International Woodworkers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

LOCAL UNION NO 5- 265, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS 1 141
LOCAL UNION NO. 5-265, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO. and WILLAMETTE NATIONAL LUMBER
COMPANY AND SANTIAM LUMBER COMPANY. Cases Nos.
36-CD- 12 and 36-CD- 1`3. February 11, 1954
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act,
which provide§ that "Whenever it is charged that any person
has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
paragraph 4 (D) of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and
directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such
unfair labor practice shall have arisen ...."
On June 29, 1953, Willamette National and Santiam , herein
called the Companies , each filed with the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region, a charge alleging that Local Union
No. 5-265, International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
herein called the Respondent , had engaged in and was engaging
in certain activities proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the
Act.
Thereafter , pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections
102.71 and 102 . 72 of the Board Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director investigated the charge , and provided for
an appropriate hearing upon the notice to both parties. A
hearing was held before P. H. Walker, hearing officer, from
August 3 to 11, 1953.
The Companies and the Respondent appeared at the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine
and cross - examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
on the issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed . Both the Companies and the Respondent filed briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Willamette National Lumber Company, herein called Willa-
mette, is an Oregon corporation with its principal office and
place of business at Foster, Oregon. It is engaged in logging
and lumber milling. In excess of $ 25,000 of its products are
shipped and sold in interstate commerce.
Santiam Lumber Company, herein called Santiam, is also
an Oregon corporation engaged in logging and lumber milling.
Its principal office is in Sweet Home, Oregon . It produces and
sells in excess of $25,000 in interstate commerce.
107 NLRB No. 237.
1 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board finds that both Willamette and Santiam are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 5-265, International Woodworkers of Amer-
ica, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. THE DISPUTE
(a) Facts
The sawmills of Willamette and Santiam are located in
Lebanon, Foster, and Sweet Home, Oregon. They are supplied
with timber from nearby areas by the Companies' respective
logging crews. In the spring of 1953 Willamette National and
Santiam embarked upon a joint venture, pursuant to a written
agreement, under which they set up the Suttle Lake Logging
Company to take 60 million board feet of timber from certain
lands about 50 miles from Foster, Oregon.
At the time of the dispute the Respondent had a collective-
bargaining contract with Willamette covering `,all employees
of the Employer engaged in the woods operation at or near
Foster, Oregon." It also had a contract with Santiam covering
"all employees of the Employer retained in its logging opera-
tion." The Respondent demanded that these contracts be
applied to the logging operations at Suttle Lake so that the
laid-off employees of Willamette and Santiam might, under
the seniority clauses, claim priority to the Suttle Lake jobs.
On June 29, 1953, the Respondent struck and picketed logging
operations and sawmills of both Companies for this objective.
(b) Contentions
The Respondent contends that its contracts with these
Companies should be applied at the joint venture on the ground
that Suttle Lake is "a paper transaction," set up as a device
by which Willamette and Santiam might avoid their contractual
obligation to their employees. The Respondent also moved to
quash the notice of hearing in this proceeding, on the ground
that the evidence fails to show any violation of Section 8 (b)
(4) (D), for reasons which follow.
(c) Applicability of the Statute
The Respondent's motion, to quash the notice of hearing on
the ground that the evidence failed to show any violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (D), is based on 2 arguments regarding the
scope of this section. First, the Respondent contends that
this proceeding is improper because the dispute involves
only 1, and not 2 or more, labor organizations. Assuming that
LOCAL UNION NO. 5- 265, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS 1143
the Board would find only 1 labor organization involved here,
this ground lacks merit for the Board has decided that dis-
putes covered by Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) need not
concern more than one labor organization. i
The Respondent's second argument in support of its motion
is that its objective was not one with which Section 8 (b) (4) (D)
is concerned. It describes the disagreement as concerning only
a question of contract interpretation, pointing out that it has
not sought the discharge of any Suttle Lake employees. We do
not believe that the existence of these contracts alters the
nature of the dispute, which concerns the insistence of the
Respondent that laid-off Willamette and Santiam employees
may replace those now at Suttle Lake.' We do not find the
existence of the contract claim a reason to view this dispute
as outside the scope of Section 8 (b) (4) (D).
On this record we find that there is reasonable cause to
believe that the Respondent engaged in activities proscribed
by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. We therefore find that the
dispute in question is properly before us for determination
in a proceeding under Section 10 (k), and we hereby deny the
Respondent's motion to quash the notice of hearing.
(d) Merits
The Respondent's contracts with Willamette and Santiam
cover only certain logging employees of those two Companies.
The logging employees of Suttle Lake Logging Company are
not employed by either Willamette or Santiam. They are
employed by both these employers acting together as joint
venturers. Therefore, the employees in question clearly
are not within the coverage of either contract, much less the
coverage of both contracts . Nevertheless , the Respondent
would extend the seniority rights of Willamette and Santiam
employees to the Suttle Lake positions because, according to
the Respondent, Suttle Lake is "not a separate entity, distinct
from Santiam and Willamette."
The record shows that the joint venture arrangement came
about to reconcile the competing interests of the 2 Companies
in the acquisition of timber rights. A written agreement pro-
vides for the logging and removal of 60 million feet of lumber
by a joint venture under the name of "Suttle Lake Logging
Company." The agreement requires their equal contribution
to the capital fund. Logs not sold to other companies are to be
divided between them and delivered at current market prices.
'Biagi Fruit & Produce Company. 107 NLRB 223; Member Murdock, who dissented in this
case, considers himself hound by the decision of the majority. -
2Contract claims, immediate and derivative, have been advanced by unions in many
proceedings invglving an alleged violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). See, especially, Moore
Drydock Company, 81 NLRB 1108; Juneau Spruce Corporation, 82 NLRB 650; Middle States
Telephone Company of Illinois, 91 NLRB 598; W. R Chamberlin and Company, 94 NLRB 388;
Safeway Stores, Inc., 101 NLRB 181; Equitable Gas Company, 101 NLRB 425.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The share of profit or loss of each venturer is to be measured
by the number of logs they take yearly from Suttle Lake.
Management is to be shared equally. Pursuant to this agree-
ment, Suttle Lake has a separate bank account, and separate
books and records. It meets its payroll from its own funds.
It is registered as an employer for the purposes of taxes
and State employee compensation plans.3 Santiam's president
and its logging manager have performed similar roles as
Suttle Lake officers. The Suttle Lake woods foreman and the
cutting crew supervisor handle the hiring and discharge of the
employees.
We are satisfied from this record that the Suttle Lake
employees are not logging employees of either Willamette or
Santiam, at least within the meaning of the respective con-
tracts. Therefore, we find that the Respondent has no imme-
diate or derivative rights under any existing contract upon
which it could lawfully predicate its claim. Nor does it appear
that the Companies are failing to conform to any order or
certification of the Board determining the bargaining repre-
sentative for the employees performing the work in dispute.
Neither is there any question that the Suttle Lake Logging Com-
pany has assigned the work to its own employees.
These facts are determinative of the present dispute. The
Board has held that Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) "do not
deprive an employer of the right to assign work to his own
employees, nor were they intended to interfere with the em-
ployer's freedom to hire, subject only to the requirement
against discrimination as contained in Section 8 (a) (3)." 4
Consequently, in determining this dispute it is sufficient on
the facts before us that the Suttle Lake Logging Company
assigned the work to its own employees, and that the Respond-
ent engaged in proscribed activities to cause the Suttle Lake
Logging Company to give Willamette National and Santiam
employees seniority rights over its own employees on Suttle
Lake work assignments.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent is not lawfully
entitled to induce Willamette and Santiam employees to strike
for the objective of forcing or requiring Suttle Lake Logging
Company to assign work to employees of the former Com-
panies, rather than to its own employees.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
On the basis of the foregoing finding of facts, and the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following determina-
3Specifically, with the State Industrial-Accident Commission, State Unemployment Compen-
sation Commission, the State Tax Commission, the Social Security Administration, and the
Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue. It does not receive the benefit of the prior experience of
either Willamette or Santiam in determining the amount of its unemployment compensation
contributions.
4United Brotherhood of Carpenters ana joiners of America, AFL (Stroh Brewery Co.)
88 NLRB 844; Juneau Spruce Corporation, supra.
VICTORVILLE LIME ROCK COMPANY 1145
tion of the dispute, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act:
1. Local Union No. 5-265, International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, and its agents , are not and have not been law-
fully entitled to induce employees of Willamette National Lum-
ber Company and Santiam Lumber Company to strike for the
objective of forcing or requiring Suttle Lake Logging Com-
pany to assign work to the former Companies, rather than to
its own employees.
2. Within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Decision and
Determination of Dispute , Local Union No. 5-265, National
Woodworkers of America, CIO, shall notify the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, as to what
steps it has taken to comply with the terms of this Decision
and Determination of Dispute.
VICTORVILLE LIME ROCK COMPANY and GENERAL TRUCK
DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION LOCAL NO. 467, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. OF L., Petitioner. Case No. Z1-RC-3207. February 12,
1954
ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION
WITH PREJUDICE
On October 14, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election in the above - entitled proceeding. Sub-
sequently , the Petitioner requested permission to withdraw
its petition for certification of representatives previouslyfiled
herein. Thereafter , the Board was administratively advised
that the Employer has no objection to said request for with-
drawal. The Intervenor, United Cement, Lime and Gypsum
Workers International Union, A. F. of L., however, requests
the Board to proceed to an election . It objects to the with-
drawal of the petition , but has no objection to the Petitioner
withdrawing its name from the ballot. The Board having duly
considered the matter,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Intervenor's request to
proceed to election with its name one the ballot is denied on the
ground that it failed to submit a thirty percent showing of
inte re st.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's request to
withdraw petition be, and it hereby is, granted with prejudice to
its filing a new petition for a period of 6 months from the date
of this Order, unless good cause is shown why the Board
should entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of
such period.
By direction of the Board: Ogden W. Fields,
Associate Executive Secretary.
107 NLRB No. 242.