 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 notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent did (1) on or about May 24, 1946, discharge Steve Knoll,
one of its employees, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, because of his
membership in, and his activities on behalf of the Union; and (2) from on or
about February 2, 1946, advised, urged, and warned its employees against activity
on behalf of the Union, promulgated and enforced rules prohibiting entry into
its camps to representatives of the Union, expelled Harold Arnold, Ed Evans,
Melvin Hagstrom, agents of the Union from one of its camps on February 3,
1946, disrupted union meetings, questioned its employees concerning union
activities ; ' and that on May 23, 1946, one of its foremen refused to leave a union
meeting held in the camp.
Thereafter the respondent filed an answer in which it denied that it had dis-
charged Steve Knoll, averred that it has been ready at all times to reemploy the
said Knoll, and denied the commission of any unfair labor practices
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Ontonagon, Michigan, on November
7, 1946, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and
the Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
1 Near the close of the healing, counsel for the Board moved that certain paits of para-
graph 6 of the complaint be stricken The motion was granted. The portion of the com-
plaint refereed to, follows
From on or about February 2. 1946 and at various times thereafter up to and
including the date of issuance of this complaint [the iespondent] did advise, urge
and warn its employees against affiliation with or activity on behalf of the Union ,
did promulgate and enforce rules prohibiting entry to and presence at the Camps
which are its property, of representatives of the Union, except on unreasonable and
restrictive terms and conditions, and has ever since enforced, and does now enforce
said rules and has ever since denied, and does now deny, access to the Camps to repre-
sentatives of the Union for the purpose of frustrating and preventing self-organization
of its employees ; did, on or about February 2, 1946. attempt to evict and eject from
one of the Camps Harold Arnold, Ed Evans and Melvin H4gstrom; officials and agents
of the Union, and did thereby attempt to prevent their conferring and meeting with
members of the Union and other employees and engaging in union activities with
them, and did, on or about said date, attempt to disrupt and prevent a meeting of
union members in one of its Camps ; and. . . .
The complaint as amended, therefore, contains no references to any misconduct prior to
May 23, 1946.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 625
afforded all parties The- parties were advised as to their rights to file briefs
as well as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Near the close of the
hearing a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof in formal matters was
granted without objection. Neither of the parties chose to argue orally before
the Trial Examiner. Both the respondent and the Board have submitted briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSLNESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Lake Superior Lumber Corporation, is a Michigan corporation,
having its principal office and plant at Ontonagon, Michigan. It operates two
lumber camps in the vicinity of that city where it is engaged in the production of
hardwood and hemlock lumber. During the 12 month period from January 1,
1945, to December 31, 1945, the respondent in the conduct of its business, purchased
provisions and food for employees living in the camps, feed for horses used at the
camps, and gasoline and coal valued in excess of $100,000, approximately all such
materials being purchased at and transported to the plant and camps at Onto-
nagon, from points outside the State of Michigan. During the same period prod-
ucts manufactured at the plant and camps exceeding $100,000 in value were sold
and transported in interstate commerce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon a stipulation to that
effect by the respondent, the undersigned finds that the respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Intei ference, restraint, and coercion
1 Background
On September 18. 1945, the Board issued its complaint in Case No 1S-C-1160'
against the respondent herein. The complaint alleged that the respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section S (1).
On October 2, 1945, the matter came on for hearing before a Trial Examiner of
the Board, who thereafter, on November 19, 1945, issued his Intermediate Report
making certain recommendations. Thereafter on August 21, 1946, the Board
found that the pertinent provisions of a settlement made in 1938 between the
Union and the respondent "are no longer effective." This settlement provided
that the Union would enter upon the respondent's property only upon certain
stated terms and conditions: ' The Union had refused to continue to abide by the
terms and conditions of this settlement, and the respondent had, through its
agents, interfered with the Union representatives when they sought to enter
upon the respondent's property and organize the employees working there. The
2In the Matter of Lake Snperioi Lumber Corporation and International Wooda; orkeis
of America, C 1 O., Local 15, 70 N L. R B. 178.
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board held that the settlement contained a conditional terminal date, the
lei ins of which were satisfied by the decisions in the Republic Aviation Coipora-
tion and Le Tonineau Coni.pany cases decided by the Supreme Court on April 23,
1946. and ordered respondent to cease and desist from the aforesaid unfair labor
practices and to take certain affirmative action which included the following:
(a) Rescind immediately its rules restricting the right of its employees to
engage in union activity on company property during their free time, or to
have any person call upon them at its camps during their free time for the
purpose of consulting, advising, meeting, or assisting its employees in regard
to their right under the Act to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ;
(b) Subject to lawful and reasonable conditions, admit representatives
of labor organizations to its camps and bunkhouses for the purpose of con-
sulting, advising, meeting, or assisting, its employees, or any of them, in
regard to their right under the Act to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
At the instant hearing, the respondent's attorney stated on the record that
the respondent had not complaed with the aforesaid Board order and that it
desired to have "its day in court . . before complying with it "
2 The meeting of May 21
Harold E. Arnold is now and has been for some time an officer of the Union.'
On May 21, 1946, accompanied by Ed Evans, who was then a business agent of the
Union, Arnold visited Camp 17, a lumber camp owned and operated by the re-
spondent, and referred to and described in the decision hereinbefore referred to
Normally access to the camp is obtained by means of a logging railroad operated
by the respondent However, as has been pointed out in the earlier case, per-
mission to visit the camp must be obtained from the respondent's main office in
Ontonagon, 'Michigan As Arnold and Evans did not have this permission it
must be assumed that this was the reason they did not use the railroad and
decided, instead, upon a 4-mile walk through the uouds from Towola, Michigan.
Arnold and Evans proposed to collect dues and solicit memberships in the
camp, but after they arrived, and at the solicitation of a number of men in the
camps, they held a short meeting in one of the bunkhouses. Between 60 and
70 men were present, and the meeting was held shortly after supper at about
4:30 p. in. It is undisputed that this meeting was after working hours and
lasted some 30 minutes.
Prior to the meeting and shortly after their arrival in camp the two union
officers were accosted by Ed Hipke, the camp foreman, who told them that they
could not hold any meeting or meet with the men in the bunkhouse; that an
agreement existed between the Union and the respondent which made it man-
datory upon the Union to receive permission from higher m:unagement in Onto-
nagon before a meeting could be conducted ; that such a meeting if held under
3 324 U S 793
4In June 1945, at the time of the events described in Case No 18-C-1160, Ainold was
riesident of the Union He is presently vice president of the same oiganization.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 627
those conditions, would have to be held at the recreation hall; and that he, Hipke,
had received orders from W. D. Gorman, respondent's president and general
manager, to bar them from the camp if they did not comply with the terms of
the agreement.' Neither Arnold nor Evans complied with Hipke's request and
proceeded instead to hold the meeting.
Flipke followed Arnold and Evans into the bunkhouse where the meeting was
to be held. A motion was made by a member of the Union, Steve Knoll,' who
was present in the bunkhouse, that Hipke leave. The motion was voted upon
and unanimously approved Hipke, however, refused to leave and remained
throughout the entire meeting. After Hipke had made known his determination
to remain at the meeting despite the passage of the motion, Knoll said, "to hell
with him, leave him stay here if he wants to " "Let him take it all in, he don't
know any better ... spit it out in front of him "'
The meeting proceeded with Arnold making various reports on union business
to the employees present.' At the conclusion of these reports Steve Knoll and
John Niksich' made complaints about the food then being served at the camp.
Knoll suggested that the respondent either furnish more meat to its employees
or reduce the price of the meals." Knoll suggested that a petition concerning
this matter be circulated among the employees and after it had been signed by
them that the petition should be sent to the respondent by the Union. This was
agreed upon by those present and immediately after the close of the formal meet-
ing Arnold wrote out the petition. Steve Knoll signed the petition first, Niksich
second, and Knoll then passed the petition around for signatures to the other
employees present Knoll then gave it to Niksich, who secured additional sig-
natures from the men in the other bunkhouses Over 60 men signed the petition."
The signed petition was•then given to Arnold, who mailed it on May 22 to the
company after his return to Ironwood. Michigan, where the Union maintained
its office Foreman IIipke remained present not only during the formal part of
the meeting but thereafter when the petition was signed.
3. The discharges
Steve Knoll 12 had been a woodsman since 1914. He had spent a good part of
this time in the woods working as a sawyer, a highly skilled job" Sawyers
usually work in pairs, known as gangs, and since the earnings of the gang will
depend upon the full cooperation of both men good sawyers are usually permitted
to choose their own partners "
This agreement has been fully discussed in Case No 18-C-1160 It has been noted
that the Board in its decision in the aforesaid matter held that the agreement was no
longer binding upon the parties
0 The complaint' alleged that Steve Knoll was discharged for union activity shortly
after this time The events concerning his discharge will be discussed' below.
'The above is based on the credited and undenied testimony of Arnold,, knoll and
Niksich
s Ainold testified that some of the employees present at the meeting were not union
members He gave no accurate estimate as to the number present who were not members
of the Union
0 Knoll and Niksich were partners in a sawing team
10 The men paid for the boaid and lodging in the camps.
11 The petition is reproduced in "Appendix B" herein
"The following is based on the credited testimony of Knoll and Niksich.
u Knoll's earnings at the respondent's camp averaged $21 per day.
14 Hipke admitted that noll was a good sawyer and his earnings were at least as high
if not higher than those of any other sawyer in camp.
766972-48-vol 75-41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 17, 1946, Knoll, who had worked for 2 months in another camp oper-
ated by the respondent some 2 years previously, began work at respondent' . Camp
18 His sawing partner was John Niksich and the team or gang continued to,
work there until May 3, 1946 On that date Niksich and Knoll quit Camp 18,
and on May 14, 1946, began work at Camp 17 Knoll and Niksich, whose homes
were in Ironwood, a community some distance from camp, were in the habit of
going home on week-ends They left camp at the end of their first week's em-
ployment for that purpose.
On Sunday, May 19, Niksich had his wife telephone Knoll in Ironwood. to ask
the latter to come to see him that day. Knoll did so and Niksich told him he had
been offered an opportunity to go to work in the mines Niksich also told Knoll
that he had arranged with the mine foreman to permit him to defer beginning
work in the mines for a week„ in, order to enable Knoll to obtain another sawing
partner. Knoll immediately got in touch with Earl Carlson, who was working
for another lumber concern, and Carlson agreed to quit his employment and go•
to work with Knoll for the respondent after the following week
On Tuesday, May 21, the day of the meeting described above, Knoll and Nik-
sich talked with Hipke immediately after supper and before the union meeting.
This conversation occurred in front of one of the bunkhouses and several other
employees were close at hand.15
Niksich told Hipke that he was going to work in the mines. Knoll said that
lie was getting a new partner named Carlson and Hipke replied that "that was
perfectly 0 K. with hun." However, Hipke, according to Knoll, asked him to
have Carlson get 1n employment card at the respondent's main office in Onto-
nagon " Hipke also told Knoll that "it was up to me (Knoll) to get a partner
but he (Carlson) would still have to get a card through the office." On Thursday,
May 23, 1946, Hipke and the camp clerk, Fred Lange, checked the cut logs in
the woods Knoll, according to his testimony, took the opportunity of asking
Hipke if it would be satisfactory if Carlson worked for a week without the em-
ployment card. Hipke said that Carlson would need the card to go to work17
It rained the following day, May 24. Niksich talked with Knoll immediately
after breakfast and told the latter that he would "just as soon go home" that day,
inasmuch as the rain prevented them from working, and Saturday, in any
event, was a half clay.
Niksich then went to the office where he saw Hipke Lange, the clerk, was
working in the next room After Niksich had told Hipke of the purpose of
his visit, Hipke, according to Niksieh, told him to tell Knoll to come to the office
because the sawyers were being laid off as they completed their work, since
there were too many logs ahead.
Niksieh returned to the bunkhouse where he gave Knoll Hipke's message
Knoll then went to the office taking along his dinner bucket" where, according
15 Hipke , although not directly denying this conversation , implied as much by his version
of the circumstance surrounding the discharge Hipke's testimony will be discussed
hereinafter The only witnesses who testified to this conversation were Knoll and Niksieh
iB New employees were hied at respondent' s main office at Ontonagon. Such new em-
ployees were then given an employment card which they used to get into the camp and
which they thereafter presented to the foreman . The foreman apparently had little, if
anything, to do with the initial hiring of new employees.
17 Hipke did not directly deny this conversation
1" The dinner bucket was furnished to the men by the company and it was turned in when
their employment ceased.,
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 629
to his testimony, Hipke told him that he was laying off the sawyers just as
soon as they got through with their strips .'' Niksich, Knoll and Hipke then
went out to the strip to measure the logs which they had cut so that the two
sawyers might be paid off 2' According to Niksich and Knoll, the conversation
on the way to the strips between Knoll and Hipke included the statement by
Hipke: "When we get caught up, we'll call you back " 2i Knoll said, "Too bad
to get through now and there aint any work no place anyway " On their return
to camp, Niksich and Hipke went to the bunkhouse where they waited for about
an hour and a half until the clerk could complete the pay-roll compilation. They
then went to Lange, the clerk, to "get their time" and while doing so, Knoll
asked Lange what his. separation slip contained inasmuch as it was handed to
hun in a sealed envelope G2
Lange told Knoll that he dud not have the right to tell him how the separation
slip read and advised him to see Ed Hipke. Knoll then went to Hipke who'
advised him that the slip read that Knoll had quit. Knoll protested this, de-
claring that he was ready and willing to work and that Hipke had no right
to write "quit" on his termination slip, when in fact he had been laid off.
Hipke, however, refused to change the wording of the separation slip Aristo
David, since deceased, but at that time a supervisor for the respondent, who
was standing nearby, said, "The hell with them guys, let them go."
On their way back to town on the log railroad, Niksich 2J and Knoll, according
to Knoll. met several 'newly employed gangs of sawyers who told hun that they
weie on the way to woik as sawyers in both camps 17 and 18.
At the respondent 's office in Ontonagon, Knoll was told by a clerk, according
to his credited testimony, that: "It's a funny thing. We've been hiring men
for camp 17 right along."
Knoll applied for unemployment insurance but was told he could not receive
any since according to the record furnished by the respondent he had quit work
of his own accord. Knoll has not been called back to work.24
"A strip is a section of land which is marked for the sawyers to cut Each gang of
sawyers works on its own strip Knoll testified he had about 1 day's more work left on the
atrip lie was then working on
20The sawyers are piece workers being paid according to the footage which they cut
n Niksich and Knoll's strip lay approximately 1 mile from camp
22 Although the recoi d does not contain specific facts with respect to the practice followed
when employees are terminated , the undersigned is convinced that such terminated em-
ployees are given records of then last pay together with a separation slip in a sealed
envelope Employees apparently are not permitted to open this envelope , presumably
because it contains figures as to then earnings The envelope is opened by the clerk at
the office in Ontonagon who, on the basis of the figuies in the envelope , calculates the
employee ' s pay , and pays him off Thus Knoll went to Hipke to inquire as to the reason
written on the separation slip, although he had apparently received the slip in the sealed
envelope handed to him by Lange Thereafter in Ontonagon Knoll turned the envelope
in to the iespondent 's office , whence the separation slip apparently was sent to the Unem-
ployment Compensation Department
22 Niksich testified with respect to all matters discussed hereinbefore in substantially
the sane mannei as Knoll
24 Although there w as some testunony with respect to a decline in the number of sawyers
at this time , Hipke testified that there was much sawing work to be done beginning in June
Knoll was not recalled to work at that time. Hipke's testimony was clear that Knoll
would probably have been given the opportunity to continue working through the slack
period if his employment had not been teiminated.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 The contentions of the respondent
a. As to the interference
The respondent admitted that Hipke had been present at the meeting of May
21, that he had ordered Arnold off the premises, and according to Hipke, had done
both these things at the direct order of Gorman, respondent's president and
manager. The respondent contends that this conduct was justified insofar as
it believed and believes that the Board's decision in Case No. 18-C-1160 herein-
before referred to was erroneously decided by the Board, and that it fully intended
to continue such conduct until ordered to desist therefrom by the courts. The
undersigned believes and finds that the respondent unlawfully interfered with
its employees in their right to engage in union activities *or other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
by instructing Hipke to order the union's officers off the premises and by ordering
Hipke to remain present at all union meetings held contrary to his orders ; and
that Hipke by carrying out these orders on behalf of the respondent, further
interfered with the aforesaid rights of respondent's employees. The undersigned
finds that the respondent by the limitation imposed on its employees and on
union representatives relative to opportunities for consultation and organization,
and by the action of Camp Foreman Hipke in restraining and interfering with
Arnold and Evans while they were engaged in legitimate union activities by
soliciting union membership and endeavoring to hold a meeting on respondent's
premises, has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
b. As to the discharge
The respondent called Foreman Hipke as its first witness. He testified in
substance that he did not learn that Niksich intended to quit his employment until
the morning of Friday, May 24, 1946. At that time, Hipke, having learned from
Niksich that he was quitting, sent for Steve Knoll, in order to tell him that there
were "8 or 12" extra sawyers in the camp and that he was to pick a partner from
among them a Knoll, according to Hipke, refused to do this because he insisted
on having Carlson as his partner. Hipke testified that he then told Knoll that
he did not want to bring new sawyers into camp and Knoll would have to choose
his partner from among the sawyers then available at the camp. Knoll refused
to do this and "asked for his time."
It has been noted above, that sawyers usually work in pairs. If a partner in a
sawyers' gang quits, the other partner may remain at the camp. This sawyer is
then assigned to other work until he is again "mated" or paired with another
sawyer. It would appear from Hipke's testimony, therefore, that up to a dozen
sawyers were doing other work than sawing and that they had been promised saw-
ing work when it became available. The undersigned questioned Hipke on this
point endeavoring to ascertain why it was not possible to mate these spare sawyers.
a The following- testimony indicates the course of practice with respect to sawyers in
lumber camps, at least in the area where the respondent ' s camps were located :
Mr. BENNETT : . . . it is true that sometimes , or oftentimes a gang of sawyers will
go into a camp together, but isn't it also true that if you get a partner and you are
dissatisfied, you pick another partner in the camp that is agreeable to the foreman
and you go ahead with him 9
KNOLL' If it is agreeable to the foreman, sure.
Q What I mean, in all cases you don't pi-ek partners and go sawing, sometimes you
go out to a camp and find your partner out there ? [ Italics added.]
A. I never did yet.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 631
The respondent's attorney contended that these sawyers were paired with sawyers
as other teams broke up. It would seem to the undersigned that such break-ups
would normally have led to the pairing of these sawyers at an earlier time, and
that there would not be such a large pool of non-working sawyers available if
this rule were followed Since Knoll and Niksich had only worked 8 days, these
extra sawyers who had not sawed for 2 weeks or more should have obtained their
jobs and they should not have been hired if this rule applied. The contention that
Knoll was presented with the alternative of mating up with these unemployed
sawyers or ceasing work does not ring true.26 Hipke's explanation that work was
gradually going down and that he did not wish to have new sawyers come to camp
while other sawyers then available at camp did other work, is likewise lacking in
plausibility for it would seem to the undersigned that if the work was going down,
it would be unlikely that Hipke would keep spare sawyers on hand. Yet it is his
testimony that if Knoll had stayed on, and had picked a partner out of the pool of
unemployed sawyers, he would have continued work as a sawyer. The under-
signed is convinced that an expert sawyer 21 might work with any one he chose.
In addition, it is clear, and the undersigned has so found, that Hipke told Knoll
that it "was up to" him to get his own sawing partner. Thus no matter what the
general rule might be, in this specific case Hipke authorized Knoll to bring Carlson
into camp as his sawing partner. '
The undersigned finds it unnecessary to make a finding, with respect to these
contentions, however, inasmuch as he does not credit Hipke in any of his testimony
relating to the discharge. Hipke did not impress the undersigned as a credible
witness. In addition, the undersigned found it impossible to reconcile Hipke's
testimony with the facts described in detail by Knoll and Niksich For example,
while both Niksich and Knoll told a detailed story as to the reasons why Niksich
found it necessary to quit his employment and with respect to Knoll's arrangement
with Carlson to go to work with him, described in detail their conversation with
Hipke on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of the week in question and gave a
reasonable account of the facts that led up to the separation, Hipke's story im-
pressed the undersigned as inconsistent and implausible. Thus, while Hipke
denied that he had any knowledge of the impending departure of Niksich, or of
the fact that Knoll wished Carlson for a sawing partner until the morning of
May 24, he did not deny that Knoll protested the wording of the termination slip,
or that Knoll offered to continue to work or that no work had been offered to Knoll
either at that time or subsequently in June when sawing operations became par-
ticularly active. Based on his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does
v
not credit Hipke and Lange 28 and does credit Knoll and Niksich.
Conclusions as to the discharge
Knoll and Niksich in their first conversation with Hipke prior to the union
meeting, had no difficulty in gaining Hipke's consent to bringing Carlson into the
camp as a partner to Knoll. Immediately thereafter and during the course of
26 Knoll testified that in 1944 when he had previously worked for the respondent, his saw.
ing partnei had quit, and that he was then permitted to bring in a new partner from
outside the camp
21 Knoll admittedly was an expert saws er
28 Lange's testimony did not convince the undersigned His testimony related mainly to
snatches of conversation between Hipke and Knoll, overheard on the morning of Friday,
May 24, his testimony Ras to the effect, however, that after hearing these snatches of
conversation he was of the impression that Knoll was going to continue to work for the
respondent as a sawyer Hipke on the other hand testified that Knoll refused to work
unless he could bring in Carlson
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the union meeting, at which Hipke was present, Knoll took the lead not only in
proposing a petition to the respondent to reduce the price of its meals and furnish
more meat to its employees but also criticized Hipke, by becoming the author of a
motion to exclude Hipke from the meeting and thereafter when Hipke refused to
comply with the wishes of the occupants of the bunkhouses said, "to hell with
him."
It was obvious to Hipke that both Niksich and Knoll were leaders in the union
movement at the camp Niksich's resignation, of which Hipke had been notified
a short time previous, removed one active union exponent from the camp Under
the arrangement made earlier, however Knoll was going to continue to work at
the camp with Carlson as his partner.
Knoll was not only an active union exponent but also admittedly one of the
best sawyers in the camp Since the termination slips were usually placed in
the arrangement made earlier, however, Knoll was going to continue to work at
the reason written upon the slip until he attempted to collect unemployment in-
surance. However, Knoll's curiosity led to Hipke telling hun of the reason
assigned for the termination. At this point, Knoll testified credibly and there was
no denial by the respondent, that lie was willing to continue to work for the
respondent and did not intend to quit. Hipke, however, refused to change his
mind
Knoll was no stranger to lumber camps and had quit his job on previous
occasions, as indeed seemed to be the custom among a large part of the working
forces in the woods As was pointed out in the decision referred to above, labor
turnover is very great in these camps Knoll's testimony however is not that of a
man who has quit his job. He testified, for example, that he told Hipke on the way
to the strip to measure the logs on May 24, it's "too bad to get through now, and
there ain't any work no place anyway " If Knoll were quitting because he re-
fused to work with one of the spare sawyers in camp this would hardly have been
his attitude. Hipke, although questioned about the conversation on this walk
through the woods which took an hour and a half, could not remember any
of it Again it is unlikely that Knoll would have made arrangements with Carl-
son to come to work with him as a sawyer if he, Knoll, expected to quit. The
respondent in its brief points out that Niksich testified that at the earlier con-
i ersation on Friday, Hipke told him that Knoll was being laid off and that
an hour or two later Hipke told Knoll that he had resigned. The respondent
contends that "no reasonable man with an ounce of sense would fire an employee
and two hours later tell the employee that lie was not fired, but that he had quit."
and that the story of Niksich and Knoll should not therefore be believed This
contention, the undersigned finds, has no merit The undersigned has credited
the version of the facts as testified to by Niksich and Knoll That this conduct
may have been inconsistent with that of "a reasonable and sensible type of man,"
as the respondent characterizes Hipke, is an element which has been considered,
but the undersigned finds that Hipke acted in 'the manner described by both
Niksich and Knoll It must be remembered that normally Knoll would not have
seen the separation slip since it was placed in a sealed envelope. While there is
testimony by Lange that he heard no dispute between Knoll and Hipke in the
morning conversation and in fact believed that Knoll was going to continue to
work, it is undenied that thereafter when Knoll learned of the reason given by
Hipke in the separation slip he heatedly discussed the matter with Hipke Thus,
Knoll's conduct is consistent with his story.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 633
The undersigned is convinced and finds that the entire course of conduct of the
respondent, both in relation to its general opposition to the union by instructing
Hipke to be present at the union meeting and in the specific case of the discharge
of Knoll, was motivated by its desire to discourage, un ion activity.
It is found upon the entire record that the respondent by discharging Steve
Knoll on May 24, 1946, and by failing thereafter to reinstate him discriminated
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the lights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1C. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set foi th in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations described in Section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that the respondent for the purpose of frustrating and dis-
couraging union organization among its employees not only at the time of the dis-
charge but in the future as well, discriminatorily discharged Steve Knoll and
refused to reinstate him because of his union activities.
It has also been found that the respondent has by its conduct in ordering Hipke
to refuse access to its camps to union organizers except on such conditions as the
Boaid his found illegal, and in ordering Hipke to be present at a union meeting
held on the camp premises, also interfered,witli,the union, and as described, such
conduct had as its purpose the defeat of self -organization among its employees.
The respondent by such conduct violated Section 8'(1) and (3) of the Act. It
will be recommended that time respondent pursuant to the mandate of Section
10 (c) cease and desist therefrom . Discrimination such as was engaged in by
the respondent strikes at the roots of the employees' rights safeguarded by the
Act, and is one of the most effective forms of intimidation which can be conceived."
Moreover, it discloses a determination on the part of the respondent to engage in
persistent efforts, not necessarily by the same method, to continue to defeat self-
organization by its employees. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct
and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor
practices committed by the respondent are related to other unfair labor practices
prosciibed, and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will
be thwarted unless the recommended order is coextensive with the threat. In
order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 to
prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices and thereby minimize industrial
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the policies of
the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
Further and in order to rectify the respondent's discrimination in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Steve Knoll, it will be recommended that
21 5- , N L R B I P'iittoistle Jtfq Co, 120 F (2d) 5522. 530, (C C A 4) , N. L R B V.
Aodi uohr, c _ltointeannoc 1fo(,hi)im-it Co, it(; F (2d) 350, 353, (C C A 7)
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position 30 without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges. It will also be recommended that the respondent make
him whole for any loss of pay by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
have normally earned as wages from May 24, 1946, to the date of the respondent's
offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings" (luring said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following •
CoNcr.ustoNs or Law
1 Iternational Woodworkers of America, Local Union No 15, C 1 O. is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2. The respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act -
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
Steve Knoll, thereby discouraging membership in the union, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, Lake Superior Lumber Corporation,
Ontonagon, Michigan, its officers,, agents, successors , and assigns shall:
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of America,
C I O , or any other labor organization by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, t6 join or assist International Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid of protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
30 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position " is intended to mean "former position wherever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position" See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 N L R B 827.
31 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 , 8 N. L R . B., 440. Monies received for work performed upon
Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earn-
ings. See Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B ., 311 U. S. 7.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 635
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer Steve Knoll immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole in the inanner set forth in "The -remedy" Steve Knoll
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrim-
ination against him;
(c) Post at its lumber camps and its office at Ontonagon, Michigan, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." Copies of the said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, shall,
after being dilly signed by respondent's representative, be posted by respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps respondent
has taken to comply therewith
It is recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director in
writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington 25, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he ielie5 upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof, and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said
Section 203.39, should any party desire permission to argue orally before. the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the date of service of the order transferring the ease to the Board.
VICTOR IIIRSHnELD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated December 2, 1946.
0
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: i
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination.
Steve Knoll
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER COMPANY.
Dated-------------------- By ---------------------------- ------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE-Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed
forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed
forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
MAY 22, 1946.
Mr. W. T. GORMAN, President,
Lake Superior Lumber Corporation,
Ontonagon, Michigan.
DEAR MR GORMAN : Enclosed you will find a petition signed by your employees
at Camp 17 requesting that the cost of board be reduced from $1.35 a day to $1.20,
the same as in other camps in this area This, however, is not the whole extent
of their grievances. They also state that the quality and quantity of the food is
not the same as at Camp 1S and have requested that this be adjusted. Your fore-
man, Mr Hypki, sat in on the meeting and can inform you both in regard to the
employees' attitude and the Union's position on the whole matter, which is also
explained in a letter to Mr James Shields of the N. L. R. B., a copy of which is
enclosed for your information.
As we have stated in our letter td Mr Shields, we will not assume the respon-
sibility for the action of your employees, because we do not have the bargaining
rights for them. However, we feel that you should adjust your differences with
your employees to avoid any further dissension in your camps.
LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION 637
Although we are not responsible for what action your employees take on this
matter, as a labor organization we are interested and would appreciate hearing
from you as soon as you have decided what you are willing to do in regard to
your employees ' petition.
Very truly yours,
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
LOCAL UNION NO. 12-15,
HAROLD E ARNOLD,
HEA: hs
iwa-la--cio
Vice-President.
Registered Letter
Return Receipt Requested
PETITION FROM CAMP 17 OF LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORPORATION TO HAVE
THE COST OF BOARD REDUCED FROM $1.35 A DAY TO $1.20, THE SAME AS OTHER
CAMPS
Dated : MAY 21, 1946.
Steve Knoll
John Niksich
F Skubic
Vincent Starpiewicz
Pete Krence
Henry Kebel
Joe Taylor
Henry E Moydlico
Peter Smith
Albert Schmidt
R C Peterson
Paul Jerko
Trofine Kalinowsk!
Fred Berg
Charles Blazaty
Frank Kraulih
Peter Lebeck
Joe Shubat
Frank McCloskey
Ch. Ropauh
Andrew Piclipon
Ole Hanson
Theo. Walkowski
David Ostrowsky
Frank Poxor
August Johnson
Dan Marwitz
Mekoc Vuski
Paul Krill
R. McNlchail
George Topp
Jalmer Relamson
Joe Rabich
Dam Zomski
Anthony Sokolowski
John 0 Olson
Floyd Wicks
Anton Paprocky .
Rudolph Monka
Frank Stonis
X
Frank Mazua
Mike Enright
Anton Johnson
Edw. Kamhout
Stanley Kusich
Tony Chalemorvec
John Zino
x
Herold Green
Clare Potter
Henry Kramp
Albert Olson
Clemens Sadowski
Peter Malvei
John Juukovich
Alfred Peterson
Jim Hauptman
Peter Zelube
John Aho
Joe Atwitch
Nick Miller
John Butkus
N
It this matter is not adjusted by Saturday , May 25, 1946 , we, the signers of this
petition , will feel that you do not intend to make any adjustments and we will
be forced to take whatever action we feel necessary to go our just demands