Long Lake Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1941

34 N.L.R.B. 700 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY AND F. D. ROBINSON
and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No.
119, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1729.-Decided August 22, 19!1
Jurisdiction : lumber industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Intel Terence, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements.
Discrimination: lock-out ; allegations of, dismissed as to several employees.
Collective Bargaining: majority established by signed applications for member-
ship-refusal to bargain : lock-out of employees after a preliminary bargaining
conference in order to avoid further bargaining with the union; expressing
doubts as to union's majority after shut-down in order to delay and prevent
bargaining negotiations.
Remedial Orders : order to bargain collectively; reinstatement ordered unfair
labor practice strikers upon application ; back pay awarded unfair labor
practice strikers from date of lock-out (which was the same date strike was
called) to date employer attempted to resume operations.
Mr. Patrick H. Walker and Mr. Thomas P. Graham, Jr., for the
Board.
Mr. E. E. Hunt, of Sand Point, Idaho, for the respondent Robinson.
Mr. C. H. Potts, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for the respondent Long
Lake.
Mr. Bliss Daffan, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges 1 duly filed by International
Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 119, affiliated with the
'Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington),
issued its complaint, dated February 17, 1940, against Long Lake
Lumber Company and F. D. Robinson, herein jointly referred to as
'The original charges were filed on June 15, 1939; amended charges ui ere filed on
July 5, 1939, and February 16, 1940, respectively.
34 N.LRB,No.P0
700
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 701
the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449 herein called,
the Act. Copies of the complaint, together with notice of hearing
thereon, were duly served upon the respondents and the Union.
The complaint alleged that Robinson conducted a logging enter,
prise in standing timber owned by Long Lake Lumber Company,
herein referred to as Long Lake, and that he did so for the sole
benefit of and as the agent for and alter ego of Long Lake; that Long
Lake directed and controlled the Robinson enterprise, supervised the
employment and work of employees employed by Robinson, and
fixed and guided Robinson's labor and log-selection policies. With
respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in sub-
stance that the respondents : (1) on or about June 7, 1939, and at
all times thereafter, and particularly on June 20 and July 5, 10, 14, 16,
and 18, 1939, refused upon request to bargain collectively with the
Union, which on such dates represented a majority of the respondents'
employees within an appropriate unit; (2) on or about June 7, 1939,
discharged and locked out 61 named employees because they joined
and assisted the Union and on or about July 14, 1939, hired or
authorized the hiring of others to take their places, thereby dis-
couraging membership in the Union and furthering a design to avoid
collective bargaining with it; (3) on or about August 17, 1939, dis-
charged four named employees and on or about August 21, 1939,
discharged two named employees because they joined and assisted
the Union; and (4) by these and other acts, since on or about June
6, 1939, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.
Robinson filed an answer to the complaint, dated February 27,
1940, in which he: (1) denied that he was the agent for and alter ego
of Long Lake and alleged affirmatively that he was an independent
contractor operating under a contract with Long Lake; (2) denied
engaging in any unfair labor practices; and (3) alleged that on
June 6, 1939, his logging operations were shut down because of bad
weather and that the employees alleged by the complaint to have
been discharged or locked out on or about June 7, 1939, were not
discharged or locked out because of their union membership or
activity but were released until such time as inclement weather con-
ditions existing at that time permitted the resumption of operations;
and that when such operations were resumed he offered reemployment
to all of said employees that could be reached.
Long Lake filed an answer to the complaint dated February 28,
1940, in which it: (1) denied that Robinson was its agent and alter
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ego and alleged affirmatively that Robinson was an independent
contractor operating under a contract with it; and (2) denied en-
gaging in any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Sand Point, Idaho,
from March 11 to 21, 1940, before Joseph L. Hektoen, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner.
.The Board and the respondents were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing, the Trial
Examiner granted without objection, motions made by counsel for
Robinson to amend his answer in minor particulars. During the
course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on
other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On November 2, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, in which
he found that the respondents had engaged and were engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting, commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
He recommended that the respondents be ordered to cease and de-
sist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act. He also recommended that the
complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges discrimination within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Albert Fauret and Al Hendrickson, with
respect to the discharges of Cecil Chaney, Fred Chaney, A. J. Bur-
ford, and Charles Brodine, on or about August 17, 1939, and with
respect to the discharges of O. W. Haney and A. J. (Jack) Waffle
on or about August 21, 1939. Thereafter, on December 2, 1940, the
respondent Long Lake and on December 3, 1940, the respondent
Robinson and the Union, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report;
the respondents also filed briefs in support of their exceptions. None
of the parties requested leave to argue orally before the Board.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs filed by. the
parties and except as they are consistent with the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order set forth below, finds the exceptions
to be without merit.
On February 11, 1941, International Woodworkers of America,
Local No. 239, filed a motion requesting that Local No. 239 be sub-
stituted for Local Union No. 119. Pursuant to notice to appear and
show cause why said motion should not be granted, duly served upon
all the parties, and no cause having been shown by the return date,,
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 703
on June 9,1941, the Board ordered that the name International Wood-
workers of America, Local No. 239, be substituted for the name
International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 119. Both
are herein referred to as the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondent, Long Lake Lumber Company, is a Washington
corporation, having its principal place of business in Spokane, Wash-
ington, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber.
In 1939 it obtained approximately 37,000,000 feet of timber for manu-
facture, at least 7,900,000 feet thereof being obtained outside the
State of Washington. In 1939 it sold approximately 50,000,000
board feet of manufactured lumber, between 60 and 75 per cent of
such sales being made to customers outside the State of Washington.
The respondent, F. D. Robinson, is an individual engaged in log-
ging at Caribou Basin, Sand Point, Idaho. In 1939 he produced
approximately 7,900,000 feet of timber, all of which was then trans-
ported to Long Lake in Spokane, Washington.
On June 28, 1935, Long Lake entered into a contract with Humbird
Lumber Company by which the latter sold to Long Lake standing
timber in certain described sections in Bonner County, Idaho (the
region being known as the Caribou Basin). The contract specified
the manner in which timber should be cut.
In 1935 and 1936, Long Lake built a lumber camp and roads at
Caribou Basin, engaging the respondent Robinson for this task.
Thereafter Robinson began logging the tract for Long Lake under
a written agreement by the terms of which Robinson was paid in
accordance with the amount of logs produced.2 ' The agreement,
terminable by either party upon 30 days' written notice, further pro-
vided that all logging done by Robinson should be in accordance
with the provisions of the existing contract between Humbird Lumber
Company and Long Lake. Under the agreement Robinson secured
from Long Lake advancements to defray a substantial portion of the
operating expenses of his logging operations, which amounts were
thereafter charged off against the amounts to be paid him under the
2 The written agreement between Robinson and Long Lake covering logging operations
at Caribou Basin for the year of 1939, was introduced in evidence . It was agreed that
substantially similar agreements were executed between the parties at the beginning of
each year during which Robinson logged timber at Caribou Basin. The agreement for
1939, dated January 26 , 1939, was in the form of a letter written in duplicate and
addressed to Robinson which provided that Robinson should signify his acceptance of the
terms thereof by signing and returning the original to Long Lake.
704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terms of the agreement. Logging operations were conducted by Rob-
inson at Caribou Basin during the years 1937, 1938, and 1939, all logs
produced being shipped to Long Lake at Spokane. In 1938, 11,821,830
feet, and in 1939, 7,900,000 feet of timber were shipped from Caribou
Basin to Long Lake at Spokane. As of January 26, 1939, as a result
of advancement and operations for the preceding years, Robinson
owed Long Lake $24,924.06.
James Brown, Sr., is president of Long Lake. Long Lake's woods
superintendent, J. E. Breen, and assistant woods superintendent, James
Brown, Jr., the son of James Brown, Sr., regularly inspected the log-
ging operations at Caribou Basin to ascertain whether or not the
provisions of the contract between Long Lake and Humbird Lumber
Company regarding logging the timber were being complied with.
In June 1939 there were approximately 95 employees in the logging
camp at Caribou Basin; .
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 119, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the respondents at
Caribou Basin.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events preceding the shut-down; the shut-down on June 7
The camp at Caribou Basin was opened for logging operations in
the late spring of 1939 and the Union initiated an organizational
drive among the employees in the camp.
Early in June, during this organizational drive, Fred Chaney, one
of the employees,, asked Robinson whether he, Chaney, should join
the Union. Robinson replied that Chaney would have to use his
own judgment, but asked Chaney who had been advocating the Union.
Chaney told Robinson the names of those who had been soliciting
Chaney's son to join.
On June 5, 1939, according to Leon Wise, who was one of the most
active advocates of the Union, he was called into Robinson's office
where he met with Robinson and Arden Davis, Robinson's bookkeeper.
Wise testified that Robinson stated that he understood that Wise
had been "organizing for the C. I. O. in this camp" and that if it were
true "I want to fire you and every damned man you gave a card to.
And if there is another fellow working with you here, I want to get
him too." Wise testified that he replied that Robinson then "might
as well fire them all, because, as far as I know, the camp is organized
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 705
100 per cent," and that Robinson then threatened to "shut the camp
down" and stated that Wise was a "sucker" and that- "after J. L.
Lewis got a couple of more millions," Wise "would find out." Wise
testified that he asked Robinson whether he thought it was "fair and
square to shut the camp down" when no demands had yet been made
by the Union, to which Robinson replied, "The demands will come
later, and I cannot operate with that kind of organization at all."
After some further discussion Robinson stated that he would not
close the camp "so long as they took out 10,000 feet a day."
Both Robinson and Davis denied the above testimony of Wise. The
Trial Examiner, who had an opportunity to observe the witnesses,
found Robinson an evasive and reluctant witness and Davis uncon-
vincing. On the other hand, the Trial Examiner found Wise to be
a forthright witness and credited his testimony concerning the fore-
going conversation. We find that the foregoing conversation between
Wise and Robinson occurred substantially as testified to by Wise.
On June 6, 1939, a jammer used for the hauling of logs broke down
and Robinson laid off the jamming crew. This incident served to
give impetus to the organizational drive. Wise met with Herbert
Johnson, the organizer for the Union, and it was determined by them
to hold a union meeting that afternoon. Wise then went to advise
the men in the camp of the scheduled meeting and, while in the bunk-
house so occupied, was accosted by Robinson. According to Wise,
Robinson stated, "Boys, I understand you are holding a meeting in
this camp. There will be no God damned meeting held in this camp
tonight, or any other time. This is my camp, . . . I want you to get
out and get off of it." According to Wise, Robinson then said, "Why
don't you hire a union hall somewhere? This is no union hall. Why
do you want to pick on me; why don't you organize with Mr. John-
son at the Diamond?" Wise then attempted "to cool him off," and
Robinson then told Wise to "go ahead and hold your meeting." Wise
testified further that Johnson arrived at about that time and was intro-
duced by Wise to Robinson; that Johnson advised the latter that the
union committee would like to meet with him after the, union meeting;
that Robinson agreed to meet with the union committee and advised
Johnson that James Brown, Jr., "will also be here and talk to you";
and that when Johnson inquired as to the latter's identity Robinson
explained that "His father owns all this stuff here."
Robinson denied the above testimony of Wise. The Trial Examiner,
however, found Robinson to be an unreliable witness and credited
Wise's testimony, as we do. We find that the foregoing conversation
occurred substantially as testified to by Wise.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly after the foregoing conversation Robinson approached C. C.
Sperber, the camp cook, and remarked, "We might be going to have
some excitement in the camp as there is going to be a union meeting
for organization."
The Union meeting was held at about 4:30 p. m. on June 6 and a
committee was there selected to confer with Robinson. Immediately
after the meeting, the committee, together with Johnson, the organizer
for the Union, conferred with Robinson in the latter's office for the
purpose of presenting certain demands. Wise testified that Johnson
asked Robinson "if he recognized these men as a committee of the
I. W. A., Local 119, this committee representing a majority in his
camp," to which Robinson answered, "Well, what else can I do? They
are all there." Greg Moore, a member of the union committee, testi-
fied that Johnson said, "This is the committee representing the workers
in this camp; and will you recognize these men as a committee?" and
that Robinson "agreed to recognize that Committee representing the
majority of the workers." Robinson in his testimony, denied that
Johnson asked for recognition in these terms, or that he, Robinson,
at any time agreed to or did recognize the Union. We find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that on this occasion Robinson did in fact recog-
nize the union committee as the representative of a majority of the
employees at the camp.
The committee, through Johnson, presented written grievances to
Robinson. The Union asked that members of the jammer crew, whose
jammer had broken down the same day, be reinstated. Robinson said
the men had not been discharged, but were temporarily laid off be-
cause the jammer had broken down, and agreed to reemploy them
within 2 or 3 days. The Union demanded that employees at the camp
be rehired from year to year before new employees were put on the
pay roll. Robinson agreed to employ former employees in so far as
jobs which such men were capable of performing, were available.
The Union accepted this proposal. Agreement was also reached on
the Union demand that "cedar makers" be rehired, Robinson agree-
ing to do so in so far as work was available for them. Robinson agreed
to hire local help before going outside the camp area for employees.
Union demands for a "bull cook," clean blankets, connecting of the
showers, repair of leaky roofs in the bunkhouses, and starting the elec-
tric light plant were also agreed to by Robinson. At the end of the
meeting, Johnson shook hands with Robinson and said, "Mr. Robin-
son, you have an organized camp. We have got lots of them. We will
get along fine. I am assured we will get along fine hereafter." Robin-
son replied, "Yes, I think so; I hope so." Thereafter, the committee
reported the results of the meeting to the Union members at the camp
the same evening.
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 707
As Wise was leaving the camp after the Union meeting on the
evening of June 6, he observed James Brown, Jr., arrive. Robinson,
Brown, Jr., and Johnson conferred in Robinson's office that evening at
about 7 o'clock. The record does not indicate the subject matter of
their conversation.
Although Brown, Sr., and Robinson testified that they could not
recall having conferred by telephone on the evening of June 6, the
record shows that two telephone calls were received at the Robinson
camp on that evening, one from the home of Brown, Sr., in Spokane,
shortly before 7 p. m., and another from the Spokane City Club, of
which Brown, Sr., was a member, between 7 and 8 p. m. The latter
call was placed by Brown, Sr., and received by Robinson. We find
that Long Lake communicated with Robinson on the evening of June
6, at or about the time that Robinson was meeting with the committee
of the Union.
Early in the morning of June 7, 1939, Robinson informed the em-
ployees that the camp was being shut down and instructed them to
turn in their tools and blankets. The men turned in their equipment,
were paid off, and with two or three exceptions vacated the camp.
B. Events subsequent to the shut-down; the bargaining, conferences
About four in the afternoon of June 7, the Union held a meeting in
Sand Point and voted to go out on strike because of the shut-down.
On June 15, 1939, the Union filed charges of unfair labor practices
with the Regional Director of the Board. During the last week in
June, a Union committee consisting of Clyde Smith, Amon Garvin,
Martin Hansen, Greg Moore, A. J. Burford, Leon Wise, and Johnson,
met on four or five occasions with Robinson and his counsel, Everett
E. Hunt, in Sand Point.3 Board Field Examiner A. C. Roll attended
some of or all the meetings. At the first or second meeting, the Union
proposed entering into a written stipulation to be signed by the Union
and Robinson, providing that the Union withdraw its charges and
abandon the strike upon condition that Robinson reemploy the
strikers, reopen the camp as soon after July 5 as possible, and, upon
proof by the Union of its majority, recognize it as sole collective bar-
gaining agent for the employees at the camp. Under the proposal the
Board was to superintend a check of the union membership applica-
tions against the June 5 Robinson pay roll and certify a majority, if
found. While the parties orally agreed to these terms, the stipula-
tion was not executed, Hunt stating that "Robinson would not sign
anything."
i The record is not altogether clear as to the time, number , or place of these meetings.
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roll then suggested that the Union and Robinson write substan-
tially similar letters to the Regional Director, embodying the agree-
ment described above. The Union prepared a letter, as did Robinson.
The Robinson letter contained the following:
At the present time, we do not know how many of the men have
affiliated with the Union and therefore we have not recognized
any particular group as an exclusive bargaining agency for our
employees. However, after work is resumed, it is our intention
to recognize the Union which shows conclusively that it has
within its membership a majority of our employees.
The Union rejected Robinson's letter, contending that it was not in
accordance with the agreement. Neither letter was sent.
At one of the meetings, the Union proposed that a card check be
made by the parties themselves and that the question of representation
be settled between them. Hunt began a check of the union applica-
tions against the June 5 pay roll, but expressed doubt as to the' authen-
ticity of the signatures, suggesting that the applications might have
been signed under duress, and insisted on making a written list of the
names on the applications. Before Hunt had completed his check,
Johnson removed the cards.
Subsequently, it was agreed that the Union committee would meet
with Robinson with neither Hunt nor Johnson present. At this
meeting, Wise presented the Union application cards to Robinson and
pleaded with him to check them against the pay roll. Robinson's
only reply was, "Boys, I have agreed to meet with you but I am not
saying a word, I am not allowed to say anything. You talk all you
want to and as long as you want to, and I will sit here and listen
to you. I am not saying a word; my hands are tied."
At the last meeting between the Union committee, Robinson, and
Hunt, it was agreed that the Board would conduct a consent elec-
tion on July 6. The Union, however, for some reason undisclosed
by the record, withdrew from this agreement, and the election was
never held.
C. The picketing; the reopening of the camp
On the morning of July 6 the Union established a picket line
on the road leading into the camp. On about July 11, Robinson
appeared at the picket line with a number of local law enforcement
officials. Robinson told the officials that the picket line was prevent-
ing the entrance into the camp of several employees who wished to
go to work. Several men who had apparently come up with Robin-
son with the intention of going to work, replied that they wished to
go to work but would not go through the picket line. The sheriff,
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 709
Warren Rapp, then asked both the picketers and those who had
intended to go to work how many of them were Union members and
substantially all present indicated that they were. On the witness
stand, Wise recounted the following incident at this point. He
testified :
[Rapp] said "Why don't you boys try to get together with
Frank [Robinson] and try to settle the thing?" And Mr. John-
son and I said, "Sure, we can settle it right here and now. Here
is the Long Lake Lumber Company crew on both sides and we
will hold a card check right now." And Frank was walking
up and down and Frank said, "I won't recognize the Union."
And Mr. Johnson and I then talked to him and said, "Let us
hold an election in the road." And all he would say was, "I
won't recognize the Union."
This testimony of Wise, although denied in substance by Robinson,
was corroborated by two other witnesses for the Board. We credit,
as did the Trial Examiner,.Wise's testimony regarding the incident.
Robinson testified that when he was attempting to take the men
through the picket line on July 11, he made an offer of reinstate-
ment to all of the striking employees through Johnson but that
Johnson refused such offer on behalf of the employees by stating
that the men would not return to work until Robinson recognized
the Union. His testimony in this respect was undenied and we, there-
fore, find that such an offer was made.
On July 14, 1939, Robinson again appeared at the picket line with
a newly recruited crew of men. On this occasion, with the aid of
the State police, the crew succeeded in passing through the picket
line. The camp began full operation on about July 20, 1939, with
many of the strikers returning to work at or about that time. While
the record does not disclose when the strike was terminated by the
Union, it appears from Robinson's testimony that Union picketing
was still in progress on July 29.
D. Conclusions regarding the shut-down,
The complaint alleges that the respondents shut down the camp
on June 7, 1939, in order to avoid collective bargaining with the
Union, and that the respondents thereby discriminated in regard
to the hire and tenure of employment of 61 employees 4 who were
locked out of the camp because of the shut-down. Robinson contends
that the camp was shut down on June 7 because continued rain had
rendered it impossible to continue logging operations.
4 With the exception of two employees as to whom the complaint is dismissed below,
these employees are listed in Appendix A and B.
4:1260-42-vol 34-46
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the latter°part of May and the early part of June 1939,
the amount of rain precipitation at Robinson's camp was somewhat
higher than average, and this heavy rainfall had made trucking
operations impracticable. It further appears that it was not prac-
tical to continue cutting timber until some of that already cut and
lying in the woods had been trucked out. Even so, we are not satis-
fied from the evidence that these conditions prompted Robinson's
sudden decision on June 7 to shut down the camp entirely. Although
the amount of rain precipitation at Caribou Basin had been even
higher in June 1937 than it was in June 1939 and there were days
when the men could not work because of the rain during the former
year, Davis testified that the men had not been paid off in 1937 and
the camp had not been vacated. Furthermore, other contractors in
the vicinity of Caribou Basin continued their operations to some
extent during June 1939 notwithstanding the fact that it was no
more possible for them than for Robinson to engage in trucking
operations. Indeed, so far as the record reveals there was no prec-
edent whatsoever for the complete shut-dbwn of the camp during the
logging season because of weather conditions. We find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the shut-down did not occur for this reason.
On the other hand, the circumstances surrounding the shut-down, its
taking place immediately after the organization of the Union and its
presentation of demands to Robinson, together with, the hostility
exhibited by Robinson toward the Union upon learning of its organi-
zational activity and his threat at that time to shut the camp down
because of such activity, indicate that the shut-down was prompted
by a desire to avoid collective bargaining with the Union and that
Robinson took advantage of the adverse operating conditions caused
by the excessive precipitation merely to close the camp down in
order to defeat the Union.
This conclusion finds confirmation in testimony concerning con-
versations held by Robinson and James Brown, Jr., with two em-
ployees of the camp on the day of the shut-down. J. L. Finley, an
employee, testified that he came to the camp on June 7, shortly after
the shut-down, there met Robinson and James Brown, Jr., and asked
them "what was going on." According to Finley, either Robinson or
Brown advised him that a strike had been called on the previous day
and demands had been made by the Union for an increase in wages
and general camp improvement which Robinson had agreed to; that
on the morning of June 7 the Union had made.demands for further
increases in wages "so he had shut the camp down" because it could
not be operated on the basis of the new demands. Finley testified fur-
ther that James Brown, Jr., then remarked that Long Lake's mills
at Spokane were."organized of local fellows" and that "If you fellows
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 711
had an organization of that kind amongst yourselves, we would rec-
ognize that sort of a union."
Likewise, Wise testified that at about 5 p. m. on June 7 he met
James Brown, Jr., in Sand Point and told him that the Union had
voted to strike earlier in the afternoon. According to Wise, Brown
remarked that Robinson was indebted to Long Lake in the sum of
$34,000 and to a bank in the sum of $10,000 and that "there isn't
any chance of our getting our money back. The job is too large for
him; there is too much friction between Mr. Robinson and the camp,
and he is not the man to handle that job; we are going to take Frank
and put him on another job." When Wise inquired regarding what
disposition was to be made of Robinson's contract with Long Lake,
Brown stated that Robinson had no contract but was "just a gypo
owner." 5 Wise testified further that Brown then stated "that it
was all right for you fellows to organize," that "you could have got
together here and formed a union of your own and we'would have
helped you"; and that "we get along fine with the men in the mill
and never have any trouble and we could have got along the same here,
but you fellows didn't realize the kind of organization you have
joined, you could not have done any worse; even the A. F. of L. would
have been better than the thing you got into." After some further
conversation, according to Wise, Brown remarked that "Dad has
spent $6,000 on me during the past year investigating the different
labor organizations and how it was affecting business, but I know we
cannot operate with your kind of organization, and we will shut
her down."
Brown, Jr., denied the conversation testified to by Finley; Robin-
son did not testify on the subject. Brown, Jr., also denied the re-
marks attributed to him by Wise. The Trial Examiner, who had an
opportunity to observe the witnesses, was impressed with the truth-
fulness of Wise and Finley, but found Brown, Jr., to be evasive and
unconvincing. For this reason, and because the testimony of Wise
and Finley is consistent with all the other events in the case, we
credit their testimony and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the
foregoing conversations occurred substantially as testified to by them.
Upon the basis of the foregoing remarks of Robinson and James
Brown, Jr., and the entire course of events following the organiza-
tional activity on the part of the Union, we find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the respondents shut down the camp on June 7 in
order to prevent organizational activities among the employees and
collective bargaining with the Union, and that by such action, they
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the
5 A gypo is, roughly, a subcontractor who uses his own equipment on the job ; he is
considered to be an employee.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees listed in Appendices A, and B, who were locked out of
the camp because of the shut-down, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. We further find that the strike called by the Union on
June 7, 1939, was occasioned by the respondents' unfair labor prac-
tices in thus shutting down the camp and locking out their employees.
Albert Faurot was hired for a specific period and was discharged on
June 5, at the completion of this period. Al Hendrickson was one
of the two or three employees who continued to work during the shut-
down. Accordingly, neither Faurot nor Hendrickson, both alleged
in the complaint to have been discriminated against, should be in-
cluded in. that category. For this reason they are not named in
Appendices A or B and the complaint will be dismissed as to them.
E. Conclusions regarding the bargaining conferences; the refusal to
bargain
(1) The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that the respondents' employees at the Cari-
bou Basin logging camp, except supervisory officials, foremen, and
clerical and office employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining. Neither of the respondents con-
tested this allegation at the hearing. We find that the respondents'
employees at the Caribou Basin logging camp, excluding supervisory
officials, foremen, and clerical and office employees, at all times mate-
rial herein constituted and that they now constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit
insures to the employees of the respondents the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuates the policies of the Act.
(2) Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate
unit
Robinson's pay roll shows 93 employees in the appropriate unit
as of June 6, 1939,° the date of the first meeting between Robinson
and the Union. As of this date, 51 employees within the appro-
priate unit had signed applications for membership in the Union
6 The pay roll introduced into evidence was dated June 5. The name of Albert Fauret
appears on this pay roll but is not included in the computation , since as stated above
he was dismissed on June 5. The names of the hammer crew that was laid off are included,
because as stated by Robinson , they had been merely laid off. The names of Arden Davis,
bookkeeper and office manager, and Jack Bopp, Davis' assistant , also appear on the pay
roll but are not included within the appropriate unit Victor Norman ' s name is not on
the pay roll of June 5 , but he entered the respondents ' employ on June 6, and is accord-
ingly included within the appropriate unit.
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 713
and designated it as their "sole collective bargaining agent." We
have found above that the respondents' action in shutting down
the camp on June 7, 1939, constituted an unfair labor practice. We
have also found that the strike beginning on that date was occasioned
by the respondents' unfair labor practices in thus shutting down
the camp and locking out their employees. ' Such strike constituted
a labor dispute and the employees who were in Robinson's employ
on June 7,7 whose work ceased as a result of said labor dispute and
of the respondents' unfair labor practices, remained employees within
the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act and continued to constitute
the appropriate unit. Twelve more employees within the appro-
priate unit signed application cards between June 7 and June 12,
1939, and three more signed application cards on July 5, about the
date when the negotiations between Robinson and the Union broke
down.
We find that on June 6, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the Union
was and that it is the duly designated representative of a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit. Pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the Union was and is, therefore, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
(3) The refusal to bargain ,
We have found above that on June 7, 1939, after a preliminary
bargaining conference, the respondents shut down the camp and
locked out their employees in order to avoid further bargaining
with the Union. Their action in thus shutting down the camp was
tantamount to a refusal to bargain with the Union on that date, and
we find that such action did constitute such a refusal .8
At the conference with the Union on the evening of June 6, Rob-
inson raised no question as to the Union's majority but, on the con-
trary, expressed himself as satisfied that the Union did represent a
majority. After the shut-down, Robinson and his attorney, Hunt,
in conferences with the Union persistently questioned the Union's
majority and placed every obstacle in the path of the Union's
attempts to show a majority. It is apparent from their conduct that
their insistence upon technicalities was not the result of honest doubt
I Including the jammer crew laid off on June 6 See footnote 4, supra.
8See Matter of Atlas Mills , Inc. and Textile House Workers Union No 2269 , United
Textile Workers of America , 3 N. L. R B. 10; Matter of Edward F. Reichelt, Robert J.
Hill and Russel J. Jensen, doing business as a co-partnership under the name and style
of Paul A. Reichelt Co. and Chicago Fur Workers Union, Local No. ¢5, 21 N. L R B
262; Matter of United Dredging Convpany, New Orleans, Louisiana , and Inland Boatmen's
Division, National Maritime Union , Gulf District, affiliated with the C I 0 , 30 N L R 13,
739.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as to the Union's designation as bargaining agent 'by a majority of
the employees, but was motivated, on the contrary", by their desire
to delay and prevent bargaining negotiations.° The most striking
evidence of this attitude lies in Robinson's conduct at the conference
at which neither Johnson nor Hunt was present, when Robinson
insisted that he was there only to listen, and had nothing to say in
reply to any of the Union's proposals.
We are convinced that at none. of the conferences after the shut-
down, did Robinson intend to bargain with the Union and that his
expressed doubts as to the Union's majority were not raised in good
faith but rather as obstacles and hindrances to delay and prevent
any bargaining conferences. That the Union withdrew from the
proposed election on July 6 does not affect this conclusion. It is
sufficient to note that the Union's withdrawal from the July 6 elec-
tion came after Robinson had already locked out the employees and
otherwise manifested his hostility toward the Union and his unwill-
ingness to bargain with it.
We find that the respondents on June 7, 1939, and at all times
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of their employees in the appropriate unit,
and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees
in,the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We
further find that the strike called by the Union on June 7, 1939,
because of the respondents' action in shutting down the camp and
locking out the employees, was continued by the Union from and
after July 11, 1939, when the respondents attempted to reopen the
camp, because of the respondents' refusal to recognize and bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
F. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
We have found above that the respondents, by the lock-out of their
employees on June 7, 1939, and their subsequent refusal to bargain
with the Union, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Other instances of interference, restraint, and coercion, are
also recited above. These appear. in Robinson's and Brown, Jr.'s
°National Labor Relations Board vs. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. ( 2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2),
enf'g as mod. Matter of Remington Rand, Inc. and Remington Rand Joint Protection
Board of the District Council Office Equipment Workers, 2 N. L. R . B. 626; National,
Labor Relations Board vs Ch4oago Apparatus Co., 116 F. ( 2d) 753 (C. C. A. 7) enf'g
Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company and Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemiste
and Technicians, Local 107, 12 N. L R. B. 1003; Matter of Uncted Dredging Company,
New Orleans, Louisiana and Inland Boatmen's Division, National Maritome Union, Gulf
District, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 30 N. L R. B. 739
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 715
conversations with Wise and Finley on June 6 and 7, in which the
former attacked the Union and praised the virtues of an unaffiliated
labor organization.
The record contains other instances of interference, restraint, and
coercion, which were undenied. - At some date subsequent to June 6
Robinson told Fred Chaney, an employee, that he would not recog-
nize the Union and that "he would kill the damned Union anyway."
About July 12, 1939,while the camp was still shut down, Robinson
met Frank Mor, an employee, in a saloon in Sand Point and said
to him, "That is what you are down here for, because you signed up
with the C. I. 0.," the inference plainly being that Mor was out of
work because he was 'a. member of the Union. On about July 26,
1939, after the camp had reopened, Robinson saw Frank Murphy,
who was wearing a Union button while at work in the woods, and
said to him, "Well, I see you are wearing your. [C. I. 0.] button .. .
You and your union button won't be.here very long."
We find that by the foregoing statements and actions, the respond-
ents interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
G. The alleged discriminatory discharges after the reopening of the
camp
The complaint alleges that during August, after the reopening of
the camp, Robinson discharged Cecil Chaney, Fred Chaney, A. J.
Burford, Charles Brodine, O. W. Haney, and A. J. (Jack) Waffle
because they joined and assisted the Union, and thereby discrimi-
nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. No evi-
dence supporting these allegations of the complaint was introduced
and we will, accordingly, order that they be dismissed.
IV. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LONG LAKE FOR THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleged that Robinson conducted the logging enter-
prise at Caribou Basin for the sole benefit of and as the agent for
Long Lake, that Long Lake directed and controlled the enterprise,
supervised the employment and work of employees employed by
Robinson, and fixed and guided Robinson's labor policies, and that
Long Lake participated in the unfair labor practices at Caribou
Basin. Both Long Lake and Robinson denied these allegations and
alleged affirmatively that Robinson was an independent contractor
for Long Lake.
As has been stated above, the agreement between Robinson and
Long Lake provided that Robinson log timber bought by Long Lake
from Humbird Lumber Company and that Robinson should conduct
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such logging operations in accordance with the provisions of the
contract between Long Lake and Humbird. Since said agreement
also provided that it could be terminated by either party upon 30
days' notice, ultimate control over Robinson's logging operations was
vested in Long Lake. In order to insure Robinson's logging the
timber in accordance with said contract, Long Lake exercised an
overall supervision over his logging operations, and the employees
engaged therein through Breen, its woods superintendent, and James
Brown, Jr., its assistant woods superintendent. : While James Brown,
Jr., at the hearing, denied that he had any authority over the em-
ployees engaged in Robinson's logging operations, he testified that
during his supervision of said operations he reported employees
whom he found doing improper work either to their "straw bosses"
or to Robinson.
It is also. clear from the events which have been detailed above
that, in addition to exercising general supervision over the work of
employees engaged in the logging operations, Long Lake also con-
trolled, to a large extent, Robinson's relations and dealings with
said employees. When Robinson was first requested to meet with the
Union, he informed its spokesman that he would meet with the
Union committee later in the day and that Brown, Jr., whose father
"owns all this stuff," would also be present to confer with the com-
mittee. Although Brown, Jr., did not arrive in camp in time to
be present when the committee met with Robinson, upon his sub-
sequent arrival he and Robinson conferred with Johnson, the union
organizer.
Moreover, it is apparent from the entire course of events of June
6 and 7, and we find, that Long Lake participated in and directed
the decision to shut down the camp. When the union committee
met with Robinson on the evening of June 6, he agreed to recognize
the Union as bargaining representative of the employees and did
bargain with it as such. It is significant that he gave no indication
at that time, or any time prior thereto, of any intention of shutting
down the camp. However, after Brown, Jr.'s arrival in the camp
and after receiving a telephone call from Brown, Sr., Robinson sud-
denly made the unusual decision to shut down the camp. Other
indications of Long Lake's participation and influence in Robinson's
decision to shut down the camp and his change in attitude toward
collective bargaining with the Union thereafter, are contained in the
testimony of Wise and Finley, set out above. Brown, Jr.'s state-
ment to Finley on the day of the shut-down to the effect that if the
employees had an organization of "local fellows," "We would recog-
nize that sort of a union," and his further statement to. Wise on
the same day to the effect that Long Lake could not operate "with
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 717
your kind of organization, and we will shut her down" clearly show
that both Robinson's decision to shut down the camp and his per-
sistent refusal thereafter to recognize the Union-after having done
so without question on June 6 before he had an opportunity to con-
fer with Long Lake-were the result of instructions received from
Long Lake. A further indication of the extent to which Robinson's
relations and dealings with his employees were controlled by Long
Lake is found in Robinson's statement made to the union commit-
tee, on the occasion when he met with them alone on or about June
26, to the effect that he had agreed to meet with the committee but
was not permitted to say anything because "my hands are tied."
Under all the circumstances, we find, as 'did the Trial Examiner,
that, since Long Lake controlled and directed Robinson's relations
with his employees, Long Lake was and is an employer of the em-
ployees at Caribou Basin engaged in logging operations within the
meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act., 0 We further find that Long
Lake, by the actions of Robinson as directed and controlled by its
officers, as well as by the actions and statements of James Brown, Jr.,
participated in the unfair labor practices heretofore. found to have
been committed by Robinson and thus discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of the employees listed in Ap-
pendices A and B attached hereto, thereby discouraging member-
ship in the Union, that Long Lake, on June 7, 1939, and at all times
thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and
interfered with, restrained, and coerced said employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondents set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the re-
spondents 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
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we will order them to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action which we find necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
10 Matter of H. F. Wilcox Oil and Gas Company ; Wilcox Refining Division and/or
W M. Fraser , and Oil Workers International Unson , Local 27, 28 N L R B 79.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that the respondents on June 7, 1939, and at all
times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the representative of their employees, we will order the respondents
upon request to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit 11
We have found that the respondents discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of their employees on June 7, 1939.
On the same date the Union voted a strike in protest against the
lock-out. On July 11, 1939, when Robinson attempted to reopen the
camp to resume operations, he was prevented from so doing by the
continued strike and the picket line. On that date reinstatement was
offered the striking employees but was refused by them because of
Robinson's refusal to bargain collectively with the Union 12 When
employees voluntarily go on strike even in protest against unfair
labor practices, it has been our policy not to award them back pay
during the period of the strike. In the instant case, however, the
commencement of the strike on June 7, because of the lock-out of
the employees, did not terminate the respondents' obligation to make
payments of back pay to the locked out employees since on that date
the lock-out was in existence and the strike had no effect on the situa-
tion. The strike became effective only when the respondents
attempted to reopen the camp to resume operations on July 11, 1939,
indicated that jobs were available for the employees, but the respond-
ents were prevented from so doing because of the Union picket line.
ii The record shows that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit from at least June 6 to July 20, 1939, when the camp reopened . There-
after, the respondents hired a considerable number of new employees and so far as
appears from the record may have hired additional new employees for the logging season
of 1940. The record does not show how many, if any, of these new employees joined the
Union. The Board, however , has consistently held that an employer cannot escape his
obligation to bargain with a union representing a majority of employees at the time of
a refusal , because of a subsequent change in the personnel of that unit, where the
employer 's own unfair labor practices have prevented the Union from increasing its
membership from among the ranks of the new employees. Matter of Bloomfield Manu-
facturing Company, et al. and Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International
Union, Local #6, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, 22 N. L. R. B. 83;
Matter of American Range Lines, Inc. and Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association,
13 N. L . R. B. 139. See also International Association of Machinists v. National Labor
Relations Board, 311 U. S. 72, aff'g 110 F. ( 2d) 29 (C. A. for D. C.) enf'g Matter of
The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No 459, 8 N. L. R. B 621; National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing
Ass'n., 310 U . S. 318, rev'g . Matter of Bradford Dyeing Association (U S. A.) (a cor-
poration ) and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0, 4 N. L. R. B. 604,
Windsor Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 118 F. (2d) 494 (C. C A.
3) enf'g. Matter of John J. Oughton, Bertram E . Oughton, and Robert B. Oughton,
Individuals and Co-partners trading as the Windsor Manufacturing Company and Textile
Workers' Organizing Committee (C. 1. 0.) 20 N. L. R. B. 310.
13 As shown above, Robinson testified without contradiction , that when he was attempt-
ing to take the men through the picket line on July 11, 1939, he made an offer of rein-
statement to all the striking employees through Johnson, the union organizer in charge
of its strike activities , but that Johnson refused such offer on behalf of the employees
by stating that the men would not return to work until Robinson recognized the Union.
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 719
We will, therefore, order the respondents to make whole the em-
ployees listed in Appendices A and B for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the lock-out by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned as wages from June 7, 1939, to July 11, 1939,13 less his net
earnings 14 during said period.
The employees whom we have found to have been locked out on
June 7, 1939, are also entitled to reinstatement upon application 15
Since it appears, however, that the employees listed in Appendix B
have all been reinstated, we will not order their reinstatement. We
shall order the respondents to offer to the employees listed in
Appendix A reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions. Such reinstatements shall be without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges and shall be effected
in the following manner : All persons now employed by the respond-
ents at the Caribou Basin camp who were not employees of the re-
spondents on June 0, 1939, shall, if necessary to provide employment
for those to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed. If, thereupon, by
reason of a reduction in force, there is not sufficient employment
'immediately available for the remaining employees, including those
to be offered reinstatement, all available positions shall be distributed
among such remaining employees in accordance with the respondents'
usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against
any employee because. of his union affiliation or activities, following
1e It appears that Robert Monett , listed in Appendix A, and Victor Norman, listed in
Appendix B, worked until June 9 and are, therefore, entitled to back pay only from
that date . It also appears that Clyde Smith , listed in Appendix A, was offered reemploy-
ment on July 5, which he refused , and is, therefore, entitled to back pay only up to
that date. The record also discloses that the following named employees , all listed in
Appendix B, were reemployed prior to July 11 and, for this reason, are entitled to
back pay only up to the respective dates of their reemployment : Victor Norman, re-
employed on July 3; Ralph Peterson , reemployed on July 10 , C. C. Sperber , reemployed
on July 10 ; Mrs. Marie Sperber, reemployed on July 10
'4 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation,
room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been Incurred - but for the
unlawful discrimination against him and the consequent necessity of his seeking employ-
ment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Lumber and Saivmill Workers Union, Local 2590,
8 N L. R . B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State , county,
municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republtic
Steel Corporateon v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U S. 7.
'b The refusal of the respondents ' offer of employment on July 11 , 1939, while engaging
in the strike occasioned by the respondents ' unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain
with the Union , did not impair the right of the striking employees to subsequent rein-
statement . Matter of Western Felt Works and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
Western Felt Local, 10 N. L . R. B. 407; Matter of Stewart Die Casting Corporation and
United Automobile Workers of America, Local 298, 14 N. L. R. B. 872, enf 'd as mod.
Stewart Die Casting Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 F. ( 2d), 849
(C. C. A. 7), cert. den. 312 U. S. 680.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a system of seniority to such extent as was applied in the conduct
of the respondents' business prior to June 7, 1939. These employees
remaining after such distribution, for whom no employment is im-
mediately available, shall be placed on a preferential list prepared
in accordance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence,
and shall thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employ-
ment in their former or in substantially equivalent positions, as such
employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for
such work. Each of the employees thus ordered reinstated, or placed
on a preferential list, shall also be entitled to back pay beginning 5
days after his application for reinstatement pursuant to our order, in
the event that the respondents do not reinstate him or place him on
a preferential list in accordance therewith within such 5 days. Such
back pay, if it becomes due, shall be computed in the manner
described hereinbefore.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record, the Board makes the following: .
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.' International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 119,
also known as Local No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization, Within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Long Lake Lumber Company and F. D. Robinson are employers
of the employees at the Caribou Basin, Sand Point, Idaho, logging
camp, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. The employees of the respondents at the Caribou Basin logging
camp, excluding supervisory officials, foremen, and clerical and office
employees, at all times material herein, constituted, and they now
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 119,
also known as Local No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, was on June 6, 1939, and at all times thereafter has
been the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on June 7, 1939, and at all times thereafter to
bargain collectively with the International Woodworkers of America,
Local Union No. 119, also known as Local No. 239, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representa-
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 721
Live of the employees in the appropriate unit, the respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of the employees listed in Appendices A and B, thereby dis-
couraging membership in International Woodworkers of America,
Local Union No. 119, also known as Local No. 239„ affiliated' with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, the respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
9. The respondents have not discriminated within the meaning of
Section 8 (3) of the Act with regard to the hire or tenure of employ-
ment of Albert Faurot and Al Hendrickson; nor in the discharges
of Cecil Chaney, Fred Chaney, A. J. Burford, and Charles Brodine
on or about August 17, 1939; nor in the discharges of O. W. Haney
or A. J. Waffle on or about August 21,1939.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondents, Long Lake Lumber Company and F. D. Robinson, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, Local No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of their
employees at the Caribou Basin, Sand Point, Idaho, logging camp,
excluding supervisory officials, foremen, and clerical and office
employees;
(b) Discouraging membership in Internaticnal Woodworkers of
America, Local No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, or any other labor organization of, their employees,
by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of their employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
722 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment because of
their membership in or activity in behalf of any such labor
organization ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain 'collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, Local No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive representative of their
employees at the Caribou Basin, Sand Point, Idaho, logging'camp,
excluding supervisory officials, foremen, and clerical and office
employees;
(b) Offer to the employees listed in Appendix A immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and,other rights and privi-
leges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The remedy"
above, placing those employees for whom employment is not im-
mediately available upon a preferential list in the manner set forth
in said section; and make whole said employees for any loss of pay
they may suffer by reason of any refusal of reinstatement or place-
ment upon the preferential list, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as
wages during the period from five (5) days after the date of this
Order to the date of the offer of reinstatement or placement upon
the preferential list, less his net earnings 16 during said period;
(c) Make whole the employees listed in Appendices A and B for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them by payment to each of- them of a sum of money
equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from
June 7, 1939, to July 11, 1939, except that back pay shall be limited
in the case of Victor Norman to the period from June 9 until July 3;
in the case of Robert Monett to the period from June 9 until July
11; in the case of Clyde Smith from June 7 until July 5; and in the
cases of Ralph Peterson, C. C. Sperber, and Mrs. Marie Sperber from
June 7 until July 10, less his net earnings 17 during such period;
36 See footnote 14, supra.
1 ! See footnote 14, supra.
LONG LAKE LUMBER COMPANY 723
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in their Caribou Basin,
Sand Point, Idaho, logging camp, and maintain- for a period of it
least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices
to their employees stating (1) that the respondents will not engage
in the conduct from which they are ordered to cease and desist in
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that they will
take the affirmative action set forth in- paragraphs 2 (a), (b), and
(c) of this Order; and (3) that the employees are free to become or
remain members of International Woodworkers of America, Local
No. 239, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and
that the respondents will not discriminate against any employee be-
cause of membership or activity in that organization;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondents have taken to comply herewith.
AND rr Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondents discriminated
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment of Albert Faurot and Al Hendrickson, or
by discharging Cecil Chaney, Fred Chaney, A. J. Burford, and
Charles Brodine, on or about August 17, 1939, or by discharging
O. W. Haney and A. J. (Jack) Waffle, on or about August 21, 1939.
APPENDIX A
Robert Barwise
Ernest Berger
B. J. Durick
A. W. Evans
Arthur Feoco
Dale Greer
Martin Hansen
Ura Kirtley
Charles Lisle
Robert Monett i8
Grant Robinson
Granville Robinson
Boyd Stevens
Ray Stevens *
Clyde Smith 19
Leon M. Wise
I See footnote 13, supra.
19 See footnote 13, supra.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Berry
Charles Brodine
A. J. Burford
Arlie Chaney
Cecil Chaney
Fred Chaney
Charles C. Dingley
Joe Dobrovec
Ted Early
Ralph A. Feoco
J. L. Finley
Harry Gunsalus
O. W. Haney
Stanley Harder
William Henry
Emery E. Hunt
Clifford Joseph
Joel Joseph
Burnell N. Lang
Neil Mardis
John J. McCarr
Dwight Miller
APPENDIX B
Sidney Moody
Greg Moore
Frank Mor
Earl Murphy
Frank Murphy
Victor Norman 20
Hjalmar Olson
Curtis Peterson
Ralph Peterson 21
Cecil Porter
Cecil Runyon 22
C. C. Sperber 23
H. A. Sperber
Mrs. Marie Sperber 24
Charles Stevenson
Andrew Swenson
C. E. Twist
Jack Waffle 25
Nathan Way
Fred Williams
Robert Yeazel
20 See footnote 13, supra.
21 See footnote 13, supra.
22 Incorrectly spelled Ruyon in the complaint.
as See footnote 13, supra.24
Wife of C . C. Sperber, camp cook, who was reemployed on July 10 , 1939. Mrs.
Sperber was the second cook. The respondent Robinson's verified answer states that she
returned to work on July 10, 1939 , and therefore, though the record is silent as to her,
it is found that she was reemployed on that date, and as stated in footnote 13, supra,
is entitled to back pay only up to that date.
"Also referred to as A. J Waffle.