Snellstrom Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 535 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 535
ferred their membership to Local 501 before being dispatched to a job. As to
these, the evidence does not exclude possible reasons for transfer other than belief
that it was necessary in order to receive favored treatment. For all that appears,
they may have transferred their membership because they had an intention of
making Vancouver, Washington, or environs, their permanent residence . It cannot
be said that, except to the extent required by the lawful union-shop provision, any
employee of Jones-Tompkins was actually coerced into becoming a member of
Local 501. True, Lowery was told he would have to reinstate himself in order
to get a job, but he was never an employee of Jones-Tompkins and he never joined
or paid dues to Local 501 which could be ordered repaid. I conclude, therefore,
that this is not a case in which dues should be ordered repaid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. AGC and members thereof, including Jones-Tompkins, are employers within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Members of AGC, including Jones-Tompkins, are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Joint Council 37 and Local 501 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By maintaining terms in their collective-bargaining agreement with AGC
which require nonmembers of Local 501 to wear union buttons and which attach
conditions to hire or tenure of employment of employees of members of AGC
other than those which are authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respond-
ents have restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. By maintaining certain terms in their agreement with AGC which require
members of AGC to employ members of Local 501 or other affiliated locals, the
Respondents have attempted to, and are attempting to, cause such employers to
discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employment of their employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and the Respondents by such conduct
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
6. By utilizing its exclusive hiring hall to cause employers to give preference in
hiring to its members over members of sister locals and nonmembers, Respondent
Local 501 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondents have not, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, caused
or attempted to cause Jones-Tompkins to discriminate against Warren Payne in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and have not, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, restrained or coerced said Payne thereby.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Snellstrom Lumber Co . and Donald R. Hedlind . Case No. 36-
CA-776. December 18, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 14, 1958, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
122 NLRB No. 55.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report, and the Respondent filed a brief in reply thereto.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and the briefs, and finds merit in the Respondent's
exceptions for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
The Trial_ Examiner found that the Respondent discharged
Hedlind because of his activities on behalf of the Stockholders'
Protective Committee,' based on the Respondent's presumed resent-
ment of Hedlind's activity on behalf of the Committee, the inade-
quacy of the reasons for the discharge advanced by Respondent, and
the timing of the discharge.
The facts regarding the Protective Committee and Hedlind's
activity in connection therewith are as found by the Trial Examiner.2
The Respondent is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of
plywood and veneer. The plant is managed, and half the stock is
owned, by the Snellstrom family. The other half of the stock is
owned by the Viking Corporation which, through its board of di-
rectors, designates two members of the Respondent's board of
directors. Viking stockholders have preferential hiring rights with
the Respondent, and if hired, are paid a premium wage rate. The
great majority, but not all, of the Respondent's employees are
Viking stockholders, owning about half the Viking stock.
In the spring of 1956, the Snellstrom interests proposed a merger
of the Respondent and Viking Corporation. Shortly thereafter, on
June 15, 1956, the Viking Stockholders Protective Committee was
organized to oppose the merger, and the Investors Committee was
organized to support the merger. Many of the Respondent's em-
ployees actively supported one or the other of these committees.
The chief point of disagreement between the two factions concerned
the disposition of Respondent's profits, the Snellstroms and the In-
vestors Committee favoring the payment of dividends to all stock-
holders, and the Protective Committee favoring increasing the bene-
fits, such as additional premium pay, of employees who were
stockholders of Viking.
Hedlind was a Viking stockholder and an employee of the Re-
spondent. He became active for the Protective Committee soon
1In view of our finding herein that Hedlind was discharged for cause , we find it un-
necessary to, and therefore do not, express an opinion as to whether Hedlind's activities
on behalf of the Stockholders ' Protective Committee were protected by the Act.
8 All facts found herein are in accordance with the credibility findings of the Trial
Examiner except as noted herein . However, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding
that Plant Superintendent Olson admitted at one point in his testimony that he had
seen the employee petition for payment of a bonus to press operators and helpers. On the
contrary , Olson testified consistently that he never saw the petition but that he did see
the grievance committee recommendation, which was based on the petition.
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 537
after it was organized, seeking and obtaining proxies for the Viking
Stockholders' meeting, which was finally held on November 18, 1956.
At that meeting the Protective Committee succeeded in electing a
majority of the new Viking board, which thereafter voted to defeat
the merger. Hedlind was discharged the following February 27,
1957, allegedly for tardiness, negligence, low production, belligerence
toward fellow employees, and his supervisor. As already stated,
the Trial Examiner found that Hedlind was not discharged solely
for these reasons but that his discharge was due at least in part
to his activities on behalf of the Protective Committee. We do
not agree for the reasons stated below.
Tardiness : Hedlind was late for work 72 times during the 4 years
and 2 months of his employment, for periods of 1 to 5 minutes
(42 times), to 1 hour or more (12 times). He was reprimanded by
Plant Superintendent Olson for tardiness in August or September
1956 and warned of discharge if his tardiness continued. Although
the Trial Examiner found that Hedlind could reasonably have been
discharged for tardiness during the earlier years of his employment
when his record "patently was excessive," he rejected tardiness as
a reason for the actual discharge on the grounds that Hedlind's
foreman, Palermo, who was not consulted regarding the discharge,
testified that after the warning Hedlind's attendance improved.
The Trial Examiner found that this testimony was corroborated by
the records, apparently relying chiefly on the fact that Hedlind had
been tardy only once in February, the month of his discharge, and
only once the preceding January and twice the preceding December.
However, the plant attendance records do not, in our opinion,
corroborate Palermo's testimony. On the contrary, they show that
Hedlind's tardiness record did not improve after the warning given
him in August or September of 1956. Thus, during the 9 months,
January to September 1956, before the warning, he was late only
five times. But during the 5 months, October to February, after
the warning, he was late nine times-a 300-percent increase. The
Trial Examiner also relied on testimony attributed to Orrin Snell-
strom that tardiness played little if any part in the discharge. We
do not believe that such a negative inference is justified. Orrin
Snellstrom actually testified that, "Being late there, that had some-
thing to do with it. I don't think as much as probably the work
that he done, being behind on his work too, much of the time." In
our view this testimony, by a man who, as vice president of the
Respondent, did take part in the decision to discharge Hedlind,
clearly supports Respondent's contention that excessive tardiness
played a part in the discharge. Further, both superintendent Olson
and Personnel Manager Brown confirmed that Hedlind's tardiness
record was discussed at the meeting during which management
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decided on the discharge , as indicated in the Intermediate Report.
In view, therefore , of the warning of discharge given to Hedlind,
and his increasing tardiness thereafter, up to the date of the dis-
charge, we cannot agree with the Trial Examiner that tardiness was
not one of the reasons for the discharge.
Negligence : Superintendent Olson, Foremen Palermo and Gray,
and Orrin Snellstrom testified that Hedlind was habitually negligent
about mounting the press elevator in time promptly to eject a load
and insert another load, thus slowing production , and Olson formally
reprimanded him for it in the summer of 1956. In rejecting this
contention , the Trial Examiner found that at most any delay would
amount to only 3 or 4 minutes a day, based on testimony that it
takes the elevator 20 seconds to rise to the top of the press , and that
Palermo testified that Hedlind's conduct in this respect improved
after the reprimand . That Hedlind's inattentiveness caused such a
brief delay in production presupposes , however, that he was always
on the elevator ready to rise when the press opened. The evidence
does not show this to be the fact. On the contrary , Palermo ad-
mitted that he had to take Hedlind's place once , after the reprimand,
because he was absent and could not be found.
Relations with superiors : Hedlind admitted that he was generally
critical of the plant management and that he did not think much of
Palermo's ability as a foreman , and told him so. The chief incident
relied on by the Respondent to establish this charge , however, oc-
curred in August or September 1956 when Hedlind challenged
Palermo's authority to issue a warning for tardiness and, after
Brown was unable to settle the dispute, invited his foreman "out-
side." and was thereafter given a warning of discharge by Olson
(discussed above, under "tardiness"). We do not agree with the
Trial Examiner that, although a discharge at the time this incident
occurred would have raised no question , the incident should be dis-
counted as a cause of Hedlind 's discharge because Brown first learned
about it at the discharge meeting, after he had decided to recommend
the discharge, and because Palermo's testimony , on the whole,
favored Hedlind. Hedlind's discharge was recommended not only
by Brown but also by Olson, who knew about the Palermo incident.
Further, the favorable tenor of Palermo's testimony does not alter
the fact of Hedlind's admitted insubordination , or the fact of
Olson's warning ; moreover, Palermo was not consulted as to the
actual discharge.
Production : The Respondent asserted as an additional factor in
his discharge the low production of the crews for which Hedlind
was the press operator . There were five such crews in the plant.
Hedlind worked a great majority of his time on crew No. 4, and
the rest of his time on crew No. 1, both of which had consistently
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 539
poor production records. Statistics consulted by management at the
time of discharge showed crew No. 4 to have been the lowest pro-
ducer in the plant for the preceding 2 months, and crew No. 1 to
have been the next lowest. In view of Hedlind's record of tardiness
and time wasted, and his failure to get along with his fellow em-
ployees (discussed below) or cooperate with his foreman, we cannot
agree with the Trial Examiner that it was unreasonable of the
Respondent to hold Hedlind responsible, at least to some extent,
for the failure of his crews to produce .3
Relations with other employees: The Respondent contended that
Hedlind was a troublemaker in the plant. Hedlind admitted that
he was argumentative by nature. As the Trial Examiner found,
Olson, Brown, and Palermo testified without contradiction that
various employees did not want to work with Hedlind. -In addition,
I-Iedlind admitted that he had been instructed by Palermo, Olson,
and Gray not to bother other employees while they were working.
One employee complained to Palermo that he did not want to work
as Hedlind's helper any longer because Hedlind was always arguing
and had even called him "outside" to fight it out, and Palermo
warned Hedlind to get along better with the other employees. We
do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent was
required to produce corroboration by the employees named, especially
in view of Hedlind's admission that he was argumentative by
nature, had been cautioned against molesting other employees, and
warned to be more cooperative, and the fact that the General
Counsel presented no evidence to rebut the testimony of Olson,
Brown, or Palermo. Hedlind also admitted that he had an argu-
ment with an employee named Phelps in the lunchroom and "invited
him outside"; and that he "swung" at employee Murchy when
Murchy pushed the panels out of the press against him.
The "Grantham incident" was designated by Brown as the one
which precipitated Hedlind's discharge. The two employees became
involved in an argument over the principle of filling job vacancies
on the basis of seniority ; when Hedlind accused Grantham of hav-
ing "bought" a promotion, Grantham struck at him. Hedlind did
not strike back. Grantham later reported the matter to Brown,
admitting that he should not have struck Hedlind, but complaining
3 Nor do we agree with the Trial Examiner that the press operators were not an
important factor in production because a press could produce no more than was fed into
it by the spreader crew . It is clear that the press operators were , in fact , an important
factor in production . For although the press operators might not have been able to speed
up production because they could not get ahead of the crew , they could slow it down by
inattentiveness , tardiness , etc., as the Trial Examiner conceded . The effect of the press
operation on the rate of production is further demonstrated by the production figures
showing, as the Trial Examiner found, that the one crew which used two presses, No. 5,
had a far better production rate than other crews, and by the fact that the record shows
that all crews were usually ahead of their press operators , stacking plywood up faster
than the presses could "cook" It.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Hedlind has been "riding" him until he could not take it any
longer. Employee Murchy also testified that Hedlind had been
"riding" Grantham regarding his views on the merger. Under
these circumstances, we cannot agree with the Trial Examiner that
Hedlind was blameless in the Grantham incident. Nor do we
agree that this incident was only a pretext for the discharge,
particularly in view of the timing of the discharge.
We consider the timing particularly significant, especially as the
Trial Examiner's finding as to motivation is based on the pretext
theory. We do not agree with his view, that the timing supports
his finding as to motivation. The Trial Examiner reasoned that
the only explanation for the fact that Respondent failed to discharge
Hedlind in August or September 1956, when there was substantial
provocation because of his tardiness and insubordination, but did
discharge him 5 months later, when the provocation had allegedly
diminished, lay in the intervening battle of the proxies in which
Hedlind played so conspicuous a part. However, the battle of the
proxies had been over for 3 months when Hedlind was fired, but
his objectionable behavior continued until the time of the discharge.
Indeed, if the Respondent had been motivated by resentment over
the defeat of the merger , and was seeking a pretext for his dis-
charge, it could have discharged Hedlind immediately after the
proxy battle was over, because he was tardy three times in Novem-
ber without excuse for periods of 13 minutes to 4 hours. In our
opinion, the timing of the discharge, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
clearly supports the Respondent's contention that Hedlind was dis-
charged for cause. Against a background of conduct meriting re-
peated warnings of discharge for negligence in attending to his
duties, tardiness, and insubordination, Hedlind's discharge occurred
in a context of his continued tardiness, the continued low production
of both crews on which he worked, his argumentativeness, and his
inability to get along with his fellow employees, culminating finally
in his provoking Grantham into fisticuffs.4
Finally, in reaching his conclusion, the Trial Examiner relied
upon what he termed the Respondent's natural and understandable
resentment of the part Hedlind played in defeating the Snellstrom-
Viking merger. However, there is no direct evidence in the record
of animus or hostility on the Respondent's part toward those em-
4 The Respondent ' s explanation for the delay between the time of the "Grantham
incident," on January 21 or 22, and the actual discharge , on February 27, is supported by
the record : Several days after the Grantham affair, Personnel Manager Brown decided to
recommend Hedlind's discharge to President Charles Snellstrom , but Snellstrom had been
away from the plant for several weeks because of a serious illness , and did not return to
work until January 28 and even then did not come in regularly , and on the days when he
did come , he stayed only about 2 hours. In addition , Superintendent Olson, who partici-
pated in the meeting at which Hedlind's discharge was agreed upon, was away from the
premises for 2 days a week, managing the Respondent 's veneer plant at Elkton. The
meeting could therefore not be held for a month after the Grantham incident.
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 541
ployees who engaged in such activity, or that any representative
of the Respondent interfered in any way with such activity.
As we are of the opinion that the General Counsel did not prove
by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the Respondent
discharged Hedlind because of his activities in support of the
Stockholders Protective Committee, we shall dismiss the complaint.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard, pursuant to due notice, in Eugene,
Oregon, on November 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 1957, before the duly designated Trial
Examiner. The complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board (the latter hereinafter called the Board), alleged the discharge
by Snellstrom Lumber Co. (hereinafter called Snellstrom or the Respondent) of
its employee, Donald R. Hedlind, because of his concerted activities, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The jurisdictional allegations of the complaint
were admitted, the allegations of unfair labor practices denied. All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing. The General Councel and the Respondent have filed
briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The Respondent, an Oregon corporation, with its principal place of business at
Eugene, Oregon, operates a sawmill and planer mill and a plywood plant. From
these plants located in Eugene, Oregon, Respondent annually sells and ships to
customers located outside the State of Oregon, lumber and plywood valued at
more than $50,000. On these admitted facts, it is found that Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and comes under the Board's
formula for asserting jurisdiction.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This ably and intensively litigated case involves the discharge of one employee.'
In 1951, Snellstrom sold one-half of its stock to Viking Plywood and Lumber
Corporation, a Washington corporation, referred to hereinafter as Viking. The
remainder of Snellstrom stock, as well as the management of Snellstrom , was re-
tained by the Snellstrom family. From Viking's board of directors consisting of
seven members, two were designated to serve on the Snellstrom board. The agree-
ment between Snellstrom and Viking contained a provision giving Viking stock-
holders preferential employment rights with Snellstrom and a premium wage rate.
When Snellstrom, with the capital realized from the sale of its stock to Viking,
expanded its operations by constructing a plywood plant, most of the persons
employed in that plant were Viking stockholders. The only assets of Viking con-
sisted of its Snellstrom stock and, consequently, its only income was derived from
the sale of that stock and the dividends derived from it.
In the spring of 1956, Snellstrom proposed a merger of Viking and Snellstrom.
While it appears that the then Viking board approved the proposal there was dis-
agreement among Viking stockholders in the matter, and membership on the
Viking board thereupon became an issue. In June 1956, the Viking Stockholders
Protective Committee, hereinafter called Protective Committee, was organized pri-
marily for the purpose of opposing the merger through the election of a new
Viking board. The organization was effectuated in Seattle, Washington, under the
leadership of one George S. Kerry, not a Snellstrom employee, and many Snell-
strom employees who were also Viking stockholders became affiliated with it.
'I acknowledge an indebtedness for the excellent briefs filed with me by the Respondent
and the General Counsel, respectively.
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Another group of Viking stockholders was organized at the Snellstrom plant under
the name, Investor's Committee, for the purpose, primarily, of advocating the
merger. Both of these groups were active in soliciting and obtaining proxies to
be voted at a meeting of Viking stockholders on November 18, 1956, when the
new Viking board was to be named and the question of the merger determined.
The meeting occurred and the merger was defeated. The Protective Committee
was successful in electing four of its nominees to the Viking board.
Among Snellstrom stockholder-employees most active in promoting the Protec-
tive Committee and in obtaining proxies to defeat the proposed merger, was Donald
R. Hedlind. Hedlind was discharged by Snellstrom on February 27, 1957, and it
is the General Counsel's position that this discharge was largely attributable to
Hedlind's activity on behalf of, and in connection with, the Protective Committee.
Hedlind, at the time of his discharge, had been in Snellstrom's employ at its
plywood plant since 1953 as a hot press operator. The hot press, as its name
indicates, pressed together panels of plywood on which glue had been spread by
a "spreader" crew, binding the separate sheets together by the application of heat
-and pressure. The press operator and his helper and the four members of the
spreader crew together constituted a single production unit or crew. There was
a total of five crews in the Snellstrom plant. Snellstrom kept no production rec-
ords on individual employees but kept daily records of production on each of the
crews, and these were posted in the plant where the employees could see them.
A bonus was allowed the spreader crews on production for the individual crews
exceeding 40,000 feet of plywood daily, but no bonus was allowed the press oper-
ators and helpers. Hedlind was the regular press operator on crew No. 4 alter-
nating between day and swing shifts, and occasionally exchanged places with the
press operator on crew No. 1.
He admittedly was qualified and competent as a press operator whenever he
applied himself to his job, but it is Respondent's contention that he was excessively
tardy in reporting to work throughout his term of employment; was negligent in
mounting the press elevator for the removal of the plywood panels, thereby slow-
ing down production; and, generally, was not diligent and attentive in the perform-
ance of his work, but was disputatious, unnecessarily involving other employees
in argument and controversy, disturbing them in their work and creating "inci-
dents," and was belligerent in his attitude toward his superiors. An additional
reason assigned for the discharge was that he advocated a slowdown in production.
An examination of these various defenses provides a convenience and adequate
framework for presenting most of the facts material to a decision in the case.
Tardiness: Hedlind's tardiness in reporting for work being a matter of record
for which records were supplied, is established as some 72 times during the period
of his employment. His tardiness record for individual years of his employment,
as recapitulated from the records, is: 1953-20; 1954-16; 1955-22; 1956-12;
1957 (under 2 months)-2. In terms of lateness: 1 to 5 minutes-42 times;
6 to 11-2; 11 to 29-11; 30 to 59-5; 1 hour or more-12. From this it is
seen that during the last full year of his employment his tardiness record was cut
almost in half. From February 15, 1956, when he was tardy 1 hour and 3 min-
utes, to July 25, when he was tardy 4 hours, there is no record of tardiness. On
August 14, he was tardy 1 minute, on August 22, 21 minutes. On October 5,
2 minutes. In November, his tardiness record was: November 8, 2 hours and 51
minutes; November 14, 4 hours; November 15, 17 minutes; November 19, 30
minutes. In December, he was tardy 3 minutes on one occasion and 1 minute on
another. On January 24, 1957, he was tardy 3 minutes and on February 15, he
was tardy 1 minute. Hedlind's own testimony on his tardiness by no means ac-
counted for all the tardiness shown by his record, but there was no denial of his
testimony that on at least one occasion in November, the month in which the
issue of the merger was decided, he received his foreman's permission for not
reporting to his job on time, and his further testimony that on some other occa-
sions he called in and was excused by his foreman. It appears that this testimony
related to tardiness of an hour or more?
2 Hedlind, highly articulate in an incoherent sort of way, testified that he was not
warned and that he was warned ; didn't remember and did remember that he invited his
foreman "outside" ; contradicted himself on whether, after being instructed not to, he
talked to men at their jobs when soliciting proxies, but was frank in admitting that he was
argumentative, that he engaged in disputes with his foreman over the operation of his
job, and generally gave the impression that he was not deliberately falsifying or distorting
-the matters about which he testified. Nevertheless, little reliance has been placed on his
testimony except when it was undisputed or corroborated.
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 543
Hedlind was reprimanded by his superiors because of his tardiness , and accord-
ing to his foreman , Pietro Palermo , he argued that he should not be required to
report on the minute because at starting time there was nothing for him to do.
Palermo insisted that he report on time and , according to his testimony, informed
Hedlind that Hedlind would be given a written warning slip if his tardiness con-
tinued . Further argument ensued and Palermo took Hedlind to Superintendent
Al Olson's office where the latter also reprimanded Hedlind on his tardiness. Olson
testified that Hedlind argued that as a stockholder he did not need to be on time.
I find that Hedlind was warned orally about his tardiness. He was not, however,
given a written warning notice, as was the case with another employee in a matter
of tardiness, and Palermo testified that after the conference in Olson's office Hed-
lind's attendance improved. This testimony is corroborated by the records. The
incident on tardiness involving reprimands and warnings by Palermo and Olson
occurred not later than the summer of 1956, and Hedlind was not thereafter again
reprimanded or warned on the subject of tardiness.
Negligence: A good deal of attention was paid in the testimony to Hedlind's
alleged failure promptly to mount the elevator to his press for the removal of the
plywood sheets. In removing the sheets it was necessary for the press operator
to mount an elevator for a few feet. If he was not at the top of the elevator when
the sheets were ready for removal, some time would be lost while he mounted
into position. At most the delay caused by such inattentiveness would be some
3 or 4 minutes a day, but if this was a persistent thing it might well account for
some loss in production. Palermo, Olson, and Foreman Robert F. Gray, who
occasionally was Hedlind's supervisor, testified to Hedlind's inattentiveness to this
detail. Gray testified to two occasions. Palermo and Olson testified that they
had observed this inattentiveness on numerous occasions and had reprimanded
Hedlind because of it. Palermo testified that after being reprimanded Hedlind
would improve for a time and then fall back into his former habits and Olson
testified to the same effect. Presumably as a culmination of his unsuccessful
efforts in the matter, Palermo, according to his testimony, took Hedlind to Super-
intendent Olson's office where Olson issued his reprimand. Palermo testified that
thereafter Hedlind was more attentive to this detail and worked in a satisfactory
manner. None of the witnesses were able to place these incidents with specificity
as to time, but as best I can determine from their combined testimony, Hedlind
was not individually summoned to Olson's office later than the summer of 1956.
Further with respect to Hedlind's alleged negligence, is Palermo's credited testi-
mony that on two occasions he had to substitute for Hedlind because of the Tat-
ter's absence from his press, whereupon he cautioned Hedlind to stay on the job.
These incidents were not established as to time and it does not appear that
Palermo reported on them to his superiors. Finally there is Olson's testimony,
and Hedlind's admission, that on one occasion Olson accused him of taking too
much "break time"; admittedly this was the sole occasion when Olson addressed
him in the matter.
Production : Closely linked to Hedlind 's tardiness and alleged inattentiveness in
the operation of his press, is Respondent's claim of low production on the press
crews where Hedlind acted as press operator, and low production is, as I under-
stand it, one of the major causes advanced by Respondent for the Hedlind dis-
charge?
Snellstrom records show that of the five press crews, Nos. 1 and 4 had the
lowest average production for the period covered, and the average for I was below
that of 4.4 During the months of December, 1956, and January and February,
3 Orrin Snellstrom testifying on the discharge, "Well, I think it more or less boiled
down then to his not-the production being so bad, or being lower than the rest. Q. His
production was lower than anybody else's, is that right? A. Well, according to records,
it was considerably lower. Q. That is, his crew, was that it? A. Yes. . . .
* Respondent's production summary shows for the period November 1955 through
February 1957, a total hourly production average on No. 1 of 5,104 feet; No. 4, 5,158 feet.
The average of the 4 crews other than No. 1 for the same period was 5,431 feet and
the average of the 4 crews other than No. 4 was 5,438 feet. The comparative average
hourly production figures for crews Nos. 1 and 4 for the 4 months preceding Hedlind's
discharge , follow :
No. 1 No. 4
November 1956________________________________________ 5,610 5,812
December 1956_________________________________________ 5,687 5,623
January 1957 ------------------------------------------- 5,536 5,517
February 1957 ------------------------------------------ 5,458 5,348
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1957, the average for the No. 4 crew was, however, slightly below that of the
No. 1 crew, and each was below the average on the other crews. Superin-
tendent Olson testified that Hedlind was press operator on the No. 1 crew about
25 percent of the time but I am unable to credit this testimony, uncorroborated
as it was either by records or other testimony. Foreman Gray, Hedlind himself,
and employee W. F. Eberle, each testified that Hedlind worked on the No. 1 press
only occasionally, no more than 2 or 3 days each month, and this I find to be
the fact.
Obviously, the Respondent had a legitimate concern in the comparatively low
production by the Nos. 1 and 4 press crews, and it appears that on one or two
occasions these entire press crews, respectively, were brought to Olson's office with
respect to their low production. There is no evidence that Hedlind was singled out
or criticized by his superiors on these occasions as solely or mainly responsible for
the comparatively low output of his press crew. As a matter of fact, not the
press operator and his helper but the spreader crew is the primary factor in pro-
duction, inasmuch as the press can produce no more than is fed into it and it is
the spreader crew that feeds the press. Respondent's recognition of the primary
importance of the spreader crew in production, is shown by the fact that it offered
a production bonus to this crew while refusing it to the press operators and
helpers. Of course, if Hedlind was habitually absent from his post the Respondent
might well have regarded him as to some degree responsible for low production,
but there is the countering testimony of several members of his spreader crew
to the effect that he did not slow down the work of the crew but was an able and
attentive operator. One of the employees so testifying was Sinclair J. Murchy,
who was assigned to take Hedlind's place when the latter was discharged. Murchy
further testified that one of the crew members, Les Loftesness, was so inefficient
that he, Murchy, complained to Palermo and Olson and refused to work on the
crew if Loftesness was retained on it. Loftesness was not discharged but was
transferred to another crew for a time. It appears that Rollie Michael, a member
of a spreader crew, also was censured by Olson for slowing production.
Another factor that cannot be ignored in an objective study of the production
of the several crews, is that the No. 5 crew held an advantage inasmuch as there
was accessible to it, and to no other crew, an additional press enabling it to engage
in "double pressing" and thereby add to its production. Respondent's production
figures show that the No. 5 crew was consistently highest in average hourly pro-
duction. Finally, with respect to production, there is the showing that following
Hedlind's discharge there was increased production throughout the plywood plant.
Factors other than Hedlind's discharge, such as improved supervision and produc-
tion methods and better core material,5 may have, and to a considerable extent
must have, accounted for the overall increase in production, for it is hardly rea-
sonable to suppose that Hedlind retarded the production of all five crews, some of
which operated on shifts opposite to his, and of significance is the fact that on a
comparative basis, the position of the No. 4 press was not improved following
Hedlind's discharge.
Relations with other employees: Superintendent Olson characterized Hedlind as
an "eggbeater," causing turmoil among the employees, and testified that after the
"eggbeater" had been removed there was improved production throughout the plant.
That there was a general improvement in production has been commented on.
Foreman Gray, who occasionally supervised Hedlind's press crew, testified that
Hedlind was a good worker when he wanted to be but carried a chip on his
shoulder, and that the tenor of his complaints was "that this wasn't right and that
wasn't right, and this should be done, that should be done; that Mr. Snellstrom
should do this, that Mr. Snellstrom should do that; that the Board of Directors
are not doing this-they are no good-and all that kind of stuff."
That Hedlind was argumentative and critical of the Snellstrom management can-
not be denied; his activity on behalf of the Protective Committee brought him
into conflict with the Snellstrom management and with employees who were affili-
s Production depended somewhat on the quality of the core or raw material fed to the
presses, respectively. Material intended for exterior use would not produce plywood at
the same level of production as material for interior use. There was testimony to the
effect that the "graveyard" shift was favored in the quality of core provided it, but I do
not place reliance on this factor in explanation of the low comparative production of
crews Nos. 1 and 4, for over a long period of time the quality of core would tend to
average out on all crews. For lesser periods, however, the quality of core might be a
significant factor.
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 545
ated with the Investor's Committee which sponsored and supported the Snellstrom
position. If, however, we leave out of consideration Hedlind's activity with respect
to the Protective Committee, and his efforts to obtain a bonus for press operators
and helpers, there is very little in the evidence to corroborate and support the
testimony of Olson and Gray that he was a troublemaker, other than certain
fights or near fights in which Hedlind was involved, and the testimony of Olson
and Brown that his fellow workers complained that they did not want to work
with him. Palermo also testified that one employee complained to him that he
did not want to work on Hedlind's crew because the latter was always arguing,
with him. There was no corroboration by any employee named as having com-
plained with respect to Hedlind, and one of these, Murchy, testified that Hedlind
was an able operator and that he did not hold up the work of his press crew.
Murchy, who characterized himself as a perfectionist, testified, as previously stated,.
that he complained to his superiors that the crew was being held up by Loftesness.
All other employees who had worked with Hedlind who testified, testified, as did.
Murchy, that he was an able operator.
With respect to the fights or near fights, the two incidents relied on by Brown
as influencing his decision to recommend Hedlind's discharge, involved, in addi-
tion to Hedlind, employees Collier and Grantham respectively. No blows were
struck by Hedlind in these two incidents or in any other of the incidents men-
tioned in the testimony. With respect to the Collier incident, Collier, on the testi-
mony of all who witnessed the incident, had been drinking whereas Hedlind had
not, and Collier was so clearly at fault that he apologized to Hedlind. Palermo,
Hedlind's foreman, was informed at the time that Collier was drinking and had
the opportunity to observe this for himself, but refused to take any action with
respect to it because Rollie Michael, his informant, refused to give a written state-
ment that Collier was drunk. Brown, according to his testimony, on learning of
the Hedlind-Collier incident, recommended that both be discharged but was over-
ruled by Olson. Why he should have recommended Hedlind's discharge when
Hedlind clearly was not at fault, and why he did not press for Collier's discharge
when such conduct as his, under the influence of intoxicants, was admittedly cause
for discharge, is understandable only in terms of his admission that he never
investigated the matter. Collier did not testify.
The Grantham incident, which, according to Brown, was the "last straw," pre-
cipitating Hedlind's discharge, occurred, according to Hedlind, a few days after
the defeat on November 18 of Snellstrom's proposed merger. He admitted, how-
ever, that it may have occurred as late as January 1957, and Brown placed the
incident as occurring late in January. The incident occurred at the end of Hed-
lind's shift and at the beginning of Grantham's. The two men became involved
in an argument in which Hedlind, who had advocated seniority as a standard for
filling job vacancies, made some remark about "buying" a job promotion and,
apparently, Grantham took this as a personal affront. Grantham struck, or struck
at, Hedlind once or twice and then Foreman Gray came up and restrained him.
Hedlind did not strike back. Foreman Gray admittedly told Grantham that a repe-
tition of the incident would be his last and instructed Hedlind to leave the plant
since his shift was over but did not reprimand Hedlind. Hedlind testified that
Gray told him that the incident was not his, Hedlind's, fault and this being con-
sistent with circumstances as developed in the testimony of others, is credited.
Hedlind was neither at that time nor at any other time reprimanded nor called to
account for his part in the incident. Grantham reported the matter to Brown,
complained-bitterly, according to Brown-that Hedlind was "riding him" and he
couldn't take it any longer, but admittedly told Brown that he, Grantham, had a
bad temper and that he had apologized to Hedlind. Grantham, to Brown's knowl-
edge, was active on behalf of the Investor's Committee in support of the Snell-
strom position on the merger. Grantham did not testify.
Hedlind was involved in other incidents and in at least one of these he admitted
having invited a fellow employee "outside," and in another, with Murchy, which
was an attempt at horseplay by Murchy which misfired, Murchy admitted that he
was at fault and that he apologized to Hedlind. There was very little development
in the testimony of these other incidents and no showing that they materially
entered into a consideration of Hedlind's discharge. It might be assumed, how-
ever, from the number of such incidents involving Hedlind that he was a disturbing
influence in the plant, and there is his admission that Palermo warned him that
he would have to get along better with the other employees. Considering the heat
engendered in the merger controversy, it is not possible, without more, to say that
. 50,5395--59-vol. 12 2-3 6
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his difficulties with other employees did not arise out of the prominent role he
played in this controversy, and in none of the incidents, specifically described in
the testimony, does it appear that he was the instigator or aggressor. With the
exception of Murchy, a witness for the General Counsel, not one of the employees
with whom he was involved in difficulties bordering on fisticuffs testified.
Relations with his superiors: A good deal of emphasis was placed by the
Respondent on Hedlind's alleged contemptuous and belligerent attitude toward
his superiors. His immediate superior was Foreman Palermo and, occasionally,
Foreman Gray, though the latter admittedly had little contact with Hedlind from
1956 on. Palermo and Gray were answerable to Superintendent Olson. There is
no evidence that Hedlind was at any time disrespectful or insubordinate in matters
involving Gray or Olson. With the latter, the most that can be said is that when
called on the mat, Hedlind doubtless argued his position and may, on some occa-
sions, have volunteered critical remarks concerning the Snellstrom management.
There is no evidence that he at any time refused to submit to Olson's authority
but, on the contrary, the evidence is, by the testimony of his foreman, Palermo,
that after Olson had spoken to him his behavior improved. There is some evi-
dence that while the "battle of the proxies" was on in the plant, Hedlind was
instructed not to talk to men on the job, and by his own admissions he did not
adhere strictly to these instructions, but on at least two occasions did speak to
men during working hours; still, according to him-and there is no evidence to
the contrary-there was no interference with his or their production. This, of
course, must have occurred sometime prior to November 18, 1956.
The only really substantial evidence that supports the Respondent' s contention
on this point, has to do with Hedlind's relations with Palermo. Admittedly, he
had a low opinion of Palermo's ability, particularly with reference to the operation
of the hot press, and on occasions argued with the latter about the proper tem-
perature to maintain. The only incident of actual conflict between him and
Palermo occurred about the summer of 1956, after Palermo had reprimanded him
for tardiness and threatened to give him a written warning slip. Hedlind ques-
tioned Palermo's authority to issue a warning slip and Brown was brought into
the controversy. According to Brown he informed Hedlind that Palermo had the
requisite authority, but advised Palermo not to issue the slip before taking Hedlind
to Olson's office. Palermo testified that he did not raise the matter of his author-
ity to issue warning slips with Brown and that, with respect to Hedlind, Brown
told him to forget it at the time.
Brown's intervention appears not to have settled the dispute between Hedlind
and Palermo for the argument continued and Hedlind invited Palermo "outside,"
an invitation which Palermo prudently declined. The upshot of the incident was
that Palermo took Hedlind to Olson's office where Olson administered a rebuke
and a warning that if Hedlind's conduct did not improve he would face discharge.
It is not possible to ascertain the precise date of the Hedlind-Palermo incident
but Olson did not deny that it might have occurred as early as the spring of 1956,
and in no event did it occur later than the summer of that year. And, despite
Hedlind's low opinion of his foreman's ability, there is Palermo's testimony that
Hedlind never refused or failed to carry out his instructions.
It does not appear that the Palermo incident loomed very large in the matter
of Hedlind's discharge, for Brown admittedly first learned of it from Olson at the
conference when the discharge was decided upon, and he had, prior to that meet-
ing, made up his mind to seek Hedlind's discharge. Palermo's testimony, on the
whole, favored Hedlind, and I did not, as Respondent suggests in its brief, find
him to be a confused witness, nor did I gain the impression from watching him
testify that he was giving perjured or distorted testimony.
Advocacy of a slowdown: The evidence on Hedlind's alleged advocacy of a slow-
down in production as a motivating factor in his discharge, is limited to his sug-
gestions-or advocacy-to the press operator and helper on the "graveyard" shift,
or No. 5 crew, that they not make use of an extra press available to them by
virtue of the fact that there was only one press crew on the graveyard shift but
four on the other shifts. By using this extra press they engaged in what is called
"double-pressing" and thereby added to their output. Hedlind apparently consid-
ered this an unfair advantage which, on a comparative basis, made the production
of his crew and other crews without facilities for double-pressing, look bad. Hubert
F. Berg was the press operator on the night shift, and Cecil Harold Cully was his
helper. Cully, a witness for the Respondent, testified that Hedlind was the only
employee who urged against double-pressing but Berg, a witness for the General
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 547
Counsel, testified that Hedlind's opinion in the matter was shared generally by the
rest of the press crews. Be that as it may, on one occasion Cully and Berg went
to Olson's home to request a bonus for the operator and his helper and, according
to Olson and Cully, it was mentioned that Hedlind was opposing the use of the
extra press. Berg testified that the main purpose of the visit was to apply for a
bonus. Cully also testified that he may have, or did mention Hedlind's opposition
to double-pressing to Brown, and Brown testified that he learned of Hedlind's
attitude in the matter from Cully and that it was a factor in his recommendation
of Hedlind's discharge. The visit of the two employees to Olson's home occurred
prior to Christmas, 1955.6
The remaining testimony on the alleged advocacy of a slowdown, came from
employees Rollie Michael and Clarence M. Anderson. Anderson, a witness for the
Respondent, testified that on an occasion Hedlind said that if they slowed down
production it would probably result in a bonus for press operators and helpers,
and that he had heard the same talk by others in the plant, and that he did not
report on the incident to any of his superiors. He was unable to place the inci-
dent as to time. Michael, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that in a
general discussion in the lunchroom Hedlind said that if all the press crews would
hit a "happy medium," or "uniform" rate of production, it might result in restoring
a 5-day workweek instead of what appears to have been a 4-day week at the time
the conversation occurred, and that no mention was made of a bonus for press
operators and helpers. Michael did not report on the conversation to any of his
superiors. This incident occurred sometime prior to the circulation of a bonus
petition in August 1956. Finally, Olson testified that he had heard "rumors" that
Hedlind was advocating a slowdown but that he was unable to run them down.
Obviously, the Respondent had no knowledge of these matters testified to by
Anderson and Michael. Hedlind was never interrogated in the matter.
Warnings: It is Respondent's position that Hedlind was repeatedly warned on
tardiness and failure to be at the top of his elevator so as to remove the plywood
sheets with dispatch. Such reprimands and warnings as occurred were made either
by Palermo or Olson. It appears that in difficulties arising between an employee
and his immediate supervisor or foreman, if the foreman was unable to handle
the matter satisfactorily he took the offending employee to Superintendent Olson
as a sort of second step in the disciplinary procedure. It is the contention that
being subjected to a reprimand by Olson was tantamount to a warning of dis-
charge if the objectionable conduct continued. This contention does not take into
account the occasional use of written warning slips, bearing the text:
You have previously been cautioned that your conduct on the job was unsat-
isfactory. You were warned a second time and have not corrected this fault.
This warning is to tell you that if you do not correct this immediately you
will automatically be discharged.
--------------------------------
Employee's Signature
--------------------------------
Foreman
Admittedly, Hedlind was not given one of these warning slips. Also, admittedly,
only occasional use was made of them, partly for the reason, according to Brown,
that it was difficult to get employees to sign them. In two discharges involving
theft, no warning slips were issued. However, in three instances it appears that
Olson issued warning slips to employees not later discharged, and in the case of
an employee discharged from Respondent's veneer plant it appears that a warning
slip was issued prior to the discharge. On the one occasion when it appears that
Hedlind was unequivocally warned of discharge-the occasion when he challenged
Palermo to step outside-Olson testified that no warning slip was issued when
Hedlind informed him that he had apologized to Palermo. Olson further testified
that Hedlind was not issued a written warning slip because he had been warned
orally, but the text of the warning slip shows that it was issued only after an
employee had received two verbal warnings.
Without attributing too much significance to Respondent's failure to issue a
warning slip to Hedlind prior to the latter's discharge, there nevertheless remains
0 The testimony of Olson and Brown would place this incident as occurring approxi-
mately in December 1956. Cully and Berg both, however, testified that it occurred on or
about December 1955, and that the night shift was discontinued prior to December 1956.
I found the testimony of the latter convincing and credit it.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considerable doubt that a mere cautioning or reprimand by Olson was considered
either by management or the employees as a warning of discharge . Conceding the
point arguendo, there were only two occasions when Hedlind 's conduct was con-
sidered grave enough to summon him, individually, to Olson's office. On one of
these occasions , two members of the Viking board were present as observers, and
we may infer from this that either the Respondent or Hedlind considered the
matter to be of considerable gravity. However , on Olson's testimony that the last
of these occasions occurred when he reprimanded Hedlind over the Palermo inci-
dent, it must be found that neither of them occurred later than the summer of
1956. The fact that the entire press crew on which Hedlind worked was brought
to Olson 's office on one occasion , and that other press crews may have been
brought to his office at different times, cannot be said to amount to an individual
reprimand or warning . It does show Respondent 's dissatisfaction with production.
Concerted activity : Aside from his efforts to persuade the No . 5 press crew to
refrain from "double-pressing," Hedlind was engaged in two other ventures which
qualify as concerted activities . In August 1956, he circulated a petition among the
press crews bearing this text in handwriting:
The press helpers and press operators feel that they are a part of the spreader
crews and as such should participate in the bonus which they are now re-
ceiving.
This petition was signed by some 25 employees and Hedlind 's name headed the
list. The petition was given to Percy Cowan , a member of an "arbitration" or
"grievance" committee which had been set up by Viking, and Cowan , a member
of the Viking board, presented it to Superintendent Olson. Respondent argues
that this was not concerted activity because the effort was conceived and carried
out by Hedlind "on his own," but clearly the effort was made on behalf of all the
operators and helpers, and in determining the concerted character of the under-
taking it is immaterial with whom the idea originated and whether one or many
undertook its execution. It is sufficient that group action was sought and, in the
signing of the petition, group action was taken. A closer question is whether
Respondent had knowledge of Hedlind's activity in the matter. On Respondent's
interrogation , Olson first denied that a petition respecting a bonus for press oper-
ators and helpers was ever presented to him personally, and on being shown the
petition by Respondent's attorney denied that he had seen it previously. On fur-
ther questioning , he admitted that he was aware that such a petition existed, and
then later admitted that he had seen it or had it read to him by Cowan, and that
he had informed Cowan that the bonus requested in the petition could not be
granted . He denied that the petition had been left with him but it was not re-
turned to Hedlind and it was produced at the hearing by the Respondent. Brown
testified that he was not aware of the petition until shortly before the hearing in
this proceeding , and was not told that Hedlind was active in getting a bonus for
press operators and helpers . Hedlind was not one to hide his light under a bushel
and there is no reason to believe, but much reason not to believe, that he acted
surreptitiously in getting some 25 employees to sign the petition. I have no doubt
that Olson was well aware of his involvement in the matter.
Coming now to the Protective Committee in whose formation and activity in
defeating the Snellstrom proposal of a merger Hedlind was conspicuously active,
there is no real question of company knowledge. True, Olson testified that he had
never heard of the Protective Committee, though he admitted that Foreman Gray
had reported to him that Hedlind was soliciting proxies. It is not credible that
a member of management was so uninformed in a matter in which the Snellstrom
management was deeply involved, and in a matter that was agitated in the
plant for weeks and months , and Palermo and Brown readily admitted knowledge
of Hedlind's activities with respect to the Committee. Furthermore, it was Hed-
lind's undisputed testimony that on at least two occasions when the Snellstrom
management held meetings for employees in the plant for the purpose of explain-
ing or advocating its position on the merger, he personally took issue with certain
statements made by Charles Snellstrom in support of the merger. Company knowl-
edge being firmly established we reach one of the central problems in this pro-
ceeding, namely, whether the activity of the Protective Committee was exclusively
managerial in character and therefore not protected concerted activity within the
meaning of the Act.
The situation here is somewhat novel inasmuch as the Protective Committee was
a stockholder-employee movement which had as its main objective the defeat of
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 549
the Snellstrom proposal of a Snellstrom-Viking merger. The Respondent argues
that the proposed merger and election of a Viking board was entirely a managerial
matter, and that the activities of Hedlind and others associated with him in sup-
porting the Protective Committee were the activities of stockholders as distin-
guished from employees, with objectives that were exclusively managerial in
character. I am unable to accept this view of the matter. I think we have here
a mixture of employee and managerial interests which cannot be unscrambled.
The employee stockholders in opposing the merger doubtless hoped to enhance the
value of their stock and to increase their dividends on it. But I am convinced,
on the testimony of employees who supported the Protective Committee and on
the publications of that Committee, that the stockholder-employees acive for the
Committee hoped and expected that by electing a Viking board of their choice
they might through that Board not only defeat the merger but bring an influence
to bear on the Snellstrom management which would result in better wages and
working conditions. Seniority rights, vacation pay, and kindred matters relating
to working conditions, were some of the talking points used by Hedlind and others
in sponsoring the Protective Committee, and such matters were discussed at meetings
of the Protective Committee. When it is borne in mind that the Viking board
named two members of the Snellstrom board, such objectives do not seem too
remote for credulity. In fact, the very ownership of Viking stock is not properly
understood as solely managerial in character because such ownership carried with
it both preferential rights with respect to employment by Snellstrom and extra pay
for Snellstrom stockholder-employees. It is true, as Respondent argues, that the
Viking board newly elected as a result of the activities of the Protective Commit-
tee, does not appear to have taken any action or to have interested itself in wages
and working conditions generally of Snellstrom employees, but concerted employee
activity does not cease to be such because its objectives are not achieved. Upon
a careful consideration of all the testimony, I cannot doubt that Hedlind and others
associated with him hoped and believed that through the Protective Committee and
through the election of a new Viking board, the Snellstrom management could be
influenced to grant certain benefits which they, as employees, considered desirable.
That they also hoped to increase the value of their Viking stock or, accepting
Respondent's argument, wanted to wrest control from the Snellstrom management,
cannot serve to turn their activities into a purely managerial venture. My con-
clusion therefore is that Hedlind's activity on behalf of the Protective Committee
was protected concerted activity within the meaning of the Act. Gordon-Ladley
Plywood Products Company, 118 NLRB 1; Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Com-
pany, 73 NLRB 1463, enfd. 167 F. 2d 983 (C.A. 7), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 845.
The discharge: The Respondent admittedly and understandably is reluctant to
discharge one of its stockholder-employees. It has in fact rarely exercised its dis-
charge prerogative at its plywood plant. From the time that Olson became super-
intendent in 1954, only one discharge from its plywood plant other than Hedlind's
has occurred and that was for thievery. Prior to Olson's administration, according
to Brown, some four employees had been discharged but two of these had mana-
gerial status, and one of them was discharged for stealing. During the period of
Olson's superintendency, one discharge has occurred at Respondent' s veneer plant,
on the recommendation of the employee's foreman, and after a written warning
notice had been issued.
According to Brown, he decided to recommend Hedlind's discharge after learn-
ing of the Grantham incident (from Grantham) and after having "brooded" about
it, but without investigating it. Brown testified that his office was a sort of clear-
ing house for foremen complaints against employees and employee complaints
against supervision, and that he acted as a sort of intermediary. Admittedly, as
personnel manager, he knew little about the technical aspects of producing ply-
wood. His knowledge of attendance and production records, aside from informa-
tion conveyed to him by the supervisory hierarchy, was derived from records in
his custody.
On February 27, 1957, Brown met with Olson and after some preliminary con-
versation they went into the office of Charles Snellstrom, Respondent's president.
Present during the conference which followed, or part of it, were Charles Snellstrom;
Orrin Snellstrom, his brother, a vice president of Snellstrom ; Olson and Brown.
Various matters were discussd, among them Hedlind's discharge. Charles Snellstrom
asked for "concrete" reasons why the discharge should be authorized, and there was
some discussion of production and tardiness records and various other matters
Respondent now advances as reasons for the discharge. It appears the Charles Snell-
550, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strom had some production records in his office and that Brown and Olson showed
him some comparative production figures which they had compiled on a piece of
"scratch paper ." Admittedly , there was only a partial examination of the records, but
according to Brown and Olson this was not necessary inasmuch as they were ac-
quainted with production and attendance from records which were brought to their
attention daily. Be this as it may, it is clear from Orrin Snellstrom 's testimony, that
Hedlind's press crew was portrayed as having the lowest average production of all
the crews whereas, as has been seen , this was not the fact. Mentioned , and appar-
ently emphasized at this conference , was Hedlind 's alleged inability to get along with
his fellow employees , and, according to Brown , both the Collier and Grantham inci-
dents were discussed . Redlind was not at this , or any other time, afforded an oppor-
tunity to explain or justify his involvement in these incidents . The upshot of the
meeting was that Hedlind 's discharge was authorized and that same day Brown
notified Hedlind that he was discharged forthwith . Neither Gray nor Palermo nor
Hedlind were consulted in the matter of the discharge , and when Hedlind inquired
of Brown why he was discharged , Brown replied, "Just for no particular reason at all.
We just do not need you any more." Brown testified that he did not wish to become
involved in argument with Hedlind, because of the latter 's argumentative proclivities
and because he was a "pretty big boy" and pugnacious.
Brown also testified that there had been a prior meeting with Snellstrom when
Hedlind's conduct , but not his discharge , was discussed , but this meeting was so
vaguely placed both as to time and content that I can attribute but little significance
to it. Charles Snellstrom had a heart ailment and had been under the care of a doctor
for some time prior to January 1957, with only occasional visits to his office at the
plant, and presumably this is advanced as a reason why Brown did not earlier seek
Hedlind's discharge . However, according to Brown, the Grantham incident occurred
late in January , and it appears that Charles Snellstrom returned to his office late in
January. There is no evidence that in the month that intervened before Brown
actually sought Hedlind 's discharge , there arose any new incident or question of
Hedlind's fitness for the job.
Concluding Findings
After a protracted and painstaking consideration of the evidence in this case, and
an attempt to evaluate each of the points raised as justification of the discharge in
the light of that evidence , I am unable logically to dissociate the discharge from
Respondent 's natural and understandable resentment of the part Hedlind played in
defeating the Snellstrom -Viking merger. A decision has been difficult because there
is some support in the record for most of the points raised in defense of the discharge,
and because Hedlind was by no means a model employee but was argumentative and
aggressive in a manner that was no doubt obnoxious to management . There can be
no question that on more than one occasion he gave substantial cause for discharge.
When in the summer of 1956 he disputed the authority of his foreman and invited
the latter "outside," certainly a discharge would have raised no question. Again,
when during the earlier years of his employment and extending into 1956, he ran up
a tardiness record which patently was excessive , a discharge would have appeared to
be a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion . The question remains, why was
discharge withheld when the provocation was substantial if not great and admin-
istered, without a hearing , without prior notice, without consultation with his
immediate supervisors , without investigation of such matters as the Grantham
incident , and with no more than a makeshift scanning of attendance and production
records, after a period of several months during which, by the testimony of his own
foreman, Hedlind had mended his ways and was giving satisfactory service. If.
Respondent 's extreme reluctance to discharge one of its stockholder-employees ex-
plains its failure to act when cause for discharge was strong and unequivocal, we
must find some explanation of what had served to dissipate or overcome that extreme
reluctance when, by all accounts , the provocation was greatly diminished , and I can
find nothing that satisfactorily explains this apparent discrepancy except the inter-
vening "battle of the proxies " in which Hedlind played a leading and conspicuous
part.
I do not discount the idea that an accumulation of incidents . no single one of
which provoked a discharge , may tilt the scales and brine about the discharge of the
offender. but normally this occurs only upon a continuation or repetition of dis-.
unproved conduct , or a new incident . If Palermo 's. testimony is credited , and I have.
found no reason not to credit it, there was not a continuation or repetition of conduct
SNELLSTROM LUMBER CO. 551
for which Hedlind on or about the summer of 1956 was reprimanded and warned,7
and in the months immediately preceding the discharge his tardiness record was
improved to a degree that by Olson's admission it normally would have been over-
looked ,8 and, further , it is clear from Orrin Snellstrom 's testimony that tardiness
played little if any part in the discharge decision. As to new incidents, I am unable
to regard the Grantham incident-the "last straw," according to Brown-as one
which normally would have precipitated Hedlind's discharge. Grantham and not
Hedlind was the aggressor in that incident, and according to Brown's own testimony,
Grantham informed him that he, Grantham, had a bad temper and that he had
apologized to Hedlind's wife. Certainly, the circumstances were such that except for
a predetermined intent to get rid of Hedlind the first time there arose a pretext for
his discharge , there would have been some investigation into the incident . But there
was none. Here one is reminded rather forcefully that Grantham, to Brown's
knowledge, actively supported the Snellstrom merger proposal, whereas Hedlind
opposed it.
The picture is further obscured by Respondent's reliance on the "double-pressing"
incident, which occurred as far back as 1955, and which gives evidence of scraping
the bottom of the barrel in order to build up a case against Hedlind. To the extent
that the Respondent actually relied on this incident in making the discharge, I would
have to find the discharge unlawful, for it is clear to me that Hedlind's attempt to
persuade the press operator and helper on the "graveyard" shift not to double-press
was not advocacy of a slowdown, as that term is used in the decisions as justifying
discharge, but protected concerted activities. This is true because admittedly whether
or not this crew double-pressed was optional. If they were free to exercise their
own judgment in the matter, Hedlind was free to attempt by persuasion to influence
them to refrain from a practice which he not unreasonably felt was prejudicial to
the comparative production showing on his and the other press crews.9 I am unable
to believe, however, that this incident occurring in 1955 had any significant bearing
on the discharge.
Respondent 's reliance on low production as a principal cause of discharge raises
a more substantial question, though the record affords no satisfactory explanation of
why Hedlind, and Hedlind alone, would be held responsible or primarily responsible
for the comparatively low production of his crew, or why, were this the real cause
of the discharge, the Respondent did not move against any member of the No. I
crew which actually was the lowest of all the crews in overall average hourly pro-
duction. The situation here is rendered ambiguous because Respondent's answer
to the complaint recites, and Orrin Snellstrom and Olson testified, that Hedland's
crew had the lowest average production of all the press crews whereas Respondent's
records, when produced, showed that this was not the fact. We can only infer that
there was no more than a hasty and makeshift examination of production records
preceding the discharge, or that there was a deliberate misrepresentation of the
records in order to build up the case against Hedlind, and Olson's attempt to place
Hedlind on the No. 1 crew, the lowest producer of all the crews, for 25 percent
of his work time resulted either from ignorance of Hedlind's actual work assign-
ments, in which event Olson's testimony purportedly based on his personal observa-
tion of Hedlind's work habits must be discounted, or we must infer that Olson in
4 Palermo's testimony on direct examination by Respondent's attorney :
Q. Now, what was the outcome of this meeting in Olson's office with respect to
this elevator-getting on top of the press?
A. Well, Olson explained to him that there was a loss of production, and he wanted
him to do it.
Q. What was Hedlind's attitude with respect to that?
A. He said he would do It.
Q. Did he?
A. Yes.
Q. Consistently?
A. Yes, he was very good after that.
Q. Did he continue that way?
A. Yes.
8 Olson testified on cross-examination that tardiness that averaged once a week would
be considered "a lot," but tardiness once n month would be "overlooked."
8If it be assumed , arguendo, that Hedlind was the sole proponent in this matter, his
proposal nevertheless embraced the entire press crews and called for concerted action.
The Board has held that "an activity may be concerted although it involves only a
speaker and a listener ." Salt River Valley Users Association, 99 NLRB 849.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
giving this testimony was distorting the facts. Interpreting these factors in a manner
most favorable to Respondent, we would still have to find that there was a certain
haste and carelessness in preparing the groundwork for Hedlind's discharge, and in
view of Respondent's normal caution and reluctance in discharging its stockholder-
employees, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that something other than
production was the motivating factor.
Respondent's argument that the Protective Committee having ceased to function
after November 18, Hedlind's activities with respect to it could not reasonably be
found to have constituted a cause for his discharge, has obvious limitations. Man-
agerial resentment of the part Hedlind, through his activities on behalf of the com-
mittee, played in the defeat of the Snellstrom proposal would not necessarily vanish
on the Committee's dissolution, and the issue of the merger did not actually die with
the election of a new Viking board but became an accomplished fact in the fall of
1957. Nor does the fact that the Respondent refrained from discharging Hedlind
when his activity on behalf of the committee was in full swing, weigh very heavily in
its favor, for it may very well and very reasonably have been thought that a dis-
charge at that time of one of the Committee's most articulate spokesman among the
employees would, aside from being rather patently discriminatory, boomerang against
the Snellstrom proposal. Such arguments tend to cancel out and leave the situation
with respect to the discharge pretty much intact.
Unable as I am to dissociate the discharge from Hedlind's protected concerted
activities, I can only conclude that his discharge was motivated in part and perhaps
large measure by the said activities, and accordingly find the discharge a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged.io
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent discharged Donald R. Hedlind on February 27,
1957, because of his concerted activities, I will recommend that the Respondent
offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against him,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to what he normally would have been
paid in Respondent's employ from the date of his discharge to the date of Respond-
ent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Loss of pay
shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging its employee, Donald R. Hedlind, because of his concerted
activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
10 In reaching this conclusion I have accorded no weight to testimony that at one time
Hedlind brought a union organizer into the plant, or 'to the testimony of C. H. Maesner,
formerly a president of Viking, that Olson and Gray told him that Hedlind was dis-
charged for soliciting proxies for the Protective Committee. The latter involves a conflict
in testimony which I do not find it necessary to resolve.