Scott Lumber Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 29, 1957117 N.L.R.B. 1790 (N.L.R.B. 1957) Copy Citation 1790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Staceyville Mill, can best be resolved at the hearing which we, shall direct. [The Board ordered that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner, and that such hearing may be consolidated with any hearing held in Case No. 1-CA-2272.] [The Board further ordered that the Trial Examiner serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposi- tion of said issues. Within the time provided therefor in the Board's Rules and Regulations, any party may file with the Board in Wash- ington, D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto, and shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.] [The Board further ordered the above-entitled matter referred to the Regional Director for the First Region for the purpose of arrang- ing such hearing.] CHAIRMAN LEEOOM and MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the con- sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. Scott Lumber Company, Inc. and International Woodworkers of America, Local 13-269, AFL-CIO. Case No. 00-CA-1172. May 29,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On November 8, 1956, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief, and the Re- spondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at -the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The -rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- fdiate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the 117 NLRB No. 249. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1791 case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner contained in the Intermediate Report. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the Act, was heard at Redding, California , on July 18 to 25, 1956, pursuant to due notice to all parties.' The amended complaint alleged in substance that the Company had refused to bargain collectively with the Local by (a) refusing to meet with certain authorized repre- sentatives of the Local on or about February 1, 1956 , for the purposes of collective bargaining ; (b) by unilaterally instituting changes on February 27, 1956, in the working conditions of certain of its employees called chain pullers , and by refusing to bargain collectively with the Local concerning such changes; ( c) by unilaterally discontinuing on November 10, 1955, its practice of paying employees for time spent during working hours in collective -bargaining negotiations with respect to grievances , and by refusing to bargain with the Local concerning this change in practice , that the Company had also violated the Act; ( d) by discharging Kenneth Wells, one of the aforementioned chain pullers , on or about March 1, 1956, because he had engaged in activities on behalf of the Local , or in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; and (e ) that by the above unfair labor practices the Company caused the Local to engage in a strike at Respondent 's plant. The Company duly filed an answer which denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices , but admitted that on or about March 2, 1956, the Local com- menced a strike at the Company 's plant at Burney , Shasta County , California. At the hearing all parties were represented , were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence bearing on the issues , to argue the issues orally upon the record , and to file briefs and proposed findings. The parties engaged in oral argument, and the Company and the General Counsel also presented briefs which have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The pleadings admit that the Company is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and lumber products at its plant located at Burney, California . During the year 1955 , the Company sold and shipped lumber and lumber products in excess of $100,000 to points located outside the State of California . I find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings also admit , and I find, that the Local is and at all times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that the Local for many years past has been the certified representative, for the purposes of collective bargaining , of a majority of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit composed of production and maintenance employees. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background: Undisputed facts 1. Operations of the Company ; management officials The Company 's principal place of business is at Burney , California, which is a community of approximately 2,000 people. The Company is the main industry in the town , although there is another sawmill and another lumber company. In the 1 In this report Scott Lumber Company, Inc , is referred to as the Company or the Re- spondent , International Woodworkers of America , Local 13-269, AFL-CIO , as the Local or the Union ; the General Counsel and his representative at the hearing , as the General Counsel ; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board ; and the Labor -Management Relations Act of 1947 , as amended , as the Act. 1792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vicinity of Burney there is also some cattle raising, and in the summer months there is some tourist and vacation trade. The employment level of the Company is ap- proximately 260 in the summer, and about 200 to 220 in the winter. All employees are members of the Local, pursuant to,the union-security provision of the contract. The Company pays its employees on a 2-week basis. In the summertime the pay- roll runs between $30,000 and $35,000, and in the wintertime between $70,000 and $75,000. At the time of the hearing herein, July 25, 1956, all the employees, except approxi- mately 30 to 35, were engaged in a strike which began at 1 p. in., Friday, March 2, 1956. At Burney the establishment of the Company occupies about 80 acres which are enclosed by an industrial fence. On this land the Company has an office, sawmill, shop, pond, dry kilns, planing mills, sorting chain, loading dock, and several acres of yard space for the storage of lumber. The Company also conducts woods opera- tions in Shasta and adjoining counties to supply timber and logs for the mill at Burney. Raymond H. Berry is the vice president and general manager of the Company, a position which he has held since 1938. All the operations of the Company are under his direction and supervision. Next in authority is Marion Adams, who is the superintendent of the operations at Burney, and who is assisted by approxi- mately 12 or 13 supervisors, including the sawmill superintendent and night shift foreman. In addition to Superintendent Adams there are three other executives in charge of separate departments who also report to Berry: Toler, in charge of forestry; Bartel, in charge of sales; and Wagoner, office manager. Among the 12 supervisors reporting to Superintendent Adams is A. L. McLaugh- lin, yard and planing mill foreman, who, at the times pertinent hereto, had an assistant by the name of Ed Adams. The office of Superintendent Adams is located in the main office building. McLaughlin's office is located in the planing mill. He has direct supervision of the planing mill which consists of 2 planer machines, 2 trim saws, 1 ripsaw, and a chain to go with each machine, and a resaw which is located approximately 90 feet from the planer machines. This equipment is under a shed- type roof. The 2 planer machines are comparatively new since they replace 2 planers burned in a fire in 1953. These planers are referred to as No. 1 and No. 2 planer. Each can handle lumber of different size. No. 1 is a 15-inch machine, and No. 2 is a 25-inch machine. The No. 1 machine, with which we are concerned, to a large extent runs 2 x 4's, sometimes single 2 x 4's, and sometimes ripping 2 x 4's from 2 x 8's, or 2 x 12's. The operation of the planer machines can be described as follows: The lumber is brought to the head of the planer machine by a lift truck operated by an employee. This man deposits the stacked lumber in close proximity to the head of the machine. The machine man has charge of feeding the lumber into the machine, and his duties include the setting up of the machine and watching the machine through its various operations. The lumber goes through the machine and drops onto a moving chain, called the planer chain, which carries the lumber past .the graders and the tally man. Then the lumber goes to the trim saws, where it is cut to the desired length. 2. The chain pullers: the change of setup After the lumber has been cut to length, the next operation is performed by the chain pullers, the employees with whom we are much concerned herein. The "lumber rolls out on some rollers and another chain takes it; this is called the outside chain, although it is under the roof. As the lumber goes down this outside chain, it is pulled off the chain by the chain pullers and piled in a stack that is called a unit. The units are removed by another lift truck. The chain on the No. 1 machine is approximately 35 feet long and is about 8 feet wide. The chain pullers stand on a platform which is about 18 inches off the ground and the chain is about 36 or 38 inches above the platform. This chain runs at a constant speed while the planer is in operation. The setup man has charge of both planers. His job consists of being responsible for the machines and their operations. He sees to it that the heads which cut the lumber are kept in shape, and whenever a change in setup occurs, he overseas the work of the planer man in making the change in setup. This change in setup occurs whenever a change is made in the size, or the number of cuts, of lumber produced by the planer machine. When the machine is changed from cutting single 2 x 4's to ripping three 2 x 4's from 12 x 4's, for example, new or different heads must be attached to the planer and adjusted properly. On the machines of the Company, since each machine had a planer man, the change in setup was made by the setup man and the planer man working together. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1793 It is also undisputed that in the course of a day's operation the planers may be shut down for a variety of reasons. Anything which interrupts the placement of lumber at the head of the machine, or interrupts the taking of lumber off the outside chain, causes a temporary shutdown. Mechanical failures and adjustments also cause stoppages. The Company maintained a day-by-day record of all shutdowns on the planers. Any time the machine was shut down for longer than 3 minutes the machine man made a notation of the length of time and the cause of the stoppage on a form kept for that purpose. When the machine was shut down for a change of setup the men working would be the setup man and the planer man. The chain which ran before the chain pullers would continue to run, but no lumber would come over it. The chain pullers at the time the planer was shut down had practically nothing to do. They might set blocks for the next unit, but that was a matter of seconds. The record of the time that each planer machine was shut down, which was made by the machine man daily, was collected by McLaughlin and given to Superintendent Adams, who then transferred the figures to a permanent record book. In that way the Company knew with a fair degree of accuracy the number of hours and minutes that each planer machine was in operation during each day, and also knew how much free or unoccupied time the chain pullers had on each shift, in addition to the scheduled smoke time and lunch period. 3. Officials of the Locals and the District Council At all times pertinent hereto the president of the Local was Wall Gwin; the vice president, Jack Davidson; and the recording secretary, Eurby D. Eubanks. Among the union officials who played a part in the events with which we are concerned was Joe F. Clark, who is the secretary of the California District Council No. 13 of the International Woodworkers of America. Also mentioned are Robert P. Crimmins, who is the business agent for Local 13-433, a sister organization of the Local located at Anderson, California, and Emmett Lawson, president of the California District Council No. 13, IWA. It is conceded that Clark, Crimmins, and Lawson are neither members nor officers of the Local nor employees of the Company. 4. Contractual relations of Company and Local It is likewise undisputed that for upwards of 15 years the Company and the Local have negotiated and entered into a series of contracts on the subject of wages, hours, and working conditions of the Company's employees. At the time this con- troversy arose there was in effect between the parties a labor agreement dated May 15, 1953. By a stipulation executed March 22, 1954, the contract was extended for a period of 3 years, ending at midnight, April 1, 1957, with the proviso that the subject of wages could be reopened by either the Local or the Company on an annual basis as of April 1, 1955 and 1956. A stipulation dated March 9, 1955, continued the contract in effect and adjusted wages pursuant to the agreement of the parties. Certain provisions of the 1953 contract are pertinent to the present controversy; these read as follows: 2 ARTICLE II-GRIEVANCE ADJUSTMENTS (a) The Union shall elect a committee of four (4) composed of Union employees of the employer in the mill, yard and woods of the Burney operation to be known as the Plant Committee. (b) Any employee or group of employees having a grievance against the Company, may present the same first to such employee who is designated by the Union as Shop Steward for immediate adjustment, the same may be submitted to the Plant Committee for further consideration. (c) The Plant Committee shall present all complaints in writing to the em- ployer or its designated representative who shall endeavor to settle all griev- ances and disputes promptly. If the Company or the representative committee fail to agree, the matter shall be taken up within forty-eight (48) hours there- after with the Company and the Union or representative or either. (f) No strike shall be called or sanctioned by the Union or any of its mem- bers, and no lockouts shall be called by the Company until all'provi.sions of this agreement shall have been carried out. * * * * * * * 2 General Counsel's Exhibit No 9 423784--57-vol. 117-114 1794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ARTICLE III-SUSPENSION OR DISCHARGE (a) The Company agrees to warn an employee of negligence, inefficiency or inattention to duty, or any other misconduct, and the Company may, at its option, inform the Shop Steward the reason therefore. (b) In the event any employee shall be suspended or discharged he shall be notified of the reason for such suspension or discharge in writing, and if he believes he has been unjustly dealt with and requests the Union to represent him, the matter shall be taken up with the Company. If the Company and the Union representatives agree that the employee has been unjustly suspended or discharged, or that the action taken has been too severe, the Company shall reinstate or reemploy such employee to his former position as of the time of said suspension or discharge and reimburse said employee for all time lost due to such suspension or discharge. Any case of suspension or discharge not called to the attention of the Company within forty-eight (48) hours from the time thereof shall be considered as waived, and thereafter shall not be made the basis of complaint or grievance. Complaints in cases of discharge shall be placed in writing. [Emphasis supplied.] It is undisputed that the plant committee, mentioned in the contract as the instru- ment of the Union to adjust grievances, at the time with which we are concerned, was composed of Chairman Coy Landers, Tracy Ragsdale, Carl Jeter, James Sanders, and Jack Davidson. These men were all members of the Local and employees of the Company, in conformity with Article II, above. B. Points at issue 1. The docking of the Plant Committee It is undisputed that at all times prior to October 25, 1955, the Company had paid the plant committee their usual wages for time spent in adjustment of grievances with the Company. On October 25, 1955, the members of the plant committee met with representatives of the Company to discuss a grievance concerning Chairman Landers. Landers had made application for a higher paid job operating a steam shovel, but the Company had given the job to another employee on the basis of superior skill in the operation of the shovel. On October 25 this grievance was the subject of a meeting of representatives of the parties with United States Conciliator Remus. The meeting began at 10 o'clock and recessed for lunch at 12 o'clock. After lunch the conciliator returned and was closeted with the representatives of management from approximately 1:30 to 2:30 p. m. Landers testified that when the meeting adjourned at 12 o'clock, the conciliator told the plant committee that after lunch he wished to confer with the company representatives privately, but that the plant committee was to remain available. While Remus and the company representatives were engaged in their discussion, Clark, Landers, and members of the plant committee lounged in cars outside the cookhouse. Between 2 and 3 o'clock, Conciliator Remus came out of his confer- ence with the Company and told the union representatives that Berry's lawyer wanted to litigate the question, and there was nothing he could do. The plant committee then dispersed. Landers said that he did not go to his post of duty at Pondosa, but stayed in the yard and worked around the green chain. When Landers and the other committeemen received their pay checks for the period, they found that they were not paid for 3 hours of that afternoon. Berry testified that company and union representatives met with the conciliator between 10 and 12 on that particular day. After lunch, around 1:30 p. in., the conciliator conferred very briefly with the Company, spoke for a few minutes to the union representatives who were outside in the cars, and then left the premises. Berry said the conciliator's departure could not have been later than 2:30 p. in. However, after the conciliator had gone, the plant committee continued to sit in the cars outside the cookhouse talking to Clark. This conversion lasted until the end of the shift at 4 p. in. Under the circumstances, Berry felt that the commit- teemen should have returned to their jobs when the conciliator left. He issued orders that the plant committee was to be paid for the time spent in meeting with the Company or the conciliator, but not for the time spent that afternoon talking with Clark, after the conciliator had left. Both Berry and Landers testified that the Company paid the members of the plant committee their usual wages for time spent in meetings with the Company after October 25, 1955, up until the time of the strike. It is also apparent that various members of the committee expressed their dissat- isfaction with the Company's action in docking them for this time and instituted a SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1795 grievance about it, which was rejected by the Company. It is also apparent that long before the strike was started on March 2, 1956, the members of the plant committee had ceased to process any grievance concerning this loss of pay. 2. Berry's refusal to meet with Clark, Crimmins, and Lawson As has been noted, Joe F. Clark is the secretary of the California District Council No. 13 of the IWA, of which the Local is a component. It is apparent that at times prior to the instant controversy Clark and Berry had some dealings, and that relations between the two were not cordial. On January 31, 1956, Berry and other representatives of the Company met with the plant committee composed of Landers, Moore, Ragsdale, and Davidson to adjust a grievance concerning an employee named Stewart. Clark also was present and Berry made no objection to his presence. In the discussion that followed, Clark quickly assumed the role of spokesman for the plant committee. Clark first brought up the grievance of Stewart, an employee who had voluntarily retired from employment with the Company some weeks prior to the meeting. Clark pointed out that Stewart had worked 1,400 hours prior to his retirement, and stated,-that it was his opinion that under the contract Clark should be paid his vacation pay. Berry said that he had no objection to giving Stewart a bonus for long service, but that he would not agree that any vacation pay was due Stewart under the contract. At that point both Clark and Berry referred to the contract, with Clark pointing out that the employers who composed the Pine Industrial Relations Committee and the local unions who comprised the Northwest Regional Negotiating Group, IWA, had agreed that under their contract in the circumstances of Stewart's quitting, he would be entitled to vacation pay. Berry replied that his Company had withdrawn from the Pine Industrial Relations Committee some years previously because the Company was dissatisfied with areawide bargaining, and that the contract then in effect, negotiated by the Company and the Local, did not contain.the same vacation provision as the areawide contract. After considerable discussion about the phraseology of the vacation provision in the contract, Clark tacitly backed away from his first.position. At that point the following occurred: 3 CLARK: Well, if you want to refuse-that's your right-but to say that we don't or we can't isn't proper because you know as well as I do that by mutual agreement we can sit here and change the contract providing it's accepted by the Company and the Union, any time we wish. BERRY: Yes, but-but we don't want to do that here in this meeting. I know that- CLARK: You may not want to do it here in this meeting but if this language doesn't mean that why I am pretty sure the Local Union is going to want to change it to where it does. BERRY: Yes, but the Local Union has agreed this contract goes on as it is until the end of next year. CLARK: Well-ah-that is not going to stop its from asking whether or not you are in agreement and whether or not you will carry on negotiations on it because we are going to have to find out whether we are right in what we are saying here or not. You say that your attorney says that you are right in refusing to pay it and we believe that the record in this case-that is the precedent that has been established by the lumber industry is going to have something to do with it also and I know that I can show you every other company in California where we don't even have any debate or any argument at all if the person is a full 1400 hour employee. [Emphasis supplied.] The conferees then passed to a grievance concerning Moore, an employee who had been injured on the job during the month of October 1955. Clark pointed out that Moore had been certified by the doctors of the compensation insurers for light work and that the Company had refused to permit Moore to return to work. Berry explained that he considered Moore a good employee and that when Moore was certified by the doctor as fit to do light work, that he had made inquiries of the doctor. He explained to the doctor that there was no light work around the sawmill, and that he needed to know exactly what Moore's physical condition was, for Moore's own good, and for the safety of other employees who would work with Moore. He explained the nature of Moore's job. The doctor immediately said that Moore was unfit for any such work, and in the course of the conversation Berry learned that Moore's injury was not fully healed, and that Moore could be helped further by an ex- pensive course of treatment administered by specialists. Berry then demanded that the 9 General Counsel's Exhibit No 3-transcript of tape recording of this meeting 1796 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD doctor certify Moore for the treatments instead of certifying him for light work. After speaking to the doctor, Berry called the Company 's insurer and demanded that Moore be certified for treatment by the specialists and continued on compensation meanwhile. The insurance carrier had agreed to that course of action. Moore was in attendance at this meeting and verified Berry's statements . Apparently all of these facts were known also to Clark . Clark then moved to another point. He said that it had come to his attention that Moore's job , which entailed the lifting of heavy objects, had been filled by two men since Moore's injury . Berry denied that two men were doing Moore 's work. He said that on occasion another man helped Moore's replacement , but that one man was still performing Moore's tasks. Clark said that Berry's statement was not true , and then said that since two men performed the job at some time, "it may be that we need two men on that job " Berry replied that management would decide how many men were needed on the job, and that Clark was not going to run the plant. Clark then said that he was "Going to sit here and discuss job content with Berry just the same." Berry then said that he refused to discuss the management of the plant with Clark, and that as far as the Company was concerned the meeting was at an end. On the following morning, February 1, 1956, Berry addressed the following letter to the Union: 4 Feb. 1,1956. GENTLEMEN : Yesterday afternoon, in contravention and contradiction of the terms of the contract , your Plant Committee and representatives attempted some form of negotiations with the Company . The meeting was supposedly called to discuss a grievance . I was asked by your President , if I would meet with the Plant Committee and understood it was in connection with a grievance, supposedly made by Mr. Stewart . When we convened , Mr. Joe Clark was with the Plant Committee and, although Article II with regard to grievances is quite clear in setting forth the manner in which grievances are to be handled, the provisions of Article II were ignored . Paragraph ( c) in Article II says: "The Plant Committee shall present all complaints in writing to the employer or its designated representatives-" When the meeting started , there was no complaint in writing presented by the Plant Committee but merely an oral statement made by Mr. Clark, who there- after tried to branch out into contract revisions and negotiations for contract changes. This matter of contract revision and changes is, as you know , covered by Article XVI. It requires some specially designated committee and the group that appeared before us was the Plant Committee which has, as the contract shows, solely to do with grievance adjustments and does not have authority to negotiate for contract changes. It would certainly be for the good of all concerned if the Union representatives would follow the contract provisions and hereafter , before any meeting is called, at which the members of Management will attend , the Company will want such grievances as are to be presented to be presented in writing, prior to the meeting and also that the provisions of ARTICLE II, prior to calling such a meeting, be carried out. For some reason the Plant Committee of the Union seems to feel that it is a General Committee, entitled to enter into general negotiations . The contract does not make such provisions. Article II (a) says that the Union shall elect a committee of four, from various parts of the operation , to be known as the Plant Committee and paragraph ( b) then provides that when there is any grievance that is not forthwith settled, that it shall then be presented to the Plant Committee . Under paragraph (c), Article II , the Plant Committee presents all the complaints to the employer , or a representative , who shall try to settle the matter, before calling the general management of the Company into conference . This procedure was not followed . Instead of that, Mr. Clark made general charges and remarks and attempted to discuss changes in the contract and contradicted statements made by management representatives which is not negotiating but just plain disagreeableness. As matters now stand , we have an agreement with the Union that there shall be no contract changes for at least another year. If, however , any changes in the contract were to be made, the provisions of Article XVI should be followed, which calls for notice of fifteen days and a setting forth of the changes or amendments desired. * General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 29 SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1 797 We do not think that Company management should be subjected to the discourteous and unauthorized procedure which Mr. Clark and the members of the Committee took yesterday and we request that hereafter , in the presenting of grievances , or in attempts to modify the contract , that provisions of the contract be followed . With regard to this, we want further to state to the Union that unless we have some writing showing that Mr. Clark is duly authorized by your Local, to act on the Plant Committee , or on a Negotiating Committee, we will not negotiate with him . We feel that the Company is entitled to a writing signed by your officers , under the seal of the Union, showing that his representation has been authorized by the membership. Very truly yours, SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. The Meeting of February 21, 1956 At 8 p . in. on this evening representatives of management and the plant com- mittee met to confer on grievances . Clark and Lawson, President of the District Council , accompanied the plant committee on this occasion . As soon as the men assembled , Berry asked Landers if he had a letter from the Union authorizing Clark to represent it, or to act with the plant committee. He referred to his letter of February 1, 1956, demanding written credentials for Clark. Berry said that he wanted a similar letter for Lawson also. Berry again referred to article II of the contract , which states that the plant committee would consist of four employees of the Company. Berry asked Landers if Lawson and Clark were employees of the Company or members of the Local. Landers replied that they were not, but they had been authorized to represent the Local. Berry demanded proof of their authorization. Landers said that he was pretty sure that they had plenty of proof at the union hall. Berry said that he would refuse to meet with Clark and Lawson until they presented credentials which showed that they were authorized to represent the Local . At that point Clark presented a letter to Berry which reads as follows: 5 BURNEY, CALIF ., Feb. 21, 1956. SCOTT LUMBER CO., Burney, Calif. DEAR SiRs: The following are grievances that our Union Plant Committee, Mr. Clark and Mr. Lawson wish to talk to you about: 1. Little dragline oiler not working on regular job while machine is operating. 2. More help on Plainer Chain No. 1. 3. More help on Plainer Chain No. 2. 4. The foreman doing the work and not giving Mr. Bray the work. 5. We wish a curant correct wage scale and a Seniority list. 6. We wish a general Wage increase. Coy Landers Charman of Plant Comm. Oscar (Dick) Moore Landers testified that Clark wrote this letter in Landers ' presence a few moments before the meeting began. Berry refused to accept the document as authorization for Clark and Lawson. Berry insisted that he wanted a letter of authorization for the men from the Union , and he refused to meet with Clark and Lawson until it was supplied. At that point Landers said , "I think that you have a letter, Mr . Berry, somewhere , if you haven't thrown it in a wastepaper basket, showing that these men were authorized to represent us at any time." In connection with the above , it is undisputed that the Local did not send any letter .to Berry in compliance with his request for authorization of union representatives. In his testimony, Gwin, president of the Union said that Berry's letter was discussed in a union meeting held on February 28, and that the membership passed a resolu- tion to send a letter of authorization to Berry in compliance with his request, but that an amendment to the motion provided that the letter would not be mailed until the Local had received advice from the Regional Office in Portland, that the Union was required to send such a letter by law or other regulation . Gwin said that the letter had not been transmitted to the Company up to the date of the hearing, because the Regional Office at Portland had never answered the Local's query on this subject. 5 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12. 1798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To sustain Berry's position, the Respondent Company introduced into evidence a. series of letters 6 which established that on prior occasions when the Local was. represented by persons or committees, other than its duly elected officers, it had notified the Company in writing, over the seal of the Local, as to the identity of its representatives and the extent of their authority. It had also on occasion withdrawn the authority previously granted and terminated the agency of particular representa- tives, in writing, over the seal of the Local. In the course of his testimony Berry gave additional reasons for his requiring the Union to furnish written credentials for Clark. He said that in April 1955 repre- sentatives of the Company and the negotiating committee of the Union had met to. negotiate a new contract. At that time, Grokenberger, an employee of the Company,. was the chairman of the negotiating committee. At the time and place scheduled for the first bargaining conference, Clark appeared, but before the meeting started, Grokenberger spoke to Clark privately, and Clark then withdrew and played no part in the negotiations. Later, Grokenberger told Berry that he had told Clark that the negotiating committee wanted to negotiate its own contract. Grokenberger also testi- fied on this point. He said that he told Clark that the latter had not been invited by the Union to assist in the negotiations and that the negotiating committee would negotiate with the Company without Clark; if the committee felt later on that Clark's. assistance was needed the committee would send for him. It is undisputed that the negotiations which followed resulted in a contract satisfactory to both parties with- out the assistance of Clark. Berry also testified that in January 1955 Clifford Hinchcliff, who was then the secretary of the Union, talked to Berry regarding Clark. On this occasion, Hinch- cliff showed Berry a resolution passed by Local 13-370, IWA, a sister local located at Susanville, California.? The resolution recited that since the District Council's secretary (Clark) had appropriated money of the Council funds to his own use without authorization, and that the executive board of the District, had in substance- given this conduct a "whitewash," that Local 13-370 recommended that Clark be required to make restitution, and be discharged, and a copy of the resolution mailed to all locals comprising District 13. Hmchcliff corroborated this testimony. Berry said that because of this knowledge of Clark's activities, and Clark's exclusion from the negotiating meetings in 1955, that Berry was not sure of Clark's standing with the Local, and he wished to be sure that Clark or any other special representatives were duly authorized before he would meet with them. Berry also testified that as time went on and the Union did not authorize Clark to represent it, after receiving Berry's letter of February 1, 1956, that his doubts of Clark's status were confirmed in his own mind. Since the Union did not present credentials for Clark and Lawson, the repre- sentatives of the parties did not confer further on this date.8 3. The incident of the chain pullers: the strike It is the contention of the General Counsel that the conduct of the Company in connection with the assignment of work to the chain pullers and their subsequent discharge was the primary and immediate cause of the strike which occurred at 1 p. m. on March 2. It is his contention that in regard to this incident the Company changed conditions of employment by unilateral action, and refused to bargain about this change when requested to do so by the Local. Superintendent Adams testified credibly that for approximately 2 weeks prior to Monday, February 27, 1956, he had been considering issuing an order that the chain pullers should be required to do cleanup work around the planer at such times as the planer was out of operation for a change of setup. He had also been con- sidering changing the smoke time of these men from the periods 9:30 to 9:45 a. m. and 2.30 to 2:45 p. m. to unscheduled 15-minute periods, so that some of their nonworking time which occurred in the course of operations could be used for smoke time. He had studied the records of time lost on each machine and had come to the conclusion that on changes of setup which took longer than 10 or 15 minutes, the chain pullers could be profitably employed at cleanup work, picking up sticks, small pieces of lumber, chips, and trash that accumulated in the vicinity of the planer. Adams said that he had several reasons for his decision. He wished to employ the men usefully during the time that the longer changes in setup were taking place 6 Respondent's Exhibits Nos 2, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 7 Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 8 On the next day Berry by letter again requested that the Union furnish credentials for any outsiders authorized to represent it Respondent's Exhibit No 4. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC . 1799 and the cleanup work would keep the area in a safer and more efficient condition. He also explained that during 1955 the Company had built about 7 miles of rail- road into the mill in order that the Company could ship more,mixed lots of lumber, and could manufacture and ship pattern stock, an item not produced in quantity in the past. In addition to building the railroad, the Company had purchased ap- proximately $4,600 worth of new heads to be used in the manufacture of the pattern stock, which is grooved lumber used widely as interior paneling in homes and build- ings. Because the Company would in the future manufacture more pattern stock, there would be more frequent changes of setup, which would entail longer stop- pages than the ordinary setups made in the past. He also said that on occasion the chain pullers, who were young men, engaged in throwing snowballs and playing leapfrog during changes of setup, while the other employees were working, and that this conduct disturbed the morale of the working employees. He wanted to stop this horesplay. He testified that his timing of the order to the chain pullers was not significant, except that on March 1 the Company would finish shipping pine lumber, and would be ready to start manufacture of pattern stock, using the new heads. It should also be noted in connection with the cleanup work that all parties agree that the cleanup work was not hazardous, dirty, or degrading. Monday, February 27 On February 27 Superintendent Adams discussed his idea with Berry, who agreed that the order should be given. Superintendent Adams had previously discussed the subject with McLaughlin and Ed Adams during the weeks he had been considering it. On this occasion he told McLaughlin to tell the men that on long changes of setup the men would be required to do cleanup work. In his testimony Adams explained that his order did not include time when the men would not be working for other causes, such as breakdowns, because it had always been the practice to use the chain pullers for cleanup and other work when there were stoppages of longer duration for such reasons. Nor did his order include the time of short setups, be- cause it would be impractical to take the men from the planer machines when the machines might be started in a moment or two. Upon receiving the order, at approximately 2:30 p. m., McLaughlin and Ed Adams went to the chain pullers on the No. 1 machine. At that time six chain pullers were working. It is clear from the testimony of Kenny Wells, the chain puller named in the complaint , that the men had previously learned of the changes being con- sidered by their superiors, and that they had discussed the matter among themselves, and resolved not to obey the orders which would inaugurate the changes. Ed Adams told them that in the future on long setups they would be required to do cleanup work , and when a long setup occurred near smoke time, they were to use that time as smoke time. The men gathered around the supervisors , and McLaugh- lin explained that the order pertained to long setups only. Kenny Wells, the em- ployee named in the complaint said , "Well, I'm not going to do it. And that goes for the rest of the men on the chain. They will back me up on it." McLaughlin and Ed Adams walked away without further discussion. McLaughlin then reported to Superintendent Adams that he had informed the men of the cleanup order, and that the men had discussed it, and that Kenny Wells, speaking for all of them, had said that they wouldn't do the work. A few minutes later Harris, the job steward, handed a written grievance on behalf of the chain pullers to McLaughlin, who took the grievance to Superintendent Adams. This grievance reads as follows: 9 We, the chain pullers of No. 1 machine have been told by Mr. Ed Adams and A. L. McLaughlin when there is a change over lasting a few minutes we are to go up and pick sticks and clean up. We feel that our job is Chain Pulling and Chain Pulling only. (Signed) CHAIN PULLERS No. 1 MACHINE, JERRY GOULD, BILL ESTES, KENNY WELLS, GLEN BREEDLOVE, MALCOMB BROWN, J. C. CLABORN. [Emphasis supplied.] 9 General Counsel's Exhibit No 7. 1800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Berry, Superintendent Adams, and McLaughlin then discussed how they would answer the grievance , and Berry referred to the labor contract between the Company and the Union and read some of its provisions . The three supervisors also dis- cussed issuing a warning to the men pursuant to the contract provisions. As a result of the discussion , a number of warning slips were made out and one was issued to each of the chain pullers before quitting time that day. These warning slips read as follows: 10 WARNING This is a warning under Article III, subparagraph (a), that if you refuse to do any work requested by your foreman or directed by the superintendent of operations , you will be discharged from the employment of the Company. This notice applies to work for which a purported grievance has already been filed with regard to cleaning up the planing mill when No. 1 machine is not running. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC., (Signed ) MARION W. ADAMS, Superintendent of Operations. FEBRUARY 27, 1956. However, Harris, the union steward , had already left the plant, as he had an earlier quitting time, so he was not given the answer to the grievance until early on the following morning. The answer to the grievance read as follows: 11 Any man refusing to do any work that A. L. McLaughlin or Ed Adams tells him to do will be discharged immediately . There is no contract provision to support your grievance. Both Superintendent Adams and Wall Gwin, the president of the Local , testified that they discussed the situation on the afternoon of this day . Shortly after 4 o'clock, Adams went to Gwin 's home. He told Gwin about the orders he had issued to the chain pullers, and their reaction , and he asked Gwin to go with him to the company office so that he could show Gwin the records and explain to him why he wanted the men to do the cleanup work. Gwin had company for dinner and was reluctant to go, but after he understood that the men had refused to do the work, and the Company had issued a warning to the men , Gwin agreed that he would go to the office with Adams. Adams drove him to the office , and showed him the records on lost time , and explained the situation to Gwin. He explained to Gwin that on setups that the machine man figured would take over 10 minutes, that the Company was asking the men to do cleanup work. He explained that the Company did not expect them to do cleanup work on shorter setups, as it would not be practical, since the men would hardly be absent from their post a few moments before the planer machine would again start up. After he finished explaining it to Gwin, the latter said he would talk to Adams about it later. Adams then drove Gwin home. In his testimony Adams said that he consulted Gwin on the matter because at the time Adams became superintendent of the plant , approximately April 10, 1955 , Gwin had requested Adams to consult with him promptly on any happening that might lead to trouble between the Company and the Local. At that time Adams had approved of Gwin's suggestion , and had agreed to consult with Gwin, so on this date he sought him out. In his testimony Gwin said that he had first learned of the chain pullers' grievance from Landers , chairman , and Moore , a member of the plant committee who had preceded Adams to Gwin's home and had given him the chain pullers' version of the grievance. Meeting: Company -Union Representatives on Wages, etc. At 8 p . in. that evening Gwin, other officers , and the negotiating committee of the Local met with Berry, Adams , McLaughlin , and other supervisors of the Com- pany for the purpose of bargaining on the subject of wages for the year 1956. This meeting had been arranged on February 22, 1956, pursuant to the wage reopening clause of the contract . At this meeting the committee representing the Company appointed a small subcommittee to conduct further negotiations with representatives of the Union , and to review the wage situation . The record does not disclose how many meetings of the parties occurred thereafter , but it is undisputed that 2 days later, on February 29, the Company offered the Union a general raise in wages of 10 General Counsel 's Exhibit No 8 u Genei al Counsel's Exhibit No 7 SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1801 81/2 cents per hour. It is also not disputed that at this meeting of the negotiating committee and management, the grievance of the chain pullers, and the warning given them by management, was not mentioned. Tuesday, February 28 Shortly after work began on this day, McLaughlin delivered to Harris, the job steward, the answer of the Company to the chain pullers' grievance. Harris imme- diately delivered the answer to Landers, chairman of the plant committee. About 9 a. m. Gwin appeared at Adams' office and asked for an appointment with the superintendent to talk further about the chain pullers. Adams said that he could talk with Gwin, right then and there. Gwin said that he would like to have Davidson, vice president of the Local, in attendance at the conference, so Davidson was sent for, and he joined them in a few minutes. Adams then reviewed for Davidson's benefit, the reasons why the Company wanted the chain pullers to do the cleanup work, and he explained that the order pertained only to changes of setup that the machine man figured would take 10 minutes or longer, so that on about 90 percent of the setups the men would not be asked to do cleanup work. At that point Gwin asked Adams if he would go with him to the chain pullers and tell that to the men. According to Gwin, Adams at first said that he didn't care to do that as he had engaged in a pretty hot discussion with some of the boys after quitting time the previous evening. On reconsidering it, however, on Gwin's urging, he agreed to go with Gwin and talk to the men. At about that point, Adams was called to a conference with Dr. Farber and other management officials, so he did not talk to the chain pullers that day. Since Dr. Farber is mentioned at various places in this narrative, some explanation as to his identity and his connection with the Company is proper. It is undisputed that the Company at this time was considering expansion by the construction of a pulp mill. It had requested Dr. Farber, whom Berry described as one of the most eminent wood chemists in the United States, to make a survey of the Company's operations and woods, and prepare a report on the feasibility of a pulp mill. Dr. Farber, whose headquarters were at Washington, D. C., had come to Burney, and was engaged in making his survey during the week with which we are concerned. Also at Burney, for purposes of the survey, were officials of the United States Forestry Department. It is also apparent from the record that many of the department heads, including Berry and Adams, were busily engaged in compiling data and information for the use of Dr. Farber and the Forestry officials. The matter of the survey, with its additional claim on the time of company officials, is a factor repeatedly referred to in this case. However, it is unquestioned that Dr. Farber, the Forestry officials, and officials of the Company were engaged in making the survey, and that the persons involved in the work considered it important and urgent. It is also not disputed that Coy Landers, chairman of the plant committee, phoned Berry sometime during this day and asked that Berry meet with the plant com- mittee in regard to several outstanding and unsettled grievances. Berry replied that he could not meet with the plant committee before the following Monday, but that he would meet with them on that day. When Landers asked Berry to set a time for the meeting, Berry replied that he would phone Landers tomorrow and tell him the hour of the Monday meeting. The Union Meeting On this evening the Local had one of its regular semi-monthly meetings. It is undisputed that the chain pullers' grievance was brought before the meeting and that the membership passed a resolution in regard to it. Several employees testified to what transpired at the meeting, and in general are in agreement. Gwin testified that prior to the meeting several members told him that there was some criticism of himself and Davidson for coming on the job, and trying to settle things without consulting anyone else. He told these members that he and Davidson were trying to get the facts of the grievance, and reach an understanding with the Company. At the meeting, Gwin, as president, presided. When the meeting reached reports of committees, Landers made a report for the plant committee, and brought up the subject of the chain pullers' grievance. The chain pullers also spoke about their grievance and warning, and the membership then discussed the subject. Gwin and Davidson told the membership of their conversation with Adams, explaining that the chain pullers would be asked to do cleanup work only when the changeover would take longer than 10 or 15 minutes, which would occur on less than 10 percent of the changeovers. The main theme of the general discussion which then occurred 1802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was Adams' reason for changing past procedures without consulting with the Union. Finally, according to Gwin, someone made a motion, which was passed, that the chain pullers "wouldn't have to do cleanup work, as far as the Union was concerned, until the Union could get a meeting with the Company in order to find out what work was necessary." Wells, one of the chain pullers, testified that the members "decided we shouldn't ,do the cleanup work until they found whether we was going to do it or not. Until they met with the Company, I guess." Breedlove, another chain puller, said that the motion was that the chain pullers, "Wouldn't do the cleanup work until they could have a meeting and get it straightened out." In connection with this resolution, it should be noted that though it is couched in conditional phraseology, "until they could have a meeting," etc., that thereafter union members spoke of the resolution as being unconditional-that the Union "authorized the men not to do the work." Wednesday, February 29 Both Adams and Gwin testified that between 8:30 and 9 o'clock on this morning they happened to meet at the clock house at the gate of the plant. Adams stopped and told Gwin that he had not been able to meet with the chain pullers on the previous day, because of a series of conferences with Dr. Farber and other officials. He then said, "Do you want to go over and talk to those chain pullers now?" Gwin said that he understood that there was going to be a meeting of the plant committee with Adams, and that "it wasn't necessary to talk to the men, because actually the plant committee-that's their job-to settle grievances." Meeting of Adams and Plant Committee At approximately 11 a. m., Chairman Landers requested Adams to meet with the plant committee to discuss outstanding grievances. Adams agreed to meet with the committee and the conference was set for 1 p. m. that day at Adams' office. At the appointed hour Adams and McLaughlin met with Chairman Landers and Mem- bers Ragsdale, Jeter, Sanders, and Davidson of the plant committee. According to the testimony of Adams, which I credit, he and the committee discussed approxi- mately five grievances-one concerned the oiler on the small shovel, another con- cerned the helper on the dry kiln, another concerned the planer crews on the 2 planer machines-1 man had been taken off of each crew and put at other work some 2 weeks prior to this date-and the grievance concerning the chain pullers doing cleanup work, which was the primary purpose of the meeting. The plant com- mittee asked why the Company wanted the chain pullers to do this work. Adams said that the Company sought 8 hours' work for 8 hours' pay. He explained that the chain pullers would not be asked to do cleanup work on any change of setup which could be made in less than 10 minutes. If they wanted to use the time of short change of setups to get dry or warm during inclement weather, they could do that. But on setups taking longer than 10 minutes, they were asking the men to clean up the broken sticks, and broken stickers, and other debris that might accumulate around the yard. The plant committee stated that since this work had not been required of the chain pullers in the past, that the Local thought it ought to be discussed with the Company before the men were ordered to do the work. Adams testified that the plant committee did not tell him in the course of this meeting that the Local had held a meeting the night before, and had instructed the chain pullers not to do the work until the matter could be negotiated with the Company. One of the members of the committee stated that the grievance procedure had three steps and that the third step was a meeting with Berry and top management officials and that the com- mittee thought that the Company should wait until they could go through all the steps of the grievance procedure. Jeter asked Adams when the Company was going to enforce the order asking the men to do the cleanup work. He replied that he didn't know when it would occur, it might be in 30 minutes, it might be in 2 hours, or 2 days, but it would happen when the next change in setup, which would take 10 minutes, would occur. Jeter testified that he told Adams that if the chain pullers were expected to do cleanup work every time the machine stopped, they wouldn't have time to get their aprons off, and do the cleanup work, and get back to the machine when it started. And that Adams replied, "That he didn't expect them to do work in just a short period like that." Jeter told Adams that the chain pullers had been pushed too far, and he felt that this matter should be talked over, before the men were told to do the work. According to Jeter, Adams then said, "Well, who in hell is going to SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1803 run this operation, the Company or the Union?" Jeter then asked Adams if he was going to try to change back practices in the operation over night, and Adams replied that he was "damn sure going to try." The committee asked Adams to hold off on enforcing the order until they could meet with Berry. Adams said that he didn't think that a meeting with Berry would do any good, and that he would not delay enforcement of his order; he stood on the answer given by the foreman to the grievance. Landers testified that he brought up the subject of smoke time at the meeting, that the Company was asking the chain pullers to use change of setup time for smoke time. Adams said that he and McLaughlin had decided on that change. Landers then pointed out that the smoke time had been set for all employees at 9:30 a. m. and 2:30 p. m. and that the chain pullers felt that smoke time should be left as it was. He also pointed out that those hours had been designated as smoke time in writing. McLaughlin then said, "Well, if it's in writing Mr. Berry made that arrange- ment . . We'll just leave it like it is and just forget it." Adams also agreed that the smoke time would be left as it was, so that particular item was dropped from the discussion. The conference between the plant committee, Adams, and McLaughlin occupied about 11/4 hours. Shortly after the conclusion of this meeting Landers phoned Berry. According to Landers he told Berry that they had a pretty serious thing, and they would like to have a meeting with Berry as quickly as possible. Berry said he had just come in from the woods, had lost quite a bit of sleep, and was tired. He had a lot of work to do and he couldn't meet that night; he was busy in a lot of meetings with Dr. Farber, and couldn't meet before Monday. According to Landers he told Berry about the grievance and what had been voted at the union 'hall. Berry said he didn't know that the chain pullers had a grievance and he didn't have time to fool with them, and that he just wasn't going to meet until Monday. In his testimony, Berry said that he received the call from Landers, and that Berry told him that the earliest time the Company could have a meeting would be Monday. Berry said that no hour was set for Monday because Landers was quite angry and insisted that the Company drop all other business and meet with the committee, right then and there. He told Landers that it was impossible; that after all, they had a number of things going on at the time, wage negotiations with the negotiating com- mittee of the Union, and a great amount of data to be prepared for Dr. Farber, who wanted to take the data with him when he returned to Washington. He told Landers that he was willing to meet with the committee on Monday, and that he would phone Landers tomorrow, Thursday, and set a time for the meeting. I credit Berry's version of this conversation. Thursday, March 1: The Discharge of the Chain Pullers A. L. McLaughlin, foreman of the planing mill, testified credibly as to the events which occurred on this morning. He explained that up until about February - 10 the Company had used 5 chain pullers on planer machine No. 2, and sometimes up to 7 on No. 1, because at that time the men had to pull the lumber up on a ramp, and, since the lumber was stacked all over the area, that it took 5 men to do the job. When the railroad siding was completed, which concentrated the stacking in units within a small area, four men could normally do the work. At the time of this change, a grievance had been filed about it, and he had discussed it with the plant committee, and told them that any time they were spread out, or any time they needed more help, he would see that they received assistance. On Monday, February 27, when he first told the chain pullers on the No. 1 planer that they would be required to do cleanup work in the future, there were six chain pullers working. They were ripping fresh 2 x 4's right from the mill and it took 6 men. The two extra men were Kenny Wells and Malcomb Brown, who were the regular extra chain pullers. On Thursday morning there were four chain pullers working on the No. 1 machine. A change of setup occurred at approximately 9 o'clock. The change of setup was to rip three 2 x 4's out of 2 x 12's, which was the same type operation as had occurred on Monday, on the No. 1 planer. The chain was shut down for this change of setup at 9:08 a. m. When the chain was shut down, McLaughlin told the men to do the cleanup work around the area. He then went over to Wells, who was working on the resaw. He told Wells that they were chang- ing over, and they were going to need Wells on the chain, and that he had asked the chain pullers to do cleanup work, and that Wells was to go up there right away. Wells left the resaw and joined the chain pullers, who were in a huddle at the planer chain. After about 15 minutes McLaughlin walked toward the group. He asked the chain pullers if they had made up their minds. They replied that they were 1804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not going to do the work. One of-them said that Coy Landers had told them not to do it, but the others stated that the Union had authorized them "not to do the work." McLaughlin told them that the Union wasn't running the Company, and that they were fired.12 McLaughlin also testified credibly that during the 15 minutes that the chain pullers were discussing the situation, he had a conversation with Harris, the job steward. He told Harris that he thought Harris should go over and talk to the chain pullers, and try to get them to do the work; if they didn't do it, he had no alternative but to discharge them. Harris said he would talk to them. McLaughlin saw Harris walk over and talk to the men, but he could not hear what was said. After a few minutes Harris came back, threw up his hands and said, "The Union has authorized them not to do it, so there's nothing we can do." 13 Kenneth Wells, the chain puller named in the complaint, in the course of his testi- mony added one item to McLaughlin's version of this incident. Wells said that when McLaughlin approached the group of men, immediately prior to their dis- charge, he said to McLaughlin, "You just sent me over here with these guys to fire me, didn't you." McLaughlin said , "You was the guy that was causing all the trouble the other day." McLaughlin explained in his testimony that Malcomb Brown was an extra chain puller and that he had been given a warning on the previous Tuesday with the other men. On this morning however, Seward Wilson had laid off, so Brown was put in his place on the No. 2 machine. Since the change in setup would require 5 chain pullers and not 6, McLaughlin left Brown on the No. 2 machine, according to custom, with the result that Brown was not involved with the other chain pullers who were discharged. Gwin testified that he was at the union office shortly after 9 on this morning when Landers telephoned him to tell him that the five chain pullers had been discharged. Gwin told Landers that he would call the District Office and talk to Lawson or Clark. He reached Lawson, who said that he would talk to Clark, and that they would come to Burney as soon as possible. About 11 o'clock Superintendent Adams phoned Gwin at the union hall, and said that he would like Gwin to come to the plant and talk to him for a few minutes about the discharge of the chain pullers. A few minutes after that, Clark called Gwin and told him that he was coming to Burney immediately. About this time Berry also called Gwin and asked him if he would come to the plant as he wanted to talk to him about the chain pullers. Berry also said that Coy Landers was on the job causing a disturbance, and that Berry didn't like that union activity on the job. Gwin told Berry that Landers' action was union action, that Landers was speaking for the Union. Gwin explained to Berry that he couldn't come at that time, as he was waiting for another phone call, but he told Berry to speak to Jack Davidson, vice president of the Local. Gwin said that Berry's first phone call to him was made a few minutes before 11, and the second one a few minutes before 12. Moore, a member of the plant committee, was with Gwin at this time, so he sent Moore to meet Landers and tell Landers of the desire of Berry and Adams for a meeting . Gwin did not expect that this would be a regular meeting of the plant committee with the representatives of management, but it turned out to be that. Moore caught Landers at the gate and told him of the desire for a meeting by management, so Landers went to the office, and Berry told him that he and other representatives of the Company would meet with the plant committee in the cook- house in a few minutes. Landers went to the cookhouse and saw that the Company had its tape recorder ready for action, so he went to town and brought back the Union's recording machine. 12 On this point, the testimony of Wells should be noted. On direct examination Wells testified that, "Someone said that the union told them not to do the cleanup work " After a short recess, upon further direct examination by counsel for the Union, Wells testified, "Somebody said to him the union told them not to do it until they could have a meeting or find out from Mr.'Berry or the company exactly whether we was going to have to do it or not or come to some kind of agreement " On cross-examination, it developed that Wells had discussed his testimony on this point with counsel for the Union during the recess. When cross-examined further he testified that what he "heard the other chain puller say to McLaughlin was that [he] testified to before the recess, that the union told them not to do it." 13 In his testimony Harris denied that he had such a conversation with McLaughlin or with the chain pullers on this morning. However, when cross-examined as to this in- cident, Harris did not impress the Trial Examiner favorably Therefore, I credit McLaughlin's testimony on this point. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1805 The meeting which ensued-was recorded on the machines, and a corrected tran- script of the recording was stipulated into evidence.14 Thursday, March 1, Meeting: Management-Union Representatives Representatives of the Company were: Berry, Superintendent Adams, Matthews, Whaley, Grubb, Coverston, Scott, Hughes, Gammill, Waits, Toler, McLaughlin, Bartel, Rice, and Ed Adams. The plant committee was composed of: Landers, Chairman, Ragsdale, Davidson, and Jeter. When the representatives met at the cookhouse, Landers started the meeting off by saying that he had requested a meeting with Berry, and that the latter had refused to meet with him, and that he understood that Berry was calling this meeting him- self. Berry said that he was trying to comply with the plant committee's request for a meeting; that he had a great many things to do, but that he was trying to make time for the meeting. Landers then said that the committee had a grievance, in fact that they had several of them, and handed to Berry the chain pullers' grievance and.the.answer of McLaughlin, both of which have been set forth previously. Then the following colloquy took place: LANDERS: Well, Mr. Berry, the men were discharged this morning and ah- they-we-we don't feel like that the men should have had to been and the Union authorized the men not to pick up the sticks. BERRY: Is that all? LANDERS: For now. BERRY: Under what contract provision did the Union feel that it had the right to take over management and direct the men what they should or should not do? LANDERS: Well, after all, Mr. Berry, we have common working agreement- or are supposed to have-and we don't feel that the men-that on a particular job should just be run around all over the plant and doing other jobs whenever their job is down for 4 or 5 or 10 minutes. BERRY: Gentlemen, let me remind you that we had somewhat similar situa- tion in 1953 at the time the men refused to work on the Green Chain.15 The stipulation at that time which was signed as of May 15, 1953 provided: 1. The contract as agreed upon and set forth in Stipulation and Supple- ment dated June 27, 1952 which contract expired as of April 1, 1953, together with the wage scale as existed under this contract shall be renewed and continued until April 1st, 1954. Let me say that there was correspondence with the Union and it was under- stood that that covered all of our arrangements. So far as I know there is no outside agreement legal or possible that exists other than the one that we have in writing now. . . Other than that the entire contractual arrangement that exists-exists-in this printed document, to which there has been no additions. Since we have two other stipulation, one dated March-no-yes-March 22, 1955 and the second one March 9, 1955, both of which refer back and reiterate and approve the stipulation that was made-or the contract that was made under the stipulation of May 15, 1953. Now we further have an agreement that all matters are closed with regard to the change of contract until-1957. What you are attempting to do is to change the contract in the form of gnev- ances. So far as I know, there is nothing-so far as the record shows through- out-there is nothing that exists that changes the arrangement between the Com- pany and the Union under which we are working outside of this that is contained within the four corners of this contract. There is nothing'that says that we can't get eight hours' work for eight hours' pay. Our records show- you put it here-that the-that these men are to be put over when there is just a few minutes-that of course isn't so-uh-Mr. Adams never said that. But we show that the men are being paid for as long as two hours when they don't do any work and if we can't put men to work when we have to pay them-you have call time provisions in here where we have to pay you if-if you are brought down and there isn't work. Now, where there is work you say that we can't direct you to work. We think that we have that right-we think that the " General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5. ' This reference of Berry's is to conduct of employees which was the basis of a Board decision in Scott Lumber Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 1373. In that case the Board held that the conduct of the Company, therein involved, did not violate the Act. 1806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union is away out of order and in violation of its contract when it says that it is going to tell the company what kind of work the men can be put to-there is nothing in the contract at all that says that we can't direct any man to do any job that we want him to do and we are perfectly willing to stand on that and that is where we are going to stand and with regard to all your grievances, unless each grievance shows that it is a violation of the contractual relation between us, we are not going to pay any attention to complaints or the fact that you don't like something that hasn't been covered by the contract. If it isn't explicitly covered by the contract we can do as we please and we intend to do that. Now these men were insolent, they were fired because they refused to do what they were told and they will remain fired until some competent jurisdictional court or board, such as the National Labor Relations Board, finds we are wrong and I think that that is the proper place to test it There have been a number of cases of that sort If these gentlemen are aggrieved because they are out of work-because they have refused to accept the work that they were offered, they have their remedy as they think they have it. We should be very glad to present our contract and show our record as to the time lost if we are expected to pay and get nothing in return and our position is just that. The men have been rightfully fired because they refused to perform work that they were directed to do and yet they expected to be paid for sitting around doing nothing. That's the position of the company. LANDERS: Are you through? BERRY' Yes. LANDERS: Well, ah-Mr. Berry-I think that I can speak for our side of the table that we don't feel that we've been-we know that we've been criticized for coming in trying to change the contract-that's been told to us every time we come in for the last month. But we don't feel that we are trying to change the contract. We think you folks are trying to change it and you are not only trying to, you are changing it and then when we bring in a grievance you won't meet with us on it-saying that we are trying to change the contract. BERRY: Which provision? LANDERS: We are trying- BERRY: Which provision of the contract, Mr. Landers, are we now violating9 LANDERS: Well-I couldn't say what part of it, Mr. Berry. BERRY: You can't say because there isn't any part that we are violating. LANDERS: Well, now, I wouldn't say that. BERRY: Well, all I ask you to do is to point out what provision there is and if there is any part that we are violating we will be glad to know about it and we will be glad to conform because we want to keep our contract. At that point Jeter made reference to the fact that a cleanup man had been taken off the job some months prior to this meeting, and that Adams had said that if a cleanup man was needed, a cleanup man would be put on the job. Adams said there was not enough cleanup work to keep a cleanup man busy full-time, and that the chain pullers could do the work easily on long change of setups. At this point the following exchange occurred: JETER: And these men was told to go to another job which I'm going to call it discrimination-because there is a clause in the contract which says there will be no discrimination-anyway. But, if there's a man needed down there, there should be one put on steady-I mean-there's several ways to look at it-not just one way. BERRY: Yes. JETER: And it doesn't amount to that the Union is trying to run the Company's side of the business because I never done it and I don't feel like it's my place to. MCLAUGHLIN: Well did the Plant Committee tell the men not to do it? JETER: The Plant Committee' s got no authority to tell- LANDERS: The Local Union did. McLAUGHLIN' They said that they were told by the Union to do it. LANDERS: Yeh. BARTEL: Who in the Local Union that would tell them-after all the Union as a body must have a representative-who was the representative of the Local Union told them that. LANDERS' It was the body that was in favor-that was the meeting on Tuesday night-it was voted on right up there in the Union Hall, Tuesday night. BARTEL: In what way? DAVIDSON : Motion made and seconded in regular procedure that the men would not be required to do that and it was voted on and carried 100%. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC . 1807 BARTEL: Was the company advised of that action? LANDERS: Yes, Sir. BARTEL: In what way? LANDERS: Through Mr. Adams. We asked him to wait until we could have a meeting with Mr. Berry before he pulled any action. JETER: They state that any of these jobs have been posted and so far as we are concerned, it is a new job. DAVIDSON: I'd like to say Mr. Bartel that that same motion was taken by the night shift in their regular meeting Wednesday, I beg your pardon, it was a special called meeting Wednesday and the vote was the same way on the night shift as it was on the day. BERRY: Well I think the Union action was completely out of order. They had no right to pass any such motion and that goes to the very heart of what I think has to be determined. We've got to find out whether the Union is going to determine whose going to work at what jobs or we are. Now we were think- ing-we have been thinking of expanding jobs and bringing more employment in but if we can't get any cooperation and if we have to have featherbedding . and hire people when they are not necessary, we won't do it. There isn't any sense in trying to say that you can run any sort of an economic enterprise when you have to have people paid to produce nothing and who also have time that they want money for and just want to sit around and do nothing for it now ,that's exactly the situation and we would like to have a chance to point that out to the proper forum. Jeter then said that Berry took the contract, paragraph by paragraph, and did not consider it as a whole. BERRY: I do take it as a whole-eh-Carl. Look! I ah-we talked about a lot of things about the men coming down on call time now if we don't notify people that there is no work, we have to pay if they get down here and there's nothing to do. Now, they turn around and say we get em down here and we have work for them to do and we are going to pay them-they can't do, that because we haven't posted the job or something of the sort. The excerpts of the transcript hereafter set forth indicate the positions and the arguments of the parties. JETER: No, because it shouldn't have happened in the first place and I told you that yesterday and because-do the men-well it's like I said-they can be pushed so far and then there's a stoppin' point there for everybody. They're going to stop sooner or later and they finally decided that was the time to stop because they did their job as long as you produced work for them they'll do it on the chain because that's the job they put in for. As far as them thinking you was trying to run over them-well I don't know how they feel about that. But it looks pretty damn funny that they've got to do cleanup work when there's been no job posted for a cleanup man. ADAMS. There's not that much work there-to post a job for a cleanup man. * * * * * * * TOLER: Carl, may I say a word here? It is my understanding that Mr. Adams is not asking the Union any more than every other plant in the country for that type of job It is just general procedure and the thing that we can't lose sight of is why in this last year have companies moved in here and set up while we bicker and lose our backlog and lose our future people from- people are coming in and taking over and all of us-not just the unions and the like-are going to lose their future and our source of supply. We have had six companies go in. This last year 120 million feet came up for sale, we bid on every sale where we used to be the only bidder there was two to seven to eight bidders on every sale and that means that we have to do a better job. If we can have guys come in here from Oregon, from Oroville and outbid us $10.00 straight across the board. LANDERS: And haul it up there- TOLER. And haul it up there-something is damn fishy- LANDERS • We agree with you ^there- TOLER:'So it means featherbedding has got to stop and you go to these other plants-and this grievance you have today is strictly featherbedding- JETER: It is not. You can't say that these men are wanting nothin' over there-all they are wantin' is their work on the chain that they put in for. * * * * * * * 1808 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BARTEL: I can't possibly understand why if a man doesn't have something to do if he is asked to do somethin else-if a question of wages isn't involved- these fellows are pretty well paid and we just recently finished making a survey here of wages and the chain pullers were right at the top-there wasn't any place else where they were paying as much after a raise, to the chain pullers, as we paid before a raise, and to me what you do or how you do it is incidental because I have worked at many different jobs and to me if you take and put in a day's work why say there are many things that I'm asked to do-I'm supposed to be-My job is supposed to be selling lumber and I do many other things and nobody ever heard me gripe at something-I've helped out in many many things. Why? Because you want to get the work done. What difference does it make? BERRY: May I ask one question before we quit? How was it hurting these men in any way to do this work when they are asked to do it? What is it doing to them that is unfair? JETER: Well- BERRY : How are they harmed? JETER: They feel that if it is a change-over they've got blocks to set in and maybe get a drink of water-something like that and they feel-the main feeling is that if there is a job vacancy there it should be posted- LANDERS: Knocking another man out of a job- JETER: It is-according to the contract-it is knocking another man out of a job- BERRY: In other words, even though we haven't got enough work to keep another man in a job and they have enough time to do the job, nevertheless we should hire somebody and featherbed the situation? JETER: No, sir. BERRY: And it is featherbedding. BERRY: Well-you want to meet Monday? JETER: We would like to settle this as soon as we could, Mr. Berry. We would probably like to have one before then. JETER: We would-I'm speaking for myself, but I think the Union would go for that- LANDERS: Of course we have to go back to them before we can tell you what they're going to do- JETER: I think that it's something that needs to be settled immediately- BERRY: I can't bring the man (referring to Dr. Farber) out the way I have and walk away and leave him-and it isn 't just myself and that he's here-I have to get a report out and I have to have the assistance of people here on the staff to answer certain questions so I don't see how we can do it before Monday-what I'm hoping is to get him out of our hair and I'll never get rid of him if I don't go to work with him so I don't see how we can possibly meet before Monday. Frankly, I think our position is going to be that we had the right to do this, that under the contract there isn't anything that would say that we have to consult with anybody on it. JETER: Well they are good men and they are willing to work on the chain because that's their job. BERRY: They are willing to work providing they can tell us what they will work at. JETER: No, sir. BERRY: But we think that's what we are here for. JETER: Providing they can do the job that they put in for, Mr. Berry- BERRY: Well, I don't think we will recede from our position on that at any time, no matter how long we meet. JETER: I guess that's up to you. BERRY: That's all-shall we adjourn? JETER: If that's all, I guess we might as well.16 The Request for the Suspension of Plant Operations to Permit the Union to Meet Clark arrived at Burney around 3 p. in. and conferred with members of the Union. Gwin testified that he conferred with Landers and Clark that evening, and, about 8 p. in. it was decided that the Union would ask Berry to suspend the operation '° Note that emphasis is supplied by the writer , and also matter in parentheses. SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1809 of the plant on the following morning so that all the employees could attend a special meeting of the Union. Clark phoned Berry, and told him of the Union's request . Berry said he would call the union representatives back in a few minutes. In about 5 minutes Berry called back and told Gwin, "Yes, Walt, it's okay with me." Friday, March 2: The Union Meeting: The Strike On this morning the operation of the plant was stopped at approximately 10 a. in., and approximately 200 employees, all of whom were members of the Local, pursuant to the union-shop contract of the parties, adjourned to the Veterans Me- morial Hall , Burney, for a special union meeting. Gwin testified that he presided at this special meeting which was called for the purpose of telling the membership the facts about the five chain pullers being discharged, and to discuss the situation. Gwin testified that at the meeting Landers and Jeter made reports for the plant committee , and that the membership of the Union discussed the subject. A good deal of this discussion concerned various grievances, and that "they never had a chance to meet with the Company about them." After a while Clark spoke, and recommended that the Local confine its attention to the case of the five chain pullers, to obtaining their reinstatement, and that the other grievances "could be settled after we got the men back to work." As noontime approached, one of the members moved that the Local strike the Company at 1 p. m. that day, unless the five chain pullers were reinstated, or a meeting to consider the chain pullers' grievance was begun, before that hour. Gwin testified, and all the witnesses agreed, that this motion was passed by a voice vote a few minutes before 12 noon. In his testimony Landers described the events of the meeting, as follows: A. Well, first of all, the chairman called the meeting to order and told the body that we had met for this purpose of deciding whether we would stand behind these five men or not and he said, we will now have the report of the Plant Committee and then we will have a discussion on it. And I was the Chairman of the Plant Committee, and I think I was the first one that spoke and I made a very short report that we had been trying to get meetings to where we could meet with Mr. Berry before anything happened and we had a meeting with Adams and McLaughlin and the other Adams, and we hadn't reached anything, that they wouldn't agree 'to anything except they had taken the notion to ask these men to do it. Well, that's when they-we had asked them and they wouldn't agree to wait until we had a meeting with Mr. Berry and Mr. Berry hadn't agreed on a certain time to have any meeting until the day before. At noon he called us and sent us word by Wall Gwin that we'd have a meet- ing. And at that time, well, Mr. Berry hadn't agreed to do anything about it so-I don't know. There was quite a bit-I think some of the other members of the Committee made short reports and then there was quite a bit of dis- cussion on the problem and there was a vote taken to close the plant down at 1 o'clock if we didn't get a meeting with the Company to rectify the mistake that was made. A. Yes. There was quite some discussion during the meeting as Brother Jarrett got up and discussed quite a bit on what had been happening in the past, that we couldn't get any grievances settled and we had quite a number pending and the Company didn't seem to want to meet with us and when we did have a meeting they wanted to say that we was trying to change the contract and also there was two or three other brothers that got up and made talks on practically the same things. * * * * * * * A. No. There wasn't any specific grievances brought up, anymore than they mentioned the fact that the way the Company had handled grievances, that they had give us no satisfaction on any grievances and that-I don't remember who made this statement but some of them made the statement, "Look what they done to Coy Landers whenever he had his grievance." They said that's when the Company started to try and tear us down. [Emphasis supplied I After the resolution to strike was passed, Landers, Jeter, and Ragsdale went to the union hall. Landers phoned Berry and told him that the Union had voted to take strike action, if the men were not reinstated, or a meeting begun by 1 o'clock. 423784-57-vol. 117-115 1810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Berry said that he had many things to do, and that he couldn't possibly meet before Monday. Then Jeter asked Berry if they could meet with Superintendent Adams. Berry said that they could if Adams wanted to arrange a meeting with them. Landers and Jeter then went to Adams' office at the plant, and told Adams of their conversation with Berry. Adams said that he knew about that, and that the company representatives would meet with the plant committee at 2 p. in. on Monday. Landers said that there was going to be a picket line around the plant at 1 o'clock, unless the men were reinstated or a meeting begun by that hour. At that point, Adams said that he would be willing to meet on the next day, Saturday at 2 p. in. Landers asked if Berry would attend the meeting on Saturday. Adams said that he would, as far as Adams knew. According to Berry's testimony he was informed of the Union's strike resolution- by Landers at approximately 12:30 p. in. At the time he was having a final luncheon with Dr. Farber, preparatory to driving the latter to the airport. He said, "Well, gentlemen, you will have to strike if that is the attitude you are going to take. I can't possibly be there." However, he had added, "If you can find some other members of our committee, why, they can have a meeting but I can't do anything about it." Adams testified that Landers and Jeter came to his office and told him of the union resolution about 12:20 p. in. He told Landers that it was the lunch hour, that three of the department heads were still in the office, but that all the foremen had gone to lunch, and that he couldn't get the company committee together by 1 p. in A 1 p. m. the Local struck, and placed pickets around the plant at Burney. Saturday, March 3: Meeting of Company-Union Representatives At 2 p. in. on this day, the time previously suggested by Superintendent Adams, representatives of the Company and the Union met to discuss the dispute. The representatives of the Company were: Berry, Superintendent Adams, Mc- Laughlin, Ed Adams, Matthews, Grubb, Whaley, Coverston, Lakey, Scott, Barnes, Vedder, Hughes, Gammill, Waits, Rice, Wagoner, Bartel, and Toler. The representatives of the Union were the plant committee : Chairman Landers, Jeter, Sanders, and Ragsgdale. Also, accompanying the committee, were Clark and Crimmins, previously referred to. Berry Refuses To Meet With Clark and Crimmins When Berrynoticed that Clark and Crimmins were accompanying the plant com- mittee , he asked if Clark and Crimmins had any credentials to present to show that they were authorized to represent the Union. He pointed out that Local 13-269 was the certified bargaining representative of the Company's employees, and he stated that the Company would not deal or negotiate with any one who was not a duly authorized representative of the Local. Landers said that he would give Berry his word that Clark and Crimmins had been authorized by the Union. Berry re- plied that Landers' word was not acceptable, that Landers, as chairman of the plant committee, was not authorized to enlarge the committee, and that he wanted cre- dentials from the Union, itself, before he would treat with either Clark or Crimmins. The exchange between Clark and Berry then became quite heated, with Berry de- manding that Clark and Crimmins leave the meeting unless they could present proper credentials, and Clark claiming that he and Crimmins were duly authorized repre- sentatives of the Local. Berry refused to accept these naked assurances. Finally Clark and Crimmins withdrew under protest. At the start of the meeting the Union presented the following grievance to the representatives of the Company.ly March 3,1956. SCOTT LBR CO. MR. BERRY: We, the Plant Committee are asking that the five plainer chain pullers that have been discharged be fully reinstated to the positions they held at the time of their discharge. With full back pay and no addition to there job. Instructions by the Local Union 13-269. TRACY RAGSDALE, Coy LANDERS, CARL JETER, JAMES SANDERS. 11 General Counsel's Exhibit No 13. I SCOTT,LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1811 Berry read the grievance into the record and then stated the company position.1$ BERRY: Well, I presume, gentlemen, that if you want me to proceed-that the tape will be the best representative of what is said here, so we will speak one at the time and slowly. Scott Lumber Company has the interest of the workers at heart. All we want is cooperation and eight hours' work for eight hours' pay. We have asked certain men to do certain work. It is in connection with the work for which we hired them. In other words, they work in the planing mill, there are times when the immediate work of pulling the chain shuts down: and the place near where they work has refuse to be picked up and the place to, be kept tidy. We asked the men to do that-they said that they weren't going to do it before they quit after they were requested to do it and quit. There- was a grievance filed after they were told that they were going to be expected to do this and they received a written warning that if they were asked to do this work, and they refused to do it, that they would be discharged. There is nothing in the contract whatsoever that would prohibit their doing this work. In fact it is a customary thing in this operation for such things to happen. We have in other parts of the operation, ah-on a number of occasions, requested men to do work and we have requested that they do it and they have done it and received the pay for the job to which they were assigned and that has been more or less an accepted principle in this operation. In this instance it was a very small-a-thing to ask the men-men who would be paid otherwise much more than common labor-to do a little common labor. In fact, after these men walked off the job, in disobedience of what they were told to do, we had men who were working at a job that paid much more than these men, come over and do their work at a less figure, at a less price, and there was no question, about it. It's a thing that has been going on in the operation all the time. You, Mr. Landers, have done other things than whatever job you are mainly hired to do. It is utterly impossible to run this operation if we don't have-ah-the ability-the flexibility of using the labor that we pay for. In fact-it would be impossible to get on in the economic competition, that we are up against today unless we have that right. And we have always had that right-there has been no question about it. As I say there is absolutely nothing in the contract against what we requested and it has been done day after day-now- BERRY: I haven't stopped. I have some things that I would like to add to what I've said. In fact, quite a great deal. This isn't just this operation but in the entire field of-a-sawmilling and beyond that, as •I told you, Dr. Farber, the outstanding wood chemist, is here. He has a number of chemists that he employs under him and he asked me when I took him home to lunch the day before yesterday, what was this disturbance about and I told him. Why, my goodness, he said, I have a number of chemists and naturally they wash up the glassware with the experiments that they perform. They are all trained-not just college men but men with Ph. DA-but if they said to me that we had to hire somebody else to come in and clean up the glass instruments that they use after them-they wouldn't be with us at all. They'd have to go LANDERS: There's a lot of difference in that and pickin up them sticks every five minutes that they're down there, Mr. Berry. BERRY: It would have taken-I'm glad that you mentioned that five minutes because they were down about 20 minutes. It would have taken them about five minutes to do that. There isn't enough work for another man. I happened, yesterday, to meet with a number of other sawmill managers and told them here, and they said why that's the most ridiculous thing we have ever heard. If your Union gets away with any such thing as that, the sawmill industry would be completely closed down and we are put in a position where on prin- ciple, we can't ever conciliate, mediate, or do anything but stand firm on our position and that is what we intend to do. Well, we have a further reason for taking that position and that is this, we have a contract, and in addition, two stipulations-we have a stipulation made on March 22, 1954, which provides that the contract that was entered into in 1953,and published, shall be and is hereby deemed to be extended in all its details, provisions and conditions from April 1, 1954 until midnight April 1, 1957 and then this significant language is added to it: 19 General Counsel's Exhibit No 6 (Transcript of recording of meeting ) 1812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It being further stipulated and agreed that the issue of wages only shall be open for negotiations at the option of either the Union or the Company during the period that the said contract is extended. Said open- ing, if either party should so desire, to be on an annual basis as of April 1, 1955 and April 1, 1956, with notice to be sent by either the Union or the Company, as provided for in the Termination and Revision Clause to the contract. Now we have been troubled and bothered, unrightfully, wrongfully and con- trary to stipulation and contract, by you, Mr. Landers, who have repeatedly called up and claimed that you had grievances when you didn't have any griev- ance at all. All you had were openings which you wanted to call and put the label grievance on, in order to do what your Union stipulated you would not do, which is, change the contract, limit it, add something further to it- LANDERS: That's your opinion- BERRY : That has been-that is what you are attempting to do here. You are trying to break up a practice which we have had right along and we feel that there is something personal in it . You, as Chairman of the Plant Com- mittee, weren't successful in getting a certain job that you were after and you've gone out of your way to make yourself somewhat disagreeable to the company. Now we feel that the Union is breaking its contract and we intend to test that thing legally in every forum we can get in, and we are going to set our attorneys on that attack. We will promise you whether or not it is successful, we will make it an economic issue. We are going to employ anyone who will walk through the picket line if the picket line is to be maintained and we are not successful in our legal endeavors. We are not going to negotiate with you in any respect with regard to these men for they are fired and, so far as we are concerned, they shall remain fired. We are going to disregard the Union has broken its contract-we are going to disregard the Union. If no one will come through and we cannot operate the plant, and, of course, you know, under the law, no one can be interfered with who chooses to enter here-there is no rights on the part of the Union to interfere with their egress and their entrance- [Attempted interruption] (Mr. Berry continues) -and we will stay down and we will stay down as long as you want to stay down-we will be very happy if that's what you want-to do so. We just want you to know that this is the considered and determined decision of the owners of this plant and the management. Gentle- men, on the Negotiating Committee, we discussed this at length this morning. Will everyone who is in accord with what I say raise their right hand? LANDERS: Can I say that Brothers Jack Denson and James Steele just entered in behalf of the Union? BERRY: We're glad to have them here. , BERRY : We're very glad. In fact I would like to see-I would like to discuss this with your entire Union membership, if you wanted to give us the opportunity. [Landers then disclaimed any personal animus in the matter.] LANDERS: And that it is all a personal matter on my part, but as far as I'm concerned, I think you're the one who is taking the personal matter-the per- sonal feelings toward me because as far as I'm concerned, well the people that was involved in the-in my deal as far as I'm concerned is not even involved in this whatsoever and for me to just get out here and try to whip the company over me a gettin a raw deal, I don't see where I can whip 'em and I haven't tried. Since-since my grievance was settled-that grievance was settled-it was settled to the satisfaction of that local union up there and why me come out here and start tryin to raise the ruckus to get somebody else in trouble. I don't believe in that-and a-as far as we are concerned on this side, we are just doin' what we were authorized to do by the Local Union and the entire group had a chance to be there and I think there was very few that wasn't at the meeting-if there were any, I don't know if there were any missing or not but if they was it was very few and it went over one hundred percent just like on that letter that the men be fully reinstated with full back pay without any addition to their job that they formerly done- SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1813 LANDERS: And a-as far as us addin' things to the contract, I haven't seen a place yet where we have tried to add anything to the contract and I don't think any of the rest of them have because they all know what has been talked with the committee-from the committee to the company and they know what the grievances are all about. And, if they didn't tell us to go in on 'em, we wouldn't be in here talkin' about 'em. LANDERS: And a-we feel that the one that's breaking the contract are you folks because you, you are going out there and addin' things on to jobs that never was added on to 'em before. * * * * * * JETER: There is one thing that I'd like to say, Mr. Berry, that I noticed that several of the boys-I know that they want me to say this-and while ago you mentioned the fact that the boys said that they would not clean up-they was instructed by the Union with an unanimous vote that they wouldn't-that they would not do it-they did not say that they wouldn't do it-did they, Mr. McLaughlin? McLAUGHLIN: They said that they wouldn't and that Coy Landers had told them not to. LANDERS' Who told you that Coy Landers- JETER: They were instructed- McLAUGHLIN: Glen Breedlove- JETER' Well, anyhow they was instructed by the Union in the Local house and as far as I know, no one told 'em. McLAUGHLIN• The Job Steward told 'em-he told me that the Union had told'em-not to- * * * * * * * BERRY: The Union had told them not to clean up? McLAUGHLIN: Not to clean up. They told them not to clean up. BERRY: Who had told them to do it? McLAUGHLIN: I had, and Ed Adams had. We told 'em to clean up and they said that the Union told 'em not to. * * * * * * * BERRY: Well, I'm sorry, gentlemen. . . . Certainly the attempt to comply with Article II about meeting all the contingent-no strike shall be called, says, Article II (f), or sanctioned by the Union or any of its members, and no lockout shall be called by the Company, until all the provisions of this agree- ment shall have been carried out. But, of course, you gentlemen may think that the general manager or none of the other-and all the other people in management have nothing to do but sit around and wait for you to call up and say you want a meeting. But, unfortunately, we do have obligations. We do-aren't able to always jump through a hoop just when you want us to. At 20 minutes to-a quarter of 1, Mr. Landers got me on the phone at my home, just when I was about to go down with Dr. Farber, to take him to the plane, and wanted to have a meeting by 1 o'clock and, apparently, whether or not I was available, it was determined that they were going to do that, so that there was an attempt to gloss over some sort of a thing by coming out and talking to Mr. Adams- LANDERS- Those were your instructions, Mr. Berry, you told- BERRY: I told you that if-that if Mr. Adams wanted to talk to you it was all right and it was, if he wanted to get the Committee-but if he had wanted to and if there had been anything to say, it wasn't fair or proper procedure. How can Mr. Adams, at noontime, when most of the people are home to lunch and we have to go late because of the mail situation, in the office, possibly have gotten his Negotiating Committee together by 1 o'clock when you arrived there at 10 minutes of 1? JETER: No, Mr. Berry- LANDERS: Mr. Berry, we call you there at 7 minutes after 12 to set up the meeting. JETER: We thought we'd set up the meeting why it wouldn't have been that way if we could have got the promise of the meeting-but we wasn't promised a meeting- BERRY: You got a promise of this meeting today- JETER : Not by you. BERRY: Yes. JETER: You said you'd meet with us Monday. 1814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LANDERS: But they, they wanted it that day. I-I- BERRY: That's just too bad if the Union wants the meeting today and if they can't have it they are going to-they can do just as they please-I will say that it doesn't make any particular difference and this is for the record- our position, if you had the meeting today, is just the same as it is today-you go ahead and do your work. I would have suggested that the more sane procedure would have been not to kill a community, not to do men who need the money out of their jobs, we can stand it far better that your brothers can, not to stop the forward plans which would provide further employment in this community but to rather, if we are wrong, we are subject to penalty-we are subject to any number of things before the National Labor Relations Board- these men could have gotten all their pay, if we are wrong, with interest, and God knows what other penalties if we are wrong, by simply your having them sue us-all we want is a chance to have an interpretation. We feel very strongly about it. If you want to make it a question of guerilla warfare and back-to-the-jungles-that's all right with us- * * * * * * JETER: When we were discussing, you know, about the meeting the other day, I'd like to say you never did answer my question [addressed to Mr. Adams]. MARION ADAMS: I stated to you that that order would stand-that I told these foremen to do it-all but the smoke time, which you stated that you had a letter in your file from Mr. Berry that he had wrote you a letter at one time that designated a certain smoke time and I stated at that time if Mr. Berry bad wrote you a letter, I would not go over his head, or try to change any- thing-stipulation that he wrote in the contract, I wouldn't do that- JETER: That's right. ADAMS: But that was the only thing I was withdrawing which I came to the office and we've went through our files and the only thing we can find was a letter of Asa Lakey writing to the operators. That was when their smoke time was-other than that we can't find anything in our file as stipulating when smoke time is supposed to be. JETER: Well, another thing, this new grievance procedure about the Job Steward taking it to the foreman and trying to settle it and if he taint then the Plant Committee takes it to Mr. Adams and then if we taint we bring it to you. Well it looks like we'd at least have a chance to meet with you on that grievance before anything like that took place. I mean that was our-that was the way we felt about it anyway and I think it could have been worked out if it would have been done that way, then we would have called you for a meetin' and we had one for Monday- LANDERS: Yeh, Monday. JETER: Anyway-that was-we had one- BERRY: Why couldn't the men, if they had a grievance, gone ahead and worked and-a--a--completed their job and if they had a grievance about it, we discuss it afterwards? JETER: Well, Mr. Berry- LANDERS: Why didn't the company work along the same way? BERRY: Why do we have to hold our breath while- LANDERS: Why do we have to hold our- BERRY: While the Union counts ten? JETER: Well, now that's not the idea of it but we had asked to hold off on that grievance until we had a chance to talk to you about it because we wanted to talk about it sooner and we couldn't get a meeting with you, you was too busy-you explained you were too busy and couldn't have a-meeting. McLAUGHLIN: I might add too that Aron Harris, the Job Steward, asked these men to go back-to go to work and they said that they wouldn't do it- BERRY: .That's' the thing that I wanted you to bring out that- ADAMS: Well- McLAUGHLiN: Because I told him, I says, Aron, you'd better tell these men to go ,ahead and work and let this get thrashed out between the Company and the Union. JETER: You don't mind my- MCLAUGHLIN: To go ahead and clean up now and then settle the thing one way or another. So he went and asked 'em and come back and says no-says they absolutely refuse. I said I had no other alternative- ' SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC . 1815 JETER : Well, Mac, you know, if it had ever got started, it would have been ten times harder to stop than it would be by them not doing it at all. I mean that's one way to look at it . You got to look at all sides of it. The men felt that this was another negotiation bargaining deal and it could be-it could amount to that very thing-which I hope it don't- BERRY : Carl, let me tell you something-the men that were there-this embraces two men-neither one of them having an interest in the outcome- one of them wants to play ball and has gone to Sacramento to play ball- JETER : Try out. LANDERS: Yeh. BERRY : He was going anyway. And he, I understand , is laughing at the rest of his brothers that he put out of a job. He thinks it rather a joke because it's no skin off his rear end, if you'll permit that vulgar expression, I generally- LANDERS: Mr. Berry- BERRY : There 's another one there going to the Army and it doesn't hurt him any. He thinks it's fun, he 's young and life isn't very serious with him. And now- * * * * * * BERRY : Carl, there's more than just this particular issue here. As Coy said to me on the phone, we are-have a lot of backed up things here-we have seven grievances and so on. JETER: Yeh. BERRY : All right, what are they all? They are all the same type thing they are attempts to extend the contract or read new meanings into it or delimit under the guise of grievances . A proper grievance is something where, under the clear wording of the contract we have not fulfilled our duty or deviated from it-that isn 't the case here . You are trying to say that things-that-have had even been accepted for a long time should be changed because you want to change the con-the contract in that respect . It's all an attempt to circumvent and get around a hard and fast agreement we have with the Union so that we feel that it doesn 't make any difference how long a time we spend trying to get agreements with you , they don 't mean anything anyway. JETER : Well, Mr. Berry, you said something about things being accepted for a long time being changed and that 's what's happening to some of the things that we've accepted for quite a while-are being changed now. That's the reason you've got 7 grievances at 1 time now. We make mistakes, we agree to that and admit it, but the other side makes mistakes the same as we do and at least we 're all growed up enough to admit that part of it , we should be anyway- BERRY : Well, Carl , is it a change when bad practices and sloppy things that have grown up in an organization that should have changed and never allowed to be there-when we correct them? JETER : Mr. Berry- BERRY : If we are going to compete we've got to do that sort of thing and I can 't turn to the heads of departments , Mr. Adams, and say Mr . Adams why aren 't we competing with such -and-such an operations department or any other- Mr. Toler-and say our woods aren 't-and if at the same time they said well you know we can't do anything about this-my foreman says that if I tell them to do so they will be glad to do so but will you back us up , will you see that the rules are observed and the contract observed? And, if it isn't they can't do anything . We have no organization as I say, we 're back in the jungle and that 's where we are. I wouldn 't dare to put another plant in here with the attitude that labor has and everything is at a standstill . We're going to stop until this thing is through and we're going to sit right here because to-to- give way on this thing simply means that we'd have nothing. There isn't any basis-labor and materials are the things with which you make production and if labor doesn 't want to cooperate for the development of this community and the things in it and we have-can't meet the competition from everyone else what wants to take the raw materials out-well that 's that-we're licked-let the other people have it. * * * * * * * JETER : Well, Mr. Bartel, I feel the same way . We tried to settle it before it happened. BARTEL: Well, I tell you, when you come in and ask for a meeting at--at half past 12 and you have to have a meeting before 1 o'clock, to my mind you don't want to settle anything. 1816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JETER : It was-it was 10 minutes after 12 when we first called Mr. Berry and if he could have had a meeting started by 1 o 'clock- BARTEL : Well, Mr . Berry told you that he was taking Dr. Farber , who was from Washington , D. C., back to catch a plane and it cost the Company a lot of money to take and get him out here. JETER: He did explain that and we were sittin' up there- BARTEL: Well then, why didn't you take something with a bit of reason- JETER: We sat up here Thursday at the meeting and he explained- BARTEL: When you came in and asked Mr. Adams, it was-a-it was my guess is that it was between 25 after 12 and 12:30. . . Now to me, that isn't a fair way to take and do. You're looking for it-you're looking for it- [Landers tries to interrupt and says: Mr. Bartel.] [Bartel continues] -you know any time you look for something, you can find whatever you want- BERRY: That's that. JETER: If they hadn't of asked for the previous meetin' the day before and asked all this be postponed until we could get a meetin'; why they probably wouldn't have took that attitude either. You see that was the body and I'll tell you they was a quorum there then. BARTEL: Well, if it wasn't a Friday afternoon, why I could even go along with somethin' like that but what difference would that half a day make? JETER: I don't know. BARTEL: Nothin'- JETER: That was their idea, not mine TOLER: Tracy, there were four of us yesterday working at top speed trying to get materials ready for Dr. Farber to catch his plane. In fact we still have 2 or 3 days' work and field work to get together to get this information out and it has to be taken back there immediately for his arrival in Washington. [Cannot understand. ] JETER: Well, I think, if Mr. Berry got all the facts straight from the start that things like this wouldn't happen, as they do anyway. BARTEL: Well, I think it's up to-I think that if he doesn't get the facts right, I think that the facts have to be presented from both sides of the table. And, if he didn't get the facts right, why I think that it's your fault just as much as it's the other side of the table's fault, because that's the reason you have these meetings and why jump off half-cocked on something? Why can't you take [someone tries to interrupt]-why can't you take and recommend and say well let's have another meeting on this, let's have one Saturday mom- ing, or whenever you can have it. In place of that-before you can turn around there's a picket line- JETER: I don't believe in meeting over one of these things half-cocked myself- LANDERS: But the Local Union did tell the men not to do the job. BARTEL: You mean the Local men appointed you as a delegate? LANDERS: No, no, the men didn't appoint me BARTEL: Well, how can the Union tell me- LANDERS: They were sitting right there in the meeting and they had a vote just the same as I did, Erv. JETER: Mr. Bartel, that was just like men doing two jobs-that's what it amounted to- BARTEL: Well they weren't doing the two jobs at the same time-What dif- ference does it make what you do? JETER: Well you put in for one job and- BARTEL: No, no, Carl. Look-If you take these men out to the yard and put 'em to work at the yard and there was a shutdown for an hour, would they gripe? They'd be doing different work- JETER: No, they wouldn't gripe about that BARTEL: Well so what? So what? JETER: They were gripin' about 5-minute breaks ADAMS: Pardon me but that 5-minute break-I don't know how many times it has been mentioned in the times that we have been meeting. That 5-minute break-I've said it now and I've said it in the past, and I've said it every meet- ing I 've been with Wall, right on down to all of you . I say it and I say it again . I have not asked and I would not ask, unless it was a necessity if we SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 1817 had a wrecked lead or something that we had to shut the machine down to do it anyway-something so that we couldn't continue operation-5 minutes has never entered into this and I have never spoke of 5 minutes to the foreman or to any one of the body representing the Union. Ten minutes and over has been the only times that I have asked and I have asked the foreman and I also stated for those men who was-there was Mr. Adams. Mr. McLaughlin, if it was snowing and the wind cold blowing across there, give the men a break and let them take that 10 minutes and warm up, if he felt the men should have the break. We don't mind for those men to get a 5-minute break or a 10- minute break to get in and warm up-I appreciate one myself once in a while but it was the times when the weather conditions and the work and while the time the machine was being set up for these men to work. Now leave these 5 minutes out hereafter because that word was never spoke by me-or one of the foremen. ADAMS: On those days they wouldn't have been asked for anything. If you 'want to go warm up they can go in there and warm their hands up-there's time-maybe there's 10 men at a time in the grinding room. I've walked right in there and bought the boys a candy bar, talked to them and turned around and walked right back out and never said a word to them. I appreciate the fact that we work for a company where we can have some privileges to do those things with. We've never said anything and-but the only things-has been I also told McLaughlin and Mr. Adams was watch your time close, don't run a man out there for 5 minutes or 8 minutes, if you've got a quick change- over from where all you gotta do is raise your profile, let the other one down and go again-it's okey, let them take the break to go to the restroom, take their time, but on the 10 minute on the 2 x 4 setups, that is the only thing that I ask the men to do- BERRY: Well, Carl. I don't want to interrupt this-this but I want to say one-this-are we going to, from now on have grievances, called grievances because the men are afraid of what is going to happen to them, or going to have grievances because they have been injured? As I always understand it, the grievance procedure-the grievance provision is to take place when somebody has had something done to them that hurts them. ADAMS: It has weighed very heavy on my mind what I was going to do to stop some of that playing down there-snowball throwin' and stuff like that-on these long setups the weather was good and they wasn't getting inside and getting warm and, as I said before, they could go to the restroom etc., and this thing has been a thing that I've looked very careful at before I made any moves as to go back to your chain pullers again, I spent a lot of time with what I thought we could do with the chain pullers down there, I did the same thing with this. I looked our reports over. That is one of the reasons BERRY: Well that is just the point of this thing because-we could-we have had this cleanup thing done by people who had come from the outside and you don't know exactly when to tell them to be over and what they were doin' when this new setup takes place and here were the men directly affected-all they had to do is stand there and do it and it was timed perfectly for them. LANDERS: Mr. Berry, I got to say right there that I have cleaned up around there myself. BERRY: Yeh. LANDERS: And when I cleaned up around there I didn't have anything else to do and always whenever the trucks come in-the men that was drivin' the trucks-when they don't have anything else to do that's where they go. BARTEL: Well that's just exactly what happened in this instance. The planer chain men didn't have anything else to do so they were asked to clean up- LANDERS: They did have- BARTEL: They weren't-they weren't being asked to do a different job. BERRY: What else did they have to do? LANDERS: They had to pull that chain in just a very short time. BERRY: That is what I say is an amendment to the contract-you're trying to say that a chain puller is different than anybody else here. LANDERS: They are different from men that hasn't got a job that's-that's continuous work- 1818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JETER' Does Mr..Adams feel like there was a cleanup man needed? BERRY: No, we've covered that- JETER: Well- BERRY: There isn't-there isn't enough work for a cleanup man. JETER: Well there could probably be enough work made for him at the resaw and at the planing mill. BERRY: Is that the way you think we ought to operate this plant? JETER: No [pause] * * * * * * * RICE: If we followed the agreement that we have in writing in which it states that every possibility would be explored before action of that kind could be taken, the operation would be working wouldn't it? LANDERS: That's true, Phil. I'll have to say that's true but I think the Com- pany has a certain part of that to [could not understand next word] as well as the Union. RICE: I agree with that 100%, Coy. But I find nothing in there, nor I find nothing under the heading of Common Sense that tells me that it's your right, or management's right, to say to the other side-today-that we have to meet with you tomorrow, or this afternoon. I think it's only fair for both sides to say we want to meet as soon as we possibly can and then, when the other sides says we are busy, or we have this to do, or that to do, the earliest we can meet is Monday, which I believe is the argument here now, or part of it, that the Company agreed to meet with the Union on this question again Monday, isn't that right. JETER: That's right. RICE: I fail to understand what gives the Union the right to refuse to accept that. LANDERS: Well, why didn't the Company follow the previous procedure until we had a meeting and got it ironed out? RICE : What do you mean by that? LANDERS: Why didn't they let the men pull the chain and not be having them clean up until we had a meeting and got it all ironed out? Like they had been doin' since-ever since they had- BERRY : Tracy, the actual reason that-that the thing that's behind this is this. We feel very definitely that if the right of management-if we are going to pay a man for 8 hours' work-to get 8 hours' work from him and that if we don't do anything that hurts him, if we don't do anything that's in any way harmful or that is what you call inhuman, that he is bound to accept that,and that if he doesn't like the job, then he can go someplace where he can get paid for his work and do as he likes. Now, we haven't hurt anybody, we had no intention of hurting anybody, but you come up here like a bunch of Chancery Lawyers and say you want a meeting to discuss a grievance that's about an injury that has never occurred and you want to deny us the right to act within our own discretion and limits and we say that that is simply denying the right of management to run its own plant in any respect-we are practically out of business and on that basis we might as well give up the thought of any further employment-any thought of any further plant, and we might as well close this plant down because we can't operate on that basis. RAGSDALE: Let me tell you now the way that they feel about it. You see we are on an elected committee that-in compliance with- BERRY : Article II. RAGSDALE: And when there is an aggrievance which they figure is a grievance, they give it to us and when they go to stackin' up they go to wonderin' why we are not doin' somethin'. When they go to askin' us-you see-they, go to askin' us why we are not doin' somethin'-well if we are tryin' to get a meetin'- that's all we can do, isn't it? That would be all we could do right there. BERRY: Right. * * * * * * * BERRY: That a good thought you make-that's absolutely true every word he said, and a sawmill alone as a sawmill, cannot run any longer in California. RAGSDALE: You have no offer or anything to make? BERRY: We have none; no. BARTEL: Tracy, what offer could there be? RAGSDALE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Bartel. BARTEL: What alternate could there be? SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. . 1819 RAGSDALE: Alternate from what? BARTEL: Either the foreman is going to take and tell la fellow to do some- thing and he is going to do it or what other alternate is there? RAGSDALE: Well, our contract. We was just wantin' to go by our con- tract- * * * * * * * BERRY: You are certainly going to change the contract if you are going to have a further stipulation by way of settlement which says anything about what men are going to do when they are asked to do a certain thing and they have to hire-we don't-when we hire a man for a job-we hire him for that job and any lesser job that he might be able to perform. That's been the custom in the sawmill indus-industry from time immemorial. There is no such thing-why what-that was the essence of what we were told in the early days of the CIO-I know you are now A. F. of L. and I suppose that has somewhat affected you as I talked to the tape the other day. Now you are specialists along certain things and a-a-you are all a trade union idea. Nobody is going to be able to-do anything except one little thing. Well now, as Irv just pointed out, we are meeting increased competition-we have to pay for timber more than we can possibly hope to get out of it unless we can make more, and we are going to have to run at a loss until we can get to the time where we can meet the competition by further utilization. If people want to completely break this-if Labor wants to completely break this company before it can get into a competitive shape, that's all right-we might as well do it by your striking as by complying with unreasonable requests which would interfere with the proper exercise of management. That's all I can say. * * The Strike-Settlement Agreement After the meeting on March 3 the parties made certain overtures toward each other for the purpose of settling their dispute. These efforts did not get far, so the strike and the position of the parties remained the same up to the time of the hearing. In the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner had occasion to question certain propositions of law which were advanced by counsel for the parties. Also counsel for the Company and the Union indicated that they might be able to com- promise the issues raised by the complaint. The Trial Examiner encouraged these efforts, pointing out that the principal issue which originally affected a few men, for a few minutes each week, had widened to the extent that upward of 200 men had been on strike upwards of 4 months. At the close of the hearing, in the course of reading his closing statement, the Trial Examiner again pointed out to counsel and the parties, that they had heard the evidence presented by both sides, and if each party examined his conduct in the light of all the evidence, and con- sulted with counsel, that the parties might be able to reach a settlement of their differences. On August 22, 1956, counsel for the Company by letter notified the Trial Examiner that the strike had been settled in accordance with an agreement entered into on August 11, 1956, and enclosed two copies of the strike-settlement agreement.19 Paragraph 11 of the agreement provided that the Union would file "a written request of the dismissal of the complaint and withdrawal of the charges" in this proceeding. On August 28, 1956, counsel for the Union by letter requested that the pending charges be dismissed 20 However, he also stated that certain statements of the Trial Examiner, made in the course of the hearing "were heard by the union mem- bers attending the hearing and they became convinced that the Union would not win the case," and for that reason the Union had accepted a settlement not to its liking. On August 31, 1956, the General Counsel filed objection to the Union's request for a withdrawal of charges and dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that the strike-settlement agreement did not dispose of the issues in the instant proceeding, and that dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the settlement agreement would not effectuate the purposes of the Act21 The General Counsel cited Scott Lumber Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 1373, as authority for his position. In that proceeding, involving the parties to this proceeding, a Trial Examiner of the Board had dismissed 29 Letter of Respondent counsel dated August 22, 1956, and copies of strike settlement agreement are Respondent's Exhibit No. 27-rejected file. ' General Counsel's Exhibit No. 34-rejected file. m General Counsel's Exhibit No. 34-rejected file. 1 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the complaint on the basis of a private settlement agreement between the parties. In its decision the Board reviewed the case on its merits, finding that the Company had not engaged in the unfair labor practices therein alleged. On September 5 the Trial Examiner issued an order, denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the strike-settlement agreement, sustaining the ob- jection of the General Counsel to the receipt of the strike-settlement agreement in evidence, and directing that all the documents submitted in connection with the motion be placed in the file of rejected exhibits and be forwarded to the Board in the usual manner. Concluding Findings As the above narrative indicates , there is no dispute about the sequence of events which led to the strike of March 2. However, there are a few points which require a further finding of fact. Although several union members testified that the resolution which was passed at the meeting held on Tuesday, February 28, was to the effect substantially, that the men were not to do the cleanup work, until the question could be negotiated with the Company, I am not persuaded that the tenor of the resolu- tion was so limited. At the bargaining conference which took place on Thursday, immediately after the discharges, and on Saturday, immediately after the strike, the participants in the conference all referred to the resolution of the Union as being not to do the work. The chain pullers in their testimony said that, prior to being discharged, they told McLaughlin that the Union had instructed them not to do the work, until the matter could be straightened out with the Union. That testimony is at variance with that of McLaughlin who said that one man told him that Coy 'Landers had authorized them not to do the work, and that the other men told him that the Union had authorized them not to do the work. After a consideration of the entire record on these points, I am satisfied, and I find, that the tenor of the union resolution was to the effect that the men were authorized not to do the work, with no condition or limitation attached. I also accept McLaughlin's version of what the chain pullers said at the time of discharge because his version is consistent with the evidence as a whole.. Nor am I satisfied with the reliability of Landers as a witness. He was person- ally interested in the events which were the subject of investigation, and he appeared to be consciously coloring his testimony to place his own conduct in the most favor- able light. On various points, where his testimony differs from that given by Berry, Adams, or McLaughlin as to conversations or events, I credit the testimony of the management officials. This finding is based on the fact that the testimony of these officials at the hearing is consistent with what these men said, and did, in the bargain- ing conferences which took place immediately after the happening of the events, and appears to be more consistent with the evidence as a whole than Landers' version of the same incidents. In making this finding I have specific reference to Landers' testimony that he told Adams of the union resolution in the bargaining conference on Wednesday, and that he told Berry of the Union's resolution in talk- ing to Berry over the phone on the same date. From the transcripts of the bar- gaining sessions mentioned above, it seems clear that no one in management knew of the Union's resolution, that the men were authorized not to do the work, until the time that the men were discharged. It also seems proper to call attention to certain fundamental, undisputed facts, which are basic to the resolution of the questions here presented. The first of these facts is, that the Company has recognized this Local as the representative of its employees for upwards of 15 years. The second is, that the relationship of the parties for a like period has been governed by a series of collective-,bargaining agreements, and at the time this controversy arose, there was in effect a labor contract which spelled out with specificity the mutual rights and duties of the parties. This contract contained a grievance clause, outlining a three-step grievance procedure, and a no- strike clause forbidding any strike over a grievance until all steps in the grievance procedure "had been carried out." These are factors which must be considered in judging the conduct of the parties, and their good faith as exhibited in this case. Upon all the evidence I find that the strike of March 2 was not caused by any unfair labor practice of the Company. The Refusal To Meet with Clark, Crimmins, and Lawson By the express terms of the contract, the plant committee, which existed for the sole purpose of adjusting grievances with the Company, was limited to four em- ployees of that Company. At the meeting of January 31, company representatives made no objection to the presence of Clark in the first instance. However, as the meeting developed, and it appeared to Clark and the plant committee that the SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY , INC. 1821 grievance as to Stewart's vacation pay had no merit under the company-local con- tract, Clark then asked the company representatives to revise their contract or to interpret it so that it would be in conformity with the contract between the Pine Industrial Relations Committee and the Northwest Regional Group of Unions. In the same manner , when it appeared that the grievance concerning Moore had no basis in fact, Clark then stated that he wished to discuss "job content," or the num- ber of men to be employed on Moore's job. These matters were not proper for consideration at the meeting, because , viewing them as grievances , they had not been filed in writing with the Company according to the terms of the contract, and be- cause in essence they were modifications or amendments of the contract. The Company refused to negotiate further with the committee on that evening on the ground that the plant committee, under the contract, existed for the purpose of adjusting grievances only, and not for the purpose of negotiating amendments or modifications of the contract. On the following day Berry wrote a letter to the Local asking that the Union furnish credentials for Clark, if he was to represent the Union at any time. At a later date Berry made his position clear, that he wanted similar credentials for Lawson and Crimmins, if they were to act for the Local. It is undisputed that until the date of the hearing, the Local never furnished such credentials for any of these men. It was not an unfair labor practice for the Company to refuse to meet with Clark, Crimmins, or Lawson until they presented proper credentials from the Local. In Shell Oil Company, 93 NLRB 161, the Board considered a similar situation in which, despite a contract provision which created a Workmen's Committee of em- ployees to adjust grievances with management, the Union insisted that the Com- pany negotiate with outsiders . In its decision on this point the ' Board wrote as follows: While a union may not be compelled to bargain as to giving up its right to negotiate grievances through any class it desires, we see no reason why a union may not waive that right through genuine collective bargaining, if it so chooses, lust as a union may under certain circumstances waive its rights to strike or its right not to have an employer deal with employees individually. It is not an uncommon practice for unions to bargain about the composition of the com- mittee or class to negotiate grievances, as witness the numerous contracts con- taining such clauses. We believe, on the basis of the record before us, that such a situation pre- vailed here. The employees had exercised their free choice in selecting the Local as their duly constituted statutory representative. The Local, empowered by the employees to execute a collective bargaining agreement on their behalf, negotiated a contract which contained the grievance clause in question, setting forth the composition of the Union's negotiating committee on grievances. The Local now seeks to nullify this agreement by asking us to hold that it may at will ignore its contractual arrangement to seek to negotiate grievances through committees or classes other than that upon which it had agreed. We do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to prevent disruptions to interstate commerce by stabilizing labor relations , to permit such a disregard of a contractual obligation voluntarily assumed... . Under the authority of the Shell Oil case, the Company was well within its rights in demanding that persons who were neither members of the Local nor employees of the Company, present credentials showing their specific authorization by the Local. Such a demand was particularly reasonable in regard to Clark, whose activities were considered questionable by some members of the Union, and who had been excluded from certain negotiations by union representatives in the past. Berry's request was consistent with the Union's prior conduct, in which it author- ized special representatives in writing, and over the seal of the Union. And, of course, the Company was not required to receive Lawson and Crimmins as repre- sentatives of the Local, because Lawson was the president of the District Council, or Crimmins the business agent of another I. W. A. Local. Here, the certification of the Board ran to Local 13-269. Pursuant to that certification the Company was required to bargain with that Local, and was under the affirmative duty of dealing with no other organization or person. The Change of Conditions of Employment of the Chain Pullers It is the claim of the General Counsel that the primary and immediate cause of the strike was the Company's unilateral action in changing the working conditions of the chain pullers. Unilateral action in changing working conditions has been condemned by the Board on many occasions , and many of these cases have been 1822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ' cited by the General Counsel in his brief. These cases are generally concerned with an employer's unilateral change of general conditions of employment, such as an increase or decrease in wages or a shortening or lengthening of hours, at a time when (1) a union was seeking recognition; or (2) attempting to organize; or (3) attempting to negotiate a contract with the employer. Under those circum- stances the Board has viewed a general change of working conditions, wages, or hours as an attempt by the employer to undermine or destroy the embryo collective- bargaining agent, or to lessen the prestige of the Union at a critical moment. Here the authority of the Union as the recognized bargaining agent of the employees had been recognized for upwards of 15 years, and the relationship of the parties formalized in a series of written contracts. Indeed, the contract provided for a union shop, whereby all employees of the Company became members of the Union within 30 days of their employment. There is not the slightest evidence in this case that the Company sought in any way to undermine the Union. On the con- trary, it insisted that collective bargaining proceed on the basis of mutual respect pursuant to the orderly procedures set forth in the contract. Under those circum- stances, the fact that the Company initiated the order to do cleanup work to 5 men of a total work force of over 200, without consulting with the Union before it issued the order, is of no significance. While it is true that the rights of employers have been limited by the Act, and are often curtailed by labor agreements, the Board and the courts still recognize that management has an inherent right to operate a plant as efficiently as it can. Within contract and legal limitations, man- agement has the right to direct the working force on its payroll. The Board has said, "The Act, of course, does not prevent an employer from making and enforcing reasonable rules concerning the conduct of employees on company time. Working time is for work." 22 Nor can I agree that this was a "change in working conditions," which required that the employer negotiate with the Union, prior to effecting the change. It is not claimed that the work was hazardous, dirty, or degrading in any respect. The chain pullers actually performed cleanup work at times when the planer was shut down for reasons other than a change of setup. McLaughlin's order envisioned that they would perform this work at times when the planer was shut down for long changes of setup, a time when admittedly they had nothing else to do. This was such a minor rearrangement of duties for the purpose of plant efficiency, that it was well within the right of management to initiate the change without prior consultation with the Union In the efficient operation of industrial establishments, minor changes for the purpose of efficiency must be made almost daily. To hold that no change in working arrangements can be made by management, without prior consultation with the Union would be to destroy management's right to manage. It is true, that for a period of time, the chain pullers had not been required to per- form any work during long changes of setup. They had been permitted to use these periods for rest, or for horseplay. This was an inefficient, demoralizing practice in the operation which Adams and McLaughlin sought to correct. It is the contention of the Union and the General Counsel that since this inefficient practice was allowed for a period of time by the employer, he was precluded from initiating corrective action. I cannot agree that such laxity or indulgence on the part of management, by the passage of time, gave birth to a condition of employ- ment, that management could not correct without prior consultation with the Union. To hold that management must bargain through all the steps of the grievance procedure to an impasse, before it could take corrective action, would be unreason- able and unrealistic 23 To bring the rights of employees, and the rights of employers into a proper adjust- ment, labor and management have worked out grievance procedures, and grievance clauses which are found in all labor contracts. Grievance clauses are firmly based on the proposition that management has the right to make changes in operations for the purpose of efficiency, and are designed to provide an orderly procedure for the adjustment of any inequities occurring to employees or groups of employees by reason of these changes. Grievance procedures envision that management will take the initiative in increasing efficiency, make the changes, and that the employees will do the work, and through the agency of their bargaining representative seek an increase in pay, or such adjustment, as will remedy any inequity which the employees incur. This assignment of work to the chain pullers was such a change, and should have been handled in precisely that way in view of the contract between the parties. However, the chain pullers and their bargaining representative were not content to 23 National Grinding Wheel Company, Inc, 75 NLRB 905, 909. 28 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 930, 934-935; Globe-Union, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 1026, 1(127-1028 SCOTT LUMBER COMPANY, INC . 1823 follow the grievance procedure set out in their contract, which brings us to the efforts of the Company and the Union to settle their dispute by the means of collective bargaining. The Bargaining of the Parties Upon all the evidence I find that in good faith the Company bargained long and patiently on the subject of the chain pullers' grievance and discharge, and fully performed its duties under the Act. I also find that the Union, on the contrary, came to the bargaining table with a closed mind, which prevented it from bargaining in good faith on the subject. In the body of this report, the various bargaining sessions on the subject of the chain pullers' grievance have been set forth at great length. From the time the subject was first brought up by management, until after the strike, the position of the Union remained rigidly the same. When the subject of cleanup work was first broached to the chain pullers, the men refused to do the work. After the strike the demand of the Union was the same, that the men be reinstated, without being required to do cleanup work. Never, at any time, did the Local propose any solution to the dispute except that the Company surrender completely to the Union's demands, and hire a new employee to do the cleanup work, even if that required that other work be made to keep the new employee busy. In sharp contrast to the attitude of the Union , the Company at all times appeared to be reasonable, and sincerely seeking a compromise of the dispute. Immediately .upon the chain pullers' first refusal to do the work on Monday, Adams sought out Gwin, the president of the Union, to explain to him the reasons for his action, in order that a quick solution of the question might be found. On Wednesday, within 2 hours of a request by the chairman of its plant committee for a grievance meeting, such a meeting was held. Another meeting was held on Thursday, after the dis- charges. When the Union asked for a meeting on Friday, although the Company could not meet within the hour, as demanded by the ultimatum of the Union, the Company agreed to meet on the following day, Saturday, and that meeting was held. Examination of what occurred at these meetings illustrates that the Company bargained in good faith on the subjects presented. The original notice to the chain pullers on Monday involved two changes designed to save lost work time, (1) the doing of cleanup work; and (2) a change in the chain pullers' smoke time. When Adams and McLaughlin agreed to abandon the proposed change in smoke time, that question immediately went out of the dispute. Certainly in making that con- cession , the Company was not showing an intent not to bargain . In the absence of any showing of good reason for changing its position regarding the cleanup work, the Company stood firm, insisting that it had the right to direct the men to do such work. However, in the succession of meetings and discussions with the Union, the Company clarified, qualified, and limited, its original order. At first, the instructions were to do cleanup work during changes of setup, then during reasonably long changes of setup„then during changes of setup taking more than 10 minutes. Finally, Adams pointed out that during 90 percent of the changes, the work would not be required because of the shortness of time. Such conduct is not consistent with a charge of bad faith, and is in sharp contrast with the adamant position of the Union and the men. When they were told, on Monday, that henceforth they would be required to do cleanup work, the` chain pullers flatly refused, thereby becoming insubordinate. On Tuesday, the Union encouraged their insubordination, and violated its contract by instructing the men not to do the work. At that point, the grievance had not yet reached the second step. On Wednesday the grievance proceeded through the second step in the Adams' committee meeting . However, the showdown came on the following morning, in the way that the men and the Union expected-the orders were given , the men refused to obey , and they were discharged . This was the inevitable result of the Union 's action Tuesday night . Breedlove , one of the chain pullers, testified that in view of the warning given him on Monday, he expected to be fired, when he refused to obey the order. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Union 's instructions to the men created the situation whereby their discharge became inevitable at such time as management gave the order to do cleanup work. The manner in which the strike was called at 1 p. m. on March 2, is also illustrative of the Union's lack of good faith in the negotiations. At the end of the meeting on Thursday afternoon, Berry asked the union representatives, if they desired to meet again on the grievance , and indicated that he would be free to meet on Monday. Jeter indicated that he would like a meeting sooner than Monday , but Landers said, "Of course we have to go back to them [the membership of the Union] before we can tell you what they're going to do." On the next day, Friday; a few minutes before 12 noon , the Union voted to strike at 1 p. m. unless the five discharged men were reinstated , with the cleanup 1824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work not required, or a meeting to consider their case begun before that hour. This unreasonable ultimatum, in view of the grievance procedure and the no-strike clause in the contract, coupled with Berry's indicated willingness to meet on Monday, was an act in derogation of the collective-bargaining process and in viola- tion of the contract.24 The Union at that point disclosed that it sought, not bar- gaining, but surrender of the Company's right to assign the work to these men, and to preserve discipline, under the threat of economic pressure. A union which ex- hibits such an attitude is in no position to question the good faith of an employer who is making every reasonable effort to reach a fair understanding with the Union 25 Furthermore, under the Act an employer is required "to meet at reasonable times"- not at the whim or caprice of the bargaining agent. This ultimatum was given on Friday, at noontime, near the close of the workweek. I cannot see what the Union could gain in a conference on Friday that it could not gain in a conference on Saturday or Monday. Under the circumstances one must conclude that the Union caused the strike because it wanted to force capitulation on the Company by the use of economic force. It realized that the chain pullers' insubordination, to which it had contributed by its resolution, had no defensible merit at the bargaining table. When the men were discharged, as a result of the Local's instructions, the Local had no alternative but to strike in their support. In the meeting of Saturday, after the strike was started, Ragsdale, of the Union, asked if the Company had any offer to make to settle the strike. Bartel, of the Company, asked, "What offer can there be?" "What alternate there could be- either the foreman is going to take and tell a fellow to do something and he is going to do it, or what other alternate is there?" This question remained unanswered. The Discharge of Wells Apparently, the General Counsel concedes that the discharge of the four chain pullers, other than Wells, was proper under the circumstances. I can see no differ- ence between the cases of those four men, and that of Wells. He was acting with the other chain pullers at the time they were first informed of the order, and he refused to do the work. He also was working with them at the time they reiterated their decision not to do the work. I find that he was discharged for cause-insub- ordination. If the refusal to do the work can be considered a concerted activity, it was the type of partial strike which is classed, with slowdowns and sitdowns, as beyond the protection of the Act.26 The Board and the courts have held that the instigator or fomenter of unprotected insubordination may be singled out and dis- charged as examples.27 The Docking of the Plant Committee The General Counsel has also complained that the members of the plant com- mittee were not paid for the full workday of October 25, 1955, part of which they spent meeting with representatives of the Company. The allegation that the failure to pay them these 3 hours' pay, on this one occasion, constituted a "unilateral change of working conditions," and thus a refusal to bargain is without basis in law or fact. It had long been the practice and still is, as the evidence shows, for the Company to pay for working time spent by the plant committee in negotiating with the Company. The plant committee chairman admitted that, except for the single, isolated occasion on October 25, 1955, he had been paid for all meetings with the Company during working hours. On October 25, 1955, the members of the committee were given time off to meet with company representatives and were paid for that time. According to Berry, after the United States conciliator left the premises, the men continued to sit in the cars and visit with Clark until the end of the shift. Landers said that he did not return to his place of employment at the woods, but went to the green chain where he worked until the end of the shift. Berry testified that as far as he knew the men were conducting their own affairs, or union affairs, during that time. At most, this was a misunderstanding between the United States conciliator, the Company, m W L Mead. Inc, 113 NLRB 1040 Note cases collated in this decision 25 Times Pnblisi+inq Company, 72 NLRB 676 26N L It B v. Montgoinet y 117ai d & Company, 157 F. 2d 486 (C A. 8) , Pacific Tele- phone and Telegraph Company, 107 NLRB 1547; Valley City Furniture Company, 110 NLRB 1589: Honotnln Rapid Transit Company, Limited, 110 NLRB 1806 o1 Harnischfeger Corp. v. N L R. B , 207 F 2d 575, upholding discharge of "three em- ployees for 'leading an illegal walkout'," p 577 ; California Cotton Cooperative Associa- tion, L,td , 110 NLRB 1494, holding lawful " the singling out of the five dischargees for discharge in the face of a slowdown by the entire press crew," p 1496 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1825 and the committee . Under the circumstances , I find that the evidence is insufficient to support the General Counsel 's contention that failure to pay these men for the, time spent , in neither working nor negotiating with the Company , is an unfair labor practice . It is not the province of the Board to police every alleged breach of contract or custom.28 For all of the above reasons it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety , on the ground that the evidence is insufficient. 2' United Telephone Company of the West, 112 NLRB 779-781 Puget Sound Power & Light Company and Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association , affiliated with Engineers and Scientists of America , Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1920. May 29,1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert L. Gese, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all professional en- gineering employees above the rank of junior engineer and junior distribution engineer, including the surveyor and senior load dis- patchers. The Employer does not dispute that those employees serv- ing in an engineering classification are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act, but contends that they are either supervisors or managerial employees. It also contends that the surveyor and the senior load dispatchers are not professional em- ployees, and are, moreover, supervisors. The Intervenor, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 77, AFL-CIO, which represents all production, distribution, and clerical employees, including the two junior engineer classifications, takes no position with respect to the appropriateness of the unit.l 1 IBLW intervened in order to safeguard its bargaining unit and its contractual interest. As it has no showing of interest among the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to repre- sent, we do not accord it a place on the ballot 117 NLRB No. 248. 42 3 7 84--5 7-v o f 117-116 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation