Jones & Anderson Logging Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1203 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

JONES & ANDERSON LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 1203
the other hand, if a majority in voting group 2 do not select the Oper-.
ating Engineers, that group will appropriately be included with vot-
ing group 1 and the votes pooled at face value. If any union achieves
a majority of votes in the pooled group, the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor
organization receiving such majority in the pooled group of produc-
tion and maintenance employees, which the Board, in such circum-
stances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
Jones & Anderson Logging Company, Inc. and Darrington In-
dependent Woodworkers Union, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-
1573. November 28,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Melton Boyd, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 the logging employees of the
Employer at its Darrington, Washington, operations. The Inter-
venor contends that the requested unit is inappropriate on the ground
that the Employer is part of a multiemployer unit. The Employer
agrees to the unit sought by the Petitioner and, in answer to the In-
tervenor, contends that: (1) The Employer has never been part of
a multiemployer unit; and (2) even if the Board finds that it did
bargain on such basis, it has unequivocally withdrawn therefrom.
} International Woodworkers of America, Local Union 23-75, CIO, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its expired contract with the Employer covering the employees
involved herein.
114 NLRB No. 186.
387644--56--vol. 114-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For about a decade, as a result of practices which developed during
the years of World War II, a pattern of bargaining as hereinafter de,
scribed evolved between logging employers operating in the Douglas
fir area of Washington and Oregon, on the one hand, and locals of
District 23, International Woodworkers of America, CIO, herein
called District 23, on the other. Under such pattern, employers gave
negotiating authorizations to 1 or more of 3 organizations, namely,
Tri-County Loggers Association,2 Timber Operators Association, and
Lumbermen's Industrial Relations Committee. On their part, Dis-
trict 23 locals representing employees of such employers gave parallel
authorizations to District 23's northwest regional negotiating com-
mittee. Upon the reopening of their contracts under uniform reopen-
ing clauses, proposed changes were suggested and, thereupon, nego-
tiating procedures were set in motion. On the broad issues, negotia-
tions would be conducted at Portland, Oregon, by the negotiators for
each group and, at their conclusion, joint recommendations would
be submitted to the principals. Prior to the events of 1954 alluded to
below, the principals usually adopted the joint recommendations and
incorporated them in their final contracts executed on an individual-
employer basis. As to issues involving health and welfare provisions,
each group delegated negotiating authority to its separate health and
welfare committee for negotiation and recommendations. Negotia-
tions as to certain issues, such as union security, which did not affect
all employers, were conducted on a narrower basis and in some cases
were handled on an individual-employer basis.
The Employer is 1 of 6 employers who operate in Skagit County,
Washington, within the Douglas fir region, and whose employees have
been represented by the Intervenor. These employers are members
of Tri-County and for some years until 1954 had delegated negotiating
authorizations to Tri-County in their contractual relations with the
Intervenor. It also appears that these employers and the Intervenor
had uniformly adopted the recommendations of their negotiating
agents.
It is clear from the foregoing, and we find, contrary to the Employ-
er's first contention, that at least prior to 1954, the Employer was part
of a multiemployer unit .3 However, in 1954, changes occurred in the
above-described pattern of bargaining which indicate that there is
merit to the Employer's second contention that it no longer bargains on
a multiemployer basis.
When the employers' contracts were reopened early in that year, the
negotiators in Portland were unable to agree to a joint recommenda-
tion. Consequently, on June 21, 1954, District 23 called a strike
against the employers involved. On July 15, the last day of negotia.
' Herein called Tri-County.
See Atlas Storage Division , 100 NLRB 1443 ; Fish Industry Committee, 98 NLRB 600.
JONES & ANDERSON LOGGING COMPANY, INC. 1205
tions in Portland, the employers for whom Tri-County was empowered
to negotiate withdrew their negotiating authorizations from Tri-
County. The fact of withdrawal was communicated to the locals rep-
resenting their employees. Shortly thereafter, on July 31, Tri-County
notified the Intervenor that the negotiating authorizations formerly
held by it had been given by the six Skagit County employers to a new-
ly organized Skagit Operators Committee, and that the new commit-
tee desired to meet with the Intervenor for clarification of their posi-
tions but not to negotiate on the strike issues. The Intervenor did not
respond to this request. On August 19,1954, the Employer notified the
Intervenor that, as negotiations had been discontinued, the Employer,
under the terms of the 1953 contract which had been extended pending
negotiations, was terminating its contract with the Intervenor.
Although the Intervenor was never informed that the Skagit Oper-
ators Committee ceased to hold negotiating authorizations from its
members, the Employer stated without contradiction at the hearing
that such committee at no time functioned as a vehicle for negotiations.
Moreover, the Employer was not among those employers in the region
who signed a stipulation proposed by the governors of Washington
and Oregon for settlement of the strike. Under the terms of this stipu-
lation, the 1953 contracts were to be continued pending issuance of the
report of a fact-finding committee on the strike issues. The Employer
has at no time since July 1954 negotiated with the Intervenor on a
multiemployer basis. Furthermore, the Employer by its position here-
in has indicated that, despite its continued membership in Tri-County
for informational purposes, it intends hereafter to bargain on an in-
dividual-employer basis. Under all the circumstances, we believe that
the Employer, by its timely withdrawal of negotiating authority from
Tri-County, and its continued abstention from multiemployer negotia-
tions, has unequivocally manifested an intent to dissociate itself com-
pletely from multiemployer bargaining and to pursue a course of bar-
gaining on an individual-employer basis. The single-employer unit re-
quested by the Petitioner is therefore appropriate .4
We find that all production, maintenance, and transportation em-
ployees of the Employer at its Darrington, Washington, operations,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Reid Murdock, et al., 107 NLRB 155; 20th Century Press, 107 NLRB 292; W. A.
Swanson Logging Co., et ai., 111 NLRB 495.
6 The parties were in agreement as to the unit description.