Ponderosa Lumber Sales

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1055 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1055
ber of employees will be entitled to vote under the Board's usual
eligibility rules, we perceive no reason to depart therefrom 13
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 12-RM-5 and granted
the request to withdraw the petition in Case No. 12-RC-128 and
granted with prejudice the filing of a new petition for a period of 6
months from the date of this Order, unless good cause is shown why
the Board should entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration
of such period.]
[The Board severed the petition in Case No . 12-RC-134.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Is Cf. Cities Service Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 80 NLRB 1512.
Pine Industrial Relations Committee , Inc.; Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.;
Ponderosa Mouldings, Inc., d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber Sales;
Philip Dahl and Sam Johnson , Co-Partners, d/b/a Tite Knot
Pine Mill; Philip Dahl and Harold D. Barclay , Co-Partners,
d/b/a Harold Barclay Logging Company , and Red Blanket
Lumber Company, Inc. and International Woodworkers of
America, Local Unions 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO. Cases N08.36-
CA-486 and 36-CA-627. August 20,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 28, 1956, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents 1 had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that
these particular allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents, the Charging Unions,? and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, together with supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
1 The Respondents, namely, Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc. ; Brooks-Scanlon,
Inc. ; Ponderosa Mouldings, Inc., d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber Sales ; Philip Dahl and Sam
Johnson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Tite Knot Pine Mill ; Philip Dahl and Harold D. Ba: clay,
Co-Partners, d/b/a Harold Barclay Logging Company ; and Red Blanket Lumber Company,
Inc., are herein called PIRC, Brooks-Scanlon, Ponderosa, Tite Knot, Barclay, and Red
Blanket, respectively.
0 The Charging Unions are Locals 6-7 and 6-122, International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 6-7 and Local 6-122, respectively.
118 NLRB No. 142.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions filed by the Respondents, Charging
Unions, and the General Counsel, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions 3 and modification.
1. Late in 1953, Northwest Regional Negotiating Committee, herein
called NRNC,4 sent a questionnaire, Form IWWWA-1, to approximately
600 employers with whom it customarily dealt. This form, in part,
called for the following information : The name of each employee, his
job classifications, his hourly rate of pay, his seniority standing, his
paid holidays, the number of weeks of his vacation, the total annual
hours he had worked, and his annual earnings. Information received
from the questionnaire was to be used by Edward Kenney, director
of the department of, education and research of the International
Woodworkers, to compile certain statistics for bargaining with em-
ployers in the Pacific Northwest lumber and plywood industries. Ac-
cording to Kenney, such statistics, in addition to being used in actual
bargaining negotiations, were intended to be used to assist in measur-
ing demands to be made upon the Respondents, and to determine eco-
nomic changes in the lumber and plywood industries with a view to
reviewing negotiation procedure, and determining whether industry-
wide bargaining or individual employer bargaining was the more
feasible.- In addition, should one of the local unions need such infor-
mation for bargaining on local issues, this information, as needed,
could be supplied to the local.
In December 1953, the NRNC, by its chairman, A. F. Hartung,
notified each employer with which it bargained, including the Re-
spondents herein, that it desired Form IWA-1 to be filled out and
-'We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s finding that there I,;. no substantial evidence to
refute Respondent Red Blanket 's contention that it permanently replaced its strikers
prior to their termination . Indeed , there is substantial evidence in the record supporting
its position . Thus, Willard Mattson, Red Blanket's assistant manager, testified that on
.lime 28, 1956 , its mill 2 commenced operations with essentially a full crew . On that
date, Red Blanket issued termination notices to those strikers who had been permanently
replaced . Subsequently , as more replacements were hired for mill 2 and other opera-
tions, the remaining strikers at mill 2 and other operations received termination notices.
The termination notices were issued to strikers on various dates between June 28 and
July 7, 1954 . This evidence is supported by the testimony of certain strikers. Arnold
Winslow, a strike captain, testified that he was an edgerman at mill 2 prior to the
strike, but that mill 2 commenced operations with a replacement edgerman on June 28,
1954. Winslow's termination notice was dated June 30, 1954. Critt Carroll , financial
secretary of Local 6-122, testified that he worked at mill 1 on the green chain prior to
the strike and when mill 1 resumed operations on June 24 , i 954, "They had some guys
there" running the green chain.
Furthermore , there is no evidence in the record showing that any of the "permanent"
replacements were subsequently removed from their jobs.
This is a committee composed of representatives of various Pacific Northwest local
unions belonging to International Woodworkers of America . It negotiates provisions of
collective-bargaining agreements in behalf of local unions which have authorized it to
do so , and its efforts are concentrated on basic terms of employment which are generally
applicable to employers in the lumber industry throughout the Pacific Northwest area.
The two Charging Local Unions had authorized NRNC to negotiate on certain issues with
Respondent Employers.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1057
returned by January 30, 1954, "in order that our Union may formu-
late, constructive proposals for intelligent collective bargaining." On
January 14 and 22,1954, followup letters were sent to the Respondents
urging submission of this information. The January 14 letter contains
the following :
The information requested on Form IWA-1 is absolutely essential
for an intelligent and constructive approach to our collective
bargaining process this year. And, as such, under NLRB and
Court interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act you
will be expected to comply within the time limit established.
In January 1954 each of the Employer Respondents was notified by
letter from the local union representing its employees, of the latter's
desire to amend the existing agreement. Thus in each instance the
Local Union stated that it was seeking a general wage increase, "the
amount to be determined from an analysis of conditions within the
industry and other pertinent factors, including information to be
submitted on Form IWA-1"; 5 the correction of inequities in job
rates with such corrections to be based on a job analysis program to
be made jointly by the companies and the Union, and with the cost
of such analysis to be borne by the companies; and 3 weeks' vacation
after 5 years' seniority. In addition, the Respondents were notified
that the Local Unions had authorized NRNC to represent them on
the above-stated proposed amendments. The letters also contained
the following directive :
In order that our Union may proceed intelligently and con-
structively in the 1954 negotiations, Forms IWA-1 mailed to
you from the International Union's office on December 31, 1953,
must be returned to the International office, as directed in the
instructions not later than January 30, 1954.
Commencing on February 11, 1954, and during the ensuing bar-
gaining negotiations between Respondents and NRNC, frequent re-
quests were made by spokesmen of the NRNC for the submission of
the information. Each of the Respondents failed to furnish this
information, either by refusing to submit it, as did Respondent Red
Blanket, or by delaying a response to the request and thereafter not
supplying it.
The Trial Examiner found that the information sought pertaining
to individual employees, namely, the name of each employee, his job
classifications, his rate of pay, his seniority standing, his paid holi-
days and vacation, the total hours he had worked, and his total annual
earnings, was relevant to the collective-bargaining process; that the
0
5 As completed , in each instance the local unions requested of the Respondents an
across-the-board general wage increase of 121/2 cents per hour.
450553-58--vol. 118-68
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0
requests were made in good faith; and that the Respondents each
violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) by failing to submit the requested
information. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents,
in refusing to supply this information, were not motivated by bad
faith in an attempt to undermine the bargaining process, but rather
believed that they were not required to submit such information.
We agree with each of these findings.
The Board and the courts have uniformly held that a collective-
bargaining agent is entitled to employment information pertaining to
individual employees which enables it properly to carry out its du-
ties in the general course of bargaining. Thus, employers have
been required to furnish to the bargaining agent such information as
the names of employees in the bargaining unit and their respective
job classifications,6 seniority standing,' number of hours employees
have worked,' and employee rates of pay.' In the instant proceeding,
the Local Unions sought similar specific items bearing on the Re-
spondents' wage structures.
The Respondents appear to agree that, under certain circumstances,
collective-bargaining representatives are entitled to such wage data.
However, they contend that such circumstances are not present in
this case.10 Thus, they contend, in principal part, that (1) This in-
formation was actually sought by the International Union, and not
by the local unions which were the collective-bargaining representa-
tives of the employees involved; (2) this information was not to be
used solely by the Locals here involved in collective bargaining with
the Respondents, but rather was to be used in compiling statistics
for bargaining by other local unions with other employers ; and (3)
the demand for this information was waived by the Locals in their
efforts to settle the economic strikes which resulted when the parties
subsequently reached stalemates in bargaining."
As to the first and second contentions, the Local Unions had a
definite interest in the procurement of the requested information.
Indeed, these Locals had delegated certain collective-bargaining
6 See e. g., Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537, enfd. 217 P. 2d 593 (C. A. 4):
S. H. Kress & Co., 108 NLRB 1615; Boston-Herold Traveler Corporation, 110 NLRB
2097, enfd. 223 F. 2d 58 (C. A. 1) ; Hugh J. Baker of Company, et at., 112 NLRB 828.
1 Stein-Way Clothing Company, 106 NLRB 1314, enfd. 209 F. 2d 261 (C. A. 6) ; New
Britain Machine Co., 105 NLRB 646, enfd. 210 F. 2d (C. A. 2).
AF. W. Woolworth Co., 109 NLRB 196, enfd. 352 U. S. 938.
9 See e. g., Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, 113 NLRB 693; Dixie Corporation, 105
NLRB 390.
10 Respondent Brooks-Scanlon does not appear to except to the Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (5)
findings on the wage data but directs its exceptions solely to the issue discussed infra, of
whether or not the requested production and sales figures should be turned over to the
Union.
a We agree with the Trial Examiner that the strikes occurred after the parties arrived
at an impasi;e in bargaining; that the strikes at the Respondents' operations were
economic strikes at their inception ; and that the striking employees were economic
strikers , and not unfair labor practice strikers as contended by the General Counsel and
the Charging Locals.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODI\IITTEE, INC. 1059
functions to the NRNC, and the NRNC was to utilize such informa-
tion in bargaining on behalf of the Locals concerning the three basic
contract demands. In addition, such information would assist the
Locals in measuring their bargaining demands, and would be used
by them if necessary in bargaining with the respective Respond-
ents on matters which they had not delegated to the NRNC for
negotiati on."
As to the Respondents' third contention, the record indicates, as
the Respondents contend, that there was little mention made of the
requests for information during the Local Unions' attempts to settle
the strikes at the operations of the respective Respondents. How-
ever, during such bargaining negotiations the record does not show a
clear and unequivocal waiver of the information requested by the
Local Unions." Moreover, on August 6, 1954, in separate bargaining
meetings " with Respondents Ponderosa, Tite Knot, Barclay,14 and
Brooks-Scanlon, the Local Unions again expressed the desire for
the requested information. Clearly, then, at this late date the Unions
had not waived the request for the information. Moreover, during
the signing of the ultimate contracts negotiated with Brooks-Scanlon,
Local Union 6-7 clearly stated that by signing the contracts, it was
not to be considered as having waived the charges it had filed several
months before, one of which had alleged 8 (a) (5) by refusing to
supply information.15
In view of the foregoing , and on the basis , of the entire record, the
Board .finds that each of the Respondents failed and refused, on and
after February 11, 1954, to furnish requested information pertaining
to its employees ' individual wage and employment data, and that each
of the Respondents has thereby engaged in conduct violative of Sec-
tion8 (a) (5) and8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. In addition to the above-described information pertaining to in-
dividual employees, the Respondents were also requested to furnish,
on Form IWA-1, figures showing the annual board-foot production
of their respective operations and related sales totals expressed in
dollars. As in the former matters, the Respondents did not comply
with the latter request. The Trial Examiner concluded that the re-
quested production and sales figures were relevant and necessary for
the purposes of collective bargaining," and that the Respondents, by
i3 Oregon Coast Operators Association., 113 NLRB 1333.
13 Cf . International News Service Division of the Hearst Corporation, 113 NLRB 1067.
' We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Philip Dahl participated in bargain-
ing negotiations on behalf of both Tite Knot and Barclay.
i^ The charges in these proceedings relating to all Respondents were filed on July 1
and 13, 1954.
"The Trial Examiner based his finding on relevance and necessity on the testimony of
Kenney, the International's director of education and research, to the effect that the pro-
duction and sales figures would he helpful to the Unions in the course of collective
bargaining and, more specifically, would enable the Unions to evaluate accurately
employer claims with respect to labor costs. In the latter connection, it should be noted,
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
failing to supply these figures as requested, violated the Act." For
the reasons stated below we do not agree.
It is clear from the testimony of Kenney, the International's director
of education and research, that the Unions asked for the production
and sales figures in order to determine what size wage demands they
should make upon the Respondents in relation to the latter's ability
to pay. It is also clear from Kenney's testimony that once the Unions
had determined how much of a wage increase the Respondents could
afford to pay, the Unions intended to use the production and sales
figures to refute any possible argument that the Respondents might
raise during negotiations based upon their ability to meet the Unions'
demands, as well as to disprove any claim that certain segments of a
particular Respondent's operations were losing money. In any event,
apart from the Unions' purpose, the information sought related to
the financial status of the Respondents and necessarily went to the
question of their ability to pay, and we so find. The Respondents, how=
ever, at no time preliminary to or in the course of the bargaining
negotiations claimed inability to pay as a defense to the Unions' wage
demands." Indeed, when queried by Dicey, the Unions'. spokesman,
at the March 12 bargaining session, the Respondents through their
spokesman, Irving, unequivocally denied that they were pleading
inability to pay as their reason for refusing to acceed to the Unions'
Wage demands."
Turning now to the applicable law, we note that, while in wage
data cases it is sufficient that the information sought by the union
is relevant and no specific need as to a particular issue must be.showti-n,1;
however, that so far as the record shows the Respondents at no time made any claim with
respect to labor costs other than labor costs would increase if wages were increased.
]l The Respondents take exception to the Trial Examiner ' s conclusions . They, contend,
in principal part, that they do not have to divulge "confidential internal business records
and data" when they had not pleaded an inability to meet the Unions' contract demands.
Thus, they claim that if an employer is required to divulge such information to."strangers
to his business family," the request for the information becomes a club to force bargaining
concessions which the employer would not ordinarily yield. In this connection, the
Respondents point out that the information requested was to be used by the Unions in
bargaining with the competitors of each Respondent , and that , if such information were
to be revealed to a competitor , the Respondents would be seriously handicapped in bidding
for Government timber.
1During the negotiations the Unions sought a general wage increase of 12Y,, cents
per hour.
70 Instead, Irving gave , as the Respondents ' reason, "inadvisability" in view of the
market and economic trends within the lumber industry as a whole , and cited some general
data by way of substantiating this position . While there may be some color under certain
circumstances to the contention that "inadvisability" means " inability ," we do not believe
that Irving' s use of the term "inadvisability ," when considered in context , was intended
to or did convey the meaning that the Respondents were pleading inability to pay.
Significantly , the Unions at the time did not challenge Irving's statement as constituting
a plea of inability to pay. Rather , Dicey specifically interpreted the Respondents ' position
as not pleading inability to pay for in a statement made toward the close of negotiations
to one of the Respondents he charged that the Respondents "do not plead inability to
pay. On the contrary, they are well able to give a wage increase but refuse to do so."
21 Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537, enfd . 217 F. 2d 593 (C. A. 4), cert, denied
349 U. S. 905; Glen Raven Knitting lfills, Inc., 115 NLRB 422 (reversed on other
grounds), 235 F. 2d 413 (C. A. 4). In the latter case Member Rodgers would have re-
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1061
the same is not true where, as here, the union is seeking information
relating to the employer's ability to grant a wage increase. In the
latter cases the Board and the courts have, in effect, held that the
employer's ability to pay must be brought into issue before a refusal
to furnish information relating thereto can be found to be violative
of the Act.21 Since, as previously found, the Respondents never
claimed inability to pay as a.defense to the " ions' pay demands, it
follows that their failui°e to slippll: Elie. pro,- ion and sales informa-
tion sought by the Unions did not constitute a refusal to bargain
in goocUaitl>, w:ithill, the meaning of-trie Act.
In deciding this case we have not been unaware of the consideration
that possession at the outset of bargaining of the facts about the em-
ployer's economic position may be helpful to the union in tailoring its
wage demands to what the employer can reasonably pay and thereby
make bargaining, perhaps, more realistic and successful. But our
duty under the Act is here to determine whether the obligation of
good-faith bargaining has been met rather than to establish ideal
bargaining conditions. In the recent Truitt case, supra, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Act does not require that "in every case where
economic inability is raised as an argument against increased wages it
automatically follows that the employees are entitled to substantiating
evidence. Each case must turn upon its particular facts." Conse-
quently, if we were to hold that it is bad-faith bargaining for an em-
ployer to withhold from a union at the outset facts about its economic
position, whether or not a claim of inability to pay has been made,
the result would be that in every wage case the employer would auto-
matically have to disclose his financial status in whole or in part upon
request. We would thus be doing by indirection what, under the
Truitt decision, we may not do by direction. That we are not willing
to do.22
quired, upon the authority of the prior Oregon Coast Operators Association case (113
NLRB 1338), necessity as well as relevance in wage data cases, but he now considers
himself bound by the majority holding.
"McLean-Arkansas Lumber Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 1022, 1037, where the Board
declared : "It is clear from the cases that when it is asserted that a company is not
financially able to grant a wage increase or other economic demand, a refusal to furnish
any information as to its financial condition is not a fulfillment of the requirement of
good-faith bargaining" (emphasis supplied) ; Southern Saddlery Company. 90 NLRB 1205,
1207, where, speaking of ability-to-pay information, the Board said : "The employer is
obliged to furnish the Union with sufficient information to enable the latter to under-
stand and discuss intelligently the issues raised by the [employer] in opposition to the
Unions' demands" (emphasis supplied). See also to the same effect, B. L. Montague
Company, 116 NLRB 554; N. L. R. B. v. Jacobs Mannafacturing Company, 196 F. 2d 680,
-683-684 (C. A. 2) ; and N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U. S. 149. The requirement
that ability to pay must first be in issue before an employer is obliged to furnish informa-
tion relating thereto reflects the rule, recently affirmed in Glen Raven Knitting, supra,
that as to information other than wage data the test is both relevance and necessity
and a specific need as to the particular issue involved must be shown. For until ability
to pay becomes an issue, "specific need" for information as to it cannot be shown, nor can
such information be said to be necessary as well as relevant.
a Our dissenting colleague asserts that our decision conflicts with Board and court
decisions . It is to be noted, however, that he views the facts of this case substantially
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are administratively informed that Local 6-122, although in
continuous compliance during this proceeding from the filing of the
charge until after the date of the hearing, has since permitted its com-
pliance to lapse. We shall therefore condition our order requiring
the Respondent Red Blanket to bargain with Local 6-122, upon the
Union's renewal of compliance, with the requirements of Section 9
(f), (g), and (h) of the Act, within 30 days from the date of our
Order herein .21
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 each of the Respondents herein, namely,
Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc.; Brooks-Scanlon, Inc. ;
Ponderosa .Mouldings, Inc., d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber Sales; Philip
Dahl and Sam Johnson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Tite Knot Pine Mill;
Philip Dahl and Harold D. Barclay, Co-Partners, d/b/a Harold
Barclay Logging Company ; and Red Blanket Lumber Company, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Woodwork-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 6-7 or Local 6-122, as the case may
be, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit, by failing and refusing to furnish said labor organization, on
request, information concerning the name of each employee in such
appropriate unit, hisjob classifications, his rate of pay, his.:.seniority
standing, his paid holidays, his vacations, total hours he has worked,
and his annual earnings, provided, however, with respect to Respond-
ent Red Blanket, that within 30 days from this decision, Local 6-122
shall have complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of
the respective bargaining representatives to bargain collectively.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, furnish International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 6-7 or Local 6-122, as the case may be, in writing,
different than do we. Consequently, his assertion that we are disregarding earlier deci-
sions cannot have any possible bearing on this case for the reason that the applicability
of precedent necessarily depends on one's view of the facts. iVe are satisfied that tinder
our view of the facts our decision is consistent with and in furtherance of prior Board
and court decisions. Furthermore, since this Board is a tribunal of law, we do not deem
it proper, in determining whether the Respondent has violated the law, to take into account
what our dissenting colleague refers to as "the Administration's policy on inflation."
m Member Bean, rather than issue the conditional order described above, would issue an
order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as to Local 6-122 unless
within 30 days from the service of such order Local 6-122 achieves compliance with
Section 9 (f),.(g), and (h) of the Act. If this procedure were followed, the Board's
order, when issued in this proceeding, would be a final order, enforceable under Section
10 (e) and reviewable under Section 10 (f) of the Act.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1063
the name of each employee in the appropriate unit of its employees,
his job classifications, his rate of pay, his seniority standing, his paid
holidays, his vacations, the total hours he has worked, and his annual
earnings, provided, however, with respect to Respondent Red Blanket,
that within 30 days from this decision, Local 6-122 shall have complied
with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
(b) Post at its installations, and in the case of PIRC at its office, in
the State of Oregon, copies of the notices attached hereto and marked
"Appendix A" in the case of Red Blanket and "Appendix B" in the
case of the other Respondents?' Copies of said notices to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region shall, after being
respectively signed by Respondents' representatives, be posted by the
respective Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it alleges
that the Respondents have violated the Act by conduct other than that
found to be violative herein, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER MURDOCH, dissenting in part :
I dissent from the majority opinion to the extent that it reverses
the Trial Examiner and holds that the Respondents, in the particular
circumstances present, were not obligated to furnish the Unions herein
the requested data as to the 1953 board-foot production and sales totals,
broken down according to nature of operations. The Trial Examiner
found that such data was demonstrated as directly relevant and neces-
sary in connection with current collective-bargaining issues; that the
data was requested by the Unions in good faith; that it was reasonably
available; and that there was no showing that furnishing it would place
an undue burden on the Respondents, financially or otherwise. The
majority's failure. to find the alleged violation on this issue, in my
opinion, disregards the settled collective-bargaining principles under-
lying the requirement for furnishing of data, and conflicts with a long
and:.unbroken line of Board and court decisions, two recently handed
down in the United States Supreme Court.2s
211n 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."
s N. L. R. B. v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 352 U. S. 933 ; N. L. B. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,
351 U. S. 149.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is well at the outset to review the applicable principles, which have
been stated in the courts as follows : "An employer is obligated to
furnish the union [upon request] with data relevant to issues about
which the parties are obligated to bargain." 26 [Emphasis supplied.]
The "union as bargaining agent of the employees [is] entitled to infor-
mation [from the employer] which would enable it properly and under-
standingly to perform its duties as such in the general course of bar-
gaining.. . ." 27 In a per curiam opinion of the Second Circuit, the
heart of the problem was put thusly-
The rule governing disclosure of data of this kind is not unlike
that prevailing in discovery procedures under modern codes. For
the information must be disclosed unless it plainly appears ir-
relevant. Any less lenient rule in labor disputes would greatly
hamper the bargaining process, for it is virtually impossible to
tell in advance whether the requested data will be relevant except
in those infrequent instances in which the inquiry is patently out-
side the bargaining issue.28
The rule derives directly from the Act's requirement and the overriding
Federal policy that, as a means of avoiding strikes and industrial strife,
union and management compose their differences by the process of
good-faith collective bargaining. The furnishing of relevant infor-
mation,29 upon request, as between the parties is a necessary concomitant
of good faith bargaining.3o
A major purpose of the request for the data specified in the ques-
tionnaire 31-annual board-feet production and sales figures-was to
enable the Unions accurately to measure the productivity of the em-
ployees 32 upon which the Unions would base the size of a proposed
24 Taylor Forge & Pipe Works v. N. L. R . B., 234 F . 2d 227 , 231 (C . A. 7) (June 1956).
3 N. L. R. B. Y. Whitin Maclaine Works, 217 F. 2d 593 (C. A. 4), cert. denied 349
U. S. 905.
%N. L. R . B. v. Yawman. & Erbe Mfg . Co., 187 F . 2d 947 , 948 (C. A. 2).
20 There is no case of the many in the 22-year history of the Act In which requested
data having been found relevant was not required to be furnished as necessary for
collective -bargaining purposes.
"I Good faith in bargaining "contemplates an exchange of information, ideas and theories
in open discussion and an honest attempt to arrive at an agreement ." N. L. R. B. v.
Aluminum Ore Co., 131 F. 2d 485, 487 (C. A. 7).
"As discussed in the majority opinion and the Intermediate Report, the questionnaire
IWA-1 was sent by the Unions in advance of pending contract negotiations to some 600
employers in the industry , including Respondents , requesting data concerning their re-
spective operations as to employee name, job classification , rate of pay , seniority, paid
holidays , vacations , total hours worked , annual earnings , and the Company's 1953 produc-
tloh and sales figures. Respondents , on advice of the employer association, Pine
Industrial Relations Committee ( PIRC ), consistently refused to furnish any of the data,
essentially on the ground that they were under no legal obligation to do so. My
colleagues found , and in this I concur , that Respondents were guilty of an unlawful
refusal to bargain in failing to supply the Unions with the specific items of information
sought , excepting the production and sales figures. My position here is that the Unions
were equally entitled to the production and sales figures.
"In finding that the production and sales data was relevant and necessary , the Trial
Examiner referred to the testimony in the present record of Kenney , the Unions ' spokes-
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1065
wage increase.33 (This purpose of the data sought, i. e., to ascertain
productivity factors, though unmistakably evident throughout the
record and the Intermediate Report, is not mentioned at all in the
majority opinion.) Thus, the record shows that in the previous year,
1953, during the bargaining negotiations between these same parties,
the Unions attempted to make use of production statistics secured from
releases of employer trade associations in the industry and published
national statistics to support their claims. But the Respondents re-
jected these statistics because they were not directly related to the
actual operations and the employers involved in the negotiations. In
principal part, to meet this very objection of Respondents, the Unions
prepared and submitted to employers in advance of the 1954 negoti-
ations the questionnaire IWA-1, which included the request for the
production and sales figures. Respondents themselves undertook to
have comparable questionnaires filled out by employers in the in-
dustry, 34 and compiled statistics for their own use, which was avail-
able immediately prior to the 1954 negotiations. Such evidence itself
establishes the relevance of the data in question in advance of the 1954
negotiations. Moreover, viewing the actual negotiations which took
place, it is an undeniable matter of record that the issue of pro-
ductivity was argued by either or both the Unions and Respondents,
e. g., at the meetings on February 11, March 12, April 2, May 17 (Red
Blanket), June 4, August 6 (Redmond), and in the negotiations of
the Brooks-Scanlon contracts on September 14. The Unions stated in
substance that "in the absence of the information requested on Form
IWA-1," they based their demand for a 121/2-cents-per- hour increase
"on the probable increase in productivity," pointing out in detail how
the data in question would shed light on their demands. They claimed,
man in the negotiations , "who clearly elucidated how these production and sales figures
would be helpful to the union in the course of collective bargaining ." A specific reference
of the Trial Examiner was to Kenney ' s testimony that the Unions by getting such data
"would be in a position to accurately evaluate employer claims wtih respect to labor
costs ." The majority , with the statement that the Respondents at no time made any
claim with respect to labor costs . summarily discards the Trial Examiner 's all important
finding that the data was relevant and necessary . This is patent error . ( 1) The specific
data sought was plainly shown to be relevant and necessary without any such claim
having to be made by the Respondents . ( 2) The Trial Examiner clearly relied on the
whole record , not alone on this item of testimony adverted to by the majority. In any
event , the record is open and speaks for itself . That the issue of productivity, with
claims relating thereto being made on both sides, was a major one in the negotiations
cannot thus be submerged or ignored . ( 3) Kenney's reference to "labor costs " is by no
manner of inference drawing to be deemed a request for data as to the employer's
financial position in anticipation of a plea of inability to pay. Indeed, Kenney's mention
of "labor costs" fits well into the whole picture of the productivity issue, for it is
elementary economics that employee productivity must always be gauged in relation to
labor costs.
33 The formal contract proposals of the Unions in addition to the wage increase were
(a) correction of inequities in job rates to be predicated upon a job evaluation study,
and (b ) vacation improvements . For purposes of bargaining with respect to these de-
mands as well , the Unions ' need for the data requested was well established in the record.
34 In the covering letter to these employers , PIRC stated that "the availability of such
information is necessary in union negotiations." [Emphasis supplied.]
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inter alia, that "productivity, shipments and orders for 1954 in the in-
dustry were running higher than in 1952, the date of the last wage in-
crease" and stressed the need for job evaluation, one of the expressed
purposes behind their request for the data. (No raise in wages re-
sulted from the 1953 negotiations, and throughout the 1954 negotiations
in question Respondents' insistent offer was no more than a renewal of
the 1952 contract.) The Respondents in turn questioned the source
of the Unions' figures on increased productivity, and cited statistics of
two lumber associations in arguing that, on a national basis, "wages
amply reflected increased productivity."
That factors of improved employee productivity in measuring, pro-
posals for a wage raise or other cost benefits are highly relevant in
collective bargaining is not denied by my colleagues. Indeed, they
cannot but be aware of the vital economic significance with which
the element of employee productivity is regarded in union-manage-
ment bargaining, and particularly in the light of the Administration's
policy on inflation. In his State of the Union message to Congress on
January 10, 1957, the President said :
. .. I call on leaders in business and in labor to think well on
their responsibility to the American people. With all elements of
our society, they owe the Nation a vigilant guard against the
inflationary tendencies that are always at work in a dynamic
economy operating at today's high levels. They can powerfully
help counteract or accentuate such tendencies by their wage and
price policies.
If our economy is to remain healthy, increases in wages and
other labor benefits, negotiated by labor and management must
be reasonably related to improvements in productivity. Such
increases are beneficial, for they provide wage earners with greater
purchasing power. Except where necessary to correct obvious
injustices, wage increases that outrun productivity, however, are
an inflationary factor.35 [Emphasis supplied.]
I have read with some surprise the majority's footnote statement that,
as the Board is a tribunal of law, it is improper to give any considera-
tion to the administration's policy on inflation just quoted. I would
note first that the suggestion that I have referred to this policy to
establish a violation which would not otherwise exist is incorrect. I
have referred. to it simply to underline not only the relevance but the
0
m, House Document No. 1, 85th Cong ., 1st Sess., 3 ; 103 Cong. Rec. 387 . Again on
January 23 , 1957 , in the "Economic Report of the President " to Congress , the reference
was made to " the responsibility of leaders of business and labor to reach agreement on
wages and other labor benefits that are consistent with productivity prospects . .
[emphasis supplied] . House Document No. 29 ; 103 Cong . Rec. 818.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1067
crucial importance of productivity data to collective bargaining at the
present time. But even if the President's statement were used to
establish such relevance, such material would properly be considered
by an administrative agency on such a question.
If the national interest in avoiding inflation requires that wage
increases be limited to those which reflect increased productivity, it
is a cruel paradox for this Board to deny to the Unions the produc-
tivity information peculiarly in the Respondents' possession which
is the sole method by which the Unions can relate their request for a
wage increase to the productivity factor and attempt to justify such
.an increase in the course of collective bargaining. Moreover, it is a
paradox. which is not required by law, but one which stems from the
majority's misinterpretation in the context of this case of the nature
of the data sought. Totally ignoring the fact that data as to annual
board-feet production and sales is undeniably productivity informa-
tion, the majority opinion labels it "information relating to the em-
ployer's ability to grant a wage increase." The majority then says
that "in effect" the Board and courts have held that an employer must
plead inability to pay before an obligation to furnish "information
relating thereto" arises; that this employer did not plead inability
to pay,36 therefore there was no obligation to provide the data in
question. I do not believe that the majority can successfully use such
a transparent device as label switching in order to avoid the employer's
obligation to furnish data relevant to wages. Assuming that data
which would show a decline in production and in sales could properly
be utilized in part by an employer who refused a wage increase on
the ground of inability to pay-to justify his position it does not fol-
low that production and sales data must exclusively bear the label
"Data related to financial inability to pay-to be used for this purpose
only." It is nonetheless "productivity" information without which in-
creases or declines in labor productivity cannot be ascertained. The
productivity factor is always pertinent and relevant to wages and par-
ticularly-indeed, one might say indispensably-so at the present time
in view of the President's State of the Union message.
I would further note that there is nothing about the production
and sales figures which is privileged, certainly nothing which would
justify its withholding from the collective-bargaining process. The
Respondents' arguments at the hearing that they would be "seriously
'° Notwithstanding the Respondents' self-serving protestations during the negotiations
and at the hearing that they did not plead inability to pay, there appears sufficient basis
to find, were it necessary, that they did so plead in effect. They refused the Union's
demands on grounds, among others, that "business conditions did not warrant and could
not support the increase in costs," but carefully characterized this position as "in-
advisability" rather than "inability" to pay. In similar circumstances, it has been held
that the substance of such a position is a plea of inability to pay. E. g., Truitt Mfg. Co.,
110 NLRB 856, enfd. 351 U. S. 149.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
handicapped" if such information became known to their respective
competitors is the same contention which has been frequently advanced
and rejected in other similar cases.37 And it is immaterial whether
or not the Respondents "believed" that they were legally obligated
to furnish the data .18 Numerous decisions on the books have required
the employer to furnish requested data like that here in issue.38
Accordingly, I would require the Respondents to produce the pro-
duction and sales data along with the other specified data in ques-
tionnaire IWA-1 as to which there is no dispute that they have with-
held unlawfully.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
87 E. g ., Boston-Herald Traveler, Corp., 102 NLRB 627, enfd. 210 F. 2d 134 (C. A. 1)
The Item Co., 108 NLRB 1634, enfd . 220 F. 2d 956 (C. A. 5).-
as In a great many of the data cases in which a refusal to bargain was found, the
employer took the same position that he "believed" he was not legally obligated to furnish
the data. See, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U. S. 149, 150. See particularly
court's discussion of this point and citation of cases in Taylor Forge & Pipe Works v.
N. L. R. B., supra.
X, E. g., Stein-Way Clothing Co., supra (studies made by the company concerning work-
load grievances ) ; Hughes Toot Co., 100 NLRB 208 ( information concerning changes In
production) ; N. L. R. B. v. Otis Elevator Co., 208 F. 2d 176 (C. A. 2) (time study data
on which certain work standards were predicated which would disclose employer's basis
for determining production standards involved in grievances). For cases showing the
extreme type of data regarded as related to wages, or wage structure, see, e. g., Taylor
Forge & Pipe Works v. N. L. If. B., supra (specific data revealing the basis of the em-
ployer's complicated job evaluation system) ; Glen Raven Knitting Mills, supra (an
accurate description of the company's various style constructions). In Oregon Coast
Operators, 113 NLRB 1338, 1345 (where the failure to furnish production and opera-
tional figures, among other data requested , was held violative of Section 8 (a) (5), the
Board expressly reaffirmed, as it deliberately intended, all theretofore decided Board and
court "data" cases, many of which it cited, referring to the whole question as involving
"settled doctrine." Similarly, the Supreme Court in the Truitt case, supra, in referring
to the consistent position of the Board on this aspect of the statute since " early in the
Wagner Act" obviously indicated its agreement with the well -settled precedents.
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, AFL -CIO, Local 6-122, as the exclu-
sive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit
described below, by failing and refusing to furnish to said union
information pertinent to collective bargaining namely, the name
of each employee in the appropriate unit, his job classifications,
his rate of pay, his seniority standing, his paid holidays, his
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE , INC. 1069
vacations, total hours he has worked, and his annual earnings,
which information was requested by the union on or about
December 21, 1953, provided, however, that within 30 days from
this decision , Local 6-122 shall have complied with Section 9
( f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
WE WILL furnish the above -named union the above informa-
tion requested in order that it may properly discharge its function
as the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in
said unit, provided, however, that within 30 days from this
decision, Local 6-122 shall have complied with Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act. The bargaining unit is:
All production, maintenance and transportation employees
of Red Blanket Lumber Company, Inc., excluding office
clerical, professional , and supervisory employees and guards.
RED BLANKET LUMBER COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated- --------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC.,
Employer-Association.
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 E31PLOYEES
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, AFL-CIO, Local 6-7, as the exclusive
representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described
below, by failing in refusing to furnish to said union information
pertinent to collective bargaining namely, the name of each
employee in the appropriate unit, his job classifications, his rate
of pay, his seniority, his paid holidays, his vacations, total hours
he has worked, and his annual earnings, which information was
requested by the union on or about December 21, 1953.
WE WILL furnish the above-named union the information re-
quested in order that it may properly discharge its function as
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in said
unit. The bargaining unit is :
(The description of the respective bargaining units for each
Respondent, shall be found in section III of the' Trial. Ex-
aminer's Intermediate Report.)
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CoIIIIIITTEE, INC.,
Emnplo yer-Association.
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding is brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and is based upon charges duly filed by
International Woodworkers of America, Locals 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO,' against
Respondents Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc., herein called PIRC; and
against Brooks-Scanlon , Inc.; Ponderosa Mouldings, Inc. d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber
Sales; Philip Dahl and Sam Johnson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Tile Knot Pine Mill;
Philip Dahl and Harold D. Barclay, Co-Partners, d/b/a Harold Barclay Logging
Company; 2 and Red Blanket Lumber Company, Inc., herein called Brooks-Scan-
Ion, Ponderosa, Tile Knot, Barclay and Red Blanket, respectively, or Respondent
Employers.
Pursuant to said charges, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board ordered the cases consolidated and issued a consolidated complaint on
September 16, 1955, alleging that Respondents had engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Copies
of the charges, the order consolidating cases, the consolidated complaint, and no-
tice of hearing thereon were duly served upon Respondents.
In substance, the consolidated complaint alleged that: On and after January
30, 1954, Respondent Employers, through PIRC and otherwise, refused to supply
the Charging Parties, and their international union as their agent, with certain
specified payroll and production data directly related to the terms of then existing
collective -bargaining agreements and to terms proposed for future collective-
bargaining agreements; on and after February 11, 1954, in negotiations for new agree-
ments, the Charging Parties sought 3 changes in a new collective-bargaining agree-
ment and Respondent Employers, save Red Blanket, offered only to extend the
previous agreement; on or about May 17, 1954, Red Blanket refused to agree to
changes in terms of employment which would remove working conditions less
advantageous than those found in agreements signed by the other Respondents for
1953 and 1954; Local 6-7 and Local 6-122 commenced an unfair labor practice
strike against Respondent Employers on or about June 21, 1954, after their de-
mands for improved working conditions and certain data were rejected; and dur-
ing May and June 1954, prior to the strike, Red Blanket threatened to prolong
any strike activity of its employees, threatened to shut down operations for 4
months if its employees struck, promised additional overtime if its employees
abandoned membership in Local 6-122, discontinued overtime work on or about
' The AFL and CIO having merged, the identification of the Charging Parties is
amended accordingly.
2 The pleadings were amended to reflect the correct name of this Respondent.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. ].071
June 18, 1954 , because its employees had voted to strike , and, after the commence-
ment of the strike on June 21 , withdrew recognition of Local 6-122.
The complaint further alleged that: Red Blanket discharged certain named
employees between June 24 and July 7, 1954; this action, together with the con-
duct described above , prolonged the strike ; the strike was terminated on October
13, 1954; and Red Blanket thereafter refused to reinstate the strikers.
The complaint further alleged - that: the strike was terminated with respect to
Ponderosa , Tite Knot, and Barclay, on or about September 18, 1954, and with re-
spect to Brooks-Scanlon on or about September 25; on or about September 20
certain named employees of Ponderosa and Tite Knot unconditionally offered to
return to work and were denied reinstatement ; and on or about September 27,
1954 , certain named employees of Brooks-Scanlon unconditionally offered to re-
turn to work , but were denied reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent employment , and were offered or assigned to specified work of a different na-
ture not substantially equivalent to their former employment . Answers were duly
filed by all Respondents wherein the commission of unfair labor practices was
denied.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing , was held at Medford and Bend, Oregon, on various
dates between October 24 and December 14, 1955, before the duly designated
Trial Examiner . All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
relevant evidence . During the course of the hearing , various motions were made
by the Employer Respondents to sever the consolidated cases and were denied.
At the close of the hearing, the parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally,
and to file briefs . Oral argument was waived and briefs have been received from
all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
A. The Association
Pine Industrial Relations Committee , Inc., is a nonprofit corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon, which maintains offices at
Klamath Falls , Oregon. It represents its approximately 150 employer -members
who are engaged in lumbering , logging, and allied woodworking industries , as stated
in article II of the corporation 's Articles of Incorporation , "in connection with their
relations with each other, with their employees and with the public." The same
article states that another object of the corporation is to "use all lawful means
to encourage the settlement of difficulties between its members, its members and
their employees and its members and the public by agreements and arbitration; and
to assist by all lawful means in the carrying out of such agreements and the pre-
vention of the breach thereof; and to this end to represent and take the part of ag-
grieved parties to such agreements." [Emphasis supplied.]
Its operations are financed by dues levied upon the respective employer-members
which are predicated upon the number of manhours of work performed for each
employer member. All of the individual Employer Respondents named herein
are members of PIRC. Although PIRC is ostensibly governed by its trustees who
are selected from its membership according to geographical districts , day-to-day
affairs were conducted and managed by C. L . Irving.
Irving, now managing vice president of PIRC and its secretary -manager in 1954,
claimed herein that PIRC did not deal with labor organizations, did not engage in
labor negotiations in 1954, and that it is not its function to negotiate collective-
bargaining agreements for its members . This contention will not withstand analysis
for a consideration of the evidence discloses that PIRC, contrary to its claim, has
been and is actively involved in the collective -bargaining picture of its members in
a very direct sense.
Thus, PIRC regularly contacts its members about bargaining negotiations both
in their own pine area as well as in other areas . More particularly , and as Irving
in fact testified , the operating technique is for a committee of employer -members of
PIRC to be selected to meet with the labor organizations representing their em-
ployees who are desirous of conducting negotiations . As Irving further testified,
"The committee is chosen by my own notification to the people that I have known
through the years who will be available for that work, who will have the time to
do it, or who may be able to be available on a particular day on which the meeting
is to be held." This was done in the present case in 1954.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Indeed , Irving and other employees of PIRC arranged for and sat in at the
meetings detailed below between the employer committee and the labor organiza-
tions and counseled the employer members composing the committee as to how
and when to meet with the union negotiating committee ; moreover, Irving, in his
capacity with PIRC , and in no other, acted as spokesman for the employers on
these occasions . While PIRC stresses the claim that it has no authority to bind its
members to a collective-bargaining agreement, this is not dispositive of the ques-
tion whether or not it serves as the agent of its employer -members in a direct sense
in the field of labor relations . Nor is it of any import that the ultimate agree-
ments signed by the employers represented by the employer committee are separate
agreements rather than one multiemployer agreement. The only issue is whether
or not PIRC serves as the agent of its members . The record amply discloses that
it has and does.
Similarly, while there was testimony by employer -members that they never
authorized PIRC to act as its agent , the record amply demonstrates that PIRC,
through its personnel , did precisely that with the consent of the particular employer-
members, both in correspondence as well as at bargaining meetings held with the
Charging Parties herein . The fact is that the committee of employers chosen by
Irving was the creature of PIRC and had full authority to act for all the employers
in negotiations with the Charging Parties, subject only to the reserved right of the
Employer Respondents to.reject any settlement reached.
As stated in Section 2 (2) of the Act, "The term ` employer' includes any person
acting as an agent of an employer , directly or indirectly.. . I find , as Board
decisions have consistently done, that an association such as this which appears for,
counsels, and represents its members who are engaged in interstate commerce for
the purpose of collective bargaining , as appears below , is itself an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act. See Oregon Coast Operators Association,
et al., 113 NLRB 1338 ; Western Association of Engineers , et al., 101 NLRB 64;
Mundet Cork Corporation , etc., 96 NLRB 1142; and Oertel Brewing Company, 93
NLRB 530 . See also N. L. R. B. v . International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local
182, 228 F. 2d 83 (C. A. 2).
B. The companies
Brooks-Scanlon , Inc., is a Delaware corporation which is engaged in the manu-
facture of lumber and lumber products at Bend , Oregon. During the course and
conduct of its business , Brooks-Scanlon annually sells and ships products valued
in excess of $100,000 to destinations outside the State of Oregon.
Red Blanket Lumber Company , Inc., is an Oregon corporation which is engaged
in the manufacture of lumber products at Prospect and Eagle Point , Oregon. It
annually sells and ships lumber products valued in excess of $ 100,000 to destina-
tions outside the State of Oregon. ,
Ponderosa Mouldings , Inc., d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber Sales 3 is an Oregon corpora-
tion which is engaged in the manufacture of finished lumber and lumber products
at Redmond , Oregon . During the course and conduct of its business, Ponderosa
annually sells and ships products valued in excess of $ 100,000 to destinations out-
side the State of Oregon.
Philip Dahl and Sam Johnson are. copartners d/b/a Tire Knot Pine Mill and are
engaged in the manufacture of rough lumber near Redmond , Oregon. Their annual
product is valued in excess of $100,000 , and approximately 95 percent thereof, ac-
cording to Dahl, is sold to Ponderosa which in turn converts the rough lumber to
finished lumber . Ponderosa sells this finished lumber in the manner described above,
deducts a portion of the proceeds for processing charges and commissions, and
remits the remainder to Tite Knot. Stated otherwise, Ponderosa in effect performs
a remanufacturing operation and provides a sales service for Tite Knot. Dahl con-
ceded herein that Ponderosa annually sold lumber products valued in excess of
$100,000 and remitted a sum in excess of $100,000 from such proceeds to Tite
Knot. I find, in view of the foregoing business relationship between Tite Knot
and Ponderosa , that the operations of Tite Knot meet the present jurisdictional stand-
ards of the Board . See Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52, and Hoosier Fence
Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 51.4
Philip Dahl and Harold D. Barclay are copartners doing business as Harold
Barclay Logging Company and have been engaged , at least since 1944 , in logging
' It was stipulated herein that since February 28, 1955, Ponderosa has ceased doing
business as Ponderosa Lumber Sales but has continued to do business solely as Ponderosa
Mouldings, Inc. There is no evidence of any change in the form or nature of this business
entity.
S It is therefore not necessary to treat with evidence alleged to show that Tite Knot
and Ponderosa, during one period at least, were one business entity.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1073
operations in the vicinity of Sisters , Oregon . This business venture also conducts
logging operations at Simnasho some 80 miles distant from Sisters; the latter operation
is not involved herein and apparently is not organized.
Barclay performs logging operations for Tite Knot and delivers logs to the latter
which are valued in excess of $100,000 per annum . The General Counsel claims
herein, as a basis for the assertion of jurisdiction , that the employees of Barclay,
at the Sisters operation , have long been associated for the purposes of collective
bargaining in what is in effect a single multiemployer unit comprised of Barclay
and Tite Knot employees and therefore , in view of the assertion of jurisdiction over
Tite knot, jurisdiction should be asserted over the operations of Barclay. I find
merit in this claim which is substantially supported by the record . The testimony
on this topic stems chiefly from Tim Sullivan , president of District No. 6 of Inter-
national Woodworkers of America , a clear and impressive witness, whose recollec-
tion on this topic was excellent. The testimony of Dahl and Harold Barclay on this
topic was marked by vagueness , particularly that of the latter.
Tite Knot has never employed logging crews but , in 1942 , as Dahl conceded, Tite
Knot executed a contract with Local 6-7 which covered a bargaining unit of both
mill and logging operations . Barclay was not in existence at that time and the
contract applied to loggers employed by one Roche , who logged in the same Sisters
area later logged by Barclay ; the record does not supply the precise connection,
if any, between Roche and Barclay, although Harold Barclay testified that he was
an employee of Roche at that time . According to Sullivan and Harold Barclay,
Roche was performing logging operations for Tite Knot; thereafter, Sullivan entered
the armed services and did not return to the area until 1946.
In 1946, as Sullivan testified , he met with Dahl and Harold Barclay in the Tite
Knot office in Redmond. He suggested that certain wartime regulations handed
down by the West Coast Lumber Commission be embodied in the contract; Dahl
agreed to do so. Sullivan then proposed that a separate contract with Barclay
would be desirable , but Dahl declined , stating that the one contract would cover both
concerns. Dahl testified that he did not recall making the statement attributed
to him by Sullivan , and Harold Barclay was not questioned on this matter. I
credit the testimony of Sullivan herein.
On February 25, 1948, in Tite Knot Pine Mill, Case 36-UA-191, the Board held
a consent election , as then required under the Act, on the proposition of authorizing
Local 6-7 to negotiate a union-security agreement . The tally of ballots discloses that
of 95 eligible voters the vote was 69 to 19 in favor of the proposition . What is sig-
nificant about this figure is the fact that Tite Knot at that time , as Dahl conceded, had
approximately 60 employees and the unit polled included both Tite Knot and Barclay
personnel . Indeed , one Maurer , the office manager for Barclay , is listed on the tally
as an observer for Tite Knot . Sullivan testified, and I find, that the voting was con-
ducted initially in Redmond, the location of Tite Knot, and thereafter at Sisters,
the location of Barclay . He further testified that the voters at Sisters were em-
ployees of Barclay; as noted above, Tite Knot conducts no operations , logging or
otherwise , at Sisters.
On May 17, 1948, a contract was entered into between Local 6-7 and Tite Knot.
In article I thereof , Local 6-7 was expressly recognized as the sole collective-
bargaining representative of "all the employees in the Mill and Logging Operations of
the Employer." According to Sullivan , some concern was expressed by newer
employees of Barclay, hired since the 1946 negotiations when Dahl had stated that
the Tite Knot contract would apply to Barclay , as to precisely where they stood in
terms of contract coverage. As a result, they selected a negotiating committee to
attend the 1948 negotiations which were also attended by Harold Barclay, Dahl, and
Sullivan. The Barclay group of employees announced that they were there to nego-
tiate a separate contract , but both Dahl and Barclay announced that it was not
necessary to have a separate contract as the Tite Knot contract would still cover
them. This was satisfactory to all and the contract was signed by Dahl and 7
employees , 4 of whom were employees of Barclay and 3 of Tite Knot. Again, in
1954 Dahl signed a contract with a committee of Local 6-7, later rejected by the
full body thereof , which specifically dealt with woods employees. Here , as before,
Tite Knot had no woods employees and this obviously applied to Barclay loggers.
Sullivan further testified, and I find, that since 1946 the Tite Knot contract as
amended has covered Barclay employees at Sisters . Dahl admitted that in the years
prior to 1954 the benefits accorded to Tite Knot employees had been extended to all
employees of Barclay . Harold Barclay, in his testimony , conceded that wages and
working conditions of the employees of Barclay and Tite Knot are comparable and
are usually changed together.
450553-58-vol. 118-69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find, in view of the foregoing, that there is a long established pattern of bar-
gaining on a multiemployer basis by Tile Knot and Barclay, both concerns 50 percent
owned by Dahl, with respect to Tite Knot employees at Redmond and Barclay em-
ployees at Sisters, Oregon, and that these concerns constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes. In fact, these two employers, in the 1948 consent election,
in effect conceded the appropriateness of such a bargaining unit and that they
therefore constituted a single employer for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The findings hereinabove made with respect to Tite Knot on the question of jurisdic-
tion, bringing Tile Knot within the Board's jurisdictional standards, would therefore
be applicable to Barclay. I further find, contrary to the contention of Respondents,
that the authorization by Dahl of the employer committee chosen by PIRC to repre-
sent Tite Knot in the 1954 negotiations was, consistent with the long bargaining
history, also an authorization to represent Barclay, and that Dahl's participation was
in behalf of both concerns. See Insulation Contractors of Southern California, Inc.,
110 NLRB 638, and E. F. Shuck Construction Co., Inc., 114 NLRB 727.
I find, in view of the foregoing, that all of the individually named employers herein
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it would effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Locals 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations admitting to membership the employees of Respondent Employers.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; the issues
The unfair labor practices alleged in the instant complaint stem from negotiations
in 1954 between the Charging Unions and Respondents concerning the provisions of
collective-bargaining agreements, as well as the antecedent and concurrent attempts
of the Charging Unions to obtain certain data from the respective Employer Respond-
ents relating to individual job classifications and rates of pay, holidays, vacations, total
hours worked, and annual earnings per employee, as well as production and sales
totals of the respective employers. It may be noted that the record contains much
matter not germane to a resolution of the issues.
The Charging Parties have enjoyed a contractual relationship with the respective
Employer Respondents for varying periods of time. The evidence discloses that
Local 6-7 had entered into a contract with Tite Knot as early as 1942 and most
recently in May 1948,5 with Ponderosa in July 1948, and with Brooks-Scanlon in
1951, the latter consisting of two separate contracts for woods and plant units signed
in June and September 1951, respectively. Actually, Local 6-7 has been recognized
by Brooks-Scanlon subsequent to a Board certification in 1940; Brooks-Scanlon, em-
ploying approximately 600 employees, is by far the largest of the Employer Respond-
ents, as the others employed less than 100 each at the time material herein. Local
6-122 in turn has enjoyed a contractual relationship with Red Blanket at least since
June 1951.
The agreements all provide, although in not identical language, for renewal or
termination on April 1 of succeeding years. All have been renewed from year to
year automatically, subject to some amendments. These contracts were in full
force and effect at least up to April 1, 1954.
I have previously set forth the general nature of PIRC and its role herein. On
the other side of the bargaining table appears an organization known as Northwest
Regional Negotiating Committee, herein called NRNC. This is a committee com-
posed of representatives of various local unions belonging to International Wood-
workers of America in the Pacific Northwest. It negotiates provisions of collective-
bargaining agreements in behalf of local unions which have authorized it to do so with
employer associations as well as individual employers. Its efforts are concentrated
on basic terms of employment which are generally applicable to employers through-
out the Northwest; other matters of local interest are reserved to the locals for sepa-
rate negotiation.
Thus, this system envisages separate collective bargaining by NRNC and the locals
with the same employer on general and local terms of employment, respectively.
As will appear, in the case of Red Blanket at least, this line of distinction is difficult
s As heretofore found, Tite Knot and Barclay are allied; for the purposes of collective
bargaining as one employer. Except as otherwise indicated, all references to Tite Knot,
including its contractual relations with labor organizations, are intended to include
Barclay operations at Sisters, Oregon.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1075
to maintain. In 1954, NRNC was authorized by the 2 Charging Locals to negotiate
with the Employer Respondents herein as well as other employers on 3 desired
changes in the working agreements between the parties. These were the agreements
due to expire on April 1, 1954.
The practice of the local unions is to notify the respective employers that NRNC
is authorized to represent them on certain broad demands. Late in 1953, the various
local unions of International Woodworkers of America, after much preliminary
exploratory work, fixed upon three demands for contract negotiations in the Pacific
Northwest. These were (1) a general wage increase, the amount to be determined
from industry conditions and other factors, including information to be submitted
by employers in response to questionnaires sent out by NRNC; (2) correction of
inequities in job rates, this to be predicated upon a job analysis jointly made by the
employer and the local, but financed solely by the employer; and (3) a 3-week
vacation after 5 continuous years of employment in lieu of the existing lesser benefit.
Local 6-122 notified Red Blanket by mail of these three specific demands on
January 21, and Local 6-7 similarly notified Brooks-Scanlon, Tite Knot, Barclay,
and Ponderosa on January 23, 1954. This form letter stated that (1) the action was
taken in accordance with the termination and revision provisions of the respective
contracts; (2) NRNC had sole authority to represent the local in negotiations on
these proposed amendments; (3) local matters were specifically excluded as the
subject of these negotiations; (4) and the questionnaire, identified by the local, as
well as herein, as IWA-1, should be returned to the International not later than
January 30 so that the local could proceed intelligently and constructively in the
negotiations.
Two of the Employer Respondents gave notice during this period of contract
changes they desired. Red Blanket wrote to Local 6-122 on January 21 and an-
nounced its desire to amend the existing agreement in three respects, namely,
elimination of the contractor and subcontractor clause, elimination of the provision
providing for the checkoff of union dues, and amendment of the hours-of-labor clause
determining the sixth and overtime day in a workweek. Brooks-Scanlon submitted
revisions to Local 6-7 on January 29; the details of this proposal are not disclosed
herein. Neither employer attempted in words to terminate the contract at this
time.
This questionnaire, IWA-1, and the failure to return it, constitutes one of the
central issues herein. Late in 1953, NRNC concluded that it wished to avoid a
difficulty experienced in the 1953 negotiations, namely, the reluctance of employers
and employer associations generally to accept statistics put out by various national
associations; it is not contended herein that PIRC took such a position in 1953.
NRNC decided to provide its own statistics of a more specific nature for the lumber
industry.
Accordingly, a questionnaire, Form TWA-1, was devised and sent to approximately
600 employers in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and California,
on or about December 21, 1953. Each employer, including the 5 Employer Re-
spondents herein, received 1, together with a guide sheet and a covering letter asking
that it be completed and returned not later than January 30, 1954. This letter stated,
"In order that our Union may formulate constructive proposals for intelligent col-
lective bargaining, we are enclosing Form IWA-1, requesting specific information
as an aid to 1954 negotiations."
The letter was signed by A. F. Hartung, chairman of NRNC and also president
of the International. This form, as indicated, called for detailed information about
seniority, job classification, rate of pay, annual hours, and annual wages paid each in-
dividual employee by name; the location and type of operation involved; vacations
and holidays granted each employee; and figures of 1953 production and sales.
Followup form letters were sent on January 14 and 22, urging the submission of
the material. Only Barclay, among the Respondents, pleaded ignorance of the
receipt of these documents. I find that the knowledge of partner Dahl, admitted
herein, is binding on Barclay.
On various dates between January 26 and February 5, 1954, the Employer Re-
spondents separately wrote to the respective Locals and acknowledged receipt of
the form letters which served to open the contracts. These letters acknowledged the
fact that the Locals had authorized NRNC to represent them in the negotiations;
stated that the Locals and their representatives would be advised at a later date as
to how the respective employers wished to be represented; and announced that a
committee of employers was authorized to meet with union representatives at an
initial meeting for the purpose of hearing an explanation of the union demands.
The letters went on to state that arrangements for a meeting could be arranged
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through the PIRC office in Klamath Falls. They reflect almost verbatim a suggested
draft letter sent to the employers by PIRC on or about January 25.
On February 13, after an initial meeting on February 11 between NRNC and
the employer committee, PIRC reported the results of the meeting to its membership
and suggested a draft letter for transmission by the Employer Respondents to the
respective Locals. Such letters were sent shortly thereafter. They informed the
Locals, consistent with the draft submitted by PIRC, that an employer committee
selected by Secretary-Manager Irving of PIRC, would represent the respective
employers in the negotiations, although the right to reject any recommendation of
the employer committee was reserved. Ponderosa's letter is not in evidence but it is
clear from later correspondence on July 15 that it adopted this policy as well.
A general outline of the ensuing sequence of events may prove helpful to an
appreciation of the issues involved herein. As indicated, the negotiations for all
the Employer Respondents were conducted jointly in their behalf, as well as for other
employers, by the employer committee selected by PIRC and on the other hand, by
NRNC for the Charging Parties. These meetings were held at Klamath Falls,
Oregon, on February 11, March 12, April 2, April 23, and June 4, 1954.
No agreement was reached between the negotiating committees. NRNC, during
March and April, had taken a referendum strike ballot among the members of the
locals involved, including Locals 6-7 and 6-122, and the resulting vote authorized
a strike, if necessary, to enforce the economic demands it raised in the negotiations.
The strike was originally scheduled for May but was postponed to June 21, 1954.
It took place on or about that date, and was accompanied by picketing; there is
evidence that it may have started as early as June 19 at Brooks-Scanlon.
It may be noted that one meeting took place at the local level between a committee
from Local 6-122 and Red Blanket late in May, on or about May 17. On this
occasion, the union committee unsuccessfully offered to withdraw from NRNC
and bargain individually, if a local agreement based upon certain stated economic
demands could be reached.
At this point, the Employer Respondents took steps to terminate their respective
collective-bargaining agreements. On June 21, Brooks-Scanlon wrote to Local 6-7
and furnished 60 days' notice to cancel its 2 working agreements, for woods and plant
employees respectively. I find that this was consistent with the provisions of the
contracts. Tite Knot wrote a letter to the same effect to Local 6-7 on June 22; this
too is found to have been consistent with the language of the contract.
Ponderosa, on the other hand, posted a notice to its employees on June 22,
announcing that under the terms of its agreement, specifically article XXI thereof,
the agreement was no longer binding. This was done, apparently, on the theory
that the contract expired on April 1, 1954, its renewal date, as a result of a notice
to amend the contract filed by Local 6-7 in January. In any event, the General
Counsel does not press this act as a violation herein.
On July 7 Red Blanket notified its employees that it was no longer recognizing
Local 6-122. This action was apparently taken on either of two theories, namely,
(1) the contract which had been specifically extended to April 1, 1954, had expired
on that date, or (2) the notice of Local 6-122 to amend the contract, duly filed in
January, served to terminate the contract on April 1, 1954, and prevent its renewal.
In July the Employer Respondents were advised by PIRC to withdraw their
authority from the PIRC employer committee in view of the changed bargaining
picture, namely, the fact that some employers originally represented by the employer
committee had signed contracts and as a result the committee represented a smaller
group than it originally had. This advice was followed, and the respective locals
were duly notified that Respondents would conduct negotiations thereafter on an
individual basis.
Later attempts were made to negotiate with Tite Knot, Ponderosa, and Brooks-
Scanlon . Meetings were held with Brooks-Scanlon from August through December
1954, and ultimately resulted in new contracts between Brooks-Scanlon and Local 6-7,
covering plant and woods units; they were signed on November 6 and December 10,
1954, respectively, and run until April 1, 1956, and from year to year thereafter,
absent notice to terminate by January 26. Meetings with Tite Knot and Ponderosa
in August and September were inconclusive. Local 6-122 also met with Red Blanket
on or about September 13.
The strike against Ponderosa, Tite Knot and Barclay was terminated by vote at
a meeting of Local 6-7 on September 18, effective September 20, and picketing was
discontinued. Identical action was taken with respect to Brooks-Scanlon on Sep-
tember 25 effective September 27. Local 6-122 notified Red Blanket of the termi-
nation of the strike there on October 13. As indicated, all Respondents save Brooks-
Scanlon had previously, during the course of the strike, notified the respective Locals
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1077
that they were no longer recognizing them. As will appear, this action stemmed
from the replacement of strikers as well as the fact that numerous strikers had
returned to work despite the presence of picket lines established by their unions.
All struck Employer Respondents, save Brooks-Scanlon, opened behind the picket
lines, operating with new hires and returned strikers. The General Counsel makes
no contention herein that any economic strikers were discharged or denied reinstate-
ment prior to permanent replacement and expressly bottoms his case on the theory
that the strikers were unfair labor practice strikers. Brooks-Scanlon did resume op-
erations, but only after the picket line was removed on September 25, 1954.
Having previously determined that PIRC is an employer and that Barclay is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, the remaining issues are raised
by the pleadings:
(1) Did Respondents engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to provide the International or
the Charging Parties with the data requested in the questionnaire, Form IWA-1?
(2) Did Respondents engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to accede to the demands of the
Charging Parties for changes in the collective-bargaining agreements? 6
(3) Were the strikers unfair labor practice strikers?
(4) Did Respondents Red Blanket, Brooks-Scanlon, Ponderosa, and Tite Knot
discharge or discriminate against striking employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act?
B. Joint negotiations
1. The February II meeting
The first meeting between NRNC and the employer committee appointed by
Secretary-Manager Irving of PIRC was held on February 11. Those present in-
cluded J. E. Dicey, vice president of the International and spokesman for NRNC;
Tim Sullivan, president of District No. 6 of the International, and various NRNC
members as well as observers. District No. 6 is a Council of local unions in the
pine area of Oregon and northern California. Present for the employer committee
were Irving and his two assistants, Glos and Henry, and a group of employer-members
including A. J. Glassow, then vice president and general manager of Brooks-Scanlon.
Dicey and Irving did almost all of the talking.
After certain preliminaries, Dicey read a 2-page statement outlining the union
demands which were still 3 in number. They were (1) an across-the-board general
wage increase of 121/2 cents per hour, which figure, Dicey pointed out, had been deter-
mined by NRNC in the absence of the information requested on Form IWA-1, but
without waiving the demand for this information; this amount Dicey stated, was
based upon two factors, the increase in the cost of living since 1952 and the annual
increase in productivity. It will be recalled that the Locals in their January letters
to the employers had sought a wage increase in an unspecified amount. The other
two demands were identical with those previously submitted to the individual em-
ployers in January, namely, (2) an employer-financed job analysis of the industry
in order to correct job-rate inequities, there allegedly being an excessive spread in
the rates being paid men in different plants for the same work; and (3) a vacation
benefit of 3 weeks after 5 years' seniority. Dicey elaborated somewhat on these
demands, particularly on demand 2.
On several occasions, Dicey made reference to the desire of the unions for the
information on Form IWA-1. Irving raised the claim that the International, not
being the bargaining agent, had no authority to obtain this information and that
PIRC had so advised its membership, but it was pointed out in reply that the Locals,
in their contract openings, had authorized this technique, as in fact they had. Dicey
did indicate the need of the information not only with respect to wage demands
but also with respect to holiday provisions of the contract, in order to determine
whether members were receiving the full benefit of the contract. It was made
clear by Irving that this was an exploratory meeting to hear the union demands
so that the employers could decide how they would bargain, that is, in a group
or individually. Neither at this nor any other meetings prior to the strike did
the parties discuss the contract changes proposed by Red Blanket and Brooks-Scanlon.
U The gravamen of the complaint, in this respect, and the evidence thereunder Is
directed to the meetings held in the period prior to the strike in June. In fact, the
complaint does not appear to attack the subsequent withdrawals of recognition. Similarly,
the complaint does not attack the establishment of the employer committee without
authority to bind the individual employers.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is a conflict as to whether Irving, at the close of the meeting, stated that
the employers would decide whether to furnish the information sought by IWA-1
only after they determined how to bargain, as contended by Dicey, or whether,
as Irving claimed, he stated only that he had advised the employers not to refuse
to supply the information, but to keep the request pending, withhold the informa-
tion, and permit the course of the bargaining to determine what information was
necessary. A resolution of this conflict is not necessary because it is clear, and
I find, that Irving, on either version, did not provide the information or promise
that the employers would provide it.
On February 13 PIRC mailed to its members having contracts with IWA locals
a summary of the meeting of February 11, and reported that the employers' com-
mittee had met subsequently and determined that they should engage in group
negotiations in committee form, as had been done in the past. A suggested draft
letter to the respective locals was enclosed and a notification to this effect was sent
to Locals 6-7 and 6-122 by the Employer Respondents. Thus, an employer com-
mittee with authoriy to negotiate, subject to approval by each Employer Respondent,
appeared in the picture prior to the March 12 meeting.
2. The March 12 meeting
This meeting was a lengthy one and was attended, among others, by Irving; his
two assistants; the employer committee, including Philip Dahl of Tite Knot and
Barclay and A. J. Glassow of Brooks-Scanlon; and, for NRNC, Dicey, Sullivan,
and various union representatives. On this occasion, Dicey, in behalf of NRNC,
gave a lengthy presentation of the union arguments in support of the three economic
demands presented at the February 11 meeting. The Red Blanket and Brooks-
Scanlon proposals were not discussed. There is no substantial dispute concerning
the meeting save with respect to the subject of the questionnaire, Form IWA-1.
While Glassow testified that this topic was not mentioned subsequent to the
February 11 meeting, Glos, Dahl, and Irving each conceded, and I find, that the
topic was brought up on March 12.
Dicey's presentation consisted of reading from a prepared 15-page statement
on which he from time to time elaborated. He also pointed out how the information
sought by the questionnaire would be valuable in shedding light on the three demands.
His demand for the 121/z cents wage increase was predicated on the increase in
the cost of living plus recognition of the probable increase in productivity during
the preceding several years. As for the second demand, the job evaluation program,
he urged that there should be no wage differential between plants for similar work
performed at plants in the same area, claiming that a preliminary study in the
adjoining fir area disclosed excessive wage spreads for similar job classifications.
In this respect as well, he contended that the information of the questionnaire
as to individual classifications and wage rates would be helpful. Apparently little
was said about the vacation benefits save that Dicey claimed there was a trend
in the industry in the direction of a 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years of employment.
Irving conceded herein that Dicey complained about the failure of the Employer
Respondents to submit IWA-1. It is not deemed necessary to resolve the conflict
whether, as Dicey claimed, Irving refused to submit the information, or, as Irving
claimed, no response was called for when Dicey brought up the subject, for the
fact is that, as at the previous meeting, the information was sought but not produced
or promised.
Irving, in turn, questioned Dicey as to the source of his figures on increased
productivity and wage differentials. The employer committee caucused briefly at
this point and returned to the meeting, whereupon Irving responded to the union
demands from an outline he had prepared prior to the meeting. Irving asserted
with respect to the requested increase in wage rates, that wages of the pine area
had more than kept up with the cost of living and that, on a national basis, production
figures reflected labor as receiving more than 50 percent of increased productivity
despite a downward trend in profits of the lumber industry, citing the statistics of
2 lumber associations. He claimed that wages paid by members of PIRC were
higher than the average rates of all lumber workers in California and Oregon, as
computed by State agencies, and stated that they compared favorably with rates
in other industries.
He contended that the job evaluation program would not prove successful be-
cause differentials traditionally had existed in the industry for valid reasons, and
that an evaluation should be conducted on an intra-plant basis rather than on an
industry or areawide basis. Irving claimed that he saw no trend to a 3 weeks'
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1079
vacation after 5 years' employment and that the existing benefit, 2 weeks after 3 years
was in excess of the trend. It may be noted that the record does not disclose
precisely what the vacation benefits were with respect to all Employer Respondents
in 1954.
Irving stated, in response to Dicey's query, that he was not pleading "inability,"
but rather "inadvisability," to recommend anything involving an increase of costs.
He bottomed his position opposing the cost increases required by the three economic
demands on downward trends in the industry, namely, the steadily falling price
of lumber at that time, as reflected in figures published by West Coast Lumbermen's
Association, a trade association, as well as a drop in production, unfilled orders, and
shipments. Finally, Irving stated that the employer committee was unwilling to
recommend any settlement involving a cost increase in view of market and economic
trends, but was offering to recommend renewal of the existing contract for 1 year.
The union representatives then caucused, returned, and rejected Irving's offer.
Irving in turn said that he would submit the employer position to them in writing.
One claim of the General Counsel and the Charging Parties may be initially
considered at this point. While it appears, as counsel for the Charging Parties
ably stresses in his brief, that the desire for the submission of Form IWA-1 was
pressed at this meeting and, as he further contends, the witnesses for Respondents
tended to underplay the references to Form IWA-1 in the negotiations, on the other
hand, the record does not warrant the further conclusion he urges, namely,
that Form IWA-1 was a very strong part of the union presentation. While it is
true that the union wanted the information, it is readily apparent that they were
primarily and basically interested in their three economic demands, and in fact
had selected the wage increase figure of 121/2 cents per hour precisely because the
IWA-1 form information had not been forthcoming.
Stated otherwise, NRNC basically sought a new contract with three economic
improvements which the employers refused to grant because they believed, and
attempted to prove as much, that business conditions did not warrant and could not
support the increases in costs. The IWA-1 information was at best a corollary to
these basic economic demands.
On or about March 17, PIRC wrote to NRNC and the local unions. This letter
constituted, in substance, a restatement of the position taken by Irving at the March
12 meeting. He again offered to renew the old contract for 1 year. Irving stressed
the claim that wage rates of PIRC members had kept pace with the increase in the
cost of living, citing statistics in support of his claim, and comparing wage rates
paid by PIRC members with California, Oregon, and national lumber industry
averages, as well as with averages in other industries. He pointed out that the PIRC
standing was well above the average and was exceeded only by a few named industries.
Irving repeated his argument that wages amply reflected increased productivity
and that the share of sales reflected in lumber industry profits from 1953 was down.
He cited facts in support of his claim that production, orders, shipments, and unfilled
orders were down and in significant contrast, that inventories were up 15 percent,
with lumber prices declining. Irving challenged the union concept of a job analysis
and evaluation on an industrywide basis as "colossal" and "almost impossible"
and drew attention to the upward adjustments in rate ranges envisaged by the Charg-
ing Parties. He disputed the union claim of a trend to a 3 weeks' vacation after 5
years' employment, pointing out that it boiled down to a week of lost production
and therefore was an additional cost item. Irving expressed concern that an increase
in wage costs to be paid from already narrowed profit margins might well result
in unemployment, and drew attention to decreasing production. He again offered
to recommend renewal of the existing contract.
Prior to the next meeting, Local 6-7 wrote to Brooks-Scanlon on March 25 and
sought information as to the average hourly wage rates of all Brooks-Scanlon
employees. On April 1 Brooks-Scanlon replied and supplied the 1953 rate ranges
by departments, these being five in number.
3. The April 2 meeting
The next meeting was arranged by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
at the request of NRNC and was held on April 2 at Klamath Falls. Present were
Commissioner Walker of FMCS, Irving, Henry, Glos, Dicey, Sullivan, Glassow,
and other employer and union committee members. The commissioner opened
the meeting and immediately turned the proceedings over to Dicey. Walker, who
did not testify herein, did not participate actively thereafter, although he presumably
was present for the duration of the meeting. Dicey restated his contract demands,
unchanged from the prior meeting, and claimed that productivity, shipments, and
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
orders for 1954 in the industry were running higher than in 1952, the date of the
last wage increase.7
Dicey claimed that 1953 had been a good year for the employers profitwise. He
read certain ranges for wages which were alleged to support the union contention
that there was an excessive spread in the rate ranges. Dicey then turned to a docu-
ment prepared in reply to the PIRC letter of March 17. This document claimed
that: (1) PIRC was manipulating figures with respect to the cost of living in order
to cloud the issue; (2) the comparison of wage rates in the western lumber industry
with national, California, and Oregon averages for the lumber industry and with
national averages in other industries was misleading, and that a better comparison
would have been with the -higher wage rates in the adjoining Douglas Fir area; (3)
employees of the lumber industry had in fact not received any benefits from increased
productivity; (4) current production shipments and orders were running ahead of
1952 (but as indicated above, behind 1953); (5) the job analysis program was
workable, pointing out, as he had previously, that three pilot surveys, each of a
different size operation, would be feasible; (6) and vacation pay was not pay for
time worked, but for time spent on a job. This, it may be noted, does not dispose
of Respondents' claim that it was an increased cost item, as in fact it was. In
conclusion, he challenged the good faith of PIRC in the negotiations. Irving told
the commission that Respondents had nothing to add to their prior proposal.
I find, as Irving conceded, that the request for the IWA-1 information was brought
up by union representatives who commented on the failure of individual employers
to supply the information. I further find that this constituted a renewal request
for the information. It is significant that Irving testified there was no indica-
tion at this meeting, as well as throughout the negotiations, that the information was
not forthcoming, but that "throughout the entire negotiations, our position was
that, should any of the information prove in our judgment essential to the conduct
of negotiations, we would view it [the request for information] anew." I find that
the request for information was renewed at this meeting and that Respondents failed
to comply with the request.
As at the prior meeting, the very nature of the evidence proffered by both sides
discloses that the primary emphasis was on the economic demands of the union, and,
more particularly, the attempt by NRNC to refute the claims of the employer com-
mittee with respect to the economic demands presented by the unions.
4. The April 25 meeting
The next meeting was held at Klamath Falls on April 25 under the auspices of
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and was attended by Commissioner
Walker; Irving, Glos, and Henry for PIRC; Glassow, Dahl, and several others of
the employer committee; and Bruce McDonald and several others for NRNC and the
Locals. The only testimony in any detail as to this meeting was presented by Irving
and is credited; it is corroborated as to one aspect of the meeting by that of Glos.
The meeting was a short one with Bruce McDonald, whose precise title is not
disclosed, as the spokesman for NRNC. McDonald immediately asked "Is there
any change in the employer committee position?" Irving replied that there was
none, whereupon McDonald turned to Commissioner Walker and stated that he had
been sent to the meeting with instructions "to ascertain only one thing, . if there
is any change in the employer committee position, and, since there isn't, this meeting
might as well come to an end." Walker claimed that in the face of such a position,
mediation was futile, and recessed the meeting subject to a call by himself or either
side.
Prior to doing so, Walker did inquire whether the settlement proposed by PIRC
on or about March 17, namely to extend the old contract 1 year, was intended to
close out all issues, or whether other matters were still reserved for local negotia-
tion. Irving replied that the employer committee had been authorized to nego-
tiate only on the three industry issues, as posed by NRNC on a broad basis, and
was not authorized to make recommendations on matters reserved for local bar-
gaining. This, of course, was consistent with the position of the Locals when they
had commenced negotiations, namely, that local matters were reserved for bar-
gaining at the local level. Both Irving and Glos testified, and I find, that no refer-
According to statistics read at the meeting by Dicey . such was the case. However, the
same statistics also support the contention of PIRC that 1.954 production , shipments,
and orders were running behind 1953 . What actually happened , as revealed by these
statistics , the source of which is not disclosed , was that the 1953 totals were well above
those for 1952 and that the 1954 totals , in a smaller percentage , were less than the totals
for 1953, the result being that the net change from 1952 to 1954 was on the plus side.
As is apparent, these figures support both sides herein.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1081
ence was made to Form IWA-1 as such. As is apparent, neither the employer com-
mittee nor NRNC retreated from their previous positions.
On May 12, in response to a telephonic request from Commissioner Walker,
Irving mailed to NRNC a written proposal for settlement of the dispute; this pro-
posal was the same proposal previously mailed on March 17, namely, to extend
the previous contract for 1 year. There were no further joint meetings until June
4. An interim meeting had been requested by NRNC and agreed to by the em-
ployer committee, but it was canceled by Commissioner Walker, who informed
Irving that NRNC had so requested.
5. The meeting of June 4
The next meeting was held at Klamath Falls on June 4, under the auspices of
Commissioner Walker. Present were Irving and his two assistants; Dicey, Sullivan,
and other union representatives; and one employer representative. The testimony
of Dicey and Irving is in substantial agreement as to this meeting. It may be noted
that the strike ballot conducted by NRNC among its constituent locals had been
completed prior to May 1 and a strike authorized for May 3, but the date was
postponed.
Dicey acted as spokesman and stated that he wished to give the PIRC employer
committee the same consideration afforded other groups, namely an opportunity
to come forward with a new proposal before the unions resorted to other action.
He referred to settlements made in the pulp and paper industry; Irving responded
that those settlements had no bearing on the pine situation. Dicey claimed that
lumber prices were higher, and Irving replied that published statistics of the trade
associations still disclosed a downward trend for prices in the pine area. He
insisted that Dicey was referring to the fir situation, which was not applicable.
Dicey stated that the employer offer to extend the old contract was not acceptable
to NRNC and referred to increased productivity. Irving replied that the only in-
crease in productivity figures he had seen related to fir and were not relevant to
pine, stating further that while productivity varied from employer to employer,
the averages would not reflect an increase in productivity.
In support of his position, Dicey read from two documents which gave the history
of pine prices, as well as the existing price picture for pine and fir. None of these
figures served to refute the position of the PIRC employer committee that pine
prices had fallen during 1953 as well as during the negotiations to date. The
meeting ended with Dicey informing the employer committee that there was no
need to continue the meeting unless the employer committee had a different kind
of proposal. Irving did point out that he had been speaking only for the employers
still left in negotiations, inasmuch as many of the original group had signed with
their locals, according to Irving, on the basis of extending the old contract without
change.
There is a minor conflict as to whether Form IWA-1 was mentioned at this
meeting. According to Glos, it was not mentioned and Irving did not recall any
reference to it. According to Dicey, he referred to the desired information in his
discussion of increased productivity.8 I deem it unnecessary to resolve this con-
flict because it is readily apparent that if the demand for the information was
brought up by Dicey it was brought up, as at prior meetings, solely in a secondary
vein, and at that, on June 4, only in relation to figures on productivity. The fact
is that at this last joint meeting NRNC primarily sought an offer from P•I•RC which,
in terms of dollars and cents, was in excess of the contract renewal proposal previ-
ously submitted by PIRC, and that NRNC had postponed the strike in the hope
that such an offer might be forthcoming.
,It is readily apparent, independently of whether or not NRNC was entitled to
this IWA-1 information for the bargaining process, as a matter of law, that the
unions basically and primarily wanted a contract from Respondents which would
give them additional benefits in three specified areas but which, in these same areas,
would inevitably result in additional costs to the respective employers.
C. Local developments at Red Blanket
1. The May 17 Meeting
Shortly after the last joint meeting, NRNC met and recommended strike action.
On June 19 , it sent wires to Locals 6-7 and 6-122 setting a strike deadline not
8I do not rely in this respect on the testimony of Keith Henry and Tim Sullivan, that
their testimony concerning the meeting would be the same as that of Glos and Dicey,
respectively.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
later than the first shift of Monday, June 21, and recommending that the Locals
make their own decisions whether or not to join in the strike. Both locals had
previously voted to stick with NRNC on the strike issue and the strike duly com-
menced at the operations of the respective employers on June 21. As noted, the
Employer Respondents took action to terminate their contracts. Brooks-Scanlon
and Tite Knot notified Local 6-7 on June 21 and 22, respectively, of the cancella-
tion of the contract in 60 days. Ponderosa, on June 22, notified its employees that
the contract was no longer binding, and Red Blanket, on July 7, notified its em-
ployees, as well as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, that Local 6-122
was no longer recognized.
Certain incidents and a meeting at Red Blanket, allegedly causing or prolonging
the strike, are relied upon by the General Counsel in support of his contention that
the strike at Red Blanket, as well as at the other employers, was an unfair labor
practice strike. This involves one meeting held on May 17 and certain alleged con-
duct on various dates by officials of Red Blanket.
On May 17, Red Blanket, on request, met with Local 6-122 to discuss a new
contract. A resume of what took place at this meeting discloses that it was actually
an attempt to negotiate on a local basis in an area, in part at least, which the Local
had delegated to NRNC, as in fact was pointed out at the meeting. As will appear
below, this resort to bargaining at the local level by Local 6-122 was emulated
by PIRC and the respective employers during July. It appears that there had been
some concern among the membership of Local 6-122 about the impending strike.
As a result, a committee was authorized to contact Red Blanket on a local basis,
to make a local settlement if Red Blanket would bring its contract up to date, and
to withdraw from the negotiations conducted by NRNC if results warranted. It fur-
ther appears that previous negotiations in 1952 had been abortive at Red Blanket and
as a result, the Red Blanket contract expiring in 1954 provided for 3 holidays, 2
weeks' vacation after 5 years' employment, and a 4-cent night-shift differential, as
contrasted with 6 holidays, 2 weeks' vacation after 3 years, and a 6-cent night-shift
differential found in other contracts in the area.
Thus, a meeting was arranged for May 17 between a committee appearing for
Local 6-122 and officials of Red Blanket. As is apparent, this took place after a
number of meetings between NRNC and the PIRC employer committee had been
held. Spokesman for the union committee was one Glen Yorton, vice president
of the Local. Red Blanket was represented by a number of officials, including
President W. C. Mattson and his son, Willard Mattson, assistant manager of the
concern, with W. C. Mattson as spokesman. There is no substantial conflict in the
testimony concerning this meeting.
Yorton announced that the union committee had come for the purpose of negoti-
ating an agreement. Mattson pointed out that both sides had turned over their
authorities to bargain to NRNC and the PIRC employer committee, respectively, as
was in fact the case. Yorton replied that Local 6-122 had not relinquished its
rights to negotiate on a local basis, although it is obvious that in one area, that
of vacations, it had done so. He pointed out that the membership of the Local
would be content if the Red Blanket contract would be brought up to date with
the others in the district by making the three changes specified above.9
Yorton argued in support of his 3 demands that production in the planing mill
and in mill 2, 2 of the 3 Red Blanket installations, had increased. W. C. Mattson
disputed this and claimed that Yorton was in error as to the production figures.
Mattson further claimed that the company had lost money during the previous
year and in addition, that his costs for vacations in 1953 had been $40,000. Hence,
he claimed it was undesirable economically to increase any of his costs. His
statement concerning losses in 1953 was not. challenged and in fact, it has not been
challenged herein; nor for that matter, was Red Blanket ever asked to prove its
position concerning its losses in 1953.10
Yorton urged Mattson to offer something in excess of the existing contract pro-
visions to Local 6-122, saying that if Red Blanket made the three contract adjust-
ments, the committee would recommend to the Local that they accept it and with-
9 Willard Mattson testified that the men sought the 3 additional holidays and did not
recall any mention of the other 2 demands. His father's testimony was vague and
substantially to the same effect. The foregoing findings are based upon the credited
testimony of Yorton.
1O Mattson, in a statement to a Board field examiner, said that he informed Yorton
that the company lost $50,000 in 1953. He testified herein that the company had in
fact lost $60,000 or $70,000. I deem it immaterial whether or not the actual loss figure
was mentioned.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1083
draw from the negotiations being conducted by NRNC. Mattson offered only to
re-sign the old contract, this being the same position currently taken by the PIRC
employer committee.
2. Incidents at Red Blanket
These additional incidents are relied upon by the General Counsel in support of
his claim that unfair labor practices by Red Blanket caused or prolonged the strike
of June 21. According to the credited testimony of Arnold Winslow, then job steward
at mill 2, John Scherer, then foreman of mill 2, spoke to a group of employees ap-
proximately in mid-April and stated that, "if it wasn't for the union, we would be a
thousand dollars a year better off due to the overtime which we would be receiving."
Scherer did not testify herein. According to W. C. Mattson, Scherer left the employ
of Red Blanket in midsummer of 1954, departed the State, and his present where-
abouts are unknown. Mattson contended that Scherer was not authorized to make
the statements attributed to him by Winslow. Although this contention by Mattson
lacks merit, in view of Scherer's supervisory status, on the other hand, the statement
is not deemed to have been coercive or intimidatory. There is no evidence that
overtime was canceled or abandoned at that time, or of any change in policy with re-
spect thereto, and I find that this statement did not constitute a threat of economic
loss for continued union affiliation. In any event, in view of the disposition of the
incidents below, it stands as an isolated statement.
On June 15, according to Winslow, Scherer informed a group of employees that if
they went on strike, the "old man," namely, W. C. Mattson, would close down the
mill for 4 months, take a trip East, and that he, Scherer, was not concerned because
he would be paid for the time. Inasmuch as a strike was impending, this statement
is viewed as no more than a prediction that a strike would necessitate shutting down
the mill, as well it might. It does not, therefore, constitute a threat of reprisal for
engaging in a concerted activity.
On June 17, according to Winslow, Scherer posted a notice which announced
that mill 2 would work overtime on Saturday, June 19. The record discloses that
when logs were available, there was a flexible practice of working every other Satur-
day at mill 2, with all Saturday work constituting overtime work. On June 18,
after a visit to the mill by W. C. Mattson, Scherer changed the notice to read that the
mill would not work on Saturday, June 19. There had been a union meeting on
June 17 at which Local 6-122 had voted to stick with NRNC in the strike action
which had been authorized. Employee Tom Denninger, as he testified, asked
Scherer after the latter changed the notice, if he had heard of the union meeting.
Scherer replied, according to Denninger , "I guess so . The old man thinks you guys
are making enough money." His testimony was corroborated by that of Winslow,
who allegedly overheard Scherer's statement, and is credited.
Mattson admitted that he knew of the imminent strike, but denied that he went
to mill 2 that day or spoke with Scherer. He claimed that an order of the type
attributed to him would be given by the mill superintendent, Sanderson. The parties
stipulated herein that Sanderson would testify that with the strike impending, Sander-
son was not in a position to move lumber out of the mill on Monday, June 21, and
that lumber would deteriorate if left standing in the yard: It is apparent that this
action on the part of Scherer is susceptible of the explanation that it was moti-
vated as a retaliatory move against the impending strike. It is, however, at the very
least, equally susceptible of the explanation that the action was taken to avoid a
tieup of lumber if the mill were shut down by the strike. Hence, the evidence on
this incident does not preponderate in favor of the position of the General Counsel.
Passing into the strike period itself, Victor Conover testified that he was a picket
on the first day of the strike. He claimed that W. C. Mattson passed by and
informed him that if the men wished a strike they would get a "good long one."
Mattson denied seeing Conover or making the statement attributed to him. I deem
it unnecessory to resolve the conflict for even if the statement were made, in view
of the fact that the strike had commenced and the mill was shut down, the state-
ment was not coercive or intimidatory, but was more of an expression of bravado.
Again, on June 25, Striker Herman Bost was asked by Mattson, according to
the testimony of Bost, to return to work. Bost replied that he could not work behind
a picket line. Mattson replied that the strike was illegal and that he had a telegram
from President Hartung of the International to that effect; there was, in fact, no such
wire. Mattson uncontrovertedly testified, however, that Henry Hertager, then
president of the Local, and apparently a controversial figure therein, had informed
him that he had received a wire from Hartung just prior to the strike that there would
not be a strike. Not only does Mattson's conclusion, in the face of this advice from
the Local president seem reasonable, but in any event I see nothing coercive in this
conversation. Moreover, I fail to see how it caused or prolonged the strike.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The strike and its cause
As is apparent in the immediately preceding section, the meeting of May 17 was
an attempt by Local 6-122 to compose its differences with Red Blanket. It
is noteworthy that the submission of the IWA-1 form information was not con-
sidered by the Local to be a key difference between the parties; in fact, it was not
mentioned on that date. This serves only to buttress the findings heretofore made
that the chief emphasis of NRNC in the joint negotiations was on economic matters,
in terms of dollars and cents.
With respect to the various incidents at Red Blanket set forth above, none of
them has been found to be independently violative of the Act and it is further found
that Red Blanket did not, thereby, attempt to undermine the bargaining represent-
ative. More particularly, there is no substantial evidence that these incidents served
in any way to cause or prolong the strike. I find that they did not. The fact is that
here, as in the joint negotiations, the cause of the strike was the inability of NRNC
and the Locals to achieve the economic benefits they desired, this resulting in a
strike in support of the economic demands.
Turning to the series of joint bargaining meetings, the key premise of the General
Counsel herein and, in fact, the only one on which he expressly relies, aside from
the Red Blanket aspect of the case, is that the strike was an unfair labor practice
strike caused by the unfair labor practices of Respondents. The strike of June 21,
1954, had its genesis in a referendum vote taken by NRNC in March and April.
The result was an authorization for NRNC to call a strike if necessary to obtain
a satisfactory settlement of the points in negotiations. Both Locals involved herein
had in June, subsequent to the joint meetings, reaffirmed their support of the strike.
I am in agreement with counsel for the Charging Parties that the strike action was
the- direct result of a breakdown in negotiations. However, as will appear, I do not
agree with his claim that it was an unfair labor practice strike.
I have previously indicated that the strike was caused, not by the failure to supply
the IWA-1 information, but rather the failure of Respondents to make concessions
to NRNC on their three economic demands. While IWA-1 was in the picture at
the outset, it grew smaller anad smaller as the course of negotiations progressed,
although the emphasis on the other three demands was substantially unchanged.
It is a fair conclusion on this record as a whole, that the strike of June 21 took place
after the parties came to an impasse with the resulting inability of NRNC and the
Charging Locals to secure their three demands over the bargaining table. I find
that this was the cause of the strike. The evidence -of local union meetings does
not support the contentions made herein concerning IWA-1. Similarly, there is no
evidence of picket signs or union resolutions in support of the claim that the strike
resulted from the failure to obtain this information. It is to be noted that the
General Counsel makes no claim that Respondents did not meet, on request, with
the Charging Parties.
There remains for decision whether or not the conduct of Respondents at the
bargaining table relative to the three economic demands constituted a refusal to
bargain, which rendered the resulting strike an unfair labor practice strike.
Actually, the General Counsel has well formulated his position on the face of the
record, at page 251. He stated that his burden was to prove that the employers, in
the course of the bargaining, "were resorting to first, a distortion of the union's
demand and, secondly, to making a fallacious argument and well knowing they were
making it." I agree that evidence of this nature, namely, distortion of demand and
replying with knowingly fallacious contentions, might well be indicative of bad-faith
bargaining. However, the preponderance of the evidence dealing with the bargain-
ing negotiations prior to the strike will not support the stated position of the General
Counsel.
The General Counsel has argued that Irving supplied figures in the meetings that
did not support his position. Although some of the figures supplied may have been
controversial, this is a far cry from supplying false figures. The most that can be
said is that the figures did not support the position of Respondents to the extent that
the General Counsel thought they should. But they did support the positions taken,
and the record will not support a finding of deliberate misrepresentation by Re-
spondents. There is no substantial evidence to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the
figures.
True, Respondents did not comply with the demands for the IWA-1 information,
but this does not prove that the figures submitted were fallacious. Nor were Re-
spondents in the position of withholding information within their knowledge because
at least a substantial portion of the IWA-1 information had never been collected
as such. Hence, they were not on this record playing fast and loose by withholding
some information, but presenting other information which they knew to be false.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1.085
Respondents, it may be noted, were never confronted with a demand to prove that
they could not afford these cost items. In fact, Mattson, at the Red Blanket negotia-
tions, expressly pleaded his losses of the prior year, and this statement was not
challenged, at least at the local level. See N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Manufacturing Co.,
224 F. 2d 869 (C. A. 4), cert. 350 U. S. 922.
I find that the strike of June 21, 1954, followed upon a number of meetings at
which, in the posture most favorable to the General Counsel, hard bargaining took
place on both sides of the bargaining table with Respondents diligently trying to
substantiate their position with respect to economic conditions in the industry, that
the parties bargained to an impasse, and that the strike resulted from the failure of the
Charging Parties to obtain their three economics demands. It is a fair statement
on this record that had these demands of the Charging Parties been met substan-
tially, the strike would not have followed, irrespective of Respondents' position on
IWA-1, and that the failure to obtain the information was not the cause -of the
strike.
The record well warrants the finding that the Charging Parties, after requesting an
unspecified wage increase, then selected the figure of 121/2 cents per hour as their
wage demand in lieu of the prior unspecified wage demand to be predicated upon
the IWA-1 data. I find therefore that the strike occurred after the parties arrived
at an impasse, that it was an economic strike at its inception, and that the striking
employees of the Employer Respondents were not unfair labor practice strikers. See
Cranston Print Works Company, 115 NLRB 537.
E. Events during the strike; meetings
1. At Red Blanket
On June 21 all striking employees of Red Blanket were sent letters instructing them
to return to work on June 24 at the customary starting hour. Some of the strikers
returned and an undisclosed number of new employees were hired. Mill 1 was
reopened on June 24, mill 2 on June 28, and the planing mill on July 2.
Termination slips were mailed on June 28 and 30 to strikers who had not returned
to work; several slips were not mailed until early in July. These slips assigned failure
to report to work as the cause of the termination and were accompanied by final
paychecks. Those living in company houses were notified to move out or else
commence paying rent. Red Blanket contended that all men terminated had been
permanently replaced prior to their termination. The General Counsel does not chal-
lenge this claim, relying as he does on the contention that the strikers were unfair
labor practice strikers who, as a matter of law, could not be replaced. There is no
substantial evidence to refute this contention by Red Blanket, which is accepted
herein.
Tim Sullivan, president of District No. 6, apparently acting in behalf of Local
6-122, attempted early in July to arrange a meeting with Red Blanket through the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. President Mattson contacted PIRC
for advice and, on July 7, notified FMCS that there was no purpose in meeting with
the union, as Red Blanket no longer recognized it as the bargaining representative
of its employees. On the same day, Mattson wrote PIRC a letter withdrawing
the authority of the PIRC employer committee to represent Red Blanket in the
negotiations.
Between September 12 and 15, a committee appointed by Local 6-122 visited the
Red Blanket office and requested President Mattson to accept a procedure for termi-
nating the strike. This was a factfinding board set up by the Governors of Oregon
and Washington to investigate the strikes in the fir area, which was agreed to by both
CIO and A. F. of L. lumber workers' unions. Mattson responded that he was not
a party to the agreement setting up the board, as was the case, and refused to agree
to accept whatever recommendation was put out by that board.
Picketing continued until October 13 at Red Blanket, at which time Local 6-122
notified Red Blanket that the strike was terminated and that all strikers would
return to work on October 14. Mattson acknowledged the communication and
said that all employment applications would be entertained, that preference would
be given to applicants with prior experience with Red Blanket, and that Local 6-122
was no longer recognized as bargaining representative. Here, as before, I find
nothing on the part of Red Blanket tending to prolong the strike or convert it into
an unfair labor practice strike.
2. At the other employers
As heretofore noted, all the Employer Respondents withdrew their authority for
negotiations from the PIRC committee during July, Red Blanket on July 7, and the
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other. employers on or about July 15. One suggestion for this action came from Irv-
ing at a meeting with Brooks-Scanlon, Ponderosa, and Tite Knot on July 12; this
recommendation, according to Irving, was predicated upon the reduced number of
employers remaining in joint bargaining. NRNC was duly notified on July 16.
NRNC then proceeded to individually contact the employers in the Bend and Red-
mond area, namely, Brooks-Scanlon, Tite Knot, and Ponderosa. They separately
but uniformly advised NRNC that they were willing to meet, that their respective
positions on costs remaining stable was unchanged, and that they were still willing
to extend previous contracts for 1 year. Attention was directed to the impending
expiration of the agreements under notices previously given, particularly so in the
case of Brooks-Scanlon and Tite Knot. Ultimately, under the auspices of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, meetings were arranged between NRNC
and the employers in the Bend and Redmond area.
3. The August 6 meeting at Redmond
Under the auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service a meeting
was held on August 6 at Redmond, Oregon, in the offices of Ponderosa. This was
arranged as a concurrent meeting for separate negotiations with Ponderosa and Tite
Knot. Among those present were President Madden and Treasurer Elliott, of
Ponderosa; Philip Dahl of Tite Knot; Commissioner Walker; Irving for PIRC; Dicey
and Sullivan for NRNC; and other union officers.
Commissioner Walker opened the meeting and turned the floor over to Dicey, who
promptly cited settlements made at some plants in the Northwest. According to Sulli-
van, Elliott asked if these settlements had taken place in the pine area, to which
Sullivan replied that it made no difference whether it was fir or pine. Elliott claimed
that Ponderosa wages already averaged 20 cents per hour higher than others in the
area. There was some other talk, basically incidental to a three-page statement
read by Dicey which is summarized below.
This statement initially accused Ponderosa and Tite Knot of six acts allegedly
taken in concert with other employers and PIRC, namely, (1) refusing to submit in-
formation, thereby impeding negotiations to the point where a strike resulted; (2)
refusing to bargain in good faith by offering only to re-sign the previous contract de-
spite "excellent business conditions"; (3) attempting to bypass NRNC by making
overtures to local unions to return to work without any benefits; (4) declaring that
meetings would be fruitless unless NRNC agreed to employer proposals; (5) refus-
ing to grant a wage increase, although not pleading "inability to pay"; 11 and (6) re-
jecting the union's proposals, but not advancing a constructive counterproposal.
The statement went on to list the efforts made by NRNC to present reasonable
demands, support them with factual data, cooperate toward a reasonable and
peaceful settlement, and its repeated submission of demands for the IWA-1 infor-
mation and the three economic benefits. It referred to excellent economic conditions
in the Nation and the industry, citing inter alia a high demand for lumber, firm
lumber prices, increasing productivity in the lumber industry, the fact that there
had been no wage increases since 1952, and the need for the job evaluation.
The statement pointed out that: (1) Existing procedures for meetings under the
auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service had been a failure
not because of the men of the Service, but because of "an ineffective law" which
put limitations on collective-bargaining procedures; (2) the existing Federal system
was so set up and administered as to make a mockery of collective bargaining; (3)
although the employers were, in the main, responsible for the existing strike, the
Federal and State governments, because of their passive attitude, had to bear equal
responsibility for the continuation of the strike; (4) the employers were determined
to break the NRNC position short of granting a wage increase; and (5) the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service procedures were ineffecive.
In conclusion, the statement proposed that the parties agree to arbitrate the
issues between them by (1) selecting a three-man board of arbitration; (2)
agreeing that the arbitrators' decision would be binding; (3) agreeing that all workers
would immediately return to work without prejudice while the arbitration board
resolved the case; and (4) agreeing that the board would consider three issues, namely,
(a) a 121h-cent wage increase retroactive to April 1, 1954; (b) the original job
evaluation program, cost to be borne by the employers; and (c) the original vacation
proposal, namely, 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years' seniority. As is apparent, the
document, although referring to the refusals to submit the IWA-1 information,
did not include this as one of the items proposed for arbitration.
"It will be recalled that the PIRC employer committee had stressed the economic
" inadvisability " of granting a wage increase.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1087
Dahl and Elliott rejected the arbitration proposal, stating that they were unwilling
to have wage rates or contract clauses be determined by a third party who had no
interest in whether or not business operations of the employers were profitable.
It is not clear whether Irving so advised them before they responded in this vein.
There is some conflict as to whether Form IWA-1 was mentioned. Irving did not
recall any reference to it except in the introductory part of Dicey's arbitration pro-
posal. Dicey and Sullivan testified that it was mentioned as being necessary to
the job-evaluation program.
In another minor conflict, Sullivan and Dicey attributed to Irving a statement to
Elliott, who had displayed some interest in a union proposal, that he, Irving, had
previously advised both employers that if they intended to make settlements with
a union, they should do so before a strike so as to avoid strengthening the "strong
right arm" of the union. Irving's version was that he told Elliott at the meeting
that he, Irving, had always advised Ponderosa, as well as other employers, to do
anything to avoid a strike that they would do to settle it after one started.
The Commissioner recessed the meeting while he spoke to the employer repre-
sentatives separately. He then informed the union representatives that the employer
recommendations were that the men should return to work and that the old agree-
ments should be re-signed. This was unsatisfactory to NRNC, as it had been in
the past.
4. The August 6 meeting at Bend
On the afternoon of August 6, a meeting was held at the office of Brooks-Scanlon
in Bend. Unlike the meeting held that morning, Commissioner Walker did not
participate. Among those present were Irving, appearing in behalf of General
Manager Glassow, and Dicey and Sullivan appearing for NRNC. Except for the
topic of Form IWA-1, there is no substantial conflict as to the events at this meeting.
It appears that this meeting was held at the request of NRNC. The meeting
opened with Irving explaining that Glassow was absent because he had been
upset by an incident that took place on the picket line that morning. Dicey then
proceeded to read the same proposal for arbitration which he had made that morning
to Ponderosa and Tite Knot. Irving, speaking in behalf of Brooks-Scanlon, rejected
the proposal. He assigned the same reasons that had been assigned that morning,
namely, that it was undesirable to have wage rates or contract clauses be determined
by a third party who had no interest in whether or not the employer conducted
a profitable operation.
Both Dicey and Sullivan testified that Dicey made reference to the IWA-1 informa-
tion as being desirable in connection with the job evaluation program. They claimed
that Irving replied that the local unions already had much of this information and
that individual employees could supply other portions of this information. Accord-
ing to Irving, he tried to explain that there was a difference between a request from
the International Union for information of this nature for the purpose of industry-
wide bargaining, and on the other hand, a request by the local union which was the
certified bargaining agent. All parties agree that Dicey stated that the unions were
willing to let their case stand or fall on Board decisions dealing with the supplying
of the information.
5. The August 9 contracts
There is evidence in the record of two separate contracts which were signed on
August 9 between Ponderosa and Tite Knot, respectively, as employers, with Local
6-7. The General Counsel and the Charging Parties challenge the standing of the
five-man committee signing these agreements to bind Local 6-7. They do not dispute
the facts concerning the signing, but rather the legal effect of the agreements, con-
tending that they were unauthorized. While Respondents, on the other hand,
challenge the General Counsel and the Charging Parties on this issue, the facts with
respect thereto, as set forth below, render the conflict immaterial. The evidence as
to the meeting on August 9 is sketchy and was contributed chiefly by Dahl and
partly by Madden of Ponderosa, as well as Sullivan. Those present at this meeting
included Dahl and Madden, but not Sullivan. Also present were Elliott of Ponderosa,
Harold Barclay, and a committee of at least five employees from Tite Knot and
Ponderosa.
According to Dahl's uncontroverted and credited testimony, he received a telephone
call late on the afternoon of August 9 from Elliott.12 Elliott informed him that
a local committee wished to enter into an agreement. Dahl and Elliott agreed that
both concerns would meet concurrently with the committee that evening in the
12Elliott did not testify herein, is no longer in the employ of Ponderosa, and has
apparently left the area.
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ponderosa office. As indicated, Harold Barclay was present. I find that he appeared
as a representative of Harold Barclay Logging Company, consistent with the long
established collective-bargaining practice of Tite Knot contracts covering Barclay
operations.
Initially, the employers were given assurance that the committee had authority
to negotiate contracts in behalf of Local 6-7. In fact, identical letters to Tile Knot
and Ponderosa respectively, were prepared, wherein the 5-man committee stated
that the 5 signers of the documents had been elected and empowered to act for Local
6-7 in negotiating a new working agreement. Although the agreement was apparently
disapproved by the Local on the following day, as will appear, there is no direct
evidence that the five signers did not speak truthfully in the statements they
prepared.
The signed agreements were identical except that the Tile Knot contract had one
additional provision requiring, in the event of a work stoppage, that "All logs
that are down in the woods or in storage will be sawed or moved to storage to
protect against depreciation." Inasmuch as Tile Knot had no woods employees
and Barclay employees were found exclusively in that category, this again is further
evidence that not only this contract, but all Tite Knot contracts were applicable to
Barclay employees as well.
The agreements provided that the existing contracts would be extended to
April 1, 1955, with several modifications. These were that: (1) If a majority of
the employees in the pine industry settled their current wage dispute for an increase
in wages, the employer would agree to immediate negotiations on wages; (2) neither
side would take disciplinary action against any employee because of actions taken
by employees during the strike; (3) in the event of a work stoppage, all machinery
and equipment would be stored, all lumber and lumber products would be stored,
and that plant machinery, equipment, and property would be guarded against fire,
theft, and sabotage; and (4) that the Union would not interfere with the activities
of the employer in carrying on activities under item (3), above, and would cooperate
in efforts to obtain sufficient employees; it was further agreed that if employees
were not available, the employer might hire other persons who would not be
considered as strikebreakers.
Counsel for the Charging Parties stresses in his brief, as Sullivan contended at
the August 11 meeting described below, that the signers of these agreements had
no authority to sign them. Attention is directed to the fact that the majority of the
signers had returned to work through picket lines, that one of them was a leader
in a back-to-work movement, and that Ponderosa and Tite Knot knew this to be
the case. On the other hand, Dahl uncontrovertedly testified that Tite Knot had
made similar settlements with, a committee from Local 6-7 in 1952 and 1953, and
moreover that one of the signers, Blakeway, had previously served on such a com-
mittee as this. The testimony of Madden was to the same effect.
On the face of this evidence, I am unable to find, as the General Counsel and
the Charging Parties urge, that the committees were not duly authorized by their
fellow members to enter into these contracts. I attribute no significance to the
agreements being termed "rump" agreements; this would only be indicative of the
existence of dissension in the Local. On the other hand, the agreements were not
ratified on the following day by the Local itself, the circumstances of which are not
disclosed herein. And, in any event, Tite Knot and Ponderosa in effect accepted
the rejection because the parties did thereafter meet on August 11 for further
negotiations.
6. Later meetings
Approximately August 10, Dahl was advised that Local 6-7 had refused to approve
the "rump" agreements. He then contacted Otto Richardson, vice president of
the Redmond sublocal is and asked him to arrange a meeting with a group which
could authoritatively speak for Local 6-7. A meeting was arranged for August 11
at the Tite Knot office at Redmond. Present were Dahl, his partner Johnson,
Sullivan, and several union representatives. There is no substantial conflict as to
what took place, although some vagueness was displayed as to dates.
Sullivan was spokesman for Local 6-7 and both Dahl and Johnson spoke in
behalf of Tite Knot. Sullivan informed Tile Knot that the "rump" agreement
had not been ratified. He in essence made two proposals as a basis for arriving
at an agreement, (1) that Tite Knot agree to arbitrate the dispute and (2) that
Tite Knot agree to absorb the monthly cost for the health and welfare program,
which theretofore had been deducted from the employees' paychecks. It may be
1a It appears that Local 6-7 had two divisions , one for members in Bend and another
called the sublocal for members in the Redmond area.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1089
noted that in 1950 a wage increase had been granted expressly for this purpose
and that thereafter , the respective employers had deducted this amount to pay for
the program . Dahl and Johnson agreed to consider both proposals.
On the following day, Dahl telephoned Sullivan and stated that he could not
agree to arbitration because the industry was opposed to it. In this respect see
United Telephone Company, 112 NLRB 779. He said that he intended to check
with an insurance company concerning the cost of a health and welfare program.
On August 16 or 17 another meeting was held between the local union committee,
headed by Sullivan, and Tite Knot and Ponderosa . Present were Elliott of Pon-
derosa and Johnson and Dahl of Tite Knot. There is little conflict concerning the
discussion at this meeting . Sullivan asked Dahl whether , pursuant to his investi-
gation, he was willing to absorb the cost of the health and welfare program. Dahl
replied that they could not afford to do so. According to Dahl, Sullivan pressed
for a wage increase or some benefits that he could present to the union membership.
Dahl refused , but indicated that he wanted to see first on what basis Brooks-Scanlon,
the largest employer in the area, settled with the union.
According to Sullivan , Johnson, as the meeting ended, asked what was wrong
with the agreement signed on August 9. To this Sullivan replied that the committee
had no authority from the Local to sign it , that the Local had rejected the agree-
ment, and that particular objection had been expressed over the clause providing
that there would be no discipline against strikebreakers . Sullivan elsewhere pointed
out that the 1952 and 1953 agreements had been made by similar committees, but
that they had been ratified by the Local ; he conceded that he did not know that
the committee , in 1954, had represented itself as having authority to bind the Local.
Through the auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, separate
meetings were arranged for August 27 at Redmond and Bend. A commissioner
met with Madden , Dahl, and Irving at Redmond . He asked if there was any change
in the employers ' position concerning terms for a settlement . Dahl replied that
there was none. The commissioner replied that he had been advised by the union
that there was no sense in holding a meeting if the employers had not changed their
position. Accordingly , no meeting was held.14
Another meeting was scheduled at Brooks -Scanlon the same day. According to
Irving , this meeting started to develop in the same manner as the one at Redmond.
The commissioner initially ascertained whether a new offer was forthcoming from
the employers , and, there being none , he forthwith terminated the meeting. Dicey
attended this meeting and testified that there was discussion of a revised working
agreement previously submitted by Brooks -Scanlon. There is no evidence of such
an agreement , and it may be that Dicey had in mind a proposal submitted thereafter
by Brooks -Scanlon on September 11. Dicey claimed that some of the proposals in
this agreement were not acceptable to the union and that they were rejected by the
union which , nevertheless , was still willing to bargain on all issues at this August 27
meeting, these apparently being the three issues originally raised by NRNC in the
negotiations.
Tite Knot wrote to Local 6-7 on August 30 and advised that it no longer recognized
that organization as bargaining agent; as noted , Tite Knot, on June 22, had given
Local 6-7 sixty days ' notice to terminate the contract , pursuant to its provisions.
Ponderosa also wrote to Local 6-7 on September 9, advising that it no longer recog-
nized it as bargaining agent; Ponderosa as well had taken the position on June 22
that the contract was no longer in effect.
Again, on September 11, Tite Knot affirmed its withdrawal of recognition of
Local 6-7 . Vice President Otto Richardson of the sublocal of Local 6-7 at Redmond,
telephoned Dahl on or about September 10 and asked him to participate in the two-
State factfinding procedure set up by the respective governors and the unions , as here-
tofore described . Dahl replied in a letter dated September 11 that Tite Knot had
withdrawn recognition of Local 6-7 and that, as a result, it was not in a position
to participate, or refuse to participate , in the factfinding procedure; that if Tite Knot
were bargaining with a labor organization , it would still be opposed to that type
of procedure ; and claimed that Local 6-7 had refused to approve the action of
a majority of Tite Knot employees , apparently a reference to the rejection by
Local 6-7 of the "rump" agreement of August 9. The record does not disclose
"These findings are based upon the testimony of Dahl and Irving. Sullivan, who did
not participate in the conversation, testified that the commissioner informed the union
group, which was standing nearby, that the employers had taken the position the August 9
"rump" agreement was binding. In view of the direct evidence set forth above relative to
the conversation , Sullivan 's hearsay testimony on this point is not relied on.
450553-58-vol. 113- 7 0
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether or not a majority of Tite Knot employees did, in fact, approve of the
"rump" agreement.15
7. The Brooks-Scanlon contracts
Later that month bargaining meetings were held with Brooks-Scanlon on Septem-
ber 14, 15, 16, and 20; present at all of these meetings were Glassow, Assistant
Manager Schultz, and Irving, for Brooks-Scanlon, and Sullivan and the local com-
mittee for Local 6-7. Dicey was also present on September 20.
The meetings of September 14, 15, and 16 were devoted to a discussion, clause
by clause, of the new contracts submitted by Brooks-Scanlon for the plant and woods
installations respectively. These contracts differed from the contract proposals sub-
mitted by Brooks-Scanlon in January. While counsel for the Charging Parties
accurately points out in his brief that the contract proposals, unlike the previous
ones, did not contain a union-shop clause, it must in turn be noted that, as in the
case of the changes proposed by Red Blanket, the original Brooks-Scanlon proposals
were never discussed, primarily because all ensuing meetings were devoted, at the
behest of NRNC, to a discussion of the changes desired by NRNC in the then exist-
ing contract.
On September 14, Glassow and Schultz stressed the inefficiency of the Brooks-
Scanlon operations, Schultz claiming that their production of 575 board-feet per
man-hour compared very unfavorably with that of approximately 1,000 at other opera-
tions. Sullivan proposed going over the old contract and determining its objection-'
able features. Glassow replied that it was definitely out of the picture. As a result,
Sullivan asked that the new Brooks-Scanlon proposals be gone over clause by clause,
and that was done. Sullivan conceded herein that Brooks-Scanlon did make con-
cessions and that it had agreed to a number of changes in the new proposals.
According to Irving, Glassow informed Sullivan, at the September 15 meeting,
relative to the union-shop issue, that many of his employees had approached him
and expressed concern over the protracted strike, and that as a result, Glassow felt
that he owed it to his employees not to force them into compulsory union mem-
'bership. On September 18, the new proposals, as amended, were submitted to a
meeting of the Local and were overwhelmingly rejected.
There is some conflict as to the September 20 meeting, with agreement, how-
ever, on the basic aspects thereof. According to Irving, Sullivan proposed renewal
of the old contract with 2 changes, namely, (1) addition of a grievance appeal
clause and (2) review of the wage schedule in 90 days. Glassow replied (1) that
he would not accept the old contract, (2) that he was undecided about the grievance
appeal clause, and (3) that he believed something would have to be done about a
review of wages in one manner or another. According to Sullivan, he asked Glassow,
in conformity with Irving's testimony, to sign the old contract and abide by the de-
cision of the governors' factfinding panel; this, Glassow rejected. Sullivan testified
that he also brought up the question of employer payment of the health and welfare
program as a basis of settlement. I find that the parties did further discuss the
Brooks-Scanlon proposals and that Glassow rejected Sullivan's alternative proposals.
As found, the strike was terminated at Tite Knot and Ponderosa on or about
September 18 and at Brooks-Scanlon on or about September 25, effective September
20 and 27 respectively. These concerns were duly notified by Local 6-7 on
those dates that the strike was terminated and that the men were applying for
reinstatement.
Other meetings were held in October, November, and December, with the ulti-
mate result that Local 6-7 agreed to the new contracts submitted by Brooks-Scanlon,
although a number of changes were mutually agreed upon at the various meetings
which did, in some respects, change the Brooks-Scanlon proposals. The new agree-
ments were signed on November 6 and December 10, 1954, for the plant and woods
installations, respectively. As counsel for Brooks-Scanlon points out in his brief,
these agreements did require Brooks-Scanlon to furnish a small portion of the
IWA-1 information, namely, wage schedules and a seniority list on request, but
not oftener than once every 6 months. He further stresses the fact that the agree-
ments, as signed, reflect a number of concessions made by Brooks-Scanlon with re-
spect to the September 11 proposals, particularly as to the woods agreement.
According to Sullivan, he stated, in signing the agreements, that the Union was
not waving its charges in the present cases. Glassow and Schultz testified that the
subject was not brought up. However, the record contains 2 letters from the
secretary-treasurer of Local 6-7, Chambers, to Brooks-Scanlon on November 9 and
15 Local 6-7 included among its membership employees of all the Employer Respondents
in the Bend and Redmond areas. As noted, Brooks-Scanlon was by far the largest
employer among them.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1091
December 16, 1954, respectively, wherein Brooks-Scanlon was advised that the
signing of the 2 contracts did not constitute a withdrawal of the charges. There is
no evidence of any reply to these letters.
In view of the followup letters sent by the Local, as well as the testimony of Sulli-
van which, in this respect, impressed me as the more accurate, I credit Sullivan's testi-
mony herein. In any event, in view of the findings hereinafter, I do not find that Local
6-7, by signing the agreement, waived receipt of the full IWA-1 information from
Brooks-Scanlon.
F. Termination of strikers
As set forth, the strike was terminated and the picketing discontinued at Ponderosa
and Tite Knot on September 18, at Brooks-Scanlon on September 25, and at Red
Blanket on October 13. The record demonstrates, and I find, that unconditional
application was made in behalf of all strikers still on strike. Although it appears
that some of the strikers may not have personally reported for work, I deem the
broad application made in their behalf by the Locals as sufficient to reflect an abandon-
ment of the strike by all concerned.
The General Counsel has contended herein that: 27 named employees of Red
Blanket were discharged between June 24 and July 7 and denied reinstatement after
October 13; 14 named striking employees of Ponderosa were denied reinstatement
on September 20; 10 striking employees of Tite Knot were denied reinstatement on
September 20; and 10 named strikers at Brooks-Scanlon were offered reinstatement
on September 27 and thereafter, but only to positions not substantially equivalent to
those enjoyed by them prior to the strike.
However, the General Counsel has not seriously challenged herein Respondents'
position that all strikers at Red Blanket, Ponderosa, and Tite Knot were permanently
replaced prior to being discharged or denied reinstatement, as the case may have
been, or that the strikers offered different positions at Brooks-Scanlon had been
permanently replaced at their original positions prior to their applications for
reinstatement.
He has predicated his case on the legal theory that they were unfair labor prac-
tice strikers who could not, as a matter of law, be discharged or replaced. In fact,
his position is reflected on page 21 of his brief, wherein he states, "The essence of
the case against all the employers, as set forth above, and as stated in the complaint
and at the trial, is that at the outset of their concerted action, they had engaged in
unfair labor practices which, in combination with economic factors, had caused the
strike. .
Obviously, the General Counsel has correctly stated the law with respect to the
status of unfair labor practice strikers, and of course, one of the issues herein is
whether the strikers were unfair labor practice or economic strikers. However, that
issue has been resolved in favor of the latter conclusion. And, there is no dispute
before me as to Respondents' contention that the strikers were permanently replaced
before they were denied reinstatement or discharged, as the case may be; indeed, there
is no substantial evidence to the contrary, and I find that they were so replaced.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the allegations of the complaint with respect
to discrimination against strikers be dismissed.
G. The refusal to bargain on Form IWA-1
1. Majority representation in the appropriate units
In treating with the question of majority representation in the respective ap-
propriate units, I am restricting these findings to the period of the alleged refusal
to bargain, viz, the period up to the date of the strike of June 21, 1954. I therefore
do not pass on the question whether, subsequent to the replacement of the economic
strikers during the course of the strike, the Charging Parties still enjoyed a majority
representation in the respective appropriate units which would support an initial re-
fusal to bargain, either on this aspect of the case or any other, on dates subsequent
to the replacement of strikers.
The complaint alleges that the production, maintenance, and transportation em-
ployees of each Employer Respondent, excluding office, clerical, professional and
supervisory employees, and guards, separately constitutes a unit of employees ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, except in the cases of Barclay
and Tite Knot where it is alleged that the specified classifications of Tite Knot em-
ployees and Barclay employees at the Sisters, Oregon, operation, constitute a single
appropriate unit.
The answer of Brooks-Scanlon alleges, the evidence establishes, and I find that there
is a long history of bargaining of Brooks-Scanlon employees in the indicated classi-
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fications in 2 separate units , 1 for the plant or mill operations, and I for the woods
or logging operations. I find that these two separate units at Brooks-Scanlon, of
the indicated classifications, are separately appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The answers of Ponderosa and Red Blanket admit the appropriateness of the units
set forth in the complaint and they are found to be appropriate within the meaning
of Section 9 (b). Barclay and Tite Knot admit in their respective answers the
appropriateness of the described units, but only on the basis of separate units re-
stricted to each of the two concerns. I have heretofore set forth in detail the evi-
dence depicting the long history of collective bargaining by these two concerns on a
single multiemployer basis. On the basis thereof, I find that a single unit of the
employees of Tite Knot and of Barclay at its Sisters operation, in the indicated classi-
fications, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The answer of Brooks-Scanlon admits that at all times material herein, Local 6-7
was the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate units. The
answers of the other Employer Respondents in effect deny majority representation by
Local 6-122 of the employees of Red Blanket and by Local 6-7 of the employees
of the other Employer Respondents in the indicated appropriate units.
However, restricting these findings to the period prior to the strike of June 21, the
record demonstrates that all the Employer Respondents represented by the PIRC em-
ployer committee met with NRNC, the bargaining medium of the two locals, and
at no time challenged their majority representation of the employees involved herein.
Indeed, the subject was not raised, and it may reasonably be inferred that the Em-
ployer Respondents conceded the majority representation of the locals during the
negotiations prior to the strike. Moreover, the contractual relationship in all cases
had been a long one with union-security clauses included in the Ponderosa, Tite Knot,
Red Blanket and Brooks-Scanlon agreements, plus the fact that there were Board
certifications at Red Blanket in 1951 and 1953.
Some evidence was adduced to the effect that certain Barclay employees due to
the alleged lack of strict enforcement of the union-security clause were not members
of Local 6-7. Barclay had 70 employees, approximately 35 at Simnasho and ap-
proximately 35 at Sisters, and, of the latter group, 24 or 25 had submitted dues
deduction authorizations; the evidence discloses, however, that at the most, 3 of the 35
at Sisters were not members. In addition, according to Office Manager Andrews, an
increasing number of employees withdrew their authorizations for the deduction of-
dues from Barclay in 1954. 1 deem this as insufficient to refute the foregoing find-
ings, particularly in view of the much larger complement of personnel at Tite Knot
within the same bargaining unit.
I find, under the foregoing circumstances, that there is a presumption of continued
majority in the respective units, particularly so in the absence of any substantial
evidentiary challenge thereof, and that Respondents in effect acknowledged such
majority representation during the bargaining meetings. I further find, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, that Local 6-122 was the representative
of the employees of Red Blanket in the indicated appropriate unit, and that Local 6-7
was the representative of the employees of the other Employer Respondents in the
indicated appropriate units.
2. The refusal to bargain
The remaining issue is presented by the allegation of the complaint that Re-
spondents refused to bargain by failing to submit to the Charging Parties the data
called for on Form IWA-1. Specifically, this form called for the submission to the
Charging Parties by the Employer Respondents of the name of each employee and
the listing of the following information with respect to each, viz, (1) classification,
(2) hourly rate of pay, (3) years of seniority, (4) number of paid holidays en-
joyed, (5) weeks of vacation enjoyed, (6) total annual hours worked, and (7) total'
annual earnings. Each employer was also asked to provide on the same form,
(1) total production figures broken down according to the nature of its operations.
and (2) sales totals.
It will be recalled that this information was requested by NRNC in a letter-
mailed on or about December 23, 1953, wherein it was suggested that the infor-
mation be placed upon a specially prepared form designated as IWA-1. Two
followup letters renewing the request were mailed in January. As set forth, men-
tion was made of the continued desire for this information in the meetings com-
mencing on February 11, 1954. All of Respondents except PIRC admit receipt
of this questionnaire; however as the meetings developed, PIRC as an agent of the-
Employer Respondents was well aware of the request and treated with this issue..
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC. 1093
And, while Barclay disputed having knowledge of some of this correspondence, it
has been found that Dahl was an agent of both Barclay and Tite Knot, and he was
on notice of the demands.
While much argument on the merits has been presented in the briefs on this
issue, the position of the General Counsel and the Charging Parties is by now so
well established as to require little discussion herein. All of the Employer Re-
spondents failed to furnish the sought information, either flatly or by delaying a
response to the query and thereafter not supplying it. That the information was
relevant to the collective-bargaining procedure is readily apparent from its very
nature as well as from the testimony of E. W. Kenney, director of the department
of education and research of the International. I find that the request for infor-
mation was made in good faith by NRNC. I further find, however, on this record,
that the position of Respondents was one of believing that they were not required
to submit this information, or, stated otherwise, of questioning the legal require-
ment that they submit it. The record does not warrant a finding that they were
motivated by bad faith in an attempt to undermine the bargaining process but,
rather demonstrates a case of them taking a position which as a matter of law is
erroneous and contrary to established law.
It is settled that a bargaining agent is entitled to information which would en-
able it to properly and understandingly carry out its duties in the general course of
bargaining and this information is not necessarily limited to data pertinent to a
particular controversy. The bulk of the information sought herein related to the
names of employees, their rates of pay, earnings, seniority, and holiday and vaca-
tion benefits enjoyed The presumptive relevance of this information bearing on
the wage structure and the right of the collective-bargaining representative to re-
ceive it is by now well established. See Utica Observer-Dispatch Inc. v. N. L. R. B.
229 F. 2d 575 (C. A. 2); N. L. R. B. v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 223 F. 2d
58 (C. A. 1); N L. R. B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 217 F. 2d 593 (C. A. 4)
cert. denied 349 U. S. 905; N. L. R. B. v. Hekman Furniture Co., 207 F. 2d 561
(C. A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. Item Co., 220'F. 2d 956 (C. A. 5) cert. denied 350 U. S. 836;
and N. L. R. B. v. New Britain Machine Co., 210 F. 2d 61 (C. A. 2).
The Boston Herald-Traveler decision referred to the submission of wage data
linked with names as being presumptively relevant to the collective-bargaining
procedure even in the absence of proof that linked the requested data to actual
bargaining. The Item Co. decision held that the employer was required to disclose
all information, not only pertinent to a particular controversy, but also reasonably
necessary to police or administer a contract.
True, the questionnaire did seek further information with respect to production
and sales totals, and this does present a much closer question. While the Charging
Parties did adduce evidence disclosing that this information would be useful, if not
vital, in the presentation of union demands and the evaluation of employer conten-
tions, there is some question whether the existing decisions go so far as to encompass
this type of information. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 224 F. 2d 869
(C. A. 4), cert. granted 350 U. S. 922.
The Charging Parties did demonstrate at the bargaining sessions their needs for
all the requested information as bearing on their three economic demands, namely
a wage increase, an employer financed job-evaluation program, and a more liberal
vacation program. As heretofore noted, they did settle on a 121/2-cent wage demand
in lieu of the previously unspecified figure which they had expected to make a
specific one after receipt of the IWA-1 information.
In Oregon Coast Operators Association, et al., 113 NLRB 1338, the Board re-
quired the employers to furnish information which was both relevant and necessary
for the purposes of collective bargaining. In Glen Raven Knitting Mills Inc.,
115 NLRB 422, the Board, in referring to wage data cases, held that it was suffi-
cient that the information be related to the issues involved in collective bargaining,
and that no specific need as to a particular issue need be shown. The Board went
on to characterize the use of the word "necessary" in the Oregon Coast decision as
reflecting perchance the fact that the case was not simply a wage data case but one
that involved information and issues other than wages, as is the case in the instant
proceeding.
It does not at first blush appear that the production and sales figures requested
in the instant case were necessary for the purposes of collective bargaining, and the
Board in the Glen Raven decision noted that relevance and necessity for the in-
formation had not been established in the Oregon Coast decision. However, in the
present record, there is the testimony of Kenney who clearly elucidated how these
production and sales figures would be helpful to the union in the course of collective
bargaining. This, of course, was his testimony at the hearing and not statements
made at the actual bargaining table. According to Kenney, NRNC, by getting the
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
production figures, would be in a position to accurately evaluate employer claims
with respect to labor costs; apparently the sales figures were desired for the same
reason. Accordingly, I find that production and sales figures here were relevant
and necessary for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Respondents have raised a number of defenses in support of their failure to furnish
the requested information. At the February 11 meeting the point was made that
the information had been requested by the International, namely NRNC, and not by
the Locals which were the actual bargaining representatives. The simple answer
to this is that the Locals had previously, during January, expressly requested the
Employer Respondents to supply the information to the International to be collected
for the benefit of the Locals. In view of the fact that NRNC had previously acted
in behalf of the Locals in collective bargaining, I find that Respondents were on
notice of the delegation of this field to the International.
Some testimony was adduced to the effect that the information was already in
union hands. However, Respondents do not seriously contend that the detailed
information sought by NRNC was available. The most that the Locals had was
a seniority list and wage rates for a certain classification but there was no linking
of employees by name with rates of pay. While testimony was adduced that the
Locals could acquire this information by questioning their membership man by man,
the cited decisions have in effect disposed of this point adversely to Respondents.
Some testimony was adduced by Red Blanket and Brooks-Scanlon demonstrating
that the preparation of this information would have been time consuming and costly.
According to Paymaster Williams, of Brooks-Scanlon, a test check made by him
shortly before the present hearings disclosed that it would have taken I man working
8 hours a day approximately 261/z days to prepare the information sought by
NRNC, based upon the procedure he followed in his test check. The Charging
Parties contend that even if this figure were accepted, it is a minor matter when
contrasted with the loss of man-hours which would be caused by a breakdown in
negotiations and a resulting strike. I am not aware that the Board has squarely
passed upon this issue of a claimed unduly severe burden, financial or otherwise,
imposed upon an employer by preparing such data.'6 This would appear to be a
matter for collective bargaining and conceivably the Board might deem it advisable,
on a proper showing, to allocate the cost of obtaining the data so as to avoid the
imposition of an unfair burden on an employer.
Brooks-Scanlon has contended that the contracts signed in November and De-
cember 1954 constituted a waiver by Local 6-7 of its request for the information.
It stresses the fact that the contracts require the employer to furnish the union only
with seniority lists, not oftener than every 6 months, and further with wage schedules
to be attached to the contract.
While the inclusion in the contract of this matter might be indicative of a resolu-
tion of the overall issue between the parties, such is not the case on this record.
First, Sullivan informed Brooks-Scanlon that despite the execution of the contracts
the charges herein were not being withdrawn and were not being waived. More-
over, the record will not support a finding that there has been a clear unmistakable
and unequivocal waiver of the right to this information. Cf. Hearst Corporation,
113 NLRB 1067; California-Portland Cement Co., 103 NLRB 1375; N. L. R. B. v.
Hekman Furniture Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Item Co., supra; and Taylor Forge
and Pipe Works, supra.
Respondents have also drawn attention to the fact that the General Counsel, prior
to the issuance of the present complaint, had refused to issue a complaint against
some, if not all, of Respondents based upon at least part of the subject matter
litigated herein. The simple answer to this is that administrative action of this
nature by the General Counsel is entrusted to his sole discretion and is in no way
an adjudication on the merits. See e. g. National Container Corp., 96 NLRB 1387.
I find that Respondents, including each of the Employer Respondents and PIRC
as their agent, failed and refused on and after February 11, 1954, the date of the
first meeting with the Charging Parties, to furnish the latter with the information
requested in Form IWA-1 and that Respondents have thereby engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.17
16 In Taylor Forge and Pipe Works, 113 NLRB 693 , the Board found that the supplying
of "reasonably available" information which was in existence was not unduly burdensome,
and in Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 , the Board noted that there had been no
showing that submission of the data would place an "unwarranted and undue burden"
on the employer.
1" In view of the clear failure to supply the information at the first meeting held on
February 11, I deem it unnecessary and cumulative to decide whether there was a viola-
tion on an earlier date based upon PIRC correspondence.
PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
1095
The activities of Respondents, including PIRC, as set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with their business operations described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents, including PIRC, 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.
It has been found that Respondents refused to bargain collectively with the
representatives of their employees by refusing, on request, to furnish said representa-
tives with the information sought on Form IWA-1. I shall, therefore, recommend
that Respondents be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and
that, upon request, they furnish such data to the Charging Parties.
In this respect, it is to be noted that the General Counsel and counsel for the
Charging Parties are in disagreement as to the scope of the recommended order.'
The General Counsel seeks the order found in the Oregon Coast decision supra.
In that case the Board found that it was unnecessary to determine whether all of the
specific data sought in the questionnaire under consideration was in fact relevant
and necessary and, as a result, ordered the Respondents in that decision to supply
"information which is relevant and necessary for purposes of collective bargaining."
Counsel for the Charging Parties aptly points out in his brief that this type of
order would still leave the question of precisely what information had to be sub-
mitted so indefinite as to make enforcement of the order difficult and urges that
the recommended order call for the supplying of all the information sought on
Form IWA-1. I believe there is merit in this position of the Charging Parties.
The only questionable material, as indicated heretofore, is that calling for the
annual production and sales totals and I have found that their production was dem-
onstrated to be necessary and relevant for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Accordingly, the recommended order should encompass this area.18
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 6-7 and Local 6-122, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc.; Brooks-Scanlon, Inc.; Ponderosa
Mouldings, Inc., d/b/a Ponderosa Lumber Sales; Philip Dahl and Sam Johnson,
Co-Partners, d/b/a Tile Knot Pine Mill; Red Blanket Lumber Company, Inc.; and
Philip Dahl and Harold D. Barclay, Co-Partners, d/b/a Harold Barclay Logging
Company, are employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
3. The production, maintenance, and transportation employees of each Employer
Respondent, excluding office clerical, professional, and supervisory employees and
guards, as more fully described in section III of this report, constitute units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act. 19
4. Local 6-122 was on February 11, 1954, the exclusive representative of the
employees of Red Blanket, and Local 6-7 was on February 11, 1954, the exclusive
representative of the employees of the other Employer Respondents in the above-
described appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on February 11, 1954, and thereafter, to supply to the representatives
of their employees certain information pertinent to collective bargaining, each of
Respondents, including PIRC, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respondents have interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
1A Of course the Board may well arrive at a different conclusion on these two aspects
of the form, in which event the recommended order could readily be tailored accordingly
to the type of order proposed by the General Counsel.
10 As found, 2 separate units at Brooks-Scanlon are appropriate and 1 unit of Tite Knot
and Barclay employees is appropriate in the indicated classifications.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. By acting as the representative of its member respondents in the commission
of the above violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, Respondent Pine
Industrial Relations Committee, Inc., has likewise engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of. the Act by failing to bargain in good faith concerning
the provisions of a contract.
10. Respondents Red Blanket, Tite Knot, Ponderosa, and Brooks-Scanlon, have
not discriminated with respect to the tenure of employment of employees and have
not thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Robert Hall Clothes, Inc.' and Retail Clerks Union Local 1222-A,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner
Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local No. 137,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-4684 and 21-RC-4738.
August 20, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Fred W. Davis,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-4684 seeks to represent a unit of
retail sales employees at the Employer's two stores in, San Diego,
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
The Petitioner excepted to the hearing officer's rejection of its offer of proof relating
to the validity of the contract advanced by the Employer and the Intervenor as a bar here-
in. However, we need not pass upon the hearing officer's ruling in this instance, relating
to the contract-bar issue, in view of our dismissal of the petitions on other grounds, here-
inafter discussed.
118 NLBB No. 147.