Oregon Coast Operators Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1338 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oregon Coast Operators Association ; Coast Pacific Lumber Com-
pany; Al Peirce Lumber Company ; Irwin -Lyons Logging Divi-
sion ; Coos River Boom Company ; Coos Head Timber Com-
pany, McKenna Mill, and Empire Mill and International Wood-
workers of America Local 7-116, CIO
Cape Arago Lumber Company and International Woodworkers
of America, Local 7-140, CIO
Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner Division ( Bridge Mill)
and International Woodworkers of America Local 7-140, CIO
Oregon Coast Operators Association ; Glen F. Compton & Glen V.
Compton d/b/a Compton Logging Company ; Doernbecher
Manufacturing Co., Logging Division ; E. K. Wood Lumber
Company, Logging Department and Its Contractors ; Jack V.
Carlson , d/b/a A. S. C. Logging Company ; Elmer Bangs and
Harold Dick, d/b/a Bangs and Dick Logging Company and
International Woodworkers of America Local 7-140, CIO
Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Association ; Patten-Blinn
Lumber Company ; Faulkner and Harris Milling Company;
United States Plywood Corporation ; H. A. Lausmann & J. H.
Lausmann, Jr., d/b/a Lausmann Brothers ; The Consumers
Cooperative Association and International Woodworkers of
America Local 7-140, CIO
Western American Lumber Company and International Wood-
workers of America Local 7-140, CIO. Cases Nos. 36-CA-455,
36-CA-457, 36-CA-458, 36-CA-460, 36-CA-461, and 36-CA-4662.
August 06, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 23, 1954, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents' had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs were filed respectively by Oregon Coast Operators
Association, herein called OCO, and Willamette Valley Lumber Op-
erators Association, herein called WVLOA, for themselves and for
separate Respondent Companies they represent. WVLOA's request
for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the briefs and
exceptions, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the
parties.
i At the hearing, the Trial Examiner issued orders granting the General Counsel 's motion
to dismiss the complaint as to Irwin -Lyons Logging Division , and Coos River Boom Com-
pany , and permitting Local 7-140 to withdraw its charges and dismissing the complaint as
to Cape Arago Lumber Company and Western American Lumber Company.
113 NLRB No. 127.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1339
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, with the following additions and modifications : 2
1. The Trial Examiner found that the various Respondents violated
Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively
on the subject of including certain side agreements in the formal con-
tracts between the parties. We agree with his conclusions as to the
commission of such violations, but limit our findings only to those Re-
spondents against which these violations are alleged in the complaint,
i. e., the named Respondents having contractual relations with Local
7-140,3 as distinguished from those dealing with Local 7-116.
The facts are described in detail in the Intermediate Report. Only a
brief background setting is here noted. Both specific violations of
Section 8 (a) (5) alleged in the complaint stem from the proposals of
Local 7-140 and Local 7-116, herein collectively called the Unions, for
reopening of existing contracts in advance of and during the 1954
bargaining negotiations. In the preceding year, the Unions consum-
mated separate and different contracts with each Respondent Company.
However, each contract contained the same duration and reopening
provisions. The Unions' notices for reopening in 1954 were directed
to the individual Companies, and were specifically addressed, with
varying proposals, to each separate contract. With the exception
of Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner Division, herein called
Gardiner, the individual Companies expressly delegated authority to
either OCO or WVLOA to represent them in bargaining with regard
to the Unions' proposals. Gardiner, although a member of OCO,
represented itself. Beginning on March 3, 1954, five bargaining
sessions were held concurrently between all the named Respondents
on the one hand and the Unions on the other. In the course of the
negotiations, one spokesman, at any given time, acted for all the Re-
spondents, and likewise one spokesman acted for the Unions. In past
bargaining on a similar basis, the separate Companies accepted in
2 We note and correct the following minor inaccuracies in the Intermediate Report,
which, however, do not affect our essential conclusions reached herein : ( 1) The proposed
contract revisions sent by Local 7-140 to Gardiner did not specify "rest periods," and those
sent to Compton Logging Company did not specify "standard minimum crews"; (2) all
Respondent Companies did not receive from the Unions all four questionnaires , reproduced
in appendices to Intermediate Report as Exhibits A to D ; those Companies engaged only in
sawmill operations received Exhibits A, B, and D ; those Companies engaged only in log-
ging operations received Exhibits A, B, and C ; Companies engaged in both sawmill and
logging operations received all four questionnaires.
s Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner Division ; Compton Logging Company ; Doern-
becher Manufacturing Co. ; E. K. Wood Lumber Company ; A. S. C. Logging Company ;
Bangs and Dick Logging Company ; Patten-Blinn Lumber Company, Faulkner and Harris
Milling Company ; United States Plywood Corporation , Lausmann Brothers ; and The
Consumers Cooperative Association.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL: LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
virtually all instances the agreements negotiated by the respective
Associations' Insofar as the record shows, the last bargaining session
took place on April 27, 1954, when negotiations appeared to be broken
off with no agreement reached on any subject, the Respondents pro-
posing continuation of the 1953 contracts without change and the
Unions stating they had exhausted their proposals and arguments.
On the issue of the side agreements, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that:
[Par. 45] At various times, commencing on or about February
15,1954, Local 7-140 . . . requested the Respondents herein to re-
duce to writing and incorporate in one collective bargaining agree-
ment all the various terms and conditions of employment and
practices which are presently in effect and which will result from
current negotiations... .
[Par. 46] At all times since February 15, 1954, the Respondents
herein who have met or have been represented by negotiators at
bargaining meetings with the representatives of Local 7-140 have
refused and are continuing to refuse to reduce to writing and
incorporate in one collective bargaining unit all the various terms
and conditions of employment and practices which are in effect
between the parties or will result from current negotiations
between the parties.
In the answers filed to the complaint, Gardiner, and OCO on behalf
of the Companies dealing with Local 7-140, admitted the allegations
in paragraphs 45 and 46 substantially as. framed in the complaint as to
terms, conditions of employment, and practices "which are presently
in effect." The individual Respondent Companies represented by
WVLOA, herein called the WVLOA Companies,- filing separate
answers, admitted they "have been requested to incorporate certain
practices into the collective bargaining agreement," and that they have
"refused to incorporate all practices in one bargaining agreement."
. Thus, as framed by the pleadings, the issue of the side agreements,
insofar as it concerns Gardiner, and the Companies represented by
OCO, herein called the OCO Companies, is confined to a pure ques-
tion of law. '"rVLOA, in its exceptions and brief, contends in effect
that Local 7-140 failed in its reopening proposals properly to open
up its contracts for bargaining with the WVLOA Companies on the
subjects of all side agreements. To support this contention, WVLOA
points to the fact that Local 7-140's written proposals specify that the
subject matter in only two types of side agreements (i. e., scaling
, Like the Trial Examiner , we find that OCO and WVLOA are employers within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (2) of the Act, as it is clear that they acted as agents for their respective
members relative to the conduct constituting the alleged violations See Carpenter &
Skaer, Inc ., 90 NLRB 417, 419, South Texas Chapter, Associated General Contractors
of America, 107 NLRB 965, 973
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1341
rules , and wages and make-ready time) be negotiated and put into
the contract . We find no merit in this position of WVLOA. The
record reveals that WVLOA stipulated at the hearing that in "sub-
stantially all of the instances listed" by Local 7-140, "the request has
been made that [the side agreements ] be included in the collective
bargaining agreement ," and specified "the particular items [i. e., the
side agreements ] concerning which .... the subject matter is in-
cluded ... in the revisions submitted with the opening" by Local
7-140. It was thus specifically established that the subjects in 19
of 24 types of side agreements in effect at the WVLOA Companies
were opened in Local 7-140's contract proposals .5 It further appears
that Local 7-140's proposal to incorporate in the contract all the side
agreements was raised and discussed on several occasions at the bar-
gaining sessions, and that WVLOA made no attempt to exclude from
the discussion those side agreements the subjects of which it now
contends were not properly opened by Local 7-140.6 In these circum-
stances , we conclude that , in any event , WVLOA waived any technical
defect, if in fact any existed , in Local 7-140's initial request to reduce
to writing and incorporate in the main collective -bargaining agree-
ment all the existing side agreements.?
Certain further stipulations and admissions were made at the hear-
ing : (1 ) By the WVLOA Companies-that the side agreements which
had been identified were "in effect ." (2) By Gardiner and the OCO
Companies-that terms and conditions of employment were "in effect"
at their operations which were of a similar type to the identified side
agreements of the WVLOA Companies ; "that some exist as a result
of agreements arrived at from time to time in collective bargaining;
that where agreements exist approximately one-half of these are
evidenced by writings , either letters or memorandum agreements, and
some are oral." Other evidence in the record indicates that the nature
of the side agreements described in the foregoing stipulation generally
pertains as well to the side agreements of the WVLOA Companies.
The evidence also shows that many of the side agreements resulted
from settlement of grievances ; that the terms and conditions in certain
of these agreements are provided for as part of the main contract of
some of the Respondent Companies ; and that, with one exception,'
all of the main contracts do not contain provisions for wage scales-
these being a common subject of the side agreements.
Thus, as plainly appears in the record, Local 7 -140 made its proposal
as to the incorporation of the side agreements on February 15, 1954,
before the actual bargaining commenced , and repeated its proposal
° See chart in section III, C, ( 1) of the Intermediate Report.
° we note that WVLOA did not advance this contention at the hearing or in its brief
to the Trial Examiner.
° Cf., e. g., Continental Can Co., 107 NLRB 8, 10; Augat Bros ., Inc, 97 NLRB 993, 994.
° The Consumers Cooperative Association.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the -five -bargaining conferences which were held. It explained
its reasons for pressing this request, in general effect, that omission
of these items from the main contract presented difficulties in carrying
out its collective-bargaining functions. The affected Respondents, as
admitted in their answers to the complaint, rejected the proposals.
The rejection, as the Trial Examiner found, was summary and final,
with no effort made to explore the subject. In negotiating with the
Local 7-140, and in this proceeding, these Respondents make no con-
tention, as to the issue of the side agreements, that their respective
association or spokesman in bargaining had no authority to deal with
this subject. They concede that agreements reached in negotiations
must be reduced to writing, if requested by either party, but argue
that they were under no obligation to do so with respect to past agree-
ments, and were not obligated by law to incorporate past agreements
in the main contract. They dismissed Local 7-140's proposal during
the negotiations on the basis that it was not a "suitable" and "fit"
subject for the collective bargaining then in progress, suggesting at
one point that the matter be left for negotiation with the individual
Companies. And "on an over-all basis," they rejected "the principle
of making the wage scales a part of the agreement."
We believe the reasoning of the Trial Examiner is legally sound, in
the circumstances of this case, that if at the time the formal contract
is opened for negotiations either party proposes inclusion of a side
agreement-
the subject matter of the side agreement, its terms and
language, all become integral parts of the general negotiations
in the formal contract, to be disposed of in collective bargain-
ing in the same way as all other subjects . . . of the formal
contract.
In that manner, the subject covered by the side agreement will
become either (a) a part of the formal contract, or (b) a separate
or connected supplement to the formal contract, or (c) be aban-
doned, in accordance with the principles of collective bargaining,
or (d) it will become the issue upon which the parties resort
to a test of economic strength.
During the bargaining, the affected Respondents did not dispute
the existence of all the alleged side agreements; indeed, they affirma-
tively proposed that the side agreements which had been reached
would be continued. At the hearing, they stipulated that these
agreements were "in effect." 9
9 The 1953 contracts of certain of the Respondents contained a clause R hich provided
that the contract " supersedes all prior agreements of all types" However, no defense
was made on the basis of this clause , and the stipulations of these Respondents at the
hearing, in any case, removes the possible efficacy of such a clause as a defense.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1343
Under the circumstances here, we find that the subject matter of the
side agreements was properly opened up and therefore became cur-
rent in the 1954 bargaining negotiations. The Respondents in ques-
tion concede that all contract terms on which the parties are in agree-
ment must be reduced to writing upon request. Section 8 (d) of
the Act expressly requires as an element of good-faith bargaining "the
execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached
if requested by either party." The affected Respondents were there-
fore obligated to reduce to writing the subject matter of the side agree-
ments on which the parties were agreed in the 1954 contract negotia-
tions. Although the incorporation in a single instrument of all terms
reached in collective bargaining would, ordinarily, appear mutually
desirable, convenient, and salutary for both parties in administering
their contract, we cannot hold that under the applicable statutory
provisions a request by either party for such incorporation, in all
situations, makes it mandatory upon the other to comply. Neverthe-
less, a proposal, as in this case, for incorporation of agreed terms,
which were heretofore identified in the form of side agreements, is
in itself a proper subject of collective bargaining for the parties to
resolve, for example, whether all or certain of these terms are to ap-
pear either in the main contract, or in a contract supplement, or in a
separate side agreement. And where the request to incorporate is
denied in disregard of the duty affirmatively to engage in bargaining
on the subject, Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act is breached.
The complaint alleged in substance that the particular Respond-
ents dealing with Local 7-140 "failed and refused and do now fail
and refuse to bargain in good faith" with respect to. the allegations in
paragraphs numbered 45 and 46, described above, relating to Local
7-140's request to reduce to writing and incorporate all side agree-
ments in the main contract. We find that these allegations, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1), are fully sustained in the record.
Accordingly, and substantially as recommended by the Trial Ex-
aminer, we shall order that the affected Respondents bargain collec-
tively upon the subject of including in the formal contract between
the parties the terms of the side agreements previously agreed upon,
or which shall hereafter be agreed upon, in collective bargaining.
2. We also find that all the Respondents herein violated Section 8
(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, as concluded by the Trial Examiner, in that
they categorically refused to supply Local 7-140 and Local 7-116 with
such information, contained in certain questionnaires 10 sent by the
Unions to the various Respondent Companies, as was relevant and nec-
essary for the Unions properly and intelligently to bargain collectively
with the Respondents.
10 The questionnaires are reproduced in appendices to the Intermediate Report marked as
Exhibits A to D.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no dispute as to the essential facts, which are fully explored
in the Intermediate Report. On January 29, 1954, contemporaneous
with their notices to reopen the contracts, the Unions furnished each
Respondent Company questionnaires to fill out specifying certain data
which the Unions desired allegedly to assist them in carrying out their
collective-bargaining functions. Requests for such data were re-
peated at various stages in the bargaining sessions, during which the
Unions clarified that they did not insist on obtaining the data in the
form of the questionnaires, or in any particular form. The Respond-
ents for their part raised no objection to the form of the request, nor
to ariy specific items contained in the questionnaires; nor did they de-
sire any explanation of the Unions, although it was offered in the nego-
tiations, as to the relevancy of the data or the need therefor. At the
hearing, the Unions adduced testimony in detail as to their need for
each item of the data requested, generally, to aid them in bargaining
concerning their specific contract proposals, for the administration of
the contracts, and handling of grievances. This testimony the Re-
spondents did not undertake to refute.
There is no question as to the fact that the Respondents failed and
refused to supply the Unions with any of the information sought in
the questionnaires. In response to the Unions' requests for the data
and in their essential position taken in this proceeding, the Respond-
ents advanced no defense or justification for their conduct," other than
that they are not required by law to furnish any information to the
Unions.
The Respondents in their briefs contend in effect that the concept of
collective bargaining under the Act contemplates no requirement that
one party reveal to the, other any information which the possessor
might deem strategically advantageous to withhold, without regard to
whether the information was relevant and was needed by the request-
ing party. intelligently to carry out its collective-bargaining obliga-
tions. The duty under the Act to bargain collectively, the Respondents
argue, requires merely a dealing at arm's length, and the recognition
and respect by one side only of the economic power of the other. They
further contend that until they have agreed upon the principle of a
proposal by the Unions, information which would assist in settling the
details of the problems not only is inconsequential, but would serve
only to block collective bargaining. We reject these arguments of the
Respondents as representing a fundamental misconstruction of the
law. The obligation of good-faith bargaining imposed by the Act
assuredly means "more than willingness to enter upon a sterile dis-
n Early in the hearing, in a general statement of position , the Respondents contended
that the data sought in the questionnaires were burdensome and irrelevant. However, such
a position was not expressed before and during the bargaining , nor later in the hearing,
nor in the Respondents ' briefs, and as already indicated , the Respondents introduced no
evidence in support thereof.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1345
cussion of union-management differences." 12 While there was no com-
pulsion on the Respondents to make a concession on any specific issue,
they were clearly required to entertain and explore the Unions' pro-
posals with an open mind in a good-faith attempt to compose the dif-
ferences between the parties and reach agreement on a collective-bar-
gaining contract, which is, ultimately, the basic objective in the statu-
tory scheme.13 Necessarily a part of this duty of the Respondents to
engage in good-faith collective bargaining is the requirement that they
furnish information in their possession requested by the Unions which,
was relevant and necessary to assist the Unions in presenting their pro-
posals and engage in bargaining with respect thereto in the most intel-
ligent and efficacious manner.
The general proposition that an employer is under a statutory duty
to furnish data to the employees' bargaining representative, upon re-
quest, provided that the data is relevant and needed by the representa-
tive for purpose of collective bargaining, has been decided in many.
Board and court cases and is established doctrine .14 In their question-
naires to the Respondents, the Unions here have requested a wide
variety of information, encompassing, inter alia, employees ' classifica-
tions and job functions, and their earnings in various modes of com-
pensation, as well as certain production and operational statistics,
including types and specifications of equipment used.
The Board has held in particular cases that the following types of
data, upon appropriate request, had to be supplied by the employer to
the bargaining representative of the employees : Names of employees
in the bargaining unit, their job classifications or job descriptions, and
their rates of pay in the form of wages , salaries , commissions; 15 to-
gether with dates of employment or seniority standing,16 or with num.-
12N. L . R. B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U. S. 395, 398.
1-1 See, e. g, N. L. R. B. v. Hoppes Mfg. Co., 170 F. 2d 962 ( C A. 6) ; as well as N L R B.
V. Kentucky Utilities Company, Inc., 182 F. 2d 810, 813 ( C. A. 6), wherein the court
stated :
The duty to bargain collectively presupposes negotiations between the parties carried
on in good faith , with a common willingness among the parties to discuss freely and
fully their respective claims and demands and , when they are opposed , justify them on
reason. . . . It contemplates a meeting between the contracting parties with open
minds and a sincere desire to reach an agreement in a spirit of cooperation. . . .
14 See cases cited infra.
1s Aluminum Ore Co., 39 NLRB 1286, enfd . 131 F. 2d 485 ( C. A. 7) ; Cincinnati Steel
Castings Co., 86 NLRB 592; Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co., 89 NLRB 881 , enfd . as mod. 187
F. 2d 947 (C A. 2) ; The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1192 ; The Stilley Plywood
Company Inc , 94 NLRB 932, enfd as mod 199 2d 319 ( C A 4) ; Leland-Gifford Co., 95
NLRB 1306 , enfd. 200 F. 2d 620 ( C. A. 1) ; Century Cement Mfg . Co., Inc., 100 NLRB
1323, enfd . as mod. 208 F. 2d 84 (C. A. 2) ; Stanislaus Implement if Hardware Com-
pany, 101 NLRB 394; California Portland Cement Company, 101 NLRB 1436 , Hastings if
Sons Publishing Company , 102 NLRB 708 ; Whot¢n Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537, enfd.
217 F 2d 593 (C. A 4) ; S H Kress & Co ., 108 NLRB 1615 ; Boston Herald-Traveler Cor-
poration , 110 NLRB 2097, enfd. 223 F. 2d 58 (C. A. 1) ; Utica Observer-Dispatch Inc., 111
NLRB 58; Hugh J. Baker if Company, et al, 112 NLRB 828.
1u Hearst Corp., 102 NLRB 637; Post Publishing Co., 102 NLRB 648; Stein-Way Cloth-
ing Company, 103 NLRB 1314 , enfd. 209 F . 2d 261 ( C. A. 6) (including seniority list for
purposes of recall of laid-off employees) ; New Britain Machine Co ., 105 NLRB 646, enfd.
210 F . 2d 61 ( C. A. 2) (including notice of any change of employee status).
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber of hours worked; 1' or with rate ranges or rate history; 18 piece
rates and related data ; 19 recipients and amounts of merit increases ; 20
the employer's basis for incentive pay; 21 pension data; 22 group insur-
ance data ; 23 time-study data ; 24 pay adjustments or changes ; 25 per-
formance ratings ; 26 methods and rates of time-work payment for lost
time owing to machine breakdowns and other reasons 21 In a distinct
class of cases where the employer sought to justify refusal of the
union's wage demands upon an economic basis, the Board has held that
good-faith bargaining under the Act required that the employer, upon
request, attempt to substantiate its economic position by furnishing
the union with reasonable proof-the extent and nature of the data
to be supplied dependent upon the bargaining in the particular case.28
We find, as the Trial Examiner has well demonstrated upon full
analysis of the evidence , that the Respondents have arbitrarily refused
to supply any of the data requested , although there can be no question
as to the relevance and necessity of certain items. By such conduct the
Respondents have failed in their statutory duty to bargain in good
faith 29 However , we need not determine that all of the specific data
'IF. W. Woolworth Co , 109 NLRB 196.
Is Hughes Tool Company, 100 NLRB 208; Hekman Furniture Company, 101 NLRB 631,
enfd. 207 F 2d 561 (C. A. 6) ; Dixie Corporation, 105 NLRB 390 ( including number of
employees in each classification at each rate in the rate range) ; Taylor Forge and Pipe
Works, 113 NLRB 693 ( including certain substantiating data as part of the employer's job
evaluation system)
10Vanette Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116, enfd. 179 F. 2d 504 (C. A. 5) ; Skyland Hosiery
Mills, Inc., 108 NLRB 1600 ( including itemized piece rates by style , construction, gauge,
yard, denier on all piece-rate operations ) ; Stein-Way Clothing Company, supra , footnote
16 (including employer studies of workload grievances).
20 J. H. Allison if Co . 70 NLRB 377, enfd 165 F. 2d 766 (C. A 6), cert. denied 335
U. S. 814; General Conti ols Go, 88 NLRB 1341 ( including merit - rating score of each em-
ployee) , Montgomery Waid if Co, 90 NLRB 1244 (including production standards used in
determining merit ratings , and comprehensive written description -of complicated wage
plan) ; E W. Scripps Cc , 94 NLRB 227. Boston He) ald-Traveler Coi poration, 102 NLRB
627, enfd. 210 F. 2d 234 (C A. 1) ; The Item Co, 108 NLRB 1634, enfd. 220 F. 2d 956
(C A 5)
21 City Packing Co., 98 NLRB 1261, New Britain Machine Co ., supra, footnote 16
2i Reed if Prince Mfg. Co., 96 NLRB 850, enfd. 205 F. 2d 131 (C. A. 1) (including age
and length of service of employees)
23 Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corp , 101 NLRB 360 (including amount of contribu-
tion paid by the employer and by employees as distributed among the various benefits
under the program ; amount of dividends, if any, received by the employer under the
program , amount of dividends, if any, retained by the employer ; amount of dividends,
if any , applied to cost of program) ; Skyland Hosiery Mills, Inc., supra, footnote 19.
Si National Grinding Wheel Co., 75 NLRB 905, Otis Elevator Co, 102 NLRP, 770, enfd.
as mod. 208 F. 2d 176 (C. A. 2).
26 The B. F. Goodrich Stores Co ., 89 NLRB 1151.
2e The B. F. Goodrich Stores Co ., ibid.
zr Skyland Hosiery Mills, Inc., supra, footnotes 19, 23.
28 Pioneer Pearl Button Company, 1 NLRB 837; Singer Sewing Machine Company, 24
NLRB 444, enfd as mod 119 F 2d 131 (C. A. 7), cert. denied 313 U. S. 595 ; Manville-
Jenekes Corporation, et al., 30 NLRB 382, 397; The Sherwin-Williams Company, 34 NLRB
651, 667, enfd. as mod. 129 F. 2d 629 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 317 U. S. 667; Southern
Saddlery Company, 90 NLRB 1205; The Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1214,
enfd 196 F. 2d 680 (C. A 2) ; Camp if McInnes, 100 NLRB 524; Truitt Manufacturing
Co., 110 NLRB 856, enf. denied 224 F. 2d 689 (C. A. 4).
22 The Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1214, 1222, enfd 196 F. 2d 680 (C. A.
2) ; The Hughes Tool Company , 100 NLRB 208, 210.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1347
sought in the questionnaires was in fact relevant and necessary. We
will therefore order that the Respondents bargain collectively with
the Unions by furnishing them information which is relevant and
necessary for purposes of collective bargaining and in order that they
may properly discharge their functions as statutory representatives of
the employees.
3. We do not adopt or pass upon the Trial Examiner's conclusions
that the Respondents had generally engaged in bad-faith bargaining
with the Unions in the course of the 1954 bargaining negotiations, as it
clearly appears that the General Counsel at the hearing amended the
complaint to delete the allegations therein as to "other acts, statements,
and conduct" of the Respondents, thereby limiting the issues to the two
specific alleged violations of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) treated above.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that:
A. Each of the Respondents, Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner
Division (Bridge Mill) ; Glen F. Compton & Glen V. Compton d/b/a
Compton Logging Company; Doernbecher Manufacturing Co.,
Logging Division; E. K. Wood Lumber Company, Logging Depart-
ment and Its Contractors; Jack V. Carlson, d/b/a A. S. C. Logging
Company; Elmer Bangs and Harold Dick, d/b/a Bangs and Dick
Logging Company; Patten-Blinn Lumber Company; Faulkner and
Harris Milling Company; United States Plywood Corporation; H. A.
Lausmann & J. H. Lausmann, Jr., d/b/a Lausmann Brothers; The
Consumers Cooperative Association; Oregon Coast Operators Associ-
ation; and Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Association, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, Local 7-140, CIO, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit upon the subject of including
in the formal contract with such bargaining representative the terms
of the side agreements agreed upon in collective bargaining.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the
employees' exclusive representative to bargain collectively in their
behalf.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
Bargain collectively with International Woodworkers of America,
Local 7-140, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees upon the subject of including in the contract the terms of the
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
side agreements previously agreed upon, or which shall hereafter be
agreed upon, in collective bargaining.
B. Each of the Respondents," including OCO and WVLOA, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, Local 7-140 or Local 7-116, as the case
may require, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the ap-
propriate unit, by refusing to furnish relevant and necessary informa-
tion requested by such representative for purposes of collective
bargaining.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of such
exclusive representative of the employees to bargain collectively in
their behalf.
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, CIO, Local 7-140 or Local 7-116, as the case may
require, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in
the appropriate unit, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Bargain collectively by supplying International Woodworkers
of America, CIO, Local 7-140 or Local 7-116, as the case may require,
as the exclusive representative of its employees, upon request, informa-
tion which is relevant and necessary for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and in order that it may discharge its functions as the statutory
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
(c) Post at its plants in the States of Washington and Oregon,
where the employees in the appropriate units are employed, copies of
the applicable notice attached hereto marked either "Appendix A" or
"Appendix B." Those Respondents having bargaining relations with
Local 7-140 will post Appendix A; those Respondents having bar-
gaining relations with Local 7-116 will post Appendix B 31 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's rep-
resentatives , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
each Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
30 Excluding Irwin-Lyons Logging Division , Coos River Boom Company , Cape Arago
Lumber Company, and Western Ameiican Lumber Company. See footnote 1, supra. -
In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1349
or covered by any other material. The Regional Director will insert
in the blank in said notice the description of the appropriate unit ap-
plicable to the particular Respondent involved.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
CHAIRMAN FARMER, concurring :
This case presents another situation in which an employer met with
its employees' chosen representatives to negotiate a contract, and the
charge is made that the employer did not approach the bargaining
table with an open mind, willing to bargain in good faith, as, under
the Act, was its statutory obligation. At the very start, the Union
called upon the Employers to reveal a plethora of information, ranging
from current rates of pay to precise details of operational data and
production figures. Negotiations proceeded no further, because the
Employers flatly rejected this request, merely stating that such matters
are essentially irrelevant to collective bargaining. It brushed aside the
Union's every attempt to explain why it sought answers to the various'
questions asked, and did not even deign to explain why it thought'any
of the information should not then be revealed. In short, the Re-
spondents not only refused to consider any possible merits in the
Union's initial demands, but excluded from the negotiations all dis-
cussion of the entire subject.
I agree with my colleagues of the majority that this conduct of the
Respondents constituted a refusal to bargain within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. The minimum embodied in the concept
of good-faith bargaining is that each party consider the demands of
the other. The extent, if any, to which a party should accede to de-
mands made in bargaining, or the length of time reasonably allocated
to a particular disputed issue, of course properly ought to be decided
by the negotiators themselves. But total exclusion, even from the area
of discussion, of any subject of concern to either party, precludes all
possibility of eventual amicable adjustment of the ramified, and al-
ways interrelated, total demands of both sides .32 When, as here, such
arbitrary exclusion is clearly shown in the record, it is impossible to .
escape the conclusion that the offending party was determined, in
advance of the first meeting, to avoid discussing this issue at all. The
statute as written does not afford either employer or union this
privilege.
On this aspect of the case, therefore-involving the multitudinous
questionnaires presented to the Employers by the Union-I would sim-
ply order the Respondents to bargain in good faith as to the relevancy
and necessity of the information sought, just as they are required to
12 N. L. 14 B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U. S. 395.
1350 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do respecting the union demand that all the collateral agreements be
incorporated into a single document instead of remaining in separate
detailed agreements. The unfair labor practice found is not in having
improperly segregated some questions from others, but in having re-
fused to bargain on the subject at all. There is no reason to assume
that in the course of good-faith bargaining the parties will not settle
to their mutual satisfaction such minor questions as what information
should be made available to the Unions. Collective bargaining, in its
overall give and take, necessarily envisages interplay among all the
demands relating to subjects covered by the eventual contract. Full
freedom, to both employer and union, to evaluate each and every bar-
gaining demand, and to weigh and consider the merits of any one
against each or all of the contrary demands, is the very essence of that
voluntary collective bargaining which the statute contemplates.
It is true that certain basic wage information, such as the current
earnings of employees matched up with their names, goes to the heart
of the bargaining, and refusal by an employer to furnish such basic
wage information conclusively reveals bad faith. See my concurring
opinion in Whitin Machine Works. 31 On the other hand, the relevancy
of the amount of production pressure of any particular planer trim-
mer, or what type of crew is hauled by a single bus, is not readily ap-
parent. Thus, the Board holding in the Whitin Machine case is in-
apposite here. 14 In the general area, involving matters indirectly re-
lating to the wage structure, it is not for this Board to decide, item by
item, precisely which of the Unions' requests the Respondents must
grant and which they may deny. Indeed, such arrangement would
virtually require the presence of a Board agent at the conferences be-
tween parties to keep deciding, apace with the negotiations, whether
one party or the other must grant this or that demand for information.
All that the statute requires is that the parties bargain in good
faith, and all this Board need concern itself with is that the parties
properly fulfill this obligation. I conclude that the Employers' flat re-
jection and refusal to consider the Union's request was in violation of
its statutory duty. But, I do not regard it as within our statutory au-
thority to order the Employers to furnish all "relevant" information.
I regard such an order as unenforceable because, in my view, the rele-
vance of the mass of detail requested by the Unions is itself a matter of
genuine collective bargaining, subject to the overriding requirement of
good faith. For these reasons I would limit the remedial order in this
case so as to require that the Respondents bargain with the Unions in
+Whitin Mach. ene Works , 108 NLRB 1537, enfd. 217 P. 2d 593 (C. A. 4).
84 Cf. N. L. R. B . v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., supra.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1351
good faith, both on the subject matter of the form of the eventual
contract and on the subject of the various questionnaires.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring and dissenting :
Included in the questionnaires sent the Respondents by the Unions
was a request for certain basic information as to wages paid the em-
ployees. Such information was plainly relevant and necessary for col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the rule recently enunciated
by this Board in Whitin Machine Works 35 and approved by the
courts.36 I would, therefore, find that the Respondents' refusal to fur-
nish this wage data violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and would
order the Respondents to furnish the data upon request. However,
with respect to the other information sought by the Unions in their
questionnaires, it is my opinion that such information in the circum-
stances of this case cannot be said to be relevant and necessary for col-
lective bargaining. I would not, therefore, find that the Respondents'
refusal to furnish such information constituted a further violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
108 NLRB 1537, enfd . 217 F. 2d 594 ( C. A. 4), cert. denied 349 U S. 905.
38 Boston Herald - Traveler Cotp v . N L R. B. , 223 F 2d 58 (C A 1) ; N. L B B v.
The Item Company, 220 F . 2d 956 (C. A 5) Cf N. L. R B. v Truitt Manufacturing Co ,
supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International
Woodworkers of America, Local 7-140, CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate
unit described below, by failing and refusing to furnish said
representative relevant and necessary information requested by
such representative for purposes of collective bargaining, or by
refusing to bargain collectively upon the subject of including in
the formal contract of such representative the terms of the side
agreements agreed upon in collective bargaining, or in any like
or related manner interfering with the efforts of such exclusive
representative of the employees to bargain collectively in their
behalf.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named Union, as
the exclusive representative of our employees, by furnishing to
379288-56-vol. 113-86
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such representative, upon request, information which is relevant
and-necessary for purposes of collective bargaining, and in order
that it may properly discharge its functions as the statutory
representativevof the employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named Union, as
the exclusive representative of our employees, upon the subject
of including in the formal contract with such representative the
terms of the side agreements previously agreed upon, and which
shall hereafter be agreed upon, in collective bargaining.
The appropriate bargaining unit is :
(The description of the bargaining unit for each Respondent
Employer shall be that found in section II of the Inter-
mediate Report herein.) '
---------------------------------------------7
Employer.
-------'-------------------------------------
Emplo yer-Association.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International
Woodworkers of America, Local 7-116, CIO, as the exclusive
representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described
below, by failing and refusing to furnish to said Union relevant
and necessary information requested by said Union for purposes
of collective bargaining, or in any like or related manner interfere
with the efforts of the said Union as the exclusive representative
of the employees to bargain collectively in their behalf.
WE WILL furnish the above-named Union relevant and necessary
,information requested by said Union for purposes of collective
bargaining and in order that it may properly discharge its func-
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1353
tions as the statutory representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit. The appropriate bargaining unit is : -
(The description of the bargaining unit for each Respondent
Employer shall be that found in section II of the Interme-
diate Report herein.)
Employer.
Dated---------------- Bv-------------------------- ----------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Repiesentative ) - ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at North Bend, Oregon, on June
7 through 10, 1954, pursuant to due notice to all parties. The consolidated complaint,
dated May 19, 1954, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, and duly served on the Respondents, was based on charges duly filed and
amended by the above-named Unions. It alleged in substance that the Respondents
had refused to bargain with the Unions in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act
by, (1) on or about January 29, 1954, and thereafter, refusing to furnish certain
information which had been requested by the Unions, and (2) by refusing to incor-
porate in the labor agreement between the separate Unions and the separate Respond-
ents certain "side agreements," relating to specific features, conditions, and practices
of employment which had in the course of collective bargaining been previously
agreed to, and put in effect in the operations of the several Respondents.
The Respondents each duly filed an answer which denied the commission of the
unfair labor practices. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues, to argue the issues orally upon the record, and to file
briefs and proposed findings. All parties have filed well-written briefs, which have
been carefully considered.
At the hearing, after the introduction of the formal documents, the Trial Examiner
proposed that because of the multiplicity of the parties, and technical issues raised
by the pleadings, that counsel engage with him in a prehearing conference on the
record in an effort to: (1) Narrow the issues raised by the pleadings, (2) stipulate
such facts as were known and admitted by all parties, and (3) make available to coun-
sel all pertinent documents so that they might be introduced in evidence on stipulation
of counsel rather than on the testimony of witnesses.
Counsel accepted the suggestion, and thereafter displayed a wholehearted spirit
of cooperation and industry in achieving the purposes of the prehearing conference.
The General Counsel amended many allegations of the complaint, which were inaccu-
rate in certain technical but important details, such as the descriptions of the appro-
priate bargaining units and the descriptions of the business operations of the various
Companies. Motions to correct the complaint in these particulars were granted, there
being no objection by Respondents' counsel. With the complaint corrected to corre-
spond with the facts as counsel knew them to be, on these particular items, counsel
for the Respondents then made corresponding motions correcting the answers. -These
motions resulted in the elimination of some issues.
Counsel also agreed upon numerous stipulations relating to the execution, authen-
ticity, transmission, and receipt of certain documents which were received in evidence
pursuant to these stipulations.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After consultation with counsel, the General Counsel moved for the dismissal of
the complaint as to Coos River Boom Company and Irwin-Lyons Logging Division.'
The order was granted.
Also, after the close of the hearing and before issuance of this Intermediate Report
and Recommended Order, Local?-140 moved before the Trial Examiner for an order
permitting it to withdraw its charges against Cape Arago Lumber Company, Case
No. 36-CA-457, and Western American Lumber Company, Case No. 36-CA-462,
for the reason that those parties had effected a settlement of all issues between them
arising from the negotiations here involved. On October 13, 1954, the Trial Ex-
aminer issued an order permitting the Union to withdraw its charges and dismissing
the complaint' as `to those specific Companies. The General Counsel of record had
previously indicated that he neither consented to nor opposed the motion.
As stated previously, many facts hereafter found were admitted by the pleadings
or were established by stipulations or by documentary evidence introduced pursuant
to stipulation.
THE ISSUES
However, the pleadings as amended raised the following ultimate issues:
1. Are Oregon Coast Operators and Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Asso-
ciation employers within the meaning of the Act?
2. Are the Charging Parties labor organizations within the meaning of the Act?
3. Have the Respondent Employers a duty under the Act (1) to furnish the infor-
mation requested in the questionnaires, attached to and made a part of the complaint;
(2) to reduce verbal agreements of the parties made in the course of collective bar-
gaining to writing, and to sign them; (3) to incorporate in the formal collective-
bargaining contracts of the parties certain side agreements reached in collective bar-
gaining relating to specific terms, conditions , and practices of employment.
I. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
A. The operations of the Companies
The following findings are made upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel, and
undisputed documentary evidence.
(a) Coast Pacific Lumber Company, hereinafter called Coast, is a corporation
organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, engaged in the
manufacture of lumber. In the course and operation of its business Coast annually
ships from Oregon lumber of a value in excess of $50,000 to points in other States of
the United States.
(b) Al Peirce Lumber Company, hereinafter called Peirce, is a corporation or-
ganized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, engaged in logging
operations and lumber manufacturing, and selling annually products of a value in
excess of $100,000, of which approximately 95 percent are shipped from Oregon to
points in other States.
(c) Coos Head Timber Company, hereinafter called Coos Head, is a corporation
organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, engaged in the
operation of sawmills at Empire and Coos Bay, Oregon. In the course and operation
of its business, Coos Head ships from Oregon lumber and timber products of a value
in excess of $2,000,000 annually, to points in other States.
(d) Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner Division, hereinafter called Gardiner,
is a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri,
duly- licensed and authorized to conduct business in the State of Oregon, engaged in
logging operations and the manufacture of lumber and other timber products in the
State of Oregon. In the course of the operations of its business Gardiner produces.
timber products of a value in excess of $1,000,000 annually, 95 percent of which is
shipped from Oregon to points in other States.
(e) Glen F. Compton and Glen V. Compton, d/b/a Compton Logging Company,
hereinafter called Compton, is a partnership doing business in the State of Oregon,
engaged in the business of logging. In the course and operation of its business
Compton performs services of a value in excess of $45,000 annually for enterprises
engaged in interstate commerce.
(f) Doernbecher Manufacturing Company, hereinafter called Doernbecher, is a
corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State•of Oregon,
1 Though the order as granted included the striking of the names of these particular
Respondents from the title of the proceeding, I have reconsidered and left the names in the
title of this report, so that the dismissal as to these Respondents will be indexed and
recorded.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1355
engaged in the manufacture of timber, spars, lumber, and furniture. The timber and
spar division, in the course and operation of its business, sells products of a value in
excess of $120,000 annually, 90 percent of which is shipped from the State of Oregon
to points in other States.
(g) E. K. Wood Lumber Company, hereinafter called Wood, is a corporation
organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California, engaged in
logging and lumber manufacture, in the State of Oregon. In the course and operation
of its business Wood sells timber products of a value in excess of $2,000,000 annu-
ally, 80 percent of which products are shipped from Oregon to points in other
States.
(h) Jack V. Carlson, d/b/a A. S. C. Logging Company, hereinafter referred to
as A. S. C., and Elmer Bangs and Harold Dick, d/b/a Bangs and Dick Logging Com-
pany hereinafter referred to as Bangs and Dick, are contract loggers engaged in the
business of logging on contract with Wood, as independent contractors. During
the course and operation of their business Bangs and Dick and A. S. C. each furnish
services necessary to the operation of enterprises engaged in interstate commerce
valued in excess of $50,000 annually.
(i) Patten-Blinn Lumber Company, hereinafter called Patten, is a corporation or-
ganized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California, engaged in the
operation of a sawmill at Florence, Oregon. In the course and operation of its
business Patten sells finished lumber of a value in excess of $100,000 annually, 90
percent of which is shipped from the State of Oregon to points in other States.
(j) Faulkner and Harris Milling Company, hereinafter called Faulkner, is a cor-
poration organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon, engaged
in custom milling at Cushman, Oregon. In the course and operation of its business
-Faulkner sells custom milled timber products of a value in excess of $75,000 an-
nually, approximately 90 percent of which is shipped from the State of Oregon to
points in other-States.
(k) United States Plywood Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Plywood, is a
corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York,
engaged in the business of logging and the manufacture of timber products and par-
ticularly plywood. In the course and operation of its business Plywood operates log-
ging shows, lumber mills, plywood plants, wholesale and retail sales establishments
in several States of the United States, including the States of Washington, Oregon,
and California, and sells annually products of a value in excess of $1,000,000, which
are shipped to States of the United States other than the States in which they originate.
(1) H. A. Lausmann and J. H. Lausmann, Jr., d/b/a Lausmann Brothers, herein-
after called Lausmann, is a partnership doing business in the State of Oregon,
engaged in the manufacture of lumber and timber products. During the course and
operation of its business Lausmann sells products valued in excess of $45,000 an-
nually, substantially all of which are shipped from the State of Oregon to points in
other States.
(m) The Consumers Cooperative Association, hereinafter called Consumers, is
a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon,
engaged-in the manufacture of timber products. During the course and operation
of its business Consumer sells products valued in excess of $25,000 annually which are
shipped from Oregon to points in other States.
I find that Coast, Peirce, Coos Head, Gardiner, Compton, Doernbecher, Wood,
A. S. C., Bangs and Dick, Patten, Faulkner, Plywood, Lausmann, and Consumers are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
B. The operations of OCO and Willamette Valley
Upon the evidence as a whole, I find as follows:
Oregon Coast Operators, hereinafter called OCO, is a nonprofit corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon which on behalf of
its members bargains collectively with various organizations. It has 45 employer-
members, who finance its operations by dues the amount of which is based upon
the number of employees of each member. The governing body of the corporation
is an executive board of eight members, and it has the conventional officers-presi-
dent, vice president, secretary and treasurer, and secretary-manager. Charles S. Hoff-
man, hereafter referred to, is its present secretary-manager. Among its employer-
members are ,the following Respondents: Coast, Coos Head, Peirce, Gardiner,
Compton, Doernbecher, Wood, Bangs and Dick, and A..S. C.
Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Association,. hereinafter referred to as
Willamette Valley or WVLOA, is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Oregon, which admits to membership employers
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in logging, hauling 'of logs, and processing of logs in the western part of the
State of Oregon , and which on behalf of its members bargains collectively with
various organizations . It has 140 employer-members. The governing body of the
corporation is its board of directors , and it has the following officers: president,
vice president, and secretary-treasurer. The purpose of the corporation is to assist
its members in matters relative to their employer-employee relationships . George A.
Metzger, hereafter referred to, is the present secretary -manager of the corporation.
Among its employer-members are Respondents Consumers, Plywood, Lausmann,
Faulkner, and Patten.
The evidence as a whole demonstrates conclusively that OCO and Willamette
Valley were the authorized agents of the employer -members to negotiate with the
Unions herein concerning the subjects on which the contracts between the parties
were opened . Indeed , the contracts which were opened by the Unions had been
negotiated by OCO and WVLOA on behalf of their employer-members in the 1953
negotiations . In the 1954 negotiations , meetings were actually held at which officers
or paid staff members of the associations acted as spokesmen for their employer-
members, who are Respondents herein.
There was further evidence that Hoffman , secretary-manager of OCO, had signed
four of the contracts on behalf of individual Employers upon their express authoriza-
tion, and that the decision not to answer the questionnaire, which will be set forth
later, was made by the OCO's executive board, and that advice by OCO to each
of its members to that effect was embodied in a letter over Hoffman 's signature.2
The testimony of Hoffman and Metzger , both examined as hostile witnesses by
the General Counsel, establishes that both Respondents undertake to assist, counsel,
and act as agent of their employer-members on matters in the field of labor relations,
including the negotiation of labor contracts with representatives of the members'
employees , and the adjustment of grievances arising under such contracts . In regard
to the 1954 contract openings, the associations were authorized to act as agents
for the Employers; they actually acted as spokesmen for the Respondents, and acted
in concert with the Respondents in the conduct of which the Unions and the
General Counsel complained.
Section 2 (2) of the Act provides, "The term `employer' includes any person
acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly . The Board and
courts have consistently held that such an association , representing members engaged
in interstate commerce for the purposes of collective bargaining , is itself an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act .3
II. THE UNIONS ; APPROPRIATE UNITS OF RESPONDENTS ' EMPLOYEES; AND
MAJORITY STATUS OF UNIONS
Upon the evidence as a whole I find that International Woodworkers of America,
Local 7-116, CIO, and Local 7-140, CIO, hereafter referred to individually by
their numbers or collectively as the Locals or the Unions, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
It is not disputed that for years past the Unions have represented the employees
in the appropriate units found below; have negotiated contracts with the Respond-
ents covering wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and
have adjusted the grievances of the employees with the Employers.
Upon the pleadings, stipulations of counsel, and the evidence as a whole, I find
that Local 7-116 at all times material hereto has been the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of a majority of the employees of the designated Respondent in each of
the appropriate units described below:
(a) Coast: All employees in the remanufacturing operation at Coos Bay, Ore-
gon, except supervisory employees, office workers, clerical employees, and guards.
(b) Coos Head: All employees in the operation of the Company, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees.
(c) Peirce: All production and maintenance employees in the sawmill including
pond, sorting, and rafting operations of the Employer, excluding clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Upon the same basis, I find that Local 7-140 at all times material hereto has been
the exclusive bargaining representative of a majority of the employees of the desig-
nated Respondents in each of the appropriate units described below:
a Union's Exhibit Nos 2 and 3.
.Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800 ; South Texas Chapter A. G. C., 107 NLRB 965,
Puerto Rico Steamship Association (I. L. A.), 103 NLRB 1217; Western Association of
Engineers, etc., 101 NLRB 64; Mundet Cork Corpou ation, 96 NLRB 1142; Oertel Brew-
ing Company, 93 NLRB 530
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION . 1357
(a) Gardiner: All employees in the bridge mill operation except guards, clerical
employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Compton: All employees except guards , clerical employees , and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(c) Doernbecher: All employees in the Logging Division except guards, clerical
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) Wood: All employees in the Logging Division except guards , clerical em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) Bangs and Dick: All employees except guards, clerical employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(f) A. S. C.: All employees except guards, clerical employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(g) Patten: All employees of the Company at its sawmill operations at Florence,
Oregon, except for clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(h) Faulkner: All employees of Employer at Cushman, Oregon, excluding office
and clerical employees, guards, supervisors, and professional employees as defined in
the Act.
(i) Lausmann: All employees of Employer at Swisshome, Oregon, lumber and
manufacturing plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(j) Plywood: All employees of U. S. Plywood as successor in interest to Siuslaw
Forest Products, Inc., except office employees, supervisors, and construction workers.
(k) Consumers: All mill and woods employees at the Employer' s Swisshome,
Oregon, operations except clerical workers, supervisors , and part-time employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The contracts between the several Unions and the several Employers; the contract
openings; and the specific revisions proposed by the Unions
Upon the basis of documentary evidence introduced pursuant to stipulation of the
parties, I find that each of the Locals, as representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate units described above, had negotiated and executed with the several Em-
ployers certain labor agreements for the year 1953, and that on January 29, 1954,
the Unions by letter addressed to the Respondents, formally opened the existing con-
tracts, submitted proposals and article revisions, and requested the Respondents to
make arrangements for meetings to negotiate on the proposed revisions of the con-
tracts?
The openings of the several contracts were effected by a form letter sent by each
Local to the Respondents with whom it had contracts. One of these letters, typical
of all, was received in evidence pursuant to stipulation. It reads as follows: 5
DEAR S[RS: This will inform you that Local Union 7-140 IWA-CIO is open-
ing the existing agreement between you and this Local Union. Proposals are
attached on Article revisions as listed below, in accordance with the Revision
and Termination Article of the agreement.
The proposed revisions as attached and listed below are for Articles presently
in the agreement or for new Articles,-whichever may properly apply. They are
in complete detail, showing wording desired, as per the attachments.
Local Union 7-140 IWA-CIO also hereby notifies you that a committee com-
posed of representatives of District Council #7 IWA-CIO is authorized to rep-
resent the Local Union in negotiations. Arrangements for meetings are to be
made with Ernie Tomberg, Pres., District #7 TWA-CIO, Box 488, Coos Bay,
Oregon; Phone COngress 7-2911, with copies to Local Unions involved.
This district committee will be supplemented by TWA Local Unions involved,
and by members of the ILWU and of the ISW-AFL. We also wish to advise
you that a tape recording will be made of meetings. If you desire a copy of
this recording we invite you to come to our office and make a copy of the
original.
' General Counsel's Exhibits Nos • 21 (Coast) ; 22 (Peirce) ; 24 (Coos Head) ; 26 (Gard-
iner ) ; 27 (Compton) ; 28 (Doernbecher) ; 29 (Wood) ; 30 (Bangs and Dick) ; 31 (Patten)
32 (Faulkner ) ; 33 (Plywood) ; 34 (Lausmann ) ; 35 (Consumers ) ; 39 (A. S. C.).
E General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 40 A through P General Counsel 's Exhibits Nos. 41
A through L.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Any proposed settlement reached by you or your representatives with the Dis-
trict Committee will be subject to ratification or rejection by the membership
involved.
PROPOSED REVISIONS:
1. Safety
2. Seniority (Department) (Job Posting)
3. New Article: Lunch Period, Walking Time, Etc.
4. Scaling Rules & Day Rules
5. Standard Minimum Crews
6. Leave of Absence
7. New Article: Notices
8. Wages
9. Suspension & Discharge
10. Tools (Mechanic & Millwrights)
11. Vacation Pay
12. Termination two year contracts
13. Truck drivers to be paid hourly rate irrespective of truck ownership
14. Crew Bus Drivers
IWA LOCAL UNION No. 7-140 IWA-CIO
By --------------------------------------
W. L. Harris, Business Agent.
The proposed revisions in each letter varied in number, depending upon the
Union's desires to change the current contract. In some contracts, proposed revisions
were numerous, in others, relatively few.
Each letter listed the proposed revisions, appropriate to the particular contract,
and copies of the specific proposed revisions were attached.
Proposed Revisions of Local?-140 8
ARTICLE-SAFETY
Following additions are proposed:
(1) At least two employees shall be employed within reasonable calling
distance and in sight of each other when hazardous maintenance or produc-
tion work is involved.
(2) All items in the Safety Code shall be strictly adhered to, with particular
emphasis on those items referring to crew buses.
ARTICLE-SENIORITY
1. Seniority shall be observed and applied first by classification and then by
department. In cases of enforced layoff or re-hiring, length of continuous service
shall be respected and exercised.
Departments shall be as follows.
1. Cutting 4. Boom & Dump
2. Hauling 5. Shop
3. Yarding, Loading - 6. Road Construction
2. In the event that work becomes slack and it is necessary to reduce forces,
the employees will be laid off in the inverse order in which they were hired,
first by classification. Employees who lack seniority to hold their job in
classification exercise seniority in department by bumping the men with lowest
seniority as long as he is capable of performing the duties of that job. If un-
able to perform duties of lowest seniority, and only in such cases, he would
then bump the man nearest to the low end of seniority whose job he was
capable of performing. In all cases of lay-off, the Plant Committee shall be
consulted by the Employer prior to the lay-off and the list of those who are
to be laid off shall be jointly agreed to. This shall apply to all lay-offs of
more than four (4) hours duration. When rehiring occurs, those employees
laid off last shall be re-employed first, provided they are available. Any em
ployee not recalled in seniority order shall be paid for the period of violation.
This applies to all employees called back beginning the first hour.
3. An employee who transfers from one department to another at his own
request shall lose all seniority rights in his former department. Any employee
9 General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 40 B through P. All proposed revisions are here set
forth for ready reference, although only some were pertinent to certain contracts.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1359'
transferred by the Employer from one department to another shall retain his,
seniority rights in his former department for ninety (90) days. Any em-
ployee moved from one classification to another at the Employer's request shall
hold seniority in his former classification for ninety (90) days.
4. The Employer agrees to keep an up-to-date seniority file which shall show
each employee's name, date hired, and date hired in his current department.
The Employer will provide the Union with an original seniority list showing
date hired, classification and date of present classification, and date of current
entry in department. These lists shall be submitted to the Local Union not
less than every six months. Employer agrees that his up-to-date seniority
file is to be made available to Plant Committee and/or Union representative
upon request in connection with settlement of grievances or in determining
seniority.
5. The Employer and the Union agree that seniority of all present employees
covered by this Agreement shall start with the date of their last hiring. A
new employee shall have no status as a regular employee until he has been
continuously on Employer's payroll for a period of thirty (30) days. After
he has been employed thirty (30) days, his seniority shall start with his last
hiring date.
6. Employees sick, injured or laid off shall retain their seniority rights dur-
ing such period just as if they had been working.
7. An employee shall forfeit his accrued seniority rights in the event that,
while on lay-off he does not keep the Employer informed as to where he may
be reached when needed, or if he does not return to work following a lay-off
within seven (7) days after notice to return has been sent to his last address
in the Employer's records, or if he does not signify his intention of return-
ing to work within fifteen (15) days from date of notice to return.
8. Any employee enlisting, conscripted or inducted into the Armed Services
of the United States of America shall retain seniority rights in conformity with
Federal law and the Agreement.
9. Status slips shall be made out in triplicate when an employee is laid off,
suspended, terminated or quits, and shall show date, hours worked that week and
reason for status if other than quit. One copy shall be given to employee im-
mediately, one shall be forwarded promptly to Local Union office and one copy
to be retained in the Employer's file.
ARTICLE-PLANT SENIORITY
-In cases of enforced layoff or rehiring, length of continuous service shall be
respected and exercised. It is recognized that consideration of experience and
ability is allowable in the application of this rule to insure efficient plant oper-
ation when required to work at a different classification than that for which he
was hired.
In all cases of a lay-off, the Plant Committee shall be consulted by the Em-
ployer prior to the lay-off and the list of those who are to be laid off shall be
jointly agreed to. This shall apply to all lay-offs of more than four (4) hours
duration. When rehiring occurs, those employees laid off last shall be re-em-
ployed first, provided they are available. Any employee not recalled in senior-
ity order shall be paid for the period of violation. This applies to all employees
called back, beginning the first hour.
Any employee moved from one classification to another at the Employers'
request shall hold seniority in his former classification for 90 days.
The Employer agrees to keep an up-to-date seniority file which shall show
each employee's name, date hired, classification and date of current classifica-
tion. An up-to-date seniority list of all employees shall be submitted to the
Local Union office every six months. The Employer's up-to-date file shall be
made available to the Plant Committee and/or Union Representative in con-
nection with the settlement of grievances or determination of seniority.
The Employer and the Union agree that seniority of all present employees
covered by this agreement shall start with the date of their last hiring. A new
employee shall have no status as a regular employee until he has been continu-
ously on the Employer's payroll for a period of thirty (30) days. After he has
been employed thirty (30) days, his seniority shall start with his last hiring
date.
Employees sick , injured or laid off shall retain their seniority rights during
this period just as if they had been working.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Employee shall forfeit his accrued seniority rights in the event that while
on lay-off he does not keep the Employer informed as to where he may be
reached when needed, or if he does not return to work following a lay-off within
seven (7) days after notice to return has been sent to his last address in the Em-
ployer's records of signing his intention to return to work within fifteen (15)
days from date of notice to return.
Any employee enlisting, conscripted or inducted into the Armed Service of
the United States of America shall retain seniority rights in conformity with
Federal Law and the Agreement.
ARTICLE-SENIORITY (Job posting)
All jobs shall be posted for bids before being filled permanently, except that
certain listed jobs shall be filled by progression. List of these to be agreed to by
the union and the employer. (For example: Edgerman by relief man; Trim-
merman by trimmer spotter; planerman by assistant planerman or planer feeder;
filer by set up man; sawyer by setter; slinger by choker setter; catskinner by cat-
hooker etc.)
Jobs are to be posted on bulletin board for bid for not less than three days.
Job posted shall state job, rate of pay and shift. Bids to be considered jointly
by the Union committee and Company committee. Selection shall be based
on seniority with consideration for ability.
If there is no bid received on any posted job, the Union Committee and the
Company Committee will have the right to fill the job with any employee pro-
viding he is willing to accept. If none is willing to accept, the Company may
hire outside help.
A successful bidder shall have thirty (30) working days as a trial period.
If within this time employee decides he cannot do the job, or if for any reason
.it is not satisfactory to him, he may at his own request be returned to his old
job status. If during this trial period the Company feels that said employee is
not satisfactory to do the job, he may be returned to his former job status with
the sanction of the Union Committee. If the employee is on the job after the
thirty (30) working day trial period, he shall be permanently assigned to that
job.
Temporary assignment shall be made for a period of up to ten (10) work-
ing days, to be extended beyond that time only on approval of the Union Com-
mittee and Company Committee. No temporary job shall be posted.
In order to insure the proper operation of filling in vacancies, it is agreed
that employees next in line by progression shall be given an opportunity to train
in advance of being assigned to such job.
If an employee refuses a promotion for which he is eligible, another em-
ployee shall be promoted around him. In event of absence due to illness, acci-
dent or leave of absence, an employee may bid by proxy.
Ability shall be defined that an employee having ability to do the work and
having more seniority, shall have preference over an employee with greater
ability, but holding less seniority.
NEW ARTICLE-LUNCH PERIODS, WALKING TIME, ETC.,
1. Crews shall work on the basis of an eight-hour day from drop-off to pick-
up, within which spread they shall (a) take one-half hour for lunch, and (b)
spend whatever walking time necessary.
2. In the event of shut-down due to humidity, weather or other reason beyond
the control of the Company, Crew employees shall be paid until called off the
job by proper authority. In that event they shall be paid for the hours that have
elapsed from their starting time to the time of pick-up.
ARTICLE-SCALING RULES
Scaling rules shall be made a part of the agreement.
Following additions to the scaling rules are proposed:
(1) The first cut on any tree not felled by fallers shall be considered a root
cut and scaled as a root cut.
(2) Company shall own, furnish and maintain all cutting equipment.
(3) No faller shall be permitted to fall any tree and/or snag without his
partner being present at the tree all during the process of falling. Any faller
doing this by himself and/or any supervisor permitting it being done shall be
immediately discharged.
(4) There shall be a scaler for each set of fallers.
- -OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1361
ARTICLE-DAY RATE CUTTING RULES
(1) Present practice as to scaling rules , payment and rates of cutting crews
shall not be changed without prior negotiations and agreement.
(2) An extra bucker shall be assigned to single buckers when necessary for
safety reasons.
(3) Cutting crews shall work on the basis of an eight-hour day from drop-off
to pick-up, within which spread they shall (a) take one-half hour for lunch,
and (b ) spend whatever walking time necessary.
(4) The Employer shall own , furnish and maintain all tools and equipment.
(5) No faller shall be permitted to fall any tree and/or snag without his
partner being present at the tree all during the process of falling. Any faller
doing this by himself and/or -any supervisor permitting it being done shall be
immediately discharged.
ARTICLE-STANDARD MINIMUM CREWS
- Standard minimum crews shall be maintained so that there shall be sufficient
employees to do the work in a reasonable , safe and proper manner.
No duties or job content will be added to any employee 's work unless nego-
tiated and agreed to with the Union.
No supervisor will be allowed to work except in cases of emergency and then
only when an employee has failed to report without proper notice . Sufficient
employees shall be available to handle routine emergencies.
ARTICLE-LEAVE OF ABSENCE
(A) The company shall grant a leave of absence as a matter of right to any
Employee who is elected to an official position in the Union, District, State, or
in the International, CIO, or is a delegate by the Union to perform work which
may necessitate temporary cessation of work for the Company, without loss of
accrued seniority , former shift , position or similar position , and such leave of
absence shall be for the duration of time required by the Union.
(B) Employer and Union shall have the right to grant a leave of absence to
an Employee. However, if such leave of absence is to extend for a period of
more than thirty (30) days, approval of such leave of absence in writing by the
Union shall first be obtained. In the event any Employee takes a leave of absence
for a period in excess of thirty (30) days and fails to obtain written approval of
the Union and sanctioned by the Employer, therefor, such employee shall lose
all seniority rights.
NEW ARTICLE-NOTICES
No notice to be posted about work unless it is prior to quitting time of day
shift unless copies are sent to all employees who are laid off. Notices to be
posted on company bulletin board except that when men are laid off the notices
shall also be phoned in to the Local Union office and posted conspicuous places
in the nearby towns where the men reside. Copies of all notices to be sent
Local.
ARTICLE-WAGES
1. General wage increase of 150 across the board.
This hourly increase shall be applied to pieceworkers on an hourly basis.
2. Wage adjustments upwards in various classifications. The classifications
and amounts to be determined from an analysis of conditions within this area
and other pertinent factors. Completed listing of classifications and proposed
wage increases will be submitted to Employer on receipt of completed ques-
tionnaires by the union.
3. Wage scales and make-ready time to be made a part of the agreement.
ARTICLE-SUSPENSION AND DISCHARGE
Plant Committees will be consulted prior to any discharge action and/or
suspension action.
NEW ARTICLE-TOOLS
All lost, stolen and worn out tools of mechanics and millwrights shall be
replaced by the Employer.
ARTICLE-VACATION (amendment)
An employee with five (5) or more years of continuous employment prior to
April 1 of the year in which the vacation is taken is eligible for three weeks
vacation with fifteen (15) days' pay if he has worked fourteen hundred (1400)
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours during the vacation base year. Other employees with such five (5) years'
continuous employment who have worked less than 1400 hours during the vaca-
tion base year and who are in the continuous employ of the employer shall
receive three (3) weeks vacation on the following basis:
(a) An employee who has worked not less than eleven hundred and twenty
(1120) hours shall receive three (3) weeks vacation with fourteen (14) days'
pay.
(b) An employee who has worked not less than eight hundred and forty
(840) hours shall receive three weeks vacation with thirteen (13) days' pay.
ARTICLE-TERMINATION
The Article shall be reworded to provide that the Agreement shall run for
two-year periods.
ARTICLE-CREW BUS DRIVERS
All Crew Bus Drivers shall be paid the rate of the Drivers regular classifica-
tion. Drivers shall be paid for all actual time spent.
Proposed Revisions of Local 7-116 7
WAGES ------------------------------ •---------------- Same as 7-140LE V OF ABSENCE -- ------ a
SUSPENSION AND DISCHARGE----------------------- Same as 7-140
TOOLS----------------------------------------------- Same as 7-140
NOTICES--------------------------------------------- Same as 7-140
STANDARD MINIMUM CREWS-------,---------------- Same as 7-140
ARTICLE-SENIORITY
The Company agrees that seniority shall prevail at all times in regard to pro-
motions, layoffs and rehiring. Promotions shall be given to those who have
earned promotions by length of service, ability and efficiency. The Company
agrees to post a monthly seniority list and furnish the Union with a copy.
An employee shall forfeit his accrued seniority rights in the event of failure
to return to work within seven (7) days after notice has been sent to his last
known address, or signify his intention of returning to work within fifteen days.
In all cases of layoff, the Plant Committee shall be consulted by the Employer
prior to the layoff and the list of those who are to be laid off shall be jointly
agreed to.
° Any employee not recalled in seniority order shall be paid for the period of
violation.
Status slips shall be given all employees when laid off, discharged, terminated
or quit, showing date and reasons for leaving, Copies to the Union.
ARTICLE-SENIORITY (Job Posting)
All jobs shall be posted for bids before being filled permanently, except that
certain listed jobs shall be filled by progression. List of these to be agreed to by
union and the employer. (For example: Edgerman by relief man; Trimmerman
by trimmer spotter; planerman by assistant planerman or planer feeder; filer by
set up man; sawyer by setter; slinger by choker setter; catskinner by cathooker,
etc.)
Jobs are to be posted on bulletin board for bid for not less than three days.
Job posted shall state job, rate of pay and shift. Bids to be considered jointly by
the Union committee and Company committee. Selection shall be based on
seniority with consideration for ability.
If there is no bid received on any posted job, the Union Committee and the
Company Committee will have the right to fill the job with any employee provid'-
ing he,is willing to accept. If none is willing to accept, the Company may hire
outside help.
A successful bidder shall have thirty (30) working days as a trial period. If
within this time employee decides he cannot do the job, or if for any reason it
is not satisfactory to him, he may at his own request be returned to his old job
status. If during this trial period the Company feels that said employee is not
satisfactory to do the job, he may be returned to his former job status with the
sanction of the Union Committee. If the employee is on the job after the thirty
(30) working day trial period, he shall be permanently assigned to that job.
Temporary assignment shall be made for a period of up to ten (10) working
days, to be extended beyond that time only on approval of the Union Committee
and Company Committee. No temporary job shall be posted.
7,General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 41 A through L.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1363
In order to insure the proper operation of filling in vacancies, it is agreed
that employees next in line by progression shall be given an opportunity to train
in advance of being assigned to such job.
If an employee refused a promotion for which he is eligible, another employee
shall be promoted around him. In event of absence due to illness, accident or
leave of absence, an employee may bid by proxy.
Ability shall be defined that an employee having ability to do the work
and having more seniority, shall have preference over an employee with greater
ability, but holding less seniority
ARTICLE-HOLIDAYS
Three (3) additional paid holidays, making a total of six:
Memorial Day
Fourth of July
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
New Year's Day
shall be recognized as paid holidays.
Employees on the payroll thirty (30) calendar days prior to the paid
holiday shall be entitled to the paid holiday.
ARTICLE-VACATIONS
An employee with three (3) or more years of continuous employment prior
to April 1st. of the year in which the vacation is taken is eligible for two weeks
vacation with ten (10) days pay if he has worked fourteen hundred (1400)
hours during the vacation base year. Other employees with such three (3)
years of continuous employment, who have worked less than fourteen hundred
(1400) hours during the vacation base year and who are in the continuous
employ of the Employer, shall receive to (2) weeks vacation on the following
basis :
(a) An employee who has worked not less than eleven hundred twenty
(1120) hours shall receive two (2) weeks vacation with nine (9) days pay.
(b) An employee who has worked not less than eight hundred forty (840)
hours shall receive two weeks vacation with eight (8) days pay.
Three (3) weeks vacation with pay after five (5) years' seniority.
ARTICLE-TERMINATION
The Article shall be reworded to provide that the agreement shall run for
two-year periods.
ARTICLE-REST PERIODS
It is understood and agreed that there will be a rest period of not less than
10 minutes during each four hour shift.
An employee who has worked a regular shift and who is to work overtime
beyond shift end shall be entitled to at least a 10 minute rest period at shift end.
By this procedure Local 7-140 opened its contract with the following Respondents,
on the following subjects:
Gardiner: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), standard minimum
crews, leave of absence, notices, wages, suspension and discharge, rest periods, tools,
(mechanic and millwright), vacation pay, and termination of 2-year contracts.
Compton: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking
time, etc., scaling rules and day rules, standard minimum crews, leave of absence,
notices, wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright), vacation
pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
Doernbecher: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking
time, etc., scaling rules and day rules, standard minimum crews, leave of absence,
notices, wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright), vacation
pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
Wood: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking time,
etc., scaling rules and day rules, standard minimum crews, leave of absence, notices,
wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright), vacation pay,
termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
A. S. C.: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking
time, etc., scaling rules and day rules, standard minimum crews, leave of absehce,
notices, wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright), vacation
pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bangs and Dick: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walk-
ing time, etc., scaling rules and day rules, standard minimum crews, leave of absence,
notices, wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright), vacation
pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
Lausmann: Safety, seniority (plant) (job posting), standard minimum crews, leave
of absence, notices, wages, suspension and discharge, rest periods, tools (mechanic
and millwright), vacation pay, and termination of 2-year contracts.
Faulkner: Safety, seniority (plant) (job posting), standard minimum crews, leave
of absence, notices, wages, suspension and discharge, rest periods, tools (mechanic
and millwright), vacation pay, and termination of 2-year contracts.
Patten: Safety, seniority (plant) (job posting), standard minimum crews, leave of
absence, notices, wages, suspension and discharge, tools (mechanic and millwright),
vacation pay and termination of 2-year contracts.
Consumers: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking
time for loggers, scaling rules and day rules (cutting), standard minimum crews, leave
of absence, notices, wages, suspension and discharge, rest periods, tools (mechanic and
millwright), vacation pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
Plywood: Safety, seniority (department) (job posting), lunch period, walking time
for loggers, scaling rules and day rules (cutting), standard minimum crews, leave of
absence, notices, suspension and discharge, rest periods, tools (mechanic and mill-
wright), vacation pay, termination of 2-year contracts, and crew busdrivers.
By the same procedure, Local 7-116 opened its contracts with Peirce, Coos Head,
and Coast on the following subjects: Wages, leave of absence, holidays, termination,
tools, notices, standard minimum crews, seniority (job posting), seniority, suspension
and discharge, vacations, and rest periods.
It should be noted that since Respondents OCO and Willamette Valley were not
parties to the contracts, the Unions did not send opening letters or proposed revisions to
those two Respondents.
B. The questionnaires
Upon the pleadings , the stipulations of counsel, and the evidence as a whole, I find
that on January 29, 1954, each Local by letter requested each Respondent whose
contract it had opened to supply to the Union certain information regarding the
Company's operations. The requests were by letter, with four questionnaires attached.
It is this letter, with questionnaires, which raises one of the issues herein, for the
complaint alleges that the Respondents' refusal and failure to supply the desired infor-
mation constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
The form letter sent and received in each case, reads as follows
January -, 1954
TO ALL OPERATORS UNDER AGREEMENT WITH LOCAL -, IWA-CIO
SIR: Enclosed you will find material for answering a questionnaire which will
provide us with the essential information to use in negotiating with you as per
our contract openings.
These answers must be returned as directed on the form, one copy to this Local
office, one copy to Ernest Tomberg, IWA District 7, CIO, Box 488, Coos Bay,
and one copy to E. W. Kenney, Director of Research, IWA-CIO, 418 Governor
Building, Portland, Oregon, by February 15, 1954.
Those employers answering the Logging Operators' form are hereby informed
that under the heading Distribution of Crews, it is not necessary to make more
than one entry for Logging Trucks and more than one entry for Gravel Trucks.
The purpose is to find out what policy is being followed in the matter of greasing
and mechanical work on those vehicles. Other equipment is to be listed by each
unit, as per directions on the form.
There are additional sheets for use in answering the questions on employees on
payroll in 1953. If you do not have sufficient forms of any type, please notify
us, collect , by the speediest possible means and we will provide you with whatever
additional sheets are required.
All forms must be made out in triplicate. A quadruplicate copy form is
enclosed for you to retain in your file if you wish. Carbon of proper size is
included.
Very truly yours,
BUSINESS AGENT, Local-,
International Woodworkers of America, CIO
Attached to each letter were four questionnaires, copies of which were attached to
the complaint as Exhibits A, B, C, and D. Copies of the questionnaires are hereby
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1365,
made a part of this report and are marked Exhibits A, B, C, and D, the same as in
the complaint. However, it should be noted that questionnaires, Exhibits C and D,
in the original were printed on ledger size sheets of paper, which prevented exact re-
production in this report. However, a slight rearrangement of subject matter removed
that difficulty. Except for the rearrangement of subject matter, the questionnaires, as
attached hereto, are exact copies.
Upon the pleadings, the stipulations of counsel, and the evidence as a whole, I
find that a copy of the letter set forth above, and copies of the questionnaires, were
received by each of the Respondents, except OCO and Willamette Valley, on or about
January 29, 1954, and that the Unions in the course of negotiations on March 3 and
April 1, 1954, as will be related hereafter, requested the same information from all
the Respondents, including Respondents OCO and WVLOA, but that the Respond-
ents thereafter failed and refused to furnish the information.
On February 24, 1954, each of the Locals filed charges against its respective Em-
ployers, alleging a violation of Section 8 (a) (1.) and (5) of the Act by virtue of
their failure and refusal to supply the information. The charges named OCO and
WVLOA, as agents of their employer-members, and alleged that the agents partici-,
pated in the refusal and failure to supply the information.
Upon receipt of the two letters, one opening the contracts, and the second sub-
mitting the questionnaires, the several Respondents took varying action. Compton,
Bangs and Dick, Doernbecher, Coast, Coos Head, and Peirce notified Local 7-140
that OCO would represent them "in all negotiations on union or company proposals
for contract revision resulting from the 1954 spring openings." OCO notified Local
7-140 that it had been authorized to negotiate on behalf of A. S. C., Bangs and Dick,
Compton, Doernbecher, and Wood. OCO also notified Local 7-116 that it had been
authorized to negotiate on behalf of Peirce, Coast, and Coos Head.
In regard to the questionnaires, OCO, on February 8, by letters addressed to the
two Locals, acknowledged receipt of the questionnaires by the Companies it repre-
sented, and then said:
The information requested on these forms which is now germane to points
opened for negotiations has previously been made available to the union. Ad-
ditional information which is later shown to be pertinent and not otherwise
available to the union can be discussed during negotiations. 8 [Emphasis
supplied.]
Shortly thereafter OCO, on behalf of Bangs and Dick, Peirce, Coos Head, and
Coast, notified Local 7-116 that those Employers desired to open the contracts be-
tween the parties, and to delete therefrom the provision for paid holidays.
There is no evidence that Willamette Valley, Patten, Faulkner, Lausmann, Ply-
wood, or Consumers replied to either the opening letters or the questionnaire letters.
However, arrangements were made for conferences between the Unions and the
Companies, for the purpose of bargaining on the proposed revisions of the several
contracts. The first bargaining conference was held at the American Legion Hall,
Coos Bay, Oregon, on March 3, 1954.
C. The bargaining
(1) Preliminary considerations
An exposition of certain facts established at the hearing will afford a better under-
standing of some of the salient features of the bargaining between the parties, which
will be related hereafter.
As to the issue of the duty of the Respondents to furnish the information requested
by the questionnaires, one point must be clearly understood. That point is, that
none of the Respondents base their defense in this proceeding upon the form of the
Union's request for information, namely, the questionnaire, or on any demand by the
Union that the Employers supply the information in the form of answers to the
questionnaire. At the hearing, the Trial Examiner stated that he thought that point
merited clarification.
Counsel then made the following statements on the record:
Mr. Momus: On behalf of Respondents in Case 461, based upon the ad-
mission in evidence of Respondent Willamette's Exhibit No. 1 for identification,
being a transcript of the negotiating meetings over the spring openings involved
in the testimony here, we make no defense as to the form of the questionnaire
8 General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 12 and 13.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
submitted to the Respondents in the proceeding , with whom Local 7-140 has
a contract , nor does the Operators Association make a defense on that point.
Mr. ANDERSON : On behalf of the Respondents for whom I appear, I will
make the statement that the facts of what occurred , I believe, are shown in
the transcript which has been identified as Willamette's Exhibit No. 1 for iden-
tification.
I have examined the transcript and it's my impression that the requests for
the information were always put in such way that they were identified par-
ticularly to answering the questionnaires , or in such manner that they were so
understood.
However, I will say that , as far as the issues of the case are concerned, that
these Respondents will not assert any defense based on the fact that the infor-
mation was requested to be furnished on these particular forms.
Mr. HILL: The Respondents whom I represent make the same statement
as that made by Mr. Anderson.
Thereafter Respondent Willamette Valley's Exhibit No. 1, a transcript of the bar-
gaining meetings, was received in evidence.
As to the issue of "side agreements " being included in the labor contracts of the
several sets of parties , there was also a stipulation of importance . In the course of
the hearing, it was stipulated that certain side agreements between particular Employ-
.ers and Unions had been agreed upon, although they were not set forth in the formal
collective-bargaining contract between the same parties. These stipulated side agree-
ments in some cases were written, in others were oral. These side agreements had
been reached in the course of collective bargaining through the years, and covered
specific conditions of employment or practices in the lumber industry, which both
the Union and the Employer had agreed upon, and by agreement put in effect in
,the Employer's operation. This situation, of having side agreements in addition to
the formal contracts, involved practically all the Companies, so counsel for the
parties stipulated the subject matter and the existence of the side agreements. Also,
W. L. Harris testified, without contradiction, as to whether the side agreements were
.evidenced by a writing or not. I have credited this testimony of Harris.
Also, counsel for the General Counsel offered in evidence General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 45, a document which purported to list under the name of each Employer
in the WVLOA group, the subjects on which the particular Employer had side agree-
ments with the Union. Complementing General Counsel's Exhibit No. 45, it was
stipulated by counsel for the parties that the side agreements between Local 7-140
and the WVLOA group then in effect covered the subjects listed under the name
of each Employer on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 45.
It was also stipulated that the contract openings of the Union proposed inclusion
of certain side agreements in the contract. I have marked these agreements "open"
on the chart below. The notation, on the chart below, as to the documents evidenc-
ing the particular side agreement is the finding of the Trial Examiner based on all
the evidence.
The following chart summarizes the situation as to side agreements in the WVLOA
.group; it shows (1) the subject matter of the side agreement; (2) whether the Union
has "opened" the contract to include it; and (3) the writings evidencing the side
agreement, though its existence is not disputed.
CONSUMERS:
1. Job posting-Open-Oral-Confirming letter sent by Union.
2. Ownership of cutting tools by Company-Open-Oral.
3. No faller or bucker permitted to file chain-Oral.
4. Meet with committee prior to discharge action-Open-Oral.
5. Make-ready time and wage scales to be in agreement-Open-Wage
scales in contract-Oral as to make-ready time-Confirming letter sent by
Union.
6. Standard minimum crews such as two choker setters per choker-Open-
Oral-Confirming letter sent by Union.
7. No man to fall timber by himself-Open-Oral-Put in effect.
8. Call time and how it works (particularly for cutters)-Oral.
9. Walking time-Open-Oral.
10. Men who drive crew buses get their regular job rate and actual time so
spent-Open-Oral.
11. Rest periods-Open-Oral.
12. Second riggers to be used-Oral.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1367
PLYWOOD:
1. Ownership of tools (Case No. 36-CA-409)-Open-Harris not sure
oral or written.
2. No man to fall timber by himself-Open-Written, signed memo.
3. When scaler is being used, to be paid by the thousand-Written, signed
memo.
4. Wages and make-ready in the agreement-Open-Written-Not signed
by parties.
5. Departments in the agreement-Open-Oral.
6. Ratio of pieceworkers and dayworkers to be maintained.
7. Walking time and lunchtime for loggers-Open-Oral.
8. Number of scalers-Oral.
9. Crew busdrivers get actual job rate of regular job and actual time so
spent-Open-Oral.
FAULKNER; LAUSMANN
1. Wage scales and make-ready time-Open-Wage scales written.
PATTEN-BLINN:
1. Wage scales and make-ready time-Open-Written, not signed.
2. Travel time when working on dock-Minutes of meeting signed.
After receipt in evidence of General Counsel's Exhibit No. 45 and the above stip-
ulations, counsel for the remaining Employers stipulated "that terms and conditions
of employment, not expressly included in the agreements in evidence, of similar type
to those enumerated on Exhibit 45, are in effect at the operations of the remaining
respondents , who are not enumerated on Exhibit 45; that some of these exist in
custom and usage without any agreement; that some exist as the result of agree-
ments arrived at from time to time in collective bargaining; that where agreements
exist approximately one-half of these are evidenced by writings, either letters or
memorandum agreements, and some are oral; that the number of such matters exist-
ing, at such operations range from 1 to 11."
Respondent Willamette's Exhibit No. 1 in evidence is a transcript of the proceed-
ings, which occurred when the parties met on five occasions for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining . These proceedings were recorded verbatim on a tape recorder
and later transcribed. The exhibit is composed of 270 folio pages, which renders
it too voluminous for reproduction here. However, I deem this exhibit of the high-
est probative value because: (1) It translates the issues here involved, from the
academic, abstract plane of the Board or court to the daily lives of men and women
who live and work in the Oregon forests. It illustrates that in their lives, collec-
tive bargaining is a decisive factor in many features of daily existence, and may be a
factor in their sudden death; (2) it proves conclusively that the information sought
by the Unions by means of the questionnaires is directly, immediately, and essen-
tially connected with the contract negotiations of the parties; (3) it throws a clear
light on the whole of the bargaining between the parties, and that light reaches to
the issues here, which are a part of that bargaining. For these very compelling rea-
sons I was loath to' omit from this report substantial portions of the exhibit, but a
summary could not convey its probative significance. It must be read, not once but
twice , to be fully appreciated, for it is only after the entire bargaining, and its end-
ing, is understood, that each move and countermove of the bargaining parties
emerges in its true significance.
To afford an understanding of the relationship between the conduct of the parties
as portrayed in the exhibit and the issues here, I have attempted to note some of the
highlights of the bargaining. This summary does not purport to be complete, for
some of the discussion has little relevancy to the issues here, and some though rele-
vant was not particularly meaningful ; those portions I have omitted. I have in-
cluded those discussions which I deemed significant, and those of highest significance
I have quoted verbatim, and emphasized by underlineations. The summary is not,
and cannot be, a substitute for a reading of the exhibit, but it does point up some
conduct of the parties which puts the issues here in proper focus.
(2) The bargaining conferences
(a) First meeting-March 3, 1954
At this conference John Hill, counsel, and Charles Hoffman, secretary-manager,
represented OCO and its member-employers. John Hackenbruck, of its staff, rep-
379288-56-vol. 113-87
1368 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resented Willamette Valley and its member-employers. Representatives of the--in-
dividual-Companies were also present. The Locals were represented by the District
7 committee, for whom Tomberg and Harris were the principal spokesmen and Bab-
cock, counsel.
At.,all bargaining conferences, the representatives of the parties at the bargaining
table,'v,iere as follows:
Local - Representative Company
7-116 District 7 Committee Hoffman* OCO Coast
Tomber Hill, counsel Coos Head
Harris Peirce
Babcock, counsel
7-140 Gardiner
Compton
Doernbecher
" Wood.
Bangs and Dick.
A. S C.
Hackenbruck * WVLOA Patten
Faulkner
Lausmann
Plywood
Consumers.
'Hoffman , OCO, or Hackenbruck , WVLOA , acted as spokesmen for all Employers, at
alternate meetings
Hoffman stated that each individual who had given his name to the reporter had
authority to represent his Company or his Association in the negotiations , and that
the committees had the right to represent its members and to reach recommended
settlements , which were subject to each Company's right of acceptance or rejection.
He explained that the Employers were acting through separate committees of OCO,
WVLOA, and Gardiner , meeting with the Locals , on a concurrent basis, with.au-
thority as stated previously.
Tomberg said that his committee was the District 7 committee, to whom Locals
7-116 and 7-140 had delegated authority to represent them in contract negotiations.
Hoffman said that the spokesman for the Employers would be alternately OCO
or WVLOA. At the beginning of the conference Tomberg took up the matter of
the questionnaires . He said that the Unions had received a letter saying that the
Employers had provided the Unions with whatever information they required. He
asked what that information was and what the Employers ' position was as to answer-
ing the questionnaire.
Hoffman said that OCO's letter to the Locals on February 8 gave that position as
far as OCO was concerned . The position of Gardiner and WVLOA was the same
in essence-that the Locals had already received the information and had available
the information, data, and statistics that were pertinent to the negotiations. He
also pointed out that the parties had not yet begun to negotiate , and that the Em-
ployers had not received anything from the Unions , which showed that further; in-
formation was pertinent or germane to the negotiations. If that was done, the em-
ployer committees would then consider the matter.
Babcock asked what information had been made available to the Union. Hoff-
man replied , "Information which the union has as a result for instance of requests
and receipt of wage schedules , of requests and receipt of seniority lists, of informa-
tion which has been available to them through various communications from the
company regarding health and welfare lists and what not." He added that the Em-
ployers had no knowledge of what information was available to the Union , because
they, did not audit the Union 's records , but the Employers knew that when the Union
had required information , the requests had gone to the Companies , and where it was
pertinent it had been supplied.
Babcock then stated that he wished to make clear the Union's position. The
Union did not consider such fragmentary information as it might have received in
seniority lists or wage scales as complying with the questionnaire . The Union's
position was that all the information requested was relevant to the negotiations, the
enforcement and administration of the contract , the handling of grievances , and re-
lated matters . It was something to which the Union was entitled as a matter of
right , as the bargaining representative of the employees , so that it might bargain
intelligently . The information wasn't strictly speaking a matter for bargaining
However, the Union was prepared to discuss it, to explain it, and to answer any
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1369
I
questions concerning it. The Union felt that all of the information was relevant, was
in the Employer 's possession and control , and could be reasonably furnished. He
stated that the Union was not in any sense withdrawing its request for the informa-
tion , which should be treated as a continuing request . He said that the Union was
prepared to make the preliminary presentation of its points, but insisted that this in-
formation be furnished in the immediate future, so it would be available as negotia-
tions proceeded . Babcock said that Harris was ready to explain anything about the
questionnaire.
At that point Harris made a rather lengthy exposition of why the Unions needed
the information . He made the following points: ( 1) The haphazard information
received by seniority lists, etc., was not complete , so it made no sense; (2) griev-
ances arose from cutting down crews, etc ., but the Unions had no knowledge of
the production figures of the Companies ; ( 3) the Companies talked a lot about the
high earnings of the crews , but the Unions were unable to obtain from them, the
yearly earnings of the men; (4 ) this information could not be obtained from health
and welfare lists or the fragmentary seniority lists; and ( 5) all the information
sought was relevant to the negotiations.
After Harris' explanation , Tomberg asked if there was any change in the Employ-
ers' position . Hoffman answered , "Our position has been stated."
Tomberg then presented the union proposals . He took each of the proposed arti-
cles, previously set forth herein, and discussed them . A few of his observations are
set forth below:
1. A general wage increase of 15 cents across-the -board . Tomberg stated that
the Unions felt that 15 cents was justified by the condition of the market , the rise in
the cost of lumber, and the future anticipated good market conditions . He pointed
out that in the prior year the employees had not received a wage increase because
the Employers argued that the market was in an unsound condition . The Union
took the position in these negotiations that productivity per man had increased, and
as a result the men were entitled to wage increases on that basis.
2. A minimum standard wage. Tomberg said that the rates proposed as mini-
mum standards were then being paid by a number of the Employers. The Unions
were not opening where the rates were being paid.
3. Wage scales and make-ready time to be made a part of the agreement . He said
the purpose of this provision was to relieve the Union of the necessity of requesting
wage scales periodically . The Unions had experienced difficulty in obtaining wage
scales from the Employers , so felt that the agreed upon wage scales should be set out
in the contract . In some operations the proposal was then in the contract. Make-
ready time also should be in the contract.
4. Uniform leave of absence . This was to replace the many different provisions
as to leaves of absence in the different contracts.
At the conclusion of Tomberg 's exposition , Hoffman said he had several questions.
Hoffman asked about the list of jobs for which the Union proposed that job post-
ing be applicable . Tomberg said that the Union thought that should be a matter
of negotiation between the individual Employer and the Union . Hoffman asked
the purpose of the "notice " provision . Tomberg explained that this was an at-
tempt to set up some kind of system whereby the men would be notified of a
temporary layoff due to snow, or other weather conditions , or anything else. It
was simply an attempt to provide better information to the crews as to when a job
closed , and as to when it reopened.
Harris explained that in some operations the Union and Employer had agreed
that a layoff notice for any reason would be posted by 4 p. in., so the men would
know when they left work if they should return the next day or if they were laid
off. Also, a specific time for posting the reopening of the job would relieve the
men of going to the bulletin boards 10 or 15 times a day.
Tomberg then referred to another proposal-layoffs: the plant committee shall
be consulted by the Employer prior to the layoff ; the lists of those who are to be
laid off shall be jointly agreed to; employees shall be rehired in the inverse order
of layoff with the approval of the plant committee ; any employees not recalled
in order of seniority shall be paid for the period of violation . Harris pointed out
that the last provision was in effect with Gardiner, Wood , and several others. Also,
status slips shall be given to all employees when laid off, discharged , terminated,
or quit, showing date and reason for termination , and copies given to the Union.
Harris said that this provision was in effect in some of the operations.
At this point, Hoffman asked if anybody had any questions on the points, and
there were no further questions.
Tomberg then urged the acceptance of the proposals . Harris pointed out that
the department listing, the status slip provision , the job posting, the scaling rules, and
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD X
the day rules were in some of the contracts. He said that on the question of
safety he didn't see how anybody could argue about that-provision,--which was
presently in effect in some operations. As to lunch period and walking time, the
proposal was the exact wording of the Gardiner contract, and at Woods the same
proposal was applied to the cutting and boom crews and the truckdrivers. The
-Union saw no reason why it shouldn't be in effect for all loggers. As to suspension
and discharge, that proposal was in effect in the Gardiner and Wood operations, and
the Union had a gentleman's agreement with practically all the operators to the
same effect.
Same parties.
(b) Second meeting-March 11, 1954
-Hackenbruck as spokesman for the Employers asked if the District 7 committee
-had anything to add to its presentation of the last meeting.
Tomberg again said that the Locals were bargaining, although the Employers'had
-failed to furnish the information sought by the questionnaires. The Unions felt
that the information was important, and had a bearing on the negotiations. As a
-result of the Employers' failure to fill out the questionnaires, the Unions were un-
able to make presentations on such subjects as wage adjustments, standard minimum
crews, and many other points. The Unions wished it understood that they were
-making a continuing request for the information in the questionnaires, and were not
waiving their rights by proceeding with negotiations.
Hackenbruck then stated that -the Employers wished to discuss one point which
was not clear, the proposal pertaining to notices. He made no reference to the ques-
tionnaires. Harris explained that during the winter men were temporarily laid off
because of snow or other weather. conditions, and the question arose as to how they
were to be called back. Some of the operators thought it was sufficient to post a
recall notice on a company bulletin board, despite the fact that the contracts re-
quired that the men be given notice. At the Gardiner operation, after some diffi-
culty, they had arrived at an understanding that the layoff notices would be,posted
at 4 p. m. When a man on layoff was wanted for the following day, the Com-
pany would request the foreman or -employee who happened to live nearest the
man to notify -him. The general, practice was that notices .of recall were posted at
,any hour of the day, so each,man was required to make repeated trips to the.btille-
tinboard. It was unreasonable to expect men -to report every hour of the.day to
see ,if a -notice of recall had been posted. The proposal obviated the difficulty.
Harris -said that the Unions also felt that, .in addition to a fixed time and, place
for posting work notices, the Local, representing the men, should receive a copy
of the notice. In further discussion-of this,point, Harris explained that someMof the
men resided in Portland or in Washington, and when they were laid off for a few
days, they would go home to their 'families. The Unions sought to stabilize the
-situation so that, the -Employer would-be sure. of a crew, and the men would know
what was expected of them.
Hoffman then asked what they would do when an emergency arose at . the.end-of
-the•day shift such as a-flood. Harris answered that the language could,be worked
out to fit the situation.
Hackenbruck then said that they had a counterproposal to .one of the contract
, openings , which varied from 140 to 116, the seniority by departments provision.
He would like to cover the 140 proposal first. Hackenbruck said that. the' Employ-
ters felt that-the-Employer should be,the sole judge of the capability of-a person to
ihandle a•job•classification. To which Harris replied, "Then you have no seniority."
•Hackenbruck said that the Employers thought the application of "bumping" to
layoffs of 4 hours was impractical, so they proposed a period of 1 working day.
Also, the Employers wanted to temper the provision for consultation with the -Union
as to -layoffs, by providing for consultation whenever possible. The Employers also
-wished to -propose: "When rehiring occurs those employees laid off last within the
classification shall be re-employed first provided -they are available."
The-Employers also submitted a change to article VI which stated that an employee
injured on the job shall retain his seniority rights for the period of temporary disability.
The Employers, proposed that his seniority continue for the same period as the, State
Industrial Accident Commission stated that his case was open as a temporary.dis-
ability. When-the commission stated that his case was closed, seniority ceased. Also,
seniority would not apply-to cases which were closed and then reopened.
As to article VII, they had changed the proposal somewhat-they had inserted the
word calendar and deleted a part of the Union's proposal, substituting this language:
"Failure of an employee to return to work when so notified relieves employer of fur-
ther obligation to employee next in line within the classification."
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1371
Hackenbruck said, "We felt that when an employer notifies a man with the seniority
to qualify, himself for a job opening subsequent to his lay-off and gives the proper notice
to that individual and that individual fails to avail himself of the work that is pre-
sented to him under those conditions , that the employer should not be liable for any
payments made to the second man in line within the classification , but he should be
immediately permitted to_fill that job vacancy with whoever is available for the
job vacancy."
The Employers also felt that anyone who had a grievance under the proposed
seniority article should be required to present that grievance within 5 working days
from the date on which the violation was alleged to have occurred. Harris asked if
he was talking now about known violations of the men's seniority. Hackenbruck said,
"No."
As to the provisions for status slips, the Employers agreed that they be made out in
triplicate when an employee was laid off, suspended, terminated, or quit, and should
show date and hours worked. They deleted the requirement that the reason be given
for a man's discharge. Hackenbruck said that some reasons for discharge would not
look good when submitted to the unemployment commission of the State. As to the
seniority proposal of Local 116, they rejected the proposal in its entirety, and desired
to maintain the present seniority article. Hackenbruck stated that the Employers were
not inclined to make any changes in regard to the majority of the Unions' proposals.
Hackenbruck said that the Employers were willing to include in their proposal an
offer to put in day rate cutting within the area governed by District 7. The Em-
ployers would propose an hourly rate of $3.075 per hour to be paid for those hours
worked while on the job, and that the employees be required to do their own filing
within the working day.
Harris pointed out that in no opening had the Unions proposed to change from the
present piecework to day rate.
In regard to the holiday article, Hackenbruck stated that the Unions had opened
some of the working agreements for the addition of 3 paid holidays. The Employers'
proposal was that the entire group would increase the wage scale by 6 cents per hour
in the operations having 6 paid holidays, and 3 cents per hour in the operations having
3 paid holidays, in return for the complete deletion of all reference to paid holidays
from the contract.
Hackenbruck then named the Companies who have opened the agreement for the
deletion of the six paid holidays. At this point the following colloquy occurred:
HACKENBRUCK: Do you have anything further to offer, Chuck, do you have
any further comments? . I neglected what to us is a major item of importance.
This company rejects in its entirety the unions' proposal for a wage increase, the
committee rejects any and all cost items that were contained in your proposals.
* * * * * * *
We reject the principle of your standard minimum wages in the classifications
you have given us at an earlier meeting.
* * * * * * *
The idea behind the establishing of minimum rates for given classifications
in your District- 7 area. . . . When I stated to you that we had rejected all
other proposals other than those we made the counterproposal on, we did
not quite have your intent clear on that notice and we will . . . your notice
proposal and we will withhold any comment on that until we take a better
look at it. If you desire you could maybe do a little work on that yourself
before we get together again to spell out what you have in mind. We are
not committing ourselves one way or the other as to our feelings on the intent
of it, as you have stated earlier this afternoon.
* * * * * * *
ToMEERG: All right you made a statement as I understand it, John, that
you reject all cost items and you reject our proposal , are we to assume that
that rejection refers to non-cost items such as scaling rules, day rules, safety rules,
make-ready time a part of the agreement which is already being paid, another
cost item. Was that included in your-
HACKENBRUCK: Yes, that is quite correct. We counter-proposed on those
items that we felt there is room for discussion on. We rejected all of the
cost items and reject your proposals on your other contractual openings.
HARRIS: Wage scales are not to be made a part of the contract, make-
ready time.
HACKENBRUCK: That is correct. We feel that in most of the instances of your
agreements these items are sufficiently covered and we are not in any position,
right at the present time to make any changes.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HARRIS: What agreement-which agreement?
HACKENBRUCK : If you want to go ahead with the rest of this I will read
them out-
HARRIS: We've asked a question and you answered it and I want to know
which agreement has it spelled out in.
HACKENBRUCK : I am prepared right at the present time to give you a list
of the agreements in which the wage scales are incorporated.
HARRIS: The one on the Consumers Co-op.
HACKENBRUCK : On an over-all basis we are rejecting the principle of making
the wage scales a part of the agreement.
HARRIS: Scaling rules-
JOHN: Yes-
HARRIS: Not a part of the agreement.
HACKENBRUCK: If you 're going to go down one by one I'll tell you again, Bill
we said no to all of your proposals , except for those that we counter -proposed on.
HARRIS: That's what I wanted to hear.
ToMBERO: Well we just wanted to make that clear. As far as I was con-
cerned I thought I understood your proposal, but just to check because some of
them were not cost items and some things are actually-
HACKENBRUCK: Yes, I'll agree with you on that Ernie.
HARRIS: The signed agreement on scaling rules is not to be made a part of
the contract? Is that what you're saying?
HACKENBRUCK: I told you Bill, it was no to all those items.
HARRIS: I wonder if you knew all of the facts when you made that statement.
HACKENBRUCK: Possiby I don't. That's what we're. in here negotiating about.
ToMBERO: Does that complete your counterproposal, John?
HACKENBRUCK : That it does.
Harris and Hackenbruck then became involved in a discussion of seniority pro-
visions, until Tomberg stated that the Employers had rejected , almost as an after-
thought, all cost items of the proposals . He insisted that the Unions were entitled to
some reasons for the rejection of the wage increase and cost items.
HACKENBRUCK : Well I'll give you a rather short answer on it, Ernie. We
don't want to get involved in statistics on this side of the table, as I understand.
But we have the same proposals in so far as cost items, not the identical pro-
posals but the cost items facing us last year . We don 't think that conditions this
year are any bit different than they were last year. We've had a lot of mills
being shut down all around the country and there is a lot of unemployment all
around the country. We think the wages in the lumber industry right at the
present time are where they should be. Until conditions warrant a change and
we see no conditions that will warrant any change either now or in the immediate
future.
Tomberg said that didn 't answer the proposal made on standardized minimums.
He pointed 'out that some of the Employers were paying the rates while others ap-
peared unwilling to pay them-so he asked why they rejected the standard minimum
proposals which were already being paid by some of the Employers.
Hackenbruck said they rejected that proposal because the Employers don't "neces-
sarily believe in the principle behind it, that there will be a standard wage within the
industry or even what you might consider standard minimum wage." He said, that
though the Unions might think that some operations were similar , the Employers
thought otherwise, so they had decided that wages must be left for negotiation be-
tween the individual Employers. Hackenbruck also explained the rejection of job
posting. He said that the Employers could not agree among themselves on that item,
so they were refusing it as a committee, and suggesting that it be left to negotiation
between the individual Company and the Unions. Harris then asked what the Unions
were to do, were they supposed to withdraw all those points and go back to the local
Companies? Hackenbruck said, "That is our suggestion on that one point."
Harris pointed out that Wood paid $3.20 for fallers, plus payment for filing in-
cluded in the 8 hours, and asked, "Is this a proposal to reduce their rates?" Hacken-
bruck answered, "We proposed it on a blanket basis. Yes, Bill."
A little later Harris pointed out that the employers said they rejected the principle
of a minimum standard wage, yet proposed in essence a minimum standard wage for
cutting crews of $3.075 per hour, on the basis of a day rate, if the men would, in
addition, perform the , filing of their saws. Harris said , that nowhere in the Northwest
were men required to do falling, bucking, and filing. Hackenbruck said, "I think the
statement that I made earlier takes care of your disagreement , Bill."
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1373
Harris asked, "Why are you in disagreement on the safety?" Hackenbruck replied
that some of -the Employers believed the wording placed a liability on them which
they did not presently have. He also said that all the Employers wished to conform
to the State codes in all respects and reduce fatalities. Harris then pointed out that
the safety rule was enforced at Plywood, Wood, Gardiner, and Weyerhaeuser Timber
Company. Hackenbruck admitted that in practically all operations such agreements
were in effect . But, Harris pointed out, they were not in the contracts. Hackenbruck
then asked, "if that was all that Harris was asking, that they be put in the contracts."
Harris answered, "That's right."
- Hackenbruck then said that the Employers saw no necessity for putting it in the
agreement , that it was a separate agreement in some instances and oral in others, and
was being observed, so they didn't see why it should be in the agreement. Hacken-
bruck then referred to the decisions of the Board. He said that the Board has held
on numerous occasions that any agreement that might be entered into by two parties
in the course of collective bargaining must be reduced to writing and signed if re-
quested; but there was nothing in any of those cases that he had read which said that
such an agreement must be made a part of the working agreement proper. It could
,be a separate contract. Finally Hackenbruck said that if the situation warrants, it
possibly could be put in on an individual basis.
Harris then stated that at Plywood the Union had a Labor Board ruling on the
power saws, as to who shall own them, and in other operations the Unions had agree-
ments to the same effect. He asked why the Employers did not want that in the
contract. Hackenbruck said that the rejection was based on, "The same reasoning
that I utilized in explaining the other part of it. We don't take issue on some of
these items that you have proposed. We just felt they are not suitable for your in-
dustry that are in negotiations. We think that it is pretty well covered in your
prevailing custom and practices." Harris said, "But, you don't want the custom and
practice in the contract'" Hackenbruck replied, "Not necessarily-no."
(c) Third meeting-Maich 23, 1954
The parties were the same, with the addition of Commissioner Walker, United
States Conciliation and Mediation Service, who acted as chairman of the confer-
ences thereafter.
Tomberg, for the benefit of Mr. Walker, again reviewed in detail the Unions'
proposals as to all the features of the contracts on which the Unions had opened. 9
He stressed (1) the reasonable nature of the Unions' proposals, (2) that certain of
them merely embodied prior agreements of some of the parties, (3) that certain of
the proposed minimum rates were then being paid by some operators, and (4) that
the Union believed that all conditions of employment agreed upon should be in the
contract for the convenience and understanding of both employer and employee.
In the course of his remarks Tomberg referred again to the unanswered question-
naires, and again stressed the need of the Union for the information.
Hoffman, of OCO, was spokesman for the Employers at this meeting. He ex-
plained that three groups of Employers were meeting concurrently with the Unions,
and that the Employers had not asked for intervention of the Conciliation and Medi-
ation Service because they did not believe a deadlock existed. He said the employer
proposals and counterproposals which had been made at the previous meetings could
be summarized as follows:
There was a counterproposal on the part of OCO to eliminate paid holidays, and
counterproposals were made at the last meeting for a day rate of $3 075 for cutters
of those firms which had logging operations. In response to the union proposal on
seniority-a counterproposal had been made which incorporated parts of the Union's
proposal and revised other parts. Some firms -represented by OCO had chosen not
to'join in the last-mentioned counterproposal because they desired to keep their
present seniority clauses.
For Gardiner and five contract loggers, the proposals and counterproposals in-
volved elimination of contractors clause, signing of individual contracts for each
Company, and the counterproposal on seniority which was made as a counterpro-
posal to the Union's proposal. WVLOA, on behalf of its members, proposed that
Plywood have individual openings for the elimination of the contractors clause, elim-
ination of paid holidays, and changes in the seniority provisions. Plywood, plus the
other WVLOA Companies, counterproposed a day rate of $3.075 per hour, and
9 Tomberg's exposition on the Unions' proposals was thorough and clear He took each
item and discussed it.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they joined in the counterproposal which was made for both groups on seniority.
The remainder of the union proposals were rejected except one as to the posting of
notices, on which further information was requested.
Hoffman then said that the Unions had criticized the Employers' position as incon-
sistent, in that they were against standard minimum rates , but proposed a standard
rate of $3.075 for cutting on a day-rate basis. To meet that objection the Em-
ployers were withdrawing the $3.075, and the proposal stood as a request for day
rates for cutters with the rate to be negotiated on an individual basis. Hoffman also
made a suggestion as to a change in the wording in the notice requirements.
Harris pointed out to the commissioner that the Unions were asking that make-
ready time, to which several of the Companies had agreed, be put in the contract. As
to notice and seniority, the Unions agreed to accept the Employers' proposal that 4
hours be enlarged to 1 working day, and agreed on the proposal for status slips,
but still desired to have the Employers state the reason for discharge. Tomberg
asked for more consideration by the Employers as to the proposals on wages, wage
adjustments, and cost items. He asked the Employers to make a reply so that the
conferees would have some basis on which to work. He said that the conferees were
just going around in a circle, and that the Companies had picked out these small
things to argue about.
Hoffman said one of the reasons the Employers were against giving the reason for
discharge on the status slips was that a small slip might not be large enough to con-
tain the reason for discharge, and also if the fairness of the discharge was questioned
it could be brought up as a grievance. Harris replied that in some places the Em-
ployer noted merely that the man was discharged as incompetent. He also said
that in some cases a man had been fired, and it took the Union months to find out
why. The Unions wanted to have it pinned down exactly, if possible. He referred
to the requirement by the War Manpower Commission during the war, when use of
such a slip was mandatory. On those slips the Employer was required to list ex-
actly the reasons for termination.
(d) Fourth meeting-April 1, 1954
Parties the same. Hackenbruck , WVLOA, Employers ' spokesman , Mr. Walker,
United States Conciliation and Mediation Service , chairman.
Mr. Walker pointed out that the parties were close to agreement as to the word-
ing on the status slips and the notices.
Hackenbruck said that on the matter of consulting the union committee prior to
layoff , the Employers had given the Union a definite no. He said that the Employ-
ers would use reasonable effort in notifying men to come back to work ; that in one
operation that might mean a radio broadcast , in another notification to the union
office, etc . As to the Union 's proposal that the plant committee be consulted prior
to all layoffs and discharges , the Employers had given a refusal on that point before.
Hackenbruck then reiterated the Employers ' position in regard to seniority, that
notification of the man with most seniority , and his failure to take the job, relieved
the Company of any obligation to notify men of lesser seniority in the classification.
This provoked a long discussion as to the application of both seniority proposals to
the case of a blacksmith named Bryant.
After that , Hackenbruck returned to the next major point of disagreement in the
seniority proposal , the one pertaining to a termination date for men off the job by
reason of sickness , layoff, or industrial accident . He stated the Employers had not
changed their thinking on their prior proposal . He said the provision would elimi-
nate, in a sense , two men building up seniority on the same identical job classifica-
tion.
As to the status slips, they wished to discuss that further . He said that at the
last meeting the Employers proposed that day rates be incorporated in the working
agreement at $3.075 per hour, and later the Employers withdrew that figure leaving
the amount of pay to the individual Companies for negotiation . He explained that
the purpose of the proposal was to eliminate busheling (piece rates ) in the area.
The Employers rejected the Union 's proposal as to leave of absence , and offered
no counterproposal , being satisfied with the provision in the present contracts. The
Employers also rejected the proposal on standard minimum crews and offered no
counterproposal . Vacations were a cost item , and as such they were rejected. The
Employers also rejected the Union's proposal in two parts, establishing a standard
basic wage for certain job classifications . He said that the Employers rejected it on
principle . They felt that they did not care to see a standard minimum develop with-
in the area or within the industry. On this point Hackenbruck said:
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1375
. It would in some circumstances be a cost increase for certain operations,
however, it was not rejected on that basis. We rejected it in principle. We feel
that we do not care to see a standard minimum develop within this area or with-
in the industry. From the very beginning of unionism in the lumber industry
or any other industry for that matter, the wage structure, the hours, the related
activities pertaining to the job classifications has always been and always will be
I am sure, a subject for negotiations between the union and the employer. We
feel that every particular operation has a different set of factors surrounding the
jobs. We feel by the job, the man on the job, the plane the man might be
working on is subject to change, more or less a fluctuation even from day to day,
week to week, month to month and we feel that the basis on which our wage
structure is erected within the individual company, should be followed, it should
be continued in its present state subject merely to the negotiations insofar as
that particular company is concerned and affected only by those general in-
creases which might result out of an area or industry negotiations. Without
commenting further on that, we reject that proposal again.
Hackenbruck said the Employers discussed the job-posting proposal of the Union,
which was tied in with seniority proposals, at great length, and reaffirmed their posi-
tion that this subject be left to negotiations between the individual Employers and
the Union. The Employers also rejected the Union's proposal as to the replacement
of tools.
Harris said he would like to discuss the methods used by each Company at the
present time , but Hackenbruck said it would take too long, and that the subject
should be left to the individual companies in negotiations. Harris then said that
he was interested in knowing whether the Employers were refusing to negotiate and
place in the contract, in writing, practices they already had in effect. He stated that
he thought the law required them to do that.
Hackenbruck took issue on the point, and said that Harris had brought that ques-
tion up several times in the last meeting. He said that he agreed with Harris, that
either party may request the other to reduce to writing an agreement which they had
reached. However, he disagreed with Harris that such agreement must be placed
within the confines of the working agreement. He said that the Employers thought
that was not necessarily so. He agreed that it must be reduced to writing, but it
would amount to a supplement to the working agreement, and it did not necessarily
have to be a part or portion of the working agreement.
Harris then asked if Hackenbruck thought it should be in the working agreement
or in 15 different documents. Hackenbruck replied that he did not think the subject
was a fit one for discussion, and he suggested that the subject be left to individual
negotiations between the Companies and the Unions.
Harris then asked what the parties were there for. Hackenbruck answered as
follows:
Insofar as any moving party to negotiations is entitled to bring any ques-
tions out to the other party and it is the duty of the other party, as I under-
stand it, to consider those proposals with an open mind and give the other party
an answer. It does not require the granting of any concessions whatsoever.
We feel that we've got a considerable amount of material here that insofar as
the feeling between the two groups, well, our intents are rather similar. We
have the same view in mind, of eliminating some of the sources of trouble
within the operation, but on those points that we give you a refusal on, on
those items that we suggest that you take that to the individual operation for
adjustment thei e, there isn't any other particular way we can handle it at this
present time. It's pretty much of a hodge podge insofar as you and the em-
ployers are concerned and it just doesn't lend itself to any particular wording
that will maintain the particular status of the companies as they now stand or
make any amendments that one or more companies would be willing to grant
in the way of concessions.
Mr. Commissioner, I do not believe I overlooked any of the union's pro-
posals with this one exception and that is the union's demand for a wage in-
crease and the companies represented here are giving the union a "no" answer
to their proposal. We do not see in the structure of the lumber industry, any
wage increase this year whatsoever. The answers that were presented to the
union last year are equally applicable this year. We represent the union with
our proposal, although not probably opened by certain of the companies repre-
sented here, that the deletion of the paid holidays from all of the working agree-
ments with the exception of the Gardiner group, which will handle that particu-
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lar proposal separately. We suggest that the paid holidays be deleted from the
remainder of the working agreements whether it be three or six and a 'cash in-
crease be substituted on the basis of one cent per holiday.
We have one additional proposal that I have overlooked here. It was the
six hours pay guarantee for the boom crews of the Coos River Boom Company,
which is the only operation or contract which was presented with that particu-
lar demand and the answer to that is "no". The Coos River Boom Company
will continue their present practice. Anything to add to that, Chuck'
HOFFMAN: No.
HARRIS: We have a few that you missed, John. Rest periods, what was the
answer on that one?
HACxENBRUCK• The answer to that one was "no," Bill. I thought we cov-
ered that one pretty clearly in our last session and-
HARRIS: Well, you're reviewing today's
HACKENBRUCK: Yes. Our opinion hasn't changed from the last time on that
one, Bill.
HARRIS: The a-lunch period and walking time for the woods crews9
HACKENBRUCK: The same on that-
HARRIS: And the standard vacations for 116
HACxENBRUCx: We refused the vacations on the basis of the cost increase,
Bill. - .
HARRIS: I notice that on one of them here you said that it was not done on
the basis of cost increases, but rather on principle. When does principle get
involved in these things and when doesn't it, which? And also another ques=
tion, how do you arrive at the figure of one cent per hour for these holidays?
HACKENBRUCK: That was a figure that the industry utilized in the presentation
before the Wage Stabilization Board. Admittedly it varies from operation
to operation, but the paid holidays were put in on that basis. We suggest that
they be taken out on that same basis.
HARRIS: A-at this time we are-we're asking again on the questionnaire:
We asked you to fill out the questionnaires so we could have some actual figures
on the cost of these things. Are you still at this time refusing to give answers
on it?
HACxENBRUCx: Well we've handled that pretty adequately, Bill.
HARRIS: Not yet you haven't.
HACKENBRUCK: Insofar as our answer to the union in this concern we are
on record with the National Labor Relations Board, to their investigating
officers and there's no need or necessity for us to go further into the problem
at this time.
HARRIS: Mr. Commissioner , I still want the answer to the question, regard-
less of what their answer to anybody else has been . We sent a questionnaire
and they have made a specific proposal to eliminate paid holidays for a penny
per hour. We have a right to know, on where they arrived at this figure
other than on something that happened years ago-a-so again we're asking.
Now wages have increased, I'm sure since the paid holidays originated, so again
we're asking, are they willing or are they unwilling to give us the figures for
these operations separately for the actual costs of their paid holidays for the
year of 1953.
HACKENBRUCK: We believe you are entitled to know where we obtained that
one cent per hour figure and we gave you our answer. It was arrived at
through negotiations between the union and the employer committee and sub-
mitted as such to the Wage Stabilization Board.
HARRIS: Have wages gone up since that time, John9
HACxENBRUCx: Presumably, there have been a few wage increases-
HARRIS: Well yes, or no, it went into effect in 1950, now yes or no. as to
the wage increases. So the costs would be greater now, would they not?
HACKENBRUCK: We aren't prepared to debate that proposal, we gave you a
proposal that we substitute one cent per hour-
HARRIS: I'm not proposing to debate something , I'm asking a question-
HACxENBRUCx: -paid holidays.
HARRIS: I'm asking you a question and asking are you willing to give us
the figures for it. All I want you to say is no and I want that on the record.
HACKENBRUCK: I will say this Bill, that we do not intend to get into any
statistical arguments with you whatsoever.
HOFFMAN: Mr. Walker, I might add to what Mr. Hackenbruck has stated.
He has already said, in other words answered, the question that the figure
was based on the previous amount of one cent per hour arrived at in negotiations
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1377
and accepted by the Wage Stabilization Board and it went in as one figure and
it should come out as one figure. That's the basis.
HARRIS: That's an amazing statement, we're glad it's on the record. Does
that complete your-
HACKENBRUCK: Yes that does. [Emphasis supplied.]
'The representatives of the parties again spent some time discussing the case of
Pete Bryant, a blacksmith, and how the different seniority provisions would apply
to him.
Harris rejected the Employers' proposal that the Employer alone be the judge of
the capabilities of a man to do the work in a secondary classification. He also
pointed out that at that time several of the Companies consulted with the committee
before layoffs and rehiring, and that their arrangements were not on a "when
possible" basis. Harris also said that under the Employers' seniority proposal,
seniority was lost at the end of 6 months; that all an employer had to do was have
a 6-month layoff and no employee had any seniority. If a man had the misfortune
of being sick or injured for that length of time, he also lost his seniority. He
again stressed the injustice of the Employers' proposal, whereby the failure of one
employee to return to work when notified, relieved the Employer of further obliga-
tion to recall the remaining employees in line of seniority within the classification.
Harris also rejected as unfair the Employers' contention that complaints as to
violations of seniority must be filed by the employee within 5 working days. He
pointed out that one of the mills had been shut down since January 29, and
that the men were scattered around the country. Under those circumstances, the
Employer could staff the mill with local residents, and the men, who had gone
to Portland or Eugene to be with their families and who did not learn of the
plant reopening and complain within 5 days, would lose their seniority and their jobs.
Hackenbruck said that the proposal as to notifying one man and being relieved
of the obligation to notify others could not be written in any other way and have
it consistent with the proposal on secondary classifications.
Harris retorted that Hackenbruck meant to combine seniority and ability, so
seniority would apply only when the Employer as sole judge of the employee's ability
was agreeable to return the man to work.
Harris also said that he noted the very careful avoidance of the Employers
saying that they can't afford to pay a wage increase on the adjustments. They noticed
that word was very carefully avoided. Harris then reviewed all the proposals which
were founded in practices or agreements to which some Employers had agreed,
and asked what became of the safety proposals?
Hackenbruck answered that on safety the Employers were giving a "no," on the
basis the subject was adequately convered by the State Safety Code.
Harris then reminded the conferees of a recent case at Gardiner , in which a man
had taken his son into the timber with him , in itself a violation . When the man was
felling a tree, it fell on him , and the only reason he did not die was that his son ob-
tained help . Harris said the State Safety Code required only that the supervisor look
around every hour for the men. The Unions and even the Employers were not satis-
fied with that provision, because a man could die between the supervisor's visits.
Harris said that everyone present knew that falling by two men was required practi-
cally everywhere.
Harris then asked for a clear reply on day cutting rules, lunch periods , walking
time, and crew busdriver rates. Hackenbruck said that the committee was not refus-
ing anything on behalf of any individual Company. As a committee it was giving
a flat rejection of the Union's proposal.
Harris then asked if the Union was obliged to go back to each individual Company?
Hackenbruck replied, "We have no control over what you do in any respect whatso-
ever in regards to these proposals outside of what we can do with them here in this
meeting."
Thereafter the Union withdrew the request for seniority changes in the following
operations: Consumers, Gardiner, Woods, and Doernbecher. The Union also with-
drew the request for job posting in the Gardiner group , Woods, Doembecher, and
withdrew the request in the change in seniority at Consumers , Gardiner group , Doern-
becher , and Woods.
At that point, Tomberg made a long presentation again on job classifications, and
the general desire of the men for a wage increase pointing out that they did not have
one last year ; that productivity had increased in the last several years ; that the com-
petition from Canadian sources had been removed ; that business had been good, and
the profits increased; and that the employees should share in some of the benefits.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After consultation of the Employers, Hackenbruck replied:
We discussed the additions to the present proposal given the 116 operators,
represented by Oregon Coast Operators , concerning the four additional ,classifi-
cations and the wages for those classifications , plus the proposal made on the
equal division of overtime worked by employees . We discussed the revision of
the union's proposal on notices affecting any shift . We discussed the remarks
made by Mr . Tomberg relative to the union 's demand for a wage increase.
Nothing that Mr. Tomberg said this afternoon gave us any reason to believe
that conditions this year are any different than they were last year. Last year
we could not see the way clear to granting any wage increases , neither can we
this year . Nor can we see the way clear to granting anything in the way of fringe
benefits that will have the end result of increase in the cost of production. We
discussed the prior proposals made by the union , we discussed our counterpro-
posals. We discussed the withdrawing of the seniority , the union 's seniority
request in certain operations , as we did the union 's request for withdrawing at
the certain operations on the job posting demand. We came out with what we
think is a satisfactory answer to all concerned and this employer committee, with
the exception of the Gardiner group , Gardiner and the contractors , make this
recommendation , that the present contracts, present wage scales , present work-
ing conditions be continued, the contracts to be re-signed as they are presently
written with the termination date to be April 1, 1955.
HARRIS: Is that it?
HACKENBRUCK : That's it.
HARRIS: We would ask, John-we would ask at this time what happened to
your proposals to go to the plants involved on job posting?
HACKENBRUCK: We have withdrawn all of the proposals that we have made
on behalf of those employers with the exception of the Gardiner group, Gardiner
and their contractors . We are suggesting that the contracts , the working agree-
ments applying to those operations represented at least by these groups , in these
concurrent negotiations , be re-signed without changes in the present work sched-
ule and wage rates be continued without change. The new termination date of
the working agreement to be April 1, 1955.
HARRIS: And we assume that to mean of course , that where operations or
conditions in effect you are disregarding them entirely. You are saying in ef-
fect, that you are not going to reduce those to writing and sign them. Such
as job posting at Consumers Co-op and numerous other things that we can
name at Consumers Co-op to just name one operation. And various other re-
lated matters that we have asked for negotiations on here, are you saying in
one breath that you are not a going to reduce those to writing and sign them?
HACKENBRUCK: I think our proposal was clear Bill, we state that we are
willing to re-sign the present agreements as they are-
HARRIS: I-of course I would like an answer, John. Evade if you wish,
you'-agreed this morning and admitted that certainly the law required that things
that were agreed to be reduced to writing and signed and we have a great num-
ber of them and are you saying at this time, that all of those are not to be re-
duced to writing and signed9
HACKENBRUCK: This committee will not make any statement concerning the
situation of any individual company.
HARRIS: Then you are not-you are saying you are now qualified and well
now let's get the thing clear. Either you are or you aren't and you say this
committee will not make any statement and what do we mean by that, do we
mean that we go back to each individual employer where these things are in
effect by agreement and ask him to place them in writing and sign them. This
committee, as I understood, is here representing them.
HACKENBRUCK: We're recommending on behalf of all those people that we
represent, that the present contracts that they are now constituted, be re-signed
and continued on for another year without change.
HARRIS: You still of course don't answer whether it is by intent or other-
wise. The question of reducing to writing, the things that are in agreement,
the question of entering them into the contract, or how you are going to re-
duce them to writing, you said this morning once that by exchange of letters,
so we certainly are going to look for a direct answer on this matter of these
things that we've opened on that are already in effect. And our practice by
agreement, they are not reduced to writing and signed and are not in the
contracts.
HACKENBRUCK : Bill, I answered you at some length this morning, regarding
those particular items and I said I did not disagree with you, that an agreement
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1379
of that nature had to be incorporated in the working agreement . I said it had
to be reduced, I agree with you, that it had to be reduced to writing at the re-
quest of one or the other of the parties, the parties to that agreement. But
there is nothing in the law that requires that to be made a part of the working
agreement itself. And so our proposal stands that we continue the present agree-
] ment in full force and effect until April, 1955.
HARRIS: Well then another question, maybe we can get at it certainly to get
a direct answer, then we are to, according to your proposal, to direct a letter
to each one of these employers that have certain conditions in effect by agree-
ment and demand through exchange of letters, that they acknowledge it or how
do we take care of it?
HACKENBRUCK: Well, I think that's your problem, Bill.
HARRIS: No, I don't think so. I don't think so. You are representing em-
ployers down here and either they are bargaining in good faith or not.
HACKENBRUCK: And we've made our proposals to you in good faith. [Em-
phasis supplied.] ,
(e) Fifth meeting-April 27, 1954
Mr. Walker, United States Conciliation and Mediation Service, chairman . Parties
and representatives the same.
Tomberg said that his committee had reported the results of the bargaining to
the membership of the Unions. The men were determined to have a pay raise. He
said the Unions had taken a strike vote, and that the vote to strike had been carried
by a substantial majority. He again reviewed the proposals of the Unions.
Tomberg also said that though a strike vote had been taken, there had been
no deadline put upon any strike action, and that the union committee had no
deadline in mind, and would not resort to strike action until it determined that
further discussion was futile.
Harris also made a presentation stressing the fact that in many of the operations,
many of the things which the Union wished in the contracts were the subject of
individual agreements, either written or oral, and that the Union wished only
to incorporate those agreements in the particular formal contract. He stated that
the Union believed there was only one reason why the Employers refused to put
those agreements in the contract-that the employers hoped at a future time to
deny those benefits to the employees. He pointed out that on the question of owner-
ship of cutting crew tools, no one denied that the Employers furnished them, yet
they wouldn't put it in the contract. In the area, everybody had agreed that
nobody will fell timber by himself; in fact, men had been discharged because
they had been caught felling timber by themselves, and yet the Employers were
reluctant to place this safety provision in the contract. He said that on the previous
night they 'had negotiated with representatives of Consumers who readily agreed
to put the job posting, which had been in effect for 2 years, into the contract.
Those representatives could see no objections to putting it into the contract, but
when the same situation was presented to this committee, there was a reluctance to
put it in the contract. He said that when the contracts were printed it was with
the idea that the Employers and employees could read the contract and know the
conditions under which the men worked. He said that there wasn't an operation
in the district that didn't give a certain amount of walking time, yet there was
a complete reluctance on the part of the Employers to put anything about it in
the contract. The same situation existed as to crew busdrivers. Harris said that
there could only be one reason for the Employers' refusal to put such agreements in
the contract, and that was that the Employers hoped that in the future they would
be able to say the provision was not in the contract, so the men were not entitled
to the benefits of the provisions.
After a caucus, Hoffman replied for the Employers. In his presentation, Hoffman
took the Bureau of Labor Statistics cost of living index-and reviewed the rise of
the cost of living from March 1950 until the last index prior to the meeting,
developing his point year by year. He argued that increases in wages had far
outrun the cost of living. He denied that the Employers were trying to take
anything away from the employees by reducing wages, or taking away paid holidays,
and stated that the Employers were willing to continue all existing conditions and
all wages. He also said that the union spokesman had stated that job posting had
been agreed to by one of the Employers at a meeting the night before, and that
showed that, although the committee could not agree on that item, the individual
operator would and could agree to it.
Harris challenged that statement, saying that the Companies say they will con-
tinue the same working conditions and wages but that the committee was still
1380 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refusing to put into the new contract, the various items which the individual operators
had agreed to, such as scaling rules and busdriving time. Tomberg,then asked if
,the decision of the operators was based simply on the fact that there had been no
increase in the cost of living. Hoffman replied: "The employers' statements have
been made in several previous meetings and it is confirmed now, that there is no
basis to warrant any cost increases."
Tomberg said that he wanted to know because after all the overall picture
for the nation was not a true index of what the working man must pay to live.
He stated that the membership placed their desire for an increase on the money
that they have to pay out for the necessities of life and what their paychecks show
them. He said that although there had been some talk about a depression, all
the various spokemen for industry had said there would not be a depression
but good market conditions; and that if people maintained their standards of
spending, there would not be a depression. He said that in 1953 the Employers
told the Unions that 1953 would be a bad year, and the Unions bought it; but it
had turned out to be a good year, so the Unions were not going to be misled again
by such talk.
He referred to the fact that Weyerhaeuser Lumber Company had given its em-
ployees a nickel an hour raise last year, and they were one of the biggest in the in-
dustry and highly competitive. He said that as far as the standard minimum rates
were concerned, that many of them were less than many operators were paying and
some of them were the same, but that they were proposed as a general basis on which
they could start. Also, since the jobs seemed similar in each sawmill, he thought
the standardized minimums constituted a proposition that warranted consideration.
Tomberg again pointed out that the Unions had not received the answers to the
questionnaires; that the session in which they discussed standardized minimums
showed one of the reasons why they should have been supplied with the information.
The Unions felt that the parties should have the facts on the table. The figures were
available only to the Company, but if they were on the table, both parties could
examine them and try to reach an intelligent arrangement. A little later, Tomberg
said that he would like to go into the question of ability to pay which he felt was
involved.
At this point, Hoffman said:
As you know, the employers have never used inability to pay in bargaining. I
think you can take it for granted, Ernie that no company expects to continue
operating when they are not making a profit. By making a profit they can
continue giving employment to the members you represent. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Tomberg said that he wanted to clear that up, and to make it a matter of record
that the Employers did not take the position that they were unable to pay a raise.
HOFFMAN: We have never used and are not now using, inability to pay as an
argument.
TOMBERG: I would like to ask another question if I may and that's on our
question of increased productivity. I don't think there was any mention of
that.
HOFFMAN: Are you asking us for our position on each argument that you
have offered? If you have, then our over-all position is that the operators com-
mittee feels that there is no basis to warrant any cost increase. [Emphasis
supplied.]
A little later, Hoffman added:
A year ago the operators committee advised the union committee that no in-
crease was warranted. Since that time, during this past year, the operators
have been in touch with the factors that affect their operations and their reply to
you on all of those cost items, that no cost increase is warranted. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Tomberg said that Harris had raised certain questions about putting certain agree-
ments, which were not cost items, in the formal contracts. Tomberg asked if they
were to continue to negotiate on those.
'Hoffman answered as follows:
The committee has not received any proposal from your committee which
would change their view,,that these group committees could make any recom-
mendation on those side issues which may be agreed upon. The committee is
fully aware as we advised you previously, that any conditions that is in effect
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1381
in an operation must be negotiated before it can be changed. Now that view
is incorporated in the proposal to continue present contracts and working condi-
tions. We don't agree with your contention that an agreement must be included
in the contract . We do agree with you that it must be reduced to writing if
there is an agreement.
Harris then addressed the commissioner , saying:
Mr. Commissioner , we've sat in these negotiations in years gone by and we
heard the same spokesmen who made remarks that any issue that wasn 't in the
contracts were out the window . When we signed the contract , in signing it, it
supersedes all other agreements . Again repeating , we are not stupid. We may
not be as smart as some people , but we have never yet come into a meeting and .
heard the employers agree to start with that they could afford to and would
give a wage increase . . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
Peirce, a union representative , then made a statement reviewing the increases in the
price of lumber . It showed the price of lumber had risen far more than either wages
or the cost of living.
Harris asked , if it was not true, that many of the provisions the Union asked were
in effect in the operations. Hoffman replied that he had agreed earlier that some of
the conditions referred to were in effect by agreement . When Harris asked if the
committee would list those provisions that it agreed were in effect, Hoffman replied,
"Our answer to your over-all request is, that this committee will not recommend any
such request as you make now."
As the meeting drew to a close, Garski , a union representative who had not par-
ticipated in the discussion previously , engaged in the following colloquy with Hoff-
man.
GARSKI : Now as I understood the spokesman for the operators , he suggested
that we continue discussions before strike action would be taken, is that right?
HOFFMAN: Yes, that was.
GARSKI: I was just wondering now, on what basis do we would [sic]
continue discussions . On the basis of the cost of living which was pretty well
covered by the operators spokesman and which was not one of our major
contentions or should we rather dwell on the increased productivity to the
modern machinery , less manpower used during the past year than ever before
in the history of the industry . It has only been a few years ago, you know,
when they trimmed the lumber by hand you know behind the planers,
they moved them with horses , nowadays they have all this modern equipment.
Are we going to dwell on that phase of negotiations or if we continue the
negotiation talks as Mr. Hoffman suggested , I was wondering on just what
basis we are going to continue them if we can't consider the ability to pay, the
increased productivity, the least amount of man-power hours worked in the
industry last year in proportion to production and the overall picture of the
industry as it is now, just what basis would we use to further continue these
discussions ? That's a question
HOFFMAN: The operators groups have never felt that it was their right or
obligation to instruct the union committee of the basis upon what it might
base its opinion or decisions . The statement made to your group today was,
will be trying to convince your group that the best settlement for all concerned
will be continuation of the present wages and contract and contract conditions,
working conditions with the hope that those companies would be able to
continue . As I said there was no guarantee from the companies it was the hope
that they could be continued to continue the employment.
GARSKI : Well it doesn't quite answer my question because I was wondering
if we were going to continue discussions . Inasmuch as we have said what
we want and you have said no. Then if we continue discussions, what are
we going to talk about , just no or are we going to analyze the problem from top
to bottom?
HOFFMAN. Well we said a moment ago , that we should not be facetious and
it is being laughed at at the present time . I agree with you it is not a humorous
subject. You are probably aware that some of the union groups have not
even opened for wage increases. You're also aware of the fact that these
employer groups did not open for a wage decrease . You have asked for a
wage inciease . We propose to solve the issue by continuing the present wages.
Now that's not a negative attitude, that's a positive attitude hoping that it can
be continued and employment continued.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GARSKr : Well it doesn 't quite answer my question . In that great length,
of negotiations I can easily understand why and that 's not being facetious.
[Emphasis supplied.]
In reply to a question by Harris as to what Hoffman meant by continuing working
conditions , Hoffman explained that the same contracts which had been signed
before would be signed again, and that those agreements which had been reached
as to working conditions as side agreements would be continued.
Harris then asked, "At what level does the union find out, where there is agree-
ment on these other conditions that are not in the contract ?" He asked if the
Union must go to each Employer and ask him if he will put the practice or agree-
ment in the contract . He pointed out that the committee was representing all the
Employers and was present to discuss these matters. He wanted to know where
he had to go from there to do his negotiating . Hoffman replied:
For the points which the union has opened on and which have been in
these neg"o'tia"'tions, the employers committees answer to that is that the contract
hrid working conditions be continued as they are. [Emphasis supplied.]
At that point, Tomberg said that the Union had presented everything it had
to present,. and that it was up to the Employers to state whether they wished to
continue with meetings. Hoffman replied:
Mr. Walker, we're willing and available to meet in negotiations at any time
that the union committee feels that they have any new arguments or new
presentations to make that they want the employer group to listen to. We are
not refusing to negotiate. We're not breaking up these negotiations either.
That concluded the 1954 negotiations.
D. The testimony at the hearing
Charles S. Hoffman, secretary-manager of OCO, and George A. Metzger, secretary-
manager of WVLOA, were called as hostile witnesses and examined by the General
Counsel pursuant to rule 43 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Each witness was
interrogated as to the purpose, operation, and function of his association. Also,
each testified as to the manner in which his association was authorized to conduct
negotiations and adjust grievances in behalf of its members. All of this testimony
has been considered, in connection with the findings set forth in section I hereof
that OCO and WVLOA are employers within the meaning of the Act.
In addition to the above, Hoffman was examined by the General, Counsel
as to the action taken by OCO and its members in connection with the question-
naires. Hoffman testified that the questionnaires first came to his attention in the
latter part 'of January, when he received a copy through the mail from Tomberg
and another one from the International Union. At that time he also received
numerous phone calls from members who had received questionnaires. When
Hoffman was asked what action the Association had taken in regard to the question-
naires prior to March 3, the date of the first bargaining meeting, he answered, "None."
However, Hoffman testified OCO sought advice from its counsel on the subject of
the questionnaires, and the members consulted their own counsel. Mr. Hill, coun-
sel for OCO, addressed a meeting of the members on the subject shortly before Feb-
ruary 8. On that date, Hoffman communicated directly to the Employers his advice
on the subject, and sent the Unions a letter acknowledging receipt of the question-
naires, stating that certain information had been made available to the Unions in
the past and if it developed that other information was pertinent, the subject could
be discussed during negotiations.10 Hoffman said that he was authorized to write
these letters by each of the Companies, and that no joint action was taken by OCO;
it happened that the decision of each Company involved was the same as the de-
cision of every other Company, based upon the legal counsel received. They all felt
they would prefer to make the same kind of reply, which was sent at their request.
Hoffman, as secretary-manager of the Association, concurred in the decision of the
Employers.
Later in the hearing Hoffman was recalled by counsel for the Union and asked
if it was his testimony that OCO took no official action as an organization with re-
spect to the questionnaires. Hoffman answered, "I think it depends upon what you
mean by official action. There was a uniform decision reached by each company
as to what action it would take."
10 General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 12 and 13.
0
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1383
Hoffman was then asked if the executive board of the Association had acted on
a resolution concerning the questionnaire. Hoffman answered that he believed
they did, after there had been an expression from each of the members involved;
that the Companies agreed to present a united front on the question. Hoffman was
then asked if these was a resolution adopted by the board that the questionnaire
should not be answered The witness answered that the only thing he could recall
was one in which the reply should, for the best advantage of each individual Com-
pany, be a similar reply, and that reply was made on behalf of each of the mem-
bers. On further questioning, Hoffman said he was not sure about the resolution
of the executive board, but that the board members had discussed the matter among
themselves and with other associations. Hoffman was then asked if he had advised
the members of the Association on or about February 2 that the executive board,
by resolution, had voted not to answer the questionnaires. Hoffman answered that,
he was unable to testify on that point as he could not recall whether the action was
by the executive board or by the group of representatives from the Companies. At
that point, counsel for the Union requested Hoffman to check the bulletins of the
Association and the minutes of the executive board, and the witness was excused for
that purpose Upon Hoffman's return to the hearing, counsel for the parties stipu-
lated that two memos, one issued by OCO on February 2, 1954, and a second on
February 8, 1954, could be received in evidence. It was further stipulated that the
bulletins were issued by OCO to its members through Hoffman, its secretary-man-
ager. These bulletins are as follows:
TO: OCO MEMBERS February 2, 1954.
Re: IWA QUESTIONNAIRE
GENTLEMEN: At a_ meeting of the Executive Board held yesterday afternoon
the following resolution was unanimously adopted: That no information be sup-
plied on the 1WA Form 1 received from Portland or on the IWA Questionnaire
received from Locals 7-116 and 7-140 until ordered to do so by the NLRB.
[Union's Exhibit No. 2.1
TO: OCO MEMBERS February 8, 1954.
Re: IWA QUESTIONNAIRE
GENTLEMEN: Most of the other fir associations have now recommended to
their membership that a response be made to the IWA request for statistical
information on the printed questionnaire forms.
The OCO Executive Board has therefor deemed it advisable to make a simi-
lar response.
A reply on behalf of OCO members for whom bargaining authority is held,
has been mailed as per the copy attached.
[Union's Exhibit No. 3.]
In regard to the questionnaires, Metzger testified that when he first learned of
the questionnaires he advised or suggested to the members that they do nothing, until
a contrary suggestion was made. Some time later a meeting of the members was
held, and, among other things, the questionnaires were discussed. Each Employer was
afforded an opportunity to express his views. Metzger testified that his Association
did not tell the members what position to take in regard to the questionnaires, but
that the members informed the Association that they were going to take no action in
regard to the questionnaires. After charges were filed with the Board by Local 7-140,
the WVLOA asked its counsel for advice in the matter. Counsel for WVLOA was
also counsel for the individual employer-members here involved.
,Both Hoffman and Metzger appeared less than frank in answering questions as to
the connection of their respective Associations with the issues here under investi-
gation. Because of their lack of candor and their evident desire to serve their Em-
ployers' interests, I have credited their testimony only to the extent that it is consist-
ent with the undisputed evidence in the case as a whole.
W. L. Harris, business agent for Local 7-140, the union officer previously men-
tioned as participating in the bargaining conferences, also testified. As a witness,
Harris appeared truthful and straightforward, although on one point of no particu-
lar significance he appeared stubborn and unyielding. His testimony as to the
various reasons why the Union needed the information sought by the question-
naires stands uncontradicted in the record. I credit his entire testimony.
Harris testified as to those side agreements between the Employers and the Union
which were written or oral, upon which findings have been made previously. He
also testified in regard to the questionnaires A, B, C, and D. At the beginning of
that testimony, counsel for the General Counsel pointed out that the contract open-
379288-56-vol 113-88
1384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ings to all Employers had certain common subjects: wages, leave of absence, tools,
termination of 2-year contracts, standard minimum crews, notices, seniority, suspen-
sion and discharge, safety, vacations, and, common to all mill operations, rest'periods;
and, common to all wood operations, walking time.
As to questionnaire A, Harris testified that the first part of it was self-explanatory.
He explained that the Union desired the total number of employees in the bargain-
ing unit during 1953 in order to know if a large turnover of employees had occurred.
It had no knowledge on this point, since an employee did not acquire seniority until
he had worked 30 days. If it appeared that an extraordinary turnover had occurred,
the Union would investigate the situation. -• - ., .
Answers 2 and 3 would furnish the Union with the knowledge of how many weeks
of employment the crews had within the year. From that, the Union could determine
the income to the crews, as well as what the hourly wage should be. The Union
also wanted to know how much time the operation worked at full capacity.
No. 4. The contract provided that men receive vacations according to seniority.
If the figure supplied did not check out with what the Union knew the man's vaca-
tion should have been, the Union could investigate the matter.
Nos. 5, 6, and 7 all applied to provisions of the contract.
No. 8 had reference to the contract provision that a man who was injured on the
job would receive those holidays with pay that came within the 6-month period of
his disability. This provision had been the subject of grievances, since some injured
men had not been paid until months afterward.
Nos. 9 and 10, a, b, c, d. Harris stated that the Union wanted to know just what
type of insurance the Employers were carrying. He explained that the Union had
no difficulty in obtaining safety inspections by the State, where the State was the in-
surance carrier, through the State Industrial Accident Commission. However, if
the Employer had private insurance, then only a certain number of safety investi-
gations could be obtained in any one year, and sometimes it was difficult to obtain
adequate inspections of that operation. The Union also wished to know the name
of the insurance carrier because if a company rejected insurance through the State
Industrial Accident Commission, it was not required by law to have insurance, so the
Union wanted to know if the Employer was covered by insurance and the amount of
the coverage. The Union also wanted to know the name of the insurance carrier, so
that it might be able to advise its members whom to notify in case of injury.
Exhibit B. The Union wished to know the amount of the equipment of the types
listed because in all negotiations with the Employers, it was continually faced with
the claim that the equipment of this employer was different from the equipment of
other employers; the employer also advanced. the argument that his capacity was
different. With the information as to equipment capacity in possession of the Union,
it would be able to determine accurately whether the operations were similar or not.
This information would also have a direct bearing on the matters of adjustment in
pay rates and minimum crews. The production records would show whether one
employer was producing a great deal more or less than another employer; that infor-
mation would be pertinent to the matter of wages, adjustments, and minimum crews.
Following the procedure outlined above, Harris testified as to each questionnaire
in turn, giving the reason why the Unions desired the information. His testimony
also afforded definitions of the technical terms used in the questionnaires.
When questioned as to information requested in the questionnaires, which he had
received previously from the Respondents, Harris said that he had received seniority
lists from some of the Respondents from time to time, and that wage scales and
seniority lists had been received from others occasionally. However, the information
was fragmentary and incomplete, and had been received long before the submission
of the questionnaires in connection with other matters. Harris said that the Union
had never received any of the information requested from any of the Respondents.
Harris also testified that the failure to have side agreements in the contract had
caused considerable trouble in the handling of grievances. He explained that the
contracts are printed in booklet form and sent to the members and management.
In the majority of operations, management officials, foremen, and members of the
Union were unaware of the existence of the side agreements made by representa-
tives of the parties. Because the side agreement was not in the contract booklet,
the foremen were reluctant to accept anyone's verbal assurance that such an agree-
ment existed. As a result of the situation, the men were continually denied the
rights agreed upon, and grievances arose. Oftentimes management took the posi-
tion that there was nothing that could be done about the grievance, because the side
agreement was not contained in the contract. Also, when changes in personnel oc-
curred, new managers, superintendents, and foremen always had to be convinced
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1385
that agreements covering certain topics existed, hence the Union was continually
required to dig out its records to prove that the side agreements existed.
Harris also explained that the oral agreements were known only to a relatively
small number of people in the Union and in management, and that the employees,
being unaware of their rights in the matter, never asked for or received the bene-
fits. Also, employees were hired and left the operations without ever knowing the
working rules under which they worked, because they were not embodied in the
contract.
Harris testified that the Union has had discussions in the past with employers and
employer representatives concerning the situation, and that on several occasions em-
ployers have stated that there would be less confusion and grievances if the side
agreements were printed in the contracts. As proof of his statement in that regard,
counsel for the Union introduced in evidence a letter of OCO dated January 8, 1951,
over the signature of Hoffman, addressed to Harris, which reads as follows:
Your letter of January 8 has been received referring to the misunderstanding
concerning the contract for E. K. Wood Lumber Company, Logging Division.
I am forwarding additional copies of the April 8 stipulation and of the con-
tractors clause as had been corrected and forwarded to Mr. Seabloom Decem-
ber 13, 1950. There will be less doubt as to the material included in the
working agreement between the company and IWA Local 7-140 if all items
are either included in the contract or attached thereto. I am therefore sending
a copy of this letter to Mr. Seabloom and recommending to him that all items
agreed upon be incorporated in a complete contract.
Two copies of the April 8 stipulation (which I understand was missing) and
two copies of the corrected contractors clause are enclosed, which will supply
one copy for the union and one for Mr. Seabloom. Copies of the stipulation
of August 19, 1950 had been previously mimeographed and forwarded to you
and Mr. Seabloom.
[Union's Exhibit No. 1.1
Harris also testified at some length as to his negotiation of contracts and the ad-
justment of grievances with representatives of OCO and WVLOA in recent years.
That testimony was directed to establishing that those organizations were employ-
ers within the definition of the Act, and has been considered in connection with that
finding previously expressed.
Harris was thoroughly cross-examined by counsel for the Respondents, but his
cross-examination only emphasized the convincing quality of his testimony.
Concluding Findings
It has been found previously that OCO and WVLOA are Employers and that
the Unions are labor organizations within the definitions of the Act. There remains,
therefore, three issues for decision-Have the Respondent Employers a duty under
the Act: (1) to furnish the information requested in the questionnaires; (2) to
reduce side agreements of the parties, made in the course of collective bargaining,
to writing and to sign them; and (3) to incorporate in the collective-bargaining
contracts of the parties the aforesaid side agreements? On these issues, the General
Counsel has the affirmative, and the Respondents the negative, position.
It is undisputed that each of the Unions for several years prior to 1954 represented
employees of the several Respondents, who in turn were members of either OCO
or WVLOA. It was the practice of the particular Employers to negotiate labor
contracts on a yearly basis, through the employer association of which each was a
member. A committee of the district council represented the two Locals. These
negotiations were not joint endeavors, which resulted in one contract binding upon
all unions and all employers, but were concurrent meetings of the representatives
of two unions and the two groups of employers. Successful negotiations resulted in
an agreement on specific terms of employment, which were then submitted to each
union , and to each employer, for acceptance or rejection. This general procedure
had been followed by all the parties in 1953, and had resulted in the contracts here in
evidence.
In January of 1954, each Union notified each Employer with which it had
contractual relations that it desired to revise, in collective bargaining, certain
provisions of the contract and to renew the contract, as revised, for another con-
tractual period. At approximately the same time, each Union submitted to each
Employer four questionnaires with the request that the Employer furnish the
requested information. As part of its procedure in opening the contracts, the
Union asked each Employer to incorporate in his contract for the year 1954 specific
-1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'side agreements as to certain features of employment of his employees , which had
been agreed upon by the Union and the particular Employer in collective bar-
gaining through the years, but which had not been included in the formal labor
contract between the Union and the particular Employer.
The Unions did not send letters opening contracts , or submitting questionnaires,
to either OCO or WVLOA, inasmuch as neither Union had any contract with
either of those two Respondents , although each association had acted as the bar-
gaining representative of its members in conducting negotiations with the Unions
in the past. The employer-members of the Associations notified the Associations
of the contract openings , the questionnaires , and the request for inclusion of•existent
side agreements in the formal contract of employment between each Union and
the particular Employer. As-in other years, the individual Employer authorized
the Association to which it belonged to act for it in the 1954 negotiations , and there-
after the Associations represented their members.
On March 3, 1954, the Employers, including OCO and WVLOA, met with
representatives of the district council. Thereafter, in five meetings, representatives
of the parties were unable to agree upon the terms of contracts for the year 1954.
With this background we may proceed to a consideration of the issue raised
by the failure of the Respondents to supply the information requested in the
questionnaire . These questionnaires are in evidence , as are the contracts, the
contract openings, and the minutes of the bargaining sessions . The questionnaires
are set forth verbatim in this report, and examination of them shows that all
the information requested deals with subjects which are directly in the field of
"wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment." It is true that the question-
naires seek information on a variety of topics, but all of it is relevant and pertinent
to wages, hours, and terms and conditions under which the employees of the
Respondents work. All the information appears to be readily available to the
Respondents. Most of it could be supplied, in the course of a few hours, by an
official of any company who was familiar with its overall operations. None of the
information requested is of such a nature that it would require any substantial
-audit of books or analyses of operations. The data requested is of a nature which
an employer usually keeps for his own use. Viewing the questionnaires then in the
light of the contractual relationship between the parties and the contract openings, it
would appear that the request for the information was made in good faith and was
fair and reasonable. I so find.
In addition to the documentary evidence, there is the credited testimony of
Harris. On direct examination he gave good and sufficient reasons why the Union
desired each and every bit of information requested in the questionnaire. Harris'
testimony gave practical illustrations and practical reasons which demonstrated' that
the Unions needed the information if they were to bargain intelligently on behalf
of the employees. The Respondents offered no evidence disputing this testimony by
Harris.
On this point , reference must also be made to the minutes of the bargaining
meetings. These verbatim accounts demonstrated again that the information re-
quested was not only directly connected with the proposals of the Unions, and the
existent contract , but were essential and indispensable to any discussion of, or
negotiation on, the proposed revision and renewal of the contract.
Upon all the evidence, I therefore find that the request of the Unions for the
information was made in good faith to enable them to bargain intelligently on
behalf of their members in connection with the existent contract, its revision, and
renewal. I also find that the information was relevant and pertinent to the 1954
contract negotiations , that it was in the possession of the Respondents, who could
have produced and supplied the same without serious inconvenience or expense. i
also find that the Unions could obtain the information only from the Respondents.
It should also be noted in connection with the above finding, that in all the long
course of dealing between the parties not one of the Respondents ever tendered'
to the Union any reason for its refusal to supply the information. Also, in this
proceeding, no Respondent alleges any matter as an affirmative defense which might
justify its refusal. These Respondents do not claim that the information requested
was not relevant to the negotiations between the parties, or that the information was
on points of the Respondents' operations, as to which the Union had no right
of knowledge, or that the supplying of the information was oppressive, or burden-
some, or designed to harass the Employers, or that the request was not made in
good faith. Not one of these considerations, which might properly be a matter of
defense, was alleged as an affirmative defense in the answers of any Respondent;
nor were any of these considerations urged as a basis of defense at the hearing-
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1387
Having found that the Unions' request for the information was proper in all
respects, we turn now to a consideration of whether the Act placed a duty on the
Respondents to supply the information, in view of all attendant circumstances sur-
rounding the situation of the parties. For that purpose I deem it advisable to
examine the evidence as a whole.
It is undisputed that on January 29 the Unions requested the information. Ex-
amining the reactions of the OCO group to this request, we find some curious con-
duct. After considerable cross-examination of Hoffman, counsel for the Union
established the existence of OCO's memo of February 2, 1954. This memo states
that at a meeting of the executive board, on that date, a resolution was unanimously
adopted that: "No information requested be supplied on the IWA Questionnaire
... until ordered to do so by the NLRB." It should be noted that this memo does
not mention any reason for the decision. On February 8, in a second memo, OCO
informed its members that "Most of the other fir associations have now recommended
to their membership that a response be made to the IWA request for statistical
information on the printed questionnaire forms," and that the executive board
"deemed it advisable to make a similar response." The memo notified its members
that a reply, on behalf of OCO members, had been mailed to the Unions.
In the light of its expressed determination not to supply the information until
ordered by the Board, it is interesting to note the reply which was dispatched by
OCO to the Unions. It said (1) that information that was then germane to points
opened for negotiations had previously been made available to the Union, and (2)
that additional information, which would be shown later to be pertinent, and not
otherwise available to the Union, could be discussed during negotiations. Shortly
thereafter negotiations began and the good faith of the Respondents was put to the
test of collective bargaining. The record of these tests are in the minutes of the bar-
gaining sessions , in the words of the Respondents.
At the start of the first bargaining conference, the union representatives mentioned
OCO's letter of February 8, and asked what, exactly, was the information referred
to in the letter, as having been previously supplied. Hoffman, as spokesman for all
Employers, answered that the letter referred to information which had been sup-
plied to the Union by various Employers in the course of bargaining in prior years
which were contained in wage schedules, seniority lists, health and welfare lists, and
"what not." The Union promptly rejected its alleged receipt of such disconnected,
unidentified, and unspecified information as fulfilling any part of its request. It is
significant that the Respondents never, thereafter, claimed that any particular piece
of information, or document, supplied the answer to any question on the question-
naire. Nor was any such claim made at the hearing.
Shortly after this incident in the bargaining, it developed that the Respondents'
agreement to discuss the supplying of additional information, if it became germane,
was promptly put to the test. Several items of requested information quickly be-
came pivotal points in the arguments of the parties. At those points, the Unions
renewed their request for the information, pointing out that the information was ger-
mane to the subject in hand, but the Respondents, without giving any reason therefor,
refused to furnish the information. Illustrative of this attitude of the Respondents
is the incident in the fourth meeting, in which Harris demanded the figures as to
the cost of paid holidays. The representatives of the Respondents sloughed off the
demand. In view of the resolution of the executive board not to supply any infor-
mation "until ordered by the NLRB," a position retained until the present, I must
conclude that the two statements concerning the information in OCO's letter of Feb-
ruary 8 were intentional misrepresentations of fact.
In addition to the above conduct, Harris testified that the Respondents had never
supplied any information which could possibly be considered an answer to any of the
questionnaires, and never supplied any information requested, as it became germane
to the bargaining. Indeed, there was no claim by any Respondent at the hearing
that the first statement of OCO was in accordance with the facts, or that the promise
in the second statement was fulfilled.
At this point it may be well to point out that the above findings, insofar as they
are based on letters and memos of OCO and its conduct, are binding only on that
Association and its members. Inferences drawn from the documents mentioned have
not been considered as bearing on WVLOA and its members. The record discloses
no similar resolutions, memos, or correspondence by WVLOA and its members.
The only evidence as to the conduct of WVLOA and its members, prior to the bar-
gaining, comes from the testimony of its secretary-manager, Metzger.
The bargaining of the parties is remarkable for many features. OCO, on behalf
of its members, began with the misrepresentations in the letter of February 8.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WVLOA, on behalf of its members , made no reply to the Unions ' letters opening
the contracts or submitting the questionnaires . However, each association had
meetings of its member-employers with legal counsel , and at the bargaining' con-
ferences both Associations and their members had a single spokesman . In the nego-
tiations , therefore , the action of the spokesman is properly attributable to each
Respondent and each Association.
The Unions proposed a wage increase , wage adjustments , and other items which
the negotiators referred to as cost items. As to wages, the Unions pointed out that'
they had received no increase in 1953 and felt that they had been misled by the
Employers' statements as to business prospects in 1953. Contrary to the Employ-
ers' forecasts, 1953 had been a profitable year in the industry and they felt they were
entitled to a raise. They advanced many reasons for a raise. In the second meet-
ing, the Employers rejected "any and all cost items that were contained" in the
Unions' proposal, the principle of standard minimum wages in classification, and
the proposal to incorporate the side agreements in the formal contracts between the
parties. When he was asked the reason for rejecting the cost items, Hackenbruck
said, "Well I'll give you a rather short answer on it, Ernie, we don't want to get
involved in statistics on this side of the table, ..." This is a statement which oc-
curs several times in the negotiations. He also said that conditions did not warrant
a raise and that none could be given until the Employers "could see" a change in
conditions.
In the fourth meeting, at a point when the parties were discussing the value
in dollars and cents of paid holidays, and Harris demanded that the figures requested
in the questionnaire be furnished by the Employers on that particular subject of paid
holidays, Hackenbruck reiterated that the Employers "did not intend to get into any
statistical arguments " with the Unions. Toward the close of the same meeting,
Hackenbruck said the Employers could not "see their way clear" to any increase.
In the course of the fifth meeting, the employer representatives said that they had
never used inability to pay as a basis for bargaining. When asked why they rejected
increased productivity as a basis for negotiations , Hoffman said, "Our overall posi-
tion is that the operators committee feels that there is no basis to warrant any cost
increase." Later he said that the Employers had examined the "factors" that affect
their operations and that no cost increase was warranted.
To my mind , these repeated statements that the Employers refused to engage in any
discussions involving "statistics ," in the context , really meant they refused to engage
in any discussion as to actual figures on costs, wages, or profits, subjects on which
they knew they were under a duty to supply information. The care used by the
employer representatives in pointing out that the wage increases were not rejected
because of the Employers ' inability to pay, had the same purpose. The rejection of
the cost items in the Unions' proposals was never explained beyond the fact that the
Employers "could not see `conditions ' or `factors ' " which warranted an increase.
Since these conditions or factors were never defined or explained to the Unions, but
remained unknown to all except the employer representatives , the Unions were de-
prived of any chance to discuss or bargain on the subjects.
The Employers , as noted , previously rejected the Unions ' proposal of a standard
minimum wage in the lumber industry on principle , but in the same meeting, the
Employers proposed a wage that was standard and minimum for all cutting crews,
based on an hourly rate.
The proposal to change the foundation of the prevailing wage structure from piece-
work to an hourly rate, which was deemed by the Union to be a decrease in pay and
the proposal to eliminate paid holidays in lieu of a 3-cent or 6 -cent per hour raise
were the basic counterproposals of the Employers. However, the Union found itself
thwarted again , in attempting to discuss these proposals intelligently , by a repeated
refusal of the Employers to supply the production figures pertaining to the work of
the men , or the figures showing the cost of paid holidays. Without the production
figures, the Union had no way of knowing the output of men in the operations, and
hence no way of judging, or calculating , the relative merits of piecework and hourly
work , or the relative merits of the proposed rate and basis , as against the prevailing
wage structure. Admittedly, the value placed by the Employers of 1 cent per hour
for paid holidays was an obsolete value because it was based on the 1950 wage rates
and wage increases had occurred in ensuing years. However , when the Unions de-
manded the figures as to production or the cost of paid holidays, which had been
requested by the questionnaire , the Employers again refused to supply the informa-
tion . Thus, the Employers made proposals but simultaneously refused to divulge
such information as would enable the Unions to judge the merits of the proposals
or even intelligently discuss them.
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1389
At this point I think it should be noted that the Unions evinced an almost pathetic
desire to bargain. The information requested in the questionnaires had been refused,
the information which became pertinent in the course of negotiations had been re-
fused, all cost items in their proposals had been rejected without any definite reasons,
but the Unions persisted in their attempts to bargain.
As a last resort the Unions attempted to "tidy up" their contractual relations with
the Employers by taking up their proposal to incorporate in the formal agreements
of each Employer those side agreements reached through collective bargaining, which
were in effect at that time in the operation of the specific Employer. Those side agree-
ments pertained to the following subjects: Job posting, ownership of cutting tools,
consultation with union committees prior to discharge; make-ready time and wage
scales; standard minimum crews, no man to fell timber by himself; walking time; crew
busdrivers' rate of pay; and rest periods.
At the hearing, it was stipulated that each of the Employers had agreed with the
Unions on some of the above subjects. Some Employers had agreed on as few as 2
of them, and some had agreed on as many as 11 such subjects. It was also admitted
that the side agreements between each Employer and the Union were then in effect
in each Employer's operation. The Union asked that each Employer put in his con-
tract those side agreements to which he had previously agreed, and which were then
in effect.
This is the one proposal of the Union which met with a definite answer. The
Employers rejected the proposal on the ground that the Act did not require that such
agreements be made a part of the contract between the parties. Hackenbruck made
reference to decisions of the Board, and agreed that the Act required that such agree-
ments, if made, (1) be reduced to writing, and (2) signed, if requested by either
party, but he contended that no decision of the Board directed that such an agreement
be made a part of the "working agreement proper." He contended that it could be a
separate agreement.
The union representatives disagreed with Hackenbruck's interpretation of the law,
but in argument stressed the reasonableness of their proposal. They pointed out that
the agreements existed and were in effect. Also, that some side agreements were on
subjects which were almost noncontroversial, and almost universally accepted in the
industry. At one point, Hackenbruck asked if that was all that Harris was asking,
that they be put in the contracts. When Harris replied in the affirmative, Hacken-
bruck said that the Employers saw no necessity for putting it in the contract, it was
a separate agreement, in some instances written, in others oral. It was at that point
that Hackenbruck referred to the decisions of the Board, as stated above.
Harris then referred to the agreements on ownership of power saws. He said that
at Plywood the Union had a Board decision on the matter, and asked what reason
there could be for rejecting that item. Hackenbruck said, "The same reasoning that
I utilized in explaining the other part of it. We don't take issue on some of these
items that you have proposed. We just felt they were not suitable for your industry
that are in negotiations. We think that it is pretty well covered in your prevailing
custom and practices." Harris said, "But you don't want the custom and practice in
the contract?" Hackenbruck said, "Not necessarily, no."
The parties again came back to the same subject in the fourth meeting.
Hackenbruck said that he disagreed with Harris that the Employers took the posi-
tion that such subjects must be reduced to writing, but they would amount to supple-
ments to the working agreement; they did not have to be a part or portion of the
formal contract. Hackenbruck replied that he did not think the subject was a fit one
for discussion and he suggested that the subject be left to individual negotiations
between the parties. At which point, Harris asked what the parties were there for.
His question was left unanswered.
Later in this fourth meeting, Hackenbruck, on behalf of all Employers, with the
exception of the Gardiner group and their contractors, withdrew all proposals pre-
viously made, and proposed that the contracts with all Employers represented "in
these concurrent negotiations be re-signed . . . the present work schedule and wage
rates to be continued without change."
Harris demanded to know if that meant that the Employers were refusing to incor-
porate the side agreements in the contracts. Hackenbruck replied, "This committee
will not make any statement concerning the situation of any individual company."
Harris then asked what Hackenbruck meant; he understood that Hackenbruck's
committee represented each of the Employers, and now Hackenbruck led him to
believe he had to go back to each Employer and ask him to put the agreement in
writing, and in the contract, or work out a supplement in the form of letters Hack-
enbruck said, "We are recommending on behalf of all those people that we represent
that the present contracts as they are now constituted be re-signed... .
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harris then pointed out that earlier in negotiations, Hackenbruck had said that
such items might be taken care of by an exchange of letters of the parties. Hacken-
bruck answered, ". . Our proposal stands that we continue the present agree-
ments. . " Harris continued his questioning asking how the Union was to ob-
tain written acknowledgments as to the side agreements in effect in each employer's
operation.
Hackenbruck said, "Well, I think that's your problem, Bill." To which Harris
retorted, "No, I don't think so. I don't think so. You are representing employers
down here, and either they are bargaining in good faith or not." The Employers
then arbitrarily rejected the proposal as being unsuitable for collective bargaining.
It should be noted that no objection was made to the inclusion of any of the side
agreements because it was unsuitable for inclusion as being too lengthy, or dealt with
a relatively unimportant subject, etc. The Employers here rejected the proposal
to include all or an} on the ground that the proposal to include all or any was un-
suitable for collective bargaining. On this point, the Employers were forced, by the
test of collective bargaining, to reveal their true intention to reject the proposal
arbitrarily, for they realized they could not successfully argue that it would be un-
suitable to include in the labor contract of each Employer, provisions already agreed
to on such subjects as wage scales and make-ready time, rest periods, pay of bus-
drivers, and safety rules.
Near the conclusion of the final meeting, Harris again pursued the subject. He
referred to the agreements and practices in effect and asked where he had to go to
do his negotiating on these subjects. Hoffman, in the course of his reply, said that
his answer to that was "that the contract and working conditions be continued as
they are."
There are only a few more features of the bargaining I feel constrained to men-
tion. In the final meeting Garski pointed out that all bases for negotiating proposed
by the Union had been rejected by the Employers, and asked the Employers upon
what basis the negotiations could be continued. Hoffman replied, "The operators'
groups have never felt that it was their right or obligation to instruct the union com-
mittee of the basis upon which it might base its opinions or decisions. .
Upon a consideration of all the evidence, I find that in the negotiations here in-
volved the Respondents and their representatives, OCO and WVLOA, did not bar-
gain in good faith. but engaged in a course of sham or surface bargaining designed
to frustrate and thwart the efforts of the employees to enjoy the rights guaranteed
to them by Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
In the course of the conferences they rejected every basis of negotiation proposed
by the Unions, and when asked to suggest a basis of their own, they not only refused
to propose a basis, but disclaimed any responsibility to do so. Their so-called
counterproposals on wages and paid holidays were empty gestures for they alone
knew the facts and figures pertinent to the operations, and they had previously re-
fused to supply that information to the Unions. Under the circumstances, their pro-
posal to change the wage base from piece rate to hourly rate, and substitute 1 cent
per hour for paid holidays, does not constitute a valid counterproposal in negotia-
tions, but a blind alternative presented to the Unions as a complement to the Em-
ployers' sham bargaining. By this device, the Unions had a choice of the sham
bargaining, or the blind acceptance of the alternative, with the Employers' real ob-
jective concealed-the frustration of the collective-bargaining process by which the
status quo of employers and employees would remain unchanged. Late in the con-
ferences, the Employers disclosed the purpose of their sham bargaining. Having
completed the false pretense of bargaining, they rejected all the union proposals,
withdrew all their own sham proposals, and proposed that the present contracts be
signed for another year.
In reviewing the conduct of these Employers and their representatives in the bar-
gaining, I find that they intentionally used many devices to frustrate the sincere
efforts of the Unions to bargain: (1) OCO, for itself and its members, made a false
representation to the Unions as to the information previously supplied; (2) OCO,
for itself and its members, repudiated its promise to discuss making available any
information found in the course of bargaining to be germane; (3) all the Employ-
ers, including OCO and WVLOA, evaded giving reasons for the rejection of some
of the Unions' proposals-wages and other cost items; (4) they refused to give rea-
sons for the rejection of other proposals-standard minimum wages; (5) they unilater-
ally and arbitrarily dismissed, as being unfit for discussion, the Unions' proposal to in-
corporate the side agreements; (6) they refused to discuss as a basis for negotiation the
greater productivity of the men, the condition of the industry, or the Employers' ability
to pay; (7) they refused to discuss any aspect of the Employers' operations which in-
volved statistics or exact figures; (8) they arbitrarily refused to discuss, as a matter
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1391
of principle, the Unions' proposal as to standard minimum wage or standard mini-
mum crews; (9) they indulged in spurious discussions as to the trivial aspects of
the seniority provisions to give the semblance of good-faith bargaining; (10) they
proposed alternatives to the Unions, knowing that they could not consider the merits
of the alternatives, because they had previously denied to the Unions the informa-
tion necessary to a decision on the alternatives; (11) at times they recommended
that the Unions negotiate directly with each employer, although they represented
each Employer, and later in the negotiations, on behalf of each Employer, rejected
all the Unions' proposals; (12) when asked to propose a basis for negotiation, they
refused to do so, thereby disclaiming any responsibility to make the negotiations
even partially successful; and (13) they arbitrarily refused to reduce to writing
verbal agreements admittedly made and arbitrarily refused to suggest or discuss how
such writings might be obtained in collective bargaining.
The conduct of the Employers' representatives, at certain points, revealed their
lack of good faith. Reviewing their conduct in the most charitable light, I must
conclude that on occasions they were arrogant, flippant, arbitrary, and hypocritical.
They displayed none of the qualities of open-mindedness, sincerity, patience, or
tolerance that mark the conduct of a representative who negotiates with equals in an
honest effort to resolve difficult mutual problems.
Upon all the evidence, I find that the Employers and their representatives, OCO
and WVLOA, evinced in the bargaining bad faith amounting to a rejection of the
entire concept of collective bargaining and a rejection of all duty to bargain in good
faith as required by the Act. I find that the individual Employers, including OCO
and WVLOA, violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to supply to
the Unions the information requested. As noted previously, this finding is not that
employers must answer questionnaires, for that question is not involved in this pro-
ceeding. Upon the facts here presented, all the information requested was needed
by the Unions to bargain intelligently, and it was refused because the Employers,
acting in bad faith, intended to frustrate and thwart the purposes of the Act. The
courts and Board have many times ruled that information pertinent to the bargain-
ing must be supplied by employers to unions under similar circumstances. 11
I also find that the individual Employers, and their representatives OCO and
WVLOA, violated the same sections of the Act, by refusing to bargain on the subject
of incorporating in the formal contracts between each union and each employer, the
pertinent side agreements here stipulated in evidence.
The primary purpose of the Act is to remove causes of labor disputes between
employers and employees by effecting, through collective bargaining, a labor con-
tract of the parties, in writing, that will spell out in definite terms the respective
rights of the parties as to all matters pertaining to wages, hours, and conditions of
employment. It was certainly envisioned by Congress that all the terms of the con-
tract would be in one instrument which could be furnished to both representatives of
management , such as managers, superintendents and foremen, and unions, such as
business agents and stewards, and to the employees. The purpose of the Act cannot
be frustrated by the tactic of one party in collective bargaining insisting that the terms
of the labor agreement be spread through many documents, or that some be written
and others oral. I deem it a fundamental requirement of the Act, that any agree-
ment on any point in the employer-employee relationship which was important
enough to have been the subject of collective bargaining by those parties, is impor-
tant enough to be in the formal contract of the parties. As everyone knows, indus-
trial strife arises from a great variety of matters affecting wages, hours, and condi-
tions of employment. If a subject has caused disagreement of the parties to the
point that they have been required to bargain collectively on the subject, common
prudence and the mandate of the Act requires that the agreement be reduced to
writing at the request of either party, and I deem it an equally fundamental re-
quirement that at the time the formal contract, by its terms or by the action of either
party, is opened for negotiations on revisions and renewal, that either party may pro-
pose that the terms of the side agreement, so arrived at, be made a provision of the
formal contract between the parties. Upon either party proposing inclusion of the
n Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 ; N. L. R. B. v. Yawman and Erbe Manu-
facturing Co., 187 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 2) ; Alumtinum Ore Co. v. N. L. It. B., 131 F. 2d
485 (C A. 7), enfg 39 NLRB 1286; N. L. It. B. v. J. H. Allison 5 Co., 165 F. 2d 766
(C. A. 6), enfg. 70 NLRB 377; Hughes Tool Company, 100 NLRB 208; Dixie Corpora-
tion, 105 NLRB 390; Stein-Way Clothing Company, 103 NLRB 1314; Leland-Gifford
Company, 95 NLRB 1306, enfd. 200 F. 2d 260 (C. A. 1). Southern Saddlery Company,
90 NLRB 1205.
1392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
side agreement in the contract, the subject matter of the'side agreement,-its-terms
and language, all become integral parts of the general negotiations on the formal
contract, to be disposed of in collective bargaining in the same way as all other
subjects, provisions, and terms of the formal contract.
In that manner, the subject covered by the side agreement will become either (a)
a part of the formal contract, or (b) a separate or connected supplement to the
formal contract, or (c) be abandoned, in accordance with the principles of collective
bargaining, or (d) it will become the issue upon which the parties resort to a test of
economic strength.
In Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. Campbell, et al., 337 IT. S. 521,
Justice Frankfurter, for the Court, wrote, "It is of the essence of collective bargaining
that it is a continuous process. Neither the conditions to which it addresses itself,
nor the benefits to be secured by it remain static." And later in the same opinion he
wrote, "A labor agreement is a code for the government of an industrial enterprise,
and, like all government, ultimately depends for its effectiveness on the quality of
enforcement of its code."
If then a labor agreement is a code, in the sense of the above, it follows that it
must be written and changeable in collective bargaining at appropriate times upon
the initiative of either party.12
In making the findings above, I have rejected several contentions argued by counsel
for Respondents in their briefs. One of these contentions is that the Act does not
require the Employers to supply the information requested. The briefs point out that
to date the Board has not required an employer to furnish information of the type
here requested. The briefs state that the Board has ordered employers to furnish only
information of the following types: (1) Wage histories of individual employees to
facilitate bargaining on a group basis; 13 (2) data as to wage comparisons where an
employer agrees to bargain on the basis of wages paid in other plants; 14 (3) methods
used to fix wage rates, individual earnings, and incentive bonuses; 15 (4) wage infor-
mation relating to wages in the year prior to negotiation; 16 and (5) financial data,
where a company pleads inability to pay a wage increase.17
The briefs point out that the information requested by the Unions here does not
fall within any of the five categories above, and that therefore the request for infor-
mation herein presents a novel question. The briefs also point out that in the bar-
gaining which occurred between the parties at 5 meetings, the Respondents never
agreed to accept as a basis for negotiations, any of the bases covered by any of the 5
categories of cases mentioned above, and that therefore the authority of the cases
cited and the legal principles therein stated have no bearing here. It is this argument
which has constrained me to set forth the facts in detail in the body of this report,
for I am in disagreement with the Respondents.
It is true that the Employers never agreed to accept as a basis for negotiation any
of the bases involved in the cited cases, but in addition, the Employers refused to
accept or propose any other basis for negotiations, and because of that and other
conduct, I have found them guilty of a refusal to bargain. In their desire to avoid
bargaining on those bases, and some others, they refused to bargain at all.
The principal argument of the Respondents attacks the basic concept of collective
bargaining and the validity of the settled propositions of law in the cases cited above.
It is also consistent with Respondents' conduct. The argument, as stated by the coun-
sel for the WVLOA group is as follows: 18
We urge that the basic premise underlying the decisions of the Board on the
duty to furnish information is false. The Board has assumed that management
and unions are partners. The assumption has no basis in fact.
Collective bargaining involves at least two adversaries, each of whom is trying
to advance its position at the expense of the other.
The parties are (1) representatives of management; and (2) representatives of
the union. Both are competing for the same thing. They are competing for
the dollar profit of the business enterprise. Management and the Union are not
partners, they are competitors. At times the competition is friendly; too often
12N L R B. v Jacobs Alanafacturang Company, 196 F 2d 680 (C. A 2), enfg
94 NLRB 1214,
13 Aluminum 01 e Co v N L R B, supra
14 N L R. B. v. Sherwin- Willoams Co , 130 F. 2d 255 (C. A 3).
15 Dixie Manufacturing Company, Inc, 79 NLRB 645.
10N. L. R. B. v Yawman & Eibe Alanufactursug Co., 187 F. 2d 947 (C A. 2).
17 Unaon Saddlery Co., 26 LRRDI 1322
18 Brief of WVLOA. Brief of the OCO group also develops at some length the sane
idea
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1393
it is unfriendly. Practically and honestly speaking-does a competitor disclose
his "hole card" to his opponent? The question requires no answer: The Union,
however, asks that we, the Respondent Employers, show our "hole card." To do
'so is not bargaining ; it is submission. The Labor-Management Act does not
contemplate surrender by Unions or by Management. It envisages two parties
at arms-length, protecting themselves and their dependents as best they can with
the means available to each of them. Collective bargaining can be built only
upon mutual respect for the economic power of the competitor. Respect is built
upon full appreciation of the strength of the adversary. That respect will not be
developed if either party is required to embrace his opponent and surrender its
power to him. Yet the General Counsel in this proceeding asks that the Re-
spondents do just that.
The Respondents are asked to treat the Union, representing their respective
employees, as a partner; to disclose to the Union full information of the opera-
tions of the business of each Respondent; to give to the Union facts to help the
Union discipline other employers; to show the Union how to get more of the
"dollar profit." If the Respondents are ordered so to do, then where is bargain-
ing? There is no bargaining ; there is only dictation. We submit:
1. Unions and Management are not partners; they are competitors. There
is no fiduciary duty owed by one to the other.
2. Until the negotiating parties (Union and Management) have agreed upon
the principle of a proposal-standard crews, safety, a general wage increase or
whatever the issue-information which would assist in settling the details of the
problem not only is inconsequential, it would serve only to block collective
bargaining.
3. Negotiations furthering collective bargaining are not solved by formulae,
slide rule, or the ipse dixit of an administrative agency.
One, and only one, responsibility is imposed upon Management and the Bar-
gaining Agent for his employees. Has each dealt in good faith?
To bargain means:
1. To try to get, buy or sell, on good terms;
2. To haggle.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Where is the bargaining "power" of Respondents if they must reveal to the
Union the information relating to each Respondent which would deprive the
Respondent of his ability to haggle or to buy or sell on good terms. [Empha-
sis in original.]
We must bear in mind that under the Labor-Management Act, both parties,
Union and Management, assume the same obligation to bargain. Any rule
laid down here as controlling an employer will apply with equal force to the
Union bargaining representative. Care must be exercised not to establish a
principle which would impede collective bargaining. If these Respondents are
required to supply the information requested, so also must the Unions accept
the obligation to furnish data to Respondents. The employers may submit a
questionnaire to the Union.
At that point in the argument, counsel presents an example of a questionnaire
which might be submitted to unions, and argues that the requesting of information
by both parties would lead to a breakdown of the collective-bargaining process.
A little later, the same brief states:
It is our position that neither the Union nor the Board can force the Respond-
ents to bargain in any particular fashion. The Union advanced its premise
for bargaining on "standard crews" by asking that the Respondents supply in-
formation to support the Union's demands. The Respondents have faced this
issue since 1943 (14 W. L. B. R., 492, 495) or for several years. Until the
Respondents accept the basic principle that these shall be standard crews, of
what use is the data requested by the Union.
Respondents are entitled to choose their own bargaining position. Respond-
ents are not required to accept the premise of the Union that standard crews
are desirable. We deny that "standard crews" are desirable. Until the Union
convinces us that "standard crews" are an advance, the detail requested by the
Union is not only immaterial, it is a road block to collective bargaining. These
comments apply with like force to the other demands of the Union. Why spend
hours and days arguing over the increased or lessened productivity of the cut-
ting crew as a basis for a wage 'increase, until it is agreed that the wages of
the cutting crew should be measured by productivity. If we accept productivity
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as a measure of wage rates, then. we can consider the facts relating to pro-
ductivity.
In my opinion, the-vice in the'above requires no comment.
As to the inclusion of the side agreements in the formal; contracts, the Respondents
take the position that the duty to bargain, stated in Section 8 (d), of the Act, refers
to current negotiations and does not apply to past agreements. In support of that
proposition' they cite De Soto Hardwood Flooring Co., 96 NLRB 382.
As I have stated previously, there is no legal authority for a concept of collective
bargaining that embraces the proposition that parties must bargain on. certain sub-
jects and, if agreement is reached, reduce the agreement to writing, but which also
envisions that if either party at that time does not request that a writing evidencing
the agreement be made, that such right is forever lost; or which envisions that when
a memorandum in writing is made and signed by the parties, in, midterm of a con-
tract, that both are foreclosed forever from proposing that the subject of the memo-
randum be considered again by the parties in collective bargaining at an appropriate
time, and the resultant agreement be made a provision of the formal labor "code"
governing the relationship of the parties. De Soto, Hardwood Flooring Co., supra,
involves a factual situation intrinsically far different from the instant proceeding.
It has no application to the, facts in the present proceeding.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents , including OCO and WVLOA, as set forth in
section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondents,
including OCO and WVLOA, as described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents, including OCO and WVLOA, have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist
therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the several Unions represented and now represent a majority
of the employees in appropriate units of the several Respondents, and that each
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the representative of its em-
ployees, the Trial Examiner will recommend that each Respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the representative of its employees.
Having found that each Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
representative of its employees by withholding certain information pertinent to the
pending negotiations between the parties, which was requested by letter and ques-
tionnaires on January 29, 1954, it will be recommended that each Respondent sup-
ply the requested information to the representative of its employees.
Having found that each Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
representative of its employees by refusing to negotiate upon the subject of including
in the formal contracts between the parties, certain side agreements previously nego-
tiated by the parties, it will be recommended that each of the Respondents, upon re-
quest, bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees upon that subject.
Having found that Respondents OCO and WVLOA each acted as representative
of its member-respondents, in the commission of the unfair labor practices found
above, it will he recommended that each said representative shall be required to
take the affirmative action set forth above, jointly and concurrently with each of its
member-respondents.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, Local 7-116, CIO, and International,
Woodworkers of America, Local 7-140, CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Oregon Coast Operators Association; Coast Pacific Lumber Company; Al Peirce
Lumber Company; Coos Head Timber Company, McKenna Mill, and Empire Mill;
Long-Bell Lumber Company, Gardiner Division (Bridge Mill); Glen F. Compton &
Glen V. Compton d/b/a Compton Logging Company; Doernbecher Manufacturing
Co., Logging Division; E. K. Wood Lumber Company, Logging Department and its
Contractors; Jack V. Carlson, d/b/a A. S. C. Logging Company; Elmer Bangs and
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1395
Harold Dick, d/b/a Bangs and Dick Logging Company; Willamette Valley Lumber
Operators Association; Patten-Blinn Lumber Company; Faulkner and Harris Milling
Company; United States Plywood Corporation; H. A. Lausmann & J. H. Lausmann,
Jr., d/b/a Lausmann Brothers; and The Consumers Cooperative Association are
employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. Certain employees of each of the several Companies above named , more fully
described in section II of this report , constitute units appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The several Unions above named were on January 29, 1954, and at all times
thereafter have been and are, the exclusive representatives of the employees in the
above-described appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. By refusing on March 3, 1954, and at all times thereafter to supply to the repre-
sentative of its employees certain information pertinent to the collective bargaining
between the parties, each of the Respondents, including OCO and WVLOA, has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act, as amended.
6. By refusing on February 15, 1954, and at all times thereafter to bargain collec-
tively with the representative of its employees on the subject of including in the formal
contracts between the parties certain side agreements , each of the Respondents has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (5) of the Act, as amended.
7. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain , the Respondents have interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act , and have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act , as amended.
8. By acting as the representatives of their member -respondents in the commission
of the above violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) ofithe Act, Respondents Oregon
Coast Operators Association and Willamette Valley Lumber Operators Association
have likewise committed violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
9. 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.]
EXHIBIT A
SPRING 1954 FORM-ALL OPERATIONS UNDER AGREEMENT WITH
LOCAL______________ DIST. NO.7, I.W.A.-C.I.O.
Directions: Complete in triplicate copy , original to be returned to
Local ------------------------------
by time indicated in notification , one copy to Ernest Tomberg, IWA District 7, Box
488, Coos Bay, Oregon , and one copy to E. W . Kenney, Director of Research, IWA-
CIO, Governor Building, Portland, Oregon.
Type Operation , Check:
Logging l] Sawmill q Resaw Mill C Planing Mill El ____________________
Other
-----------------------------------------------------------
Name of Operation Date
Mail Address
1. Total number of employees in bargaining unit during 1953 ------------
2. Average number in crew when operating at normal capacity ------------
'3. Number of weeks in 1953 you operated at normal capacity _______-___-
4. Number of employeesjreceiving 2-week -vacation -with pay in 1953 ____________
'5.'Number of. employees receiving 5-days•vacation pay-in 1953 __-________-
6. Number of employees receiving 4-days-vacation pay in 1953 ___-_______-
7. Number of employees receiving 3-days vacation pay in 1953 ------------
8. Number of employees receiving holiday pay while injured
?
------------
9. Are you under State Ind. Acc. Comm. for liability insurance
Yes ------------ No. ------------
10. If not, name carrier of your workman liability insurance
a.---------------------------------------------------------------
Company
b. Maximum limit of liability, your policy $________________
c. Maximum limit of liability, per individual $----------------
d. Maximum limit of liability for medical, hospital,
per individual $----------------
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXHIBIT B
SPRING, 1954, FORM FOR MILLING OPERATIONS UNDER AGREEMENT
WITH LOCAL_______________ IWA-CIO
Directions : Complete in triplicate copy, original to be returned to Local --------
----- --------------------------- one copy to Ernest Tomberg, IWA District 7,
Box 488, Coos Bay, Oregon , and one copy to E. W. Kenney, Director of Research,
IWA-CIO, Governor Building, Portland, Oregon.
To be completed and returned by time indicated in notification.
Wa- e---f-O-----peratio
---n--------------------------------------------------Date -----------Name o
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail Address
List the following
equipment in your
operation;
(If more than one
machine, indicate
number)
-Head Rig
Carriage
Edger
Edger (Pony)
Trimmer (Automatic)
Trimmer (Other)
Swede Gang
Gant Gang
Planer
Planer Trimmer
Resaw
Green Chain
Live Rolls? Yes ----- No -----
Crane
Other
Capacity Production No. of MenType and Size Per Shift Assigned t
Total production, 1953:-------------------BF1 May be by Deck scale,
Normal production per shift:---------------BF Inventory or Ship-
Production per man-hour ------------------ BF ment
OREGON COAST OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 1397
EXHIBIT C
SPRING 1954 FORM FOR LOGGING OPERATIONS UNDER AGREEMENT
WITH LOCAL ---------------------------- I. W. A.-C. I. O.
Directions: Complete in triplicate copy, original to be returned to
Local ------------------------------ by time indicated in notifi-
cation, one copy to Ernest Tomberg, IWA District 7, Box 488, Coos
Bay, Oregon, and one copy to E. W. Kenney, Director of Research,
IWA-CIO, Governor Building, Portland, Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------
Name of Operation Mail Address Date
Production: Totals for 1953
Cut ------ MBF Yarded ------ MBF To Mill or in Water ------ MBF
Boom Work: 1. Is lunch time paid for? Yes ____ No ------
2. Is extra rate paid when called earlier' Yes ___- No ------
than the regular starting time?
Power Saws:
1. Number of fallers ____ Bushel rate being paid: __-- per M plus __-- per hour
Strip Adjustment? Yes ---_ No ____ Day Rate ____ per hour.
2. Number of Buckers _-__ Bushel rate being paid: ---- per M plus ____ per hour
Strip Adjustment? Yes __-_ No --__ Day Rate --__ per hour.
3. Number of fallers on bushes ____ Number of buckers on bushes ----
Number of fallers on day rate ____ Number of buckers on day rate ----
(Do not include landing buckers in any of the above)
Crew Bus Driving:
List Each Bus Used in 1953
Name of Driver(s)
Time Allowed Per Day
Rate Paid
Type of Crew Hauled
Number of Passengers (Average)
DISTRIBUTION OF LOGGING CREWS
List each unit of the following machines by size and' type in separate space below
and designate the information applying to each unit in the spaces to the right: * (Listed
vertically below)
Yarder
Swing Machine
Track Loader, Other Loader
Cat Used in Logging
Trucks
Dump Machine
Grader, Scoopmobile
Boat
Shovel
Who Greases, Oils:
Who Does Mechanic Work:
UNIT
(Space provided for 7 Units)
Size of Choker Number of Chokers
Used per Machine
*Indicate number of men of each classification used in conjunction with each unit
of equipment listed
Hooktender 2nd Loader Mechanic
Cat Hooker Grader Operator Boat Operator
Cat Operator Head Rigger Shovel Operator
Chaser 2nd Rigger Track Loader Operator
Choker Setter Grease Man Truck Driver
Climber Jackhammer Man Whistle Punk
Engineer Dump Operator If Combination Rate, List
Landing Bucker Scaler Each Combination Here
Head Loader Truck or log Dump
1398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXHIBIT D
LOCAL --------------------------------------------
Date Employed
1. List All Employees on Payroll in 1953-NAME
2. CLASSIFICATION-if combination indicate what combination
3. Hourly Rate Paid
4. Make-ready Paid
5. Is Lunch Time Paid For?
6. How Many Days 1953 Hoot Owl or Night Shift Diff..Paid?
7. Received Rest Periods of At Least 10 Minutes Each 4 Hours , Yes or No
8. Amount of Vacation Pay Paid 1953-No. Days/Amount
9. HOLIDAYS PAID 1953 Check as applies
N-New Years
M-Memorial Day
4-4th of July
L-Labor Day
T-Thanksgiving
C-Christmas
Paid Worked
N 4M L T C N M 4, L T C
10. Time Lost on Account of Occupational Injuries, 1953
-if more than one per individual please attach separate, list showing
all the injuries, date injured on separate list.
Date Injured Date)Rtd. to Job
11. Holidays Paid While Injured
12. Total Hours Worked 1953
13. Total Earnings 1953
NOTE: This questionnaire has horizontal lines for the names of the men.
Questions 2-13 are at top of questionnaire over appropriate columns.
O