Pacific Plywood Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 736 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent in the technical legal sense , or as "agents" of the Respondent , within the meaning
of Section 8(b) of the Act 21 Moreover , in making the above inference as to Budd's
responsibility , I have been well aware that great care must be used , where circum-
stantial evidence alone is relied upon , to be sure that the circumstances shown are
consistent with the theory accepted and inconsistent with any other rational theory;
I am satisfied that the above inference meets such evidentiary requirements.22
Further, the Board repeatedly has found unfair labor practices on circumstantial
evidence.23
In view of all the foregoing, since Budd is clearly an agent of the Respondent,
I find that the Respondent physically assaulted Platte Valley's employees , Kimble,
Noble, and Thompson , while they were at work at the LaVista project on October
26, 1960 , and that the Respondent , by so doing, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act 24
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Platte Valley described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom , and that it take certain affirmative
action , designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions , and upon the
entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By physically assaulting employees of Platte Valley, the Respondent has re-
strained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by
threatening Platte Valley with reprisals if it did not rid itself of and replace its
nonunion employees with members of the Respondent.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
n See Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487 , 1511, footnote 49.
22 See Jones on Evidence , 5th ed ., vol. 4, pp. 1859 and 1860.
23 See Riss & Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 943, the "Royce " incident ; Gimbel Brothers,
Inc, 100 NLRB 870, 877, footnote 17; and Horn & Hardart Baking Company, 115 NLRB
1184, 1186.
24I have weighed the question of whether , under all of the circumstances , this assault
is the type of isolated incident which does not warrant the issuance of a cease -and-desist
order, and have decided that it cannot be so considered But cf International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Twin-Kee Manufacturing Co, Inc ), 130 NLRB 614
Pacific Plywood Company and Local Union No. 3-436, Inter-
national Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO
Independent Particle Board Employees , Inc. and Local Union
No. 3-436, International Woodworkers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 36-CA-1062 and 36-CB-262. November 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 5, 1961, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
134 NLRB No. 77.
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 737
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. He further found that Respondent Company had
not engaged in other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended
that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter the Respondent Com-
pany filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
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 brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner 2
with the modification that: provisions A, 2, (d), and B, 2, (e), read
"Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith" ; the deletion of the words "or any other em-
ployer" from provisions B, 1, (a) and (b) ; and the addition of pro-
visions requiring that the Respondent Company "Post at the same
places and under the same conditions as set forth in A, 2, (c), as soon
as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the Re--
spondent Union's notice marked `Appendix B"'; that the Respondent
Company "Furnish to the said Regional Director signed copies of the
notice marked `Appendix A' for posting'by Respondent Union, as
hereinafter directed"; and that the Respondent Union "Post in the
same places and under the same conditions as set forth in B, 2, (c),
as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of
the Respondent Company's notice marked `Appendix A."'
'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's con-
clusion that the Respondent Company did not independently violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act
9 In the notices attached to the Intermediate Report as "Appendix A" and "Appendix B,"
the words "A Decision and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recom-
mendations of a Trial Examiner," and the words "or any other employer" are hereby
deleted from the first and fourth indented paragraphs of said Appendix B 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."
630849-62-vol. 131 48
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard at Roseburg, Oregon, on May 16 and 17, 1961. The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent Union, Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.,
attempted to cause and did cause Respondent Company, Pacific Plywood Company,
to discharge Sally Pruitt, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1) (A) and Section 8(a)(3) and (1), respectively,
of the Act. The complaint also alleges several acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion by Respondent Company within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
Oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing was waived and briefs have been
submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent Company. Ruling having been
reserved on Respondents ' motions to dismiss the allegations with respect to Pruitt,
they are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FAcr
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pacific Plywood Company is an Oregon corporation maintaining its principal
office and place of business at Dillard, Oregon, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of plywood, particle board, and related products. During the year
preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent Company manufactured and
sold products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued in excess of
$50,000 were shipped directly to States of the United States other than the State
of Oregon. I find that the operations of Respondent Company affect commerce.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Union, Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc., and Local Union
No. 3-436, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organiza-
tions admitting to membership the employees of Respondent Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues; introduction
Sally Pruitt, a tile grader, was discharged by Respondent Company on Decem-
ber 27, 1960. The issue presented is whether she was discharged by Respondent
Company because of complaints by four fellow workers concerning her tempera-
ment and disposition , coupled with threats that the four would resign if Pruitt
remained as an employee, or whether Respondent Union caused her discharge by
canceling her dues checkoff, ousting her from union membership for nonpayment of
dues, and by requesting the application of a union-shop clause to terminate her em-
ployment because she was not a union member. It is undisputed that her work as
such was entirely satisfactory. A subsidiary issue is whether Respondent Company
engaged in two independent violations of the Act by bargaining directly with em-
ployees and by telling employees in a unit represented by the I.W A. that they
would have to join Respondent Union as a condition of continued employment.
Respondent Company has contracts with two labor organizations. Its plywood
division, following a Board certification, has been under contract with the I.W.A.
for a unit of 140 to 150 employees for several years. Respondent Union was certi-
fied in October 1959, as the bargaining representative of approximately 16 employees
in the particle board division located in other buildings. They are presently covered
by a contract executed in April 1960 and expiring in November 1961. The union-
security language in this contract is set forth hereinafter.'
B. Sequence of events
Pruitt entered the employ of Respondent Company in December 1958 and joined
Respondent Union when it came into existence late in 1959. In September 1960,
she was elected shop steward and her difficulties with other employees started at
about this time; these are discussed below.
1 There actually are two almost identical contracts covering the latter group : Respond-
ents concede that, despite various management reorganizations and name changes, all
covered by the contracts are within the certified unit
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 739
Respondent Union holds regular monthly meetings. The minutes of the August 14
meeting report that "A very firm discussion brought to light the fact that Sally Pruitt
was causing much trouble among her fellow workers and working against the union
in favor I.W.A. Union. Points brought out were: talking against Independent
Union and for I.W.A. to every new employee that comes in . Also hindering her
fellow workers (women ) from doing their best; also running to foreman with tales
about her fellow workers."
The minutes of the September 11 meeting similarly disclose the following:
Discussion is again in order concerning Sally Pruit's [sic] action against her
fellow employees at the plant and her subversive action to her own union. She
is encouraging them against the Independent Union. She goes to the foreman
every time some of her fellow workers make more production than she does.
The secretary is authorized to take the necessary steps to "black ball" her from
the Independent Union. She has caused one employee to get pink slip and is
doing things to prevent her fellow workers from getting their normal production.
Threats of employees, effected [sic] by her, to quit their jobs have been
made by several employees. Secretary states he will see if there are any provi-
sions concerning "black ball."
The minutes of the October 9 meeting state that "The secretary informed the
meeting that the necessary steps have been put into motion to have a fair and im-
partial trial of Sally Pruitt stating that evidence must come from those who know and
be willing to testify against her." •
On November 5, a letter was sent to Pruitt and signed by all the officials of
Respondent Union. It stated that it was a "notice of dismissal," that she was charged
with "Subversive Action" against the Union, and that she was entitled to a trial in
which she would be charged with violating the constitution of Respondent Union.
Pruitt requested a trial and a special meeting of Respondent Union was held on
November 20; she was tried by a court of six, including Secretary Lee Wilson and
Vice President Robert Pryce. The judges voted that she was guilty as charged, not
fit to be a "representative" of Respondent Union, and advised Secretary Wilson "to
inform the employer of the action and proceed from there until action was com-
plete." Pruitt was told at the conclusion of this meeting that she had been ousted
from union membership.
Shortly after receiving her letter of dismissal from Respondent Union dated
November 5, Pruitt visited President and General Manager William Forrest of
Respondent Company. She told him of her ouster from Respondent Union and
stressed her desire to retain her job. Forrest told Pruitt, as the latter testified, to
"keep your union dues paid, and there will be nothing come through this office."
Pruitt replied that she would do so because her dues were being deducted each
month pursuant to her duly authorized voluntary checkoff; such was in fact the case.
Her authorization for Respondent Company to deduct her dues had been on file since
the formation of Respondent Union and the dues had been duly deducted without
incident for approximately 1 year. Forrest admitted that he ascertained from Pruitt
that her dues were current and told her that the contract i equired no more of her.
On November 22, Secretary Wilson of Respondent Union wrote to the payroll
department of Respondent Company as follows:
I have been authorized by the Executive' Committee of the Independent
Particle Board Employees Inc. Union, to advise your department to discontinue
deductions of Union Dues (contributions) from the account of Mrs. Sally L.
Pruitt whom [sic] is employed at Sierra Lumber.
Mrs. Pruitt, by a decision of the I.P.B.E.I. Union Executive Board, has been
terminated from our rolls and is no longer recognized as a member of the
I.P.B.E.I. Union for acts un-becoming a member of the Union.
Several days later, on November 25, Secretary Wilson wrote to Ronald Frashour,
assistant manager of the Particle Board division, as follows:
The Independent Particle Board Employees Inc. Union hereby request you
to proceed with the Sally L. Pruitt case as outlined in Article III of the agreement
between the Company and the Union.
Such action being taken in accordance with the authority [sic] of Independent
Particle Board Employees Inc. Union and it's [sic] Executive Committee as
outlined in charges issued to you in pryor [ sic] notice .2
2I find that this prior notice was the November 22 letter advising Respondent Company
to discontinue the deduction of Pruitt's dues.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Article III of the agreement referred to in the letter provides , in part, as follows:
ARTICLE 111-UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES
1. The company agrees that all present regular employees covered by this
Agreement shall after thirty (30) days from the date of this Agreement, or within
thirty (30) days after employment, and as a condition of continued employment,
join and maintain membership in Union to the extent of keeping paid all regular
initiation fees and regular dues.
2. Any employee failing to become a member of the Union as herein provided
and/or any Union member employee failing to pay regular dues for a period of
three (3) months shall be discharged within five (5) days after the Company
receives notice form in writing, stating the employee's status with the Union
and requesting such discharge.
It should be noted that the General Counsel does not attack herein the legality of this
language insofar as it refers to acquisition of union membership "within thirty days."
See State Packing Company, 128 NLRB 432; and Chun King Sales, Inc., 126 NLRB
851. It may also be noted that Frashour testified he had contacted local counsel as
well as a representative of an employer association concerning the application of
article III and was advised that this obligated the employer to discharge only a new
employee for nonpayment of dues and was not applicable to existing employees. A
reading of article III, as is readily apparent, impels a contrary conclusion. It is mani-
festly applicable to "all present regular employees," a category in which Pruitt fell
as her employment antedated the signing of the agreement.
It was the further testimony of Frashour that he did not reply to these letters referred
to above, but that he did speak with Secretary Wilson of Respondent Union and ad-
vised him that he would follow counsel's advice to ignore the letters because they
were "not appropriate." Forrest testified similarly that he took no action pursuant to
article III of the contract. In any event, I find, as Wilson in essence admitted, that the
November 25 letter constituted a request to remove Pruitt from her job because she was
no longer a member of Respondent Union. As noted, Forrest had told Pruitt during
November that if her dues were paid she would not have any employment problems.3
An issue herein is the weight attributed by Respondent Company to certain docu-
ments submitted to it in connection with Pruitt. These documents consist of (1) a
petition signed by 16 employees in the unit represented by Respondent Union and (2)
letters written by four of the foregoing employees to Respondent. All of these docu-
ments were received at the offices of Respondent Company on December 23, 1960,
the very day on which the decision was made to terminate Pruitt. In fact, all were
so stamped by Respondent Company.
Turning first to the petition, it was mailed directly to President and General Manager
William Forrest, is postmarked December 22, and bears a receipt stamp of Decem-
ber 23. The return address on the envelope is that of Respondent Union. It is
signed by 16 employees, including Robert Pryce, vice president of Respondent Union,
is dated December 13, and states as follows:
PETITION
We the undersigned, employees of Sierra Lumber Co. Division of Pacific
Plywood Co. being Union members of Independent Particle Board Employees
Inc. Union and in good standing, do hereby protest against a Non Union em-
ployee working in a Union Shop and taking precedence over Union Members.
Also, it is the request of the undersigned that Sierra Lumber Co. act immediately
to remove this employee from your employment on the grounds that she is a
trouble maker and has willingly and indiscreetly done harm to her fellow
employees in hampering their work whenever and wherever she could and by
keeping a disturbance among the employees.
I have signed this petition of my own free will; have not been coerced [sic]
or forced in any way by any one to do this act.
Forrest admitted that in view of prior events, he construed the petition to refer to
Pruitt, as in fact it did. The circumstances of the preparation of the petition are as
8 The General Counsel introduced in evidence, for another purpose, the affidavit, of
Wilson wherein he states that during a telephone conversation, ostensibly in November
and after the receipt of a notification from Respondent Union, Frashour told him that
nothing would be done about Pruitt for 30 days and she could not be released for 30 days
Neither Wilson nor Frashour was questioned about this and I do not rely thereon in the
findings hereinafter.
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 741
follows: The minutes of a regular meeting of Respondent Union held in December
are in evidence. They are typed except for the inked-in date of December 21. In
view of the time taken to procure the signatures to the petition and the fact that the
petition bears the date of December 13, I find, as Pruitt and employee Alma Hanley
testified, that December 12 is probably the correct date. The minutes, in part, state
as follows:
Discussion about Sally Pruitt attending meeting decided since her dues ran
out in November and she was no longer a member in good standing that it was
proper for the President to ask her to leave the meeting.
It was discussed that members in good standing be considered first when work
was to be done and that Sally Pruitt not fill the vacancies of other members in
good standing be given preference. The question was asked about circulating a
petition among Sierra employees. Secretary Lee Wilson suggested that it be
handled as a personal problem effective to Sierra only since Pacqua was not
affected. The secretary was asked if he could draw up the petition for the
Sierra group.
Secretary Wilson of Respondent Union originally testified very specifically that a
request to prepare the petition was not made at a regular union meeting and that he,
Wilson, prepared the petition as an individual and not as secretary of Respondent
Union. However, he later conceded, consistent with the minutes and I so find, that
the topic was raised at a regular union meeting and that the matter was discussed.
He admitted agreeing to prepare the document at the meeting. This is consistent
with the testimony of Vice President Pryce of Respondent Union that he had Wilson
prepare it for him. Pryce then circulated the petition, signed it himself, and, after
all or substantially all of the employees in the unit signed, returned it to Wilson. The
latter mailed it to Forrest, as set forth above. Pryce also claimed that he circulated
the petition in an individual capacity.
Of course the testimony of Pryce and Wilson that they handled this matter as
individuals is their own conclusion and, moreover, is not supported by fact. They
were officials of Respondent Union, the topic was raised at a union meeting, Wilson
prepared the petition, Pryce circulated it, and Wilson mailed it to Respondent Com-
pany. Indeed, Forrest recognized the return address on the envelope, which bore
the initials I.P.B.E.I., as that of Respondent Union. Nor is there any evidence that
the signers of the petition were advised that this was a personal and nonunion under-
taking on the part of Pryce and Wilson. I find, in view of the history of the docu-
ment, that precisely the contrary inference is warranted. This is supported by the
testimony of Bernard Meskill that Union Trustee Baucock made a motion at the
December meeting that such a petition be circulated; the testimony of Alma Hanley
that Baucock spoke at the meeting in favor of such a petition; and the testimony of
Meskill that it was voted on favorably at this meeting.
The content of the petition clearly makes reference to the prior union action during
the previous month when Respondent Company was asked by Respondent Union to
invoke the union-security language of their contract and terminate Pruitt. The pe-
tition, I find, certainly put Respondent Company on notice that the signers, including
Vice President Pryce, were seeking the discharge of Pruitt, a nonunion member,
whose nonunion status had been forced upon her during the previous months by
Respondent Union, a matter with which Forrest was personally acquainted. I find
that the petition constituted an act by Respondent Union and that Respondent
Company did not regard it otherwise.
Turning to the letters, they are four in number and signed by four signers of the
petition, Lorena Green, Robert Pryce, Sylvia Crites, and Phyllis Candelaria. They
are all to the same general purport and contain much similar language. They were
written contemporaneously with the petition or shortly after it was circulated.
Green stated that Pruitt was responsible for a strained atmosphere and unpleasant
working conditions and "I feel that I must turn in my resignation . . . as long as
she is employed by the Company . this situation will continue to exist. . It
is with deep regret that I turn in this resignation." Pryce wrote that Pruitt was
complaining to his foreman about his work, that he could not do his best work
under such circumstances, and that "unless something is done about this matter
I will be forced to quit." Crites wrote that Pruitt had agitated employees to work
against their fellow workers and "Unless this situation is cleared up, I cannot work
under these conditions." Candelaria stated that she was "enclosing my reasons
for not being able to work with Sally Pruitt." She went on to explain that Pruitt was
a disruptive force in that she intervened and prevented the box girl and stock boy
from performing tasks necessary to assist the other workers. She expressed her
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increasing agitation over the situation and added, "If she continues to work in my
department, I find it necessary to resign, as I have tried to do before. My health
is being effected [sic]." The record does not disclose the earlier circumstances under
which Candelaria allegedly attempted to resign.
As for the receipt of these four letters by Respondent Company, the record dis-
closes that they did not come to the attention of top management until the very
same day that the petition was received, December 23. All were originally sub-
mitted to Foreman Henry Longton, the immediate superior of the four employees
as well as Pruitt. Green mailed her letter directly to Longton on December 21.
The other three letters were sent or handed to Longton who turned over all four
letters simultaneously to higher management on December 23. Forrest testified
that the four letters played a part in the decision to discharge Pruitt but that the
letters and the petition did not carry the weight of the threats of resignation by the
employees involved. Presumably, this means the threats contained in the letters.
Forrest, who made the final decision on the discharge, met with Frashour on De-
cember 23. The latter testified that he brought the four letters, as well as the petition,
to Forrest and the two men proceeded to discuss the situation. A decision was then
reached that the discharge was justified and in order. Frashour, without disclosing
to Foreman Longton that a decision had already been reached, contacted him and
asked for his recommendation. Longton testified that he did not know of or see
the petition until the following day, December 24, and that he made the recom-
mendation to Frashour on December 23 that Pruitt be discharged, his view being
that it was better to lose one rather than four employees. Later that day, he was
instructed by Frashour to terminate Pruitt. She was accordingly discharged on
December 27, not having been at work on December 23. It appears that the tile
graders had been laid off at the close of business on December 22 until December
27. The record also discloses that on December 22, Pruitt learned that her Decem-
ber dues had not been checked off. In fact, one, Young, of Respondent Company's
payroll department showed her the November letter from Respondent Union di-
recting the cessation of her dues checkoff. Her termination slip bears the date of
December 27 and states that she was terminated because she was incompatible with
her fellow workers. It should be noted, however, that this form was never delivered
to Pruitt and it is not clear from the record on which date the form was actually
prepared.
At 7 a.m. on December 27, Pruitt reported for work and discovered that her
timecard was not in the rack. She testified uncontrovertedly, and I find, that
Longton called her in to his offce, informed her that she no longer worked there,
and handed her a paycheck. Pruitt asked the reason for her discharge and Longton
replied, "Well, you know, there was a petition circulated and four letters. . .. It's-
not your work in any way." Pruitt asked for a reason in writing and Longton re-
ferred her to Frashour.
At 8 a.m., Pruitt visited Frashour in his office; no one else was present. Accord-
ing to Pruitt, she asked the reason for her discharge and Frashour stated, "We had
a petition circulated and we also have four letters . we have sixteen names on
this petition." Pruitt asked to see the names and Frashour refused. She asked for
a written statement of the reason for her discharge and he told her to check with him
later in the day. She later testified that she had not brought up the subject of the
petition and the letters but rather that Frashour, in giving a reason for the discharge,
had stated "it's the confusion that we've had, and a petition and four letters that
we have . the four letters had more weight than the petition, but it was the
letters . . . the petition and the four letters."
In the afternoon, Pruitt returned accompanied by a friend, Woods. Seated at
a nearby desk was Frashour's superior, William Cook, manager of the division.
According to Pruitt, Frashour told her that he could not supply a written statement.
She claimed that she needed it in order to seek work elsewhere and that she had
never been discharged previously. Frashour replied that her work had been satis-
factory but that "We have a petition and four letters. Ordinarily, a union affair,
we don't get into it, but . we have four letters. . . . These four letters come
from four employees saying that they are going to quit if we don't get rid of
you. . . . We have to get rid of you." Frashour promised to check with Forrest
and ascertain what written document might be furnished Pruitt.
Frashour was not entirely clear what was respecitvely said in the morning and
afternoon meetings. He testified that on her original appearance Pruitt wanted a
written statement as to the reasons for her discharge. Frashour replied that Re-
spondent Company did not do this but that the reason for her discharge was "in-
compatability with fellow workers and creating confusion in the department." She
then asked for a letter of recommendation. Frashour replied that if such a letter
were written it would include both her good and bad points.
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 743
There was additional conversation between the two and Frashour was uncertain
whether it took place in the morning meeting or at the afternoon meeting. Accord-
ing to Frashour, Pruitt raised the topic of the petition and the letter, stating that
she understood that Respondent Company had received them and asked to see them.
Frashour refused to display them or tell her who had signed them. It is significant,
even on Frashour's version, that Pruitt asked if she had been discharged because of
the petition and Frashour replied, "No, it was not because of the petition although
the petition had a bearing on the case." [Emphasis supplied.] He further testified
that he was "sure" he proceeded to tell her that he was "more concerned with the
four individual letters," because Respondent Company could not afford to lose four
employees who were antagonized by one employee. The meeting ended with
Frashour stating that he would speak to Forrest again and see what might be done.
Cook, in general, corroborated Frashour's testimony. He testified that at the
afternoon meeting Pruitt asked Frashour if letters had been received from employees
about her, and Frashour admitted that four had come in. She then asked if the
petition had been received from the Union. Frashour then "corrected the state-
ment . . . because it wasn't directly from the Union . It was from the em-
ployees of the Company who happened to be union members." Frashour then re-
fused to display the letters or the petition to her. I deem it significant that Cook
did not dispute Frashour's testimony that the petition had a "bearing" on the case.
Moreover, it should be noted that Frashour's testimony is silent as to any claim on
his part that the petition came from employees who happened to be union members
rather than from Respondent Union itself. Moreover, the testimony of Forrest, the
superior of Cook and Frashour, as previously noted, demonstrates that Forrest
himself knew that the return address on the letter in which the petition had been en-
closed was that of Respondent Union.
The following morning Pruitt and Woods appeared at the plant again . Frashour
met them at the front desk and informed them that Forrest refused to give any
written statement of the type she requested. Respondent Company did offer in
evidence a letter of reference dated January 30, 1961, to a local concern wherein
Pruitt was recommended for employment. The letter stated that she was neat,
very capable, and a hard worker but that a "problem of personality between her and
other employees" had resulted in her discharge.
As noted, the testimony of Pruitt attributing the statement to Longton on the
morning of December 23 that a petition had been circulated and that four letters
had been received is undenied. Moreover, both the testimony of Pruitt and Frashour
discloses that there was reference in these discussions on December 23 to the fact
that a petition had been received and played a part in the decision to terminate Pruitt.
There is conflict, of course, whether one or the other raised the topic, but in any
event, even on Frashour's testimony, it is conceded that he made reference to the
petition playing a part, although a small part, in the decision to terminate Pruitt.
Accordingly, I find that Pruitt was informed by Frashour on December 23 that the
petition as well as the four letters were involved in the decision to terminate her.
C. Analysis and conclusions
As found, the petition and the four letters were in the hands of Frashour on Decem-
ber 23, 1960. President Forrest, after consulting with Frashour and with full knowl-
edge of all these documents, made the decision at that time to terminate Pruitt.
Thereafter, Foreman Longton, who allegedly did not know of the petition until the
following day, was consulted by Frashour and he too recommended the discharge.
The decision, it is clear and I so find, was made by President and General Manager
Forrest of Respondent Company.
To recapitulate, Pruitt was ousted from membership by Respondent Union on
November 20, 1960, for reasons other than her failure to pay initiation fees and dues,
and more particularly her criticism of Respondent Union and for speaking favorably
in behalf of the I.W.A. On November 22, Secretary Wilson of Respondent Union
wrote to the payroll department of Respondent Company that Pruitt was no longer
a member of Respondent Union and advised that her dues deduction should be dis-
continued; her dues had been duly deducted since the advent of Respondent Union
pursuant to a duly authorized voluntary checkoff. This request was recognized by
Respondent Company.
On November 25, Respondent Union wrote to Assistant Manager Frashour and
asked that Pruitt be discharged under the union-shop clause of the contract because
of nonmembership in Respondent Union. President Forrest learned of the matter
and advised Pruitt during November that she would have no employment problems
if her dues were paid . Pruitt told Forrest that the Union had refused to accept her
dues.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The matter remained quiescent for some weeks until December 23 when both the
petition and the four letters were received by Frashour. As found, a motion to
prepare the petition had been made by a union trustee at a regular meeting of Re-
spondent Union earlier that month; Secretary Wilson had prepared it; Vice President
Pryce had circulated it; and Wilson had mailed it in. Indeed, Forrest recognized the
return address and name as that of Respondent Union.
Moreover, the petition made a clear reference to the November communication
from Respondent Union in which Respondent Company was asked to terminate
Pruitt under the union-shop clause. It put Respondent Company on notice that the
16 signers, including Vice President Pryce, were requesting the discharge of Pruitt
because of her nonmembership in Respondent Union. More particularly, Forrest
personally knew that her nonunion status was based upon her ouster during Novem-
ber by Respondent Union which had canceled her dues deduction, a decision which
was honored and carried out by Respondent Company, for the dues checkoff was not
made from Pruitt's December check which she received on December 22.
From the foregoing, it is readily clear that Pruitt was ousted from union member-
ship for a reason other than nonpayment of dues and initiation fees. The cancella-
tion of her dues deduction by Respondent Union can only be equated with a refusal
to accept her dues. And, it is readily clear that in November Respondent Union
attempted to cause her discharge when it submitted the November 25 letter request-
ing her discharge . It is also apparent that the petition , under union sponsorship,
was also an attempt to cause her immediate discharge. That it related back to the
previous month's demand is disclosed by its protest against a nonunion employee,
Pruitt, working in a union shop and then asking that she be "immediately" removed
from the employ of Respondent Company.
Respondent Company has raised a number of contentions in defense of its position.
(1) Forrest contended in his testimony that he did not discharge Pruitt for
nonunion membership , but because four employees wrote letters containing threats of
resignation based upon Pruitt 's employment . Initially, it is clear that neither Forrest
nor Frashour took the trouble to investigate the circumstances of the writing of these
letters or to talk with the writers or for that matter with Pruitt.
(2) In one of the letters, employee Green purported to turn in her resignation,
although it appears that she did not actually resign. Her letter, it is true, made
reference to the existing unpleasant situation in the plant so long as Pruitt remained
in the employ of the Company. Pryce, in his letter, did not tender a resignation, but
stated that he would be forced to quit if something were not done about the matter.
Crites merely stated that she could not work under existing conditions "Unless this
situation is cleared up." Neither Pryce nor Crites requested the outer of Pruitt, but
rather sought an alleviation of the situation, and, in fact, Crites admitted herein that
she had little or no difficulty with Pruitt. Candelaria did give reasons for being
unable to work with Pruitt and said, "If she continues to work in my department, I
find it necessary to resign, as I have tried to do before." As noted, there is no evi-
dence of the reason or circumstances surrounding the earlier occasion.
At least two of the four letters constitute requests to clean up the situation on
penalty of quitting but did not constitute resignations. One was a refusal to work
with Pruitt and one was a purported resignation.
(3) Forrest testified that he was more impressed by the four letters than by the
petition, testifying, "a petition such as that could not carry the weight in my mind
that the letters carry . a number of individuals was more important than the
petition which we received. They carried some weight naturally."
This glosses over the fact that the petition was received from Respondent Union,
the labor organization with which Respondent Company was under contract; that it
was signed by 16 employees , in essence the entire unit; and that included among the
signatories were the four letter writers one of whom was the vice president of Re-
spondent Union . In sum, Respondent Company had been under pressure from
Respondent Union for over 1 month to fire Pruitt; was entirely familiar with what
amounted to Respondent Union's refusal to accept her dues; and had received a peti-
tion bearing Respondent Union's return address and signed by 16 employees, which
on its face related back to Pruitt's ouster from union membership. Yet, it would have
one believe that it deemed all this to be of no moment in deciding to terminate Pruitt
and that it then proceeded to rely upon the four letters alone. This contention I am
unable to credit.
(4) Respondent Company attempted to show that Pruitt had been warned con-
cerning her conduct. The record shows only that on September 16, more than 3
months before her discharge, Pruitt and another employee received warning slips for
visiting or talking during working hours and slowing down production. This was a
matter entirely unrelated to the friction between Pruitt and the other employees
dwelled upon herein. And, although Respondent Company had a regular practice of
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 745
issuing warning slips where warranted , according to Frashour , this is the only slip
issued to Pruitt . It is apparent from the record that Pruitt did have a sharp tongue
which had led to difficulties with coworkers, but that she was regarded as an exem-
plary employee and further that Respondent did not take up with her the question of
the relationship with the other employees.
The testimony of Foreman Longton discloses that Pruitt was not insensitive to
the problem. Two or three weeks before her discharge, according to Longton, Pruitt
came to him and complained that Candelaria and Green would not speak with her
and asked that he intercede and clear up the situation. Longton called in the two
women and explained that Pruitt wanted to be friendly with them and had requested
his good services in the matter. The two women flatly rejected the overture, com-
plained that Pruitt was the troublemaker, and announced that they did not want her
friendship. Apparently Longton dropped the matter at that point.
(5) It is to be noted that the alleged difficulty with employee Pryce did not involve
personal friction, but rather the fact that Pruitt, who worked on a different shift as a
tile grader, had occasion to grade tile which Pryce had cut during his shift. Pryce's
complaint was that Pruitt had pointed out instances of his work to his foreman as
being improperly done and, so far as he could determine, such was not the case.
Yet Respondent does not challenge Pruitt 's competence as a tile grader . And it is
interesting to note that after Pruitt's discharge, Pryce was assigned to other duties
by Frashour and Longton because they, according to Pryce, concluded that the tile
he cut was not satisfactory. I find, therefore, that Respondent Company could have
readily ascertained that there was no true substance to Pryce's letter which was re-
ceived on December 23 along with the other three. Moreover, in view of the general
pattern of all four, it hardly needs stating that a reasonable man, against the back-
ground of Respondent Union attempting to oust Pruitt from the plant, would be
put on notice that something other than pure employee friction was involved.
(6) Giving partial support to the foregoing is the testimony of Alma Hanley, an
employee of Respondent Company. She testified that during working hours on De-
cember 27 , Foreman Longton called the girls together in the lunchroom, these includ-
ing Green, Candelaria, and Crites, three of the letter writers, as well as employee
Anita Ashley. Longton announced that he had discharged Pruitt because of the
trouble she had on the job and that Respondent Company had received "a petition
and four letters." He stated that if the women did not have harmonious relations in
the future there would be other disciplinary action.
Longton admitted the reference to the friction among the workers, but denied that
he had made any reference to the letters; he was not questioned concerning the
reference to the petition on this occasion. Green, Ashley, and Crites testified that
Longton announced that Pruitt was terminated because she had not gotten along with
other workers. Green was not questioned about the reference to the petition or letters.
Ashley testified that her memory was hazy and that she did not recall whether there
was a reference to the petition and letters , stating "it really has slipped my mind."
Crites similarly did not recall any reference to the letters or petition.
The testimony of Hanley impressed me as truthful, consistent with the entire
pattern of events, including the reference earlier that morning to the petition by
Longton in his conversation with Pruitt , and is therefore credited . In any event, how-
ever, it is my belief that the conclusions below , independently thereof, are amply
supported by the other factors heretofore set forth.
That Respondent Union under its union shop attempted to cause the discharge of
Pruitt for a reason other than the nonpayment of dues and initiation fees has already
been demonstrated. I am persuaded by the foregoing factors that Respondent Com-
pany was motivated, in part at least, by the petition received on December 23 which
I find was a union rather than a private demand for the discharge and that Respond-
ent Company reasonably so regarded it.
Obviously, an employer may with impunity terminate an employee because of
friction between that employee and other employees, if that is the only operative
factor or motive. But, on this record, another factor played a part, namely the
persistent efforts of Respondent Union to oust Pruitt from the employ of Respondent
Company during November and December, culminating with the union-sponsored
petition which related back to Pruitt's ouster from union membership and the
honoring by Respondent Company of the Union's instruction to cancel Pruitt's
dues checkoff.
As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, ". . it benefits not
the employer to have had a justifiable reason which he did not assert or which
did not motivate him." N.L.R.B. v. Jack Lewis and Joe Levitan, d/b/a California
Footwear Company and Trina Shoe Company, a Corporation, 246 F. 2d,886 (C.A.
9). In an analogous situation , the same court also stated , "It is well settled that an
employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging or refusing to reinstate an ineffi-
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cient employee if the employer 's reason for so doing is not the employee's inefficiency
but his union affiliation or activity ." N.L.R.B. v. L. Ronney & Sons Furniture
Manufacturing Co., 206 F. 2d 730 (C.A. 9). And in Wells, Incorporated v. N.L.R.B.,
162 F. 2d 457 (C.A. 9), the court stated , "The existence of some justifiable ground
for discharge is no defense if it was not the moving cause." See also N.L.R.B. v.
Solo Cup Company , 237 F. 2d 521 ( C.A. 8); and N.L.R.B. v. Jones Sausage Co.
& James Abattoir Co., 257 F. 2d 878 (C.A. 4).
I find that Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act by attempting to cause and by causing Re-
spondent Company to discriminate against Sally Pruitt whose membership in Re-
spondent Union was terminated for reasons other than failure to tender periodic
dues and initiation fees, and that by such conduct Respondent Union has restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) of the Act.
I find that Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by terminating the employment of Sally
Pruitt because of nonmembership in Respondent Union upon demand of the latter,
although it knew that membership was denied her for reasons other than failure
to tender periodic dues and initiation fees, thereby discriminating with respect to
the hire and tenure of her employment in order to encourage membership in a
labor organization. I further find that by the foregoing Respondent has interfered
with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a) (1) thereof . See N.L.R.B. v. J . E. McCatron, et al. d/bla Price
Valley Lumber Co., et al., 216 F. 2d 212 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348 U.S. 943; and
N.L.R.B. v. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Montauk
Iron & Steel Corp.) 290 F . 2d 99 (C.A. 2).
D. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The General Counsel has adduced evidence concerning two incidents allegedly
constituting interference, restraint, and coercion. It may be noted that this evidence
was received after a motion by the Charging Union to dismiss this allegation
was denied.
On January 28, 1961, President and General Manager Forrest met with four
employees under the following circumstances. According to Forrest, Plywood
Manager Klemmer had notified him on a number of occasions that there was talk
among plywood employees about forming a co-op. It is not disputed that the low
price of plywood had made this portion of Respondent Company's operations rela-
tively unprofitable and that a shutdown of the plywood mill had as of that date
been announced for approximately February 1, with the exception of the sander
which handled particle board produced in the other unit represented by Respondent
Union. As noted, the employees in the plywood mill unit were represented by
the I.W.A.
Klemmer, who did not testify, was instructed to call in four employees, two
representatives of the union shop committee and two others; accordingly, he called
in four employees including Shop Committeemen James Palmateer and Verdo
Ligon; the Charging Union, the I.W.A, was not notified as such. According to
Palmateer, Forrest pointed out that a major competitor was selling plywood at a
price of $60; that Respondent Company could not meet that price and break even;
and that he wanted to suggest an alternative. He announced that the idea of a
co-op, as presented to him by Klemmer, was not feasible, but proposed that the
men work for $1.65 an hour plus a share of the profits with the wage rates to
be adjusted if the price of plywood rose. Palmateer promptly replied that this
could not be done as it would breach the contract with the I.W.A. and the latter
would install a picket line immediately. Forrest responded that he would have to
obtain a legal opinion on that aspect, and suggested that they meet again on
January 30, at which time he would have cost figures ready for them The testi-
mony of Ligon was to the same general effect. Although Palmateer testified that
he had not previously heard of a co-op plan, Ligon admitted that on the previous
day, January 27, Klemmer had made the suggestion to him. As Ligon put it, "I
just laughed at him and walked on "
According to Forrest, he was interested in explaining to a representative group
of employees that the co-op plan would not work in this instance because it would
apply only to one part of the operation, viz, the plywood mill unit, and not to the
particle board unit which was not being closed down. He testified also that he
told the men he intended to recognize his contract with the I.W.A. and would dis-
cuss it with them.
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 747
On Monday, January 30, this scheme came to a quick end. Business Agent Wil-
liams of the I.A.W. visited Forrest and asked him to desist from approaching em-
ployees. Forrest maintained , as he testified, that the employees had contacted him
first, but that in any event he had no intention of carrying the matter any further and
anything additional would have to emanate from the men. Williams , on this occasion,
handed Forrest a letter incorporating his remarks, as set forth herein, and Forrest
wrote thereon, consistent with his present testimony, that he had no intention of
soliciting employees on any basis for a return to work.
No meeting was held on January 30 with employees and it appears that the entire
plan, if it may be termed that, has been dropped. The plywood mill was shut down as
scheduled and the record does not disclose precisely when it was reopened.
It is to be borne in mind, in evaluating this allegation, that Forrest did proceed
to take up this problem with a group of four and deliberately included two union
shop committeemen among them. There is no evidence that he was proceeding con-
trary to any established bargaining policy and it also appears that it was a matter of
first impression not previously taken up by or with the I.W.A. Under these cir-
cumstances, assuming a technical violation of the Act, I do not believe that this war-
rants a finding of an unfair labor practice with respect thereto. Accordingly, it is
recommended that this allegation be dismissed.
The other allegation is one that Respondent Company sought to require employees
in the unit represented by the I.W.A. to acquire membership in Respondent Union as
a condition of employment. As set forth, the entire plywood division represented
by the I.W.A. was shut down indefinitely on or about February 1, except for certain
sanding operations performed by sanders on particle board produced by the other
division which is represented by Respondent Union. As there was no supervision
left in the plywood division, Respondent Company on February 1, administratively
transferred the sanding operations to the particle board unit.
Two employees, Merrill Short and John Spencer, uncontrovertedly testified that
they received telephone calls from Supervisor Marcus Brown on or about February 3
and 5, respectively. According to Short, a pond sawyer, Brown telephoned and
called him back to work as a sander. Brown then stated that he would have to join
Respondent Union. Both Short and Spencer had theretofore been represented by
the I.W.A. in the plywood unit. According to Spencer, Brown asked him to tell his
neighbor, Brock, that in order to work on the sander he would have to join Re-
spondent Union.
It is undisputed that all persons who were put on the sander during this period
were I.W.A. sanders and were put to work consistent with seniority in the I.W.A.
unit. Respondent Company conceded in its brief that Brown made these or similar
statements under a misapprehension of the effect of the administrative transfer of
the sanding duties to the other unit.
There is no evidence that Respondent Company ever carried out this pronounce-
ment by Brown. I deem it unnecessary to determine whether Brown's statements
may have been justified in view of the transfer of sanding operations to the other
unit because, in any event, the trivial nature of the incident does not warrant a
finding of an unfair labor practice with respect thereto. Accordingly, it is recom-
mended that this allegation be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent Company set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respondent
Union caused Respondent Company to discriminate with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment of Sally Pruitt. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent
Company offer Pruitt immediate and full reinstatement to her former position with-
out prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges. See The Chase National
Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
I shall further recommend that Respondents jointly and severally make her whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. Said loss
of pay, based upon earnings which she normally would have earned from the date
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings,
shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289. See N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami,
Inc., 344 U.S. 344. The liability of Respondent Union with respect to backpay
shall end 5 days after it serves upon Respondent Company and Pruitt a notice of
withdrawal of objections to Pruitt's employment, as provided hereinafter. See
Mark R. Kunkel Plumbing, 119 NLRB 1623.
The discharge of Pruitt and its cause strike at the heart of the rights guaranteed
employees by the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
These unfair labor practices are closely related to other types of unfair labor prac-
tices abridging the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act and pro-
hibited by Section 8(a)(1) and 8 (b)(1)(A) of the statute. There is reasonable
ground to anticipate that Respondents will infringe upon other rights guaranteed
employees in the future unless appropriately restrained. I shall therefore recom-
mend an order requiring Respondents to cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc., and Local Union No. 3-436,
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Pacific Plywood Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sally
Pruitt, thereby encouraging membership in a labor organization, Pacific Plywood
Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of theAct.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Pacific Plywood Company has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. By attempting to cause and by causing Pacific Plywood Company to dis-
criminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sally Pruitt in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent Company has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recom-
mend that:
A. Pacific Plywood Company, Dillard, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Encouraging membership in Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging employees or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition thereof, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Sally Pruitt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges, and, jointly and severally with Independent Particle Board Employees, Inc.,
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY 749
make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
her in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records or reports, and all other records necessary to determine
the amount of backpay due under the terms of these Recommondations.
(c) Post at its plants at Dillard, Oregon, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Company, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, Independent Particle Board Employees Inc., its officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Pacific Plywood Company, or any other em-
ployer, to discharge employees or in any other manner discriminate against employ-
ees, except as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Pacific Plywood
Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act
(a) Jointly and severally with Pacific Plywood Company make Sally Pruitt whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, in the man-
ner set forth in the section of this report entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Notify Pacific Plywood Company and Sally Pruitt, in writing, that it has no
objection to Pruitt's employment by said Company and that it requests said Pacific
Plywood Company to offer Pruitt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(c) Post at its business office and usual membership meeting places copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
,(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region signed copies of said
Appendix B for posting at the place of business of Respondent Company in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt of
this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, Respondents notify said Regional
Director in writing that they will comply with the foregoing recommendations re-
spectively applicable to them, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring each of said Respondents to take the action respectively required above.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Independent Particle Board Em-
ployees, Inc., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharg-
ing employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition thereof, except as authorized
by Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Sally Pruitt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights
and privileges.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Independent Particle Board Employees,
Inc., make whole Sally Pruitt for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against her.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming, mem-
bers of any labor organization, except to the extent this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY,
Employer.
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 MEMBERS OF THIS UNION AND EMPLOYEES OF
PACIFIC PLYWOOD COMPANY
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Pacific Plywood Company, or any
other employer, to discharge employees, or in any other manner discriminate
in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition thereof, ex-
cept as authorized by Section, 8(a) (3) of the National Labor. Relations Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Pacific Plywood Company make Sally
Pruitt whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against
her.
WE HAVE NO objection to the employment of said Sally Pruitt by Pacific
Plywood Company and we request that concern to offer her immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Pacific
Plywood Company, or of any other employer, in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to-bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
INDEPENDENT PARTICLE BOARD EMPLOYEES, INC.,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof. ,and must not ibe
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.