Stimson Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 567 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 567
Stimson Lumber Company , Employer -Petitioner and
Lumber, Production and Industrial Workers, Local
Union No. 2829 , AFL-CIO Case 36-RM-845
June 10, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 19 of the
National Labor Relations Board on November 26,
1975, an election by secret ballot was conducted in
the above-entitled proceeding on January 8, 1976,
under the direction and supervision of the said Re-
gional Director
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of bal-
lots was furnished the parties which showed that
there were approximately 116 eligible voters and that
113 ballots were cast, of which 53 were for the
Union, 53 were against the Union, and 7 were chal-
lenged The challenged ballots are sufficient in num-
ber to affect the results of the election Thereafter,
the Employer filed timely objections to conduct af-
fecting the results of the election
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation of
the issues raised by the challenged ballots and the
objections, and on February 18, 1976, issued and
duly served on the parties his Report and Recom-
mendations on Challenged Ballots and Objections to
the Election I In his report, he recommended that the
Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety,
that the challenges to the ballots of John Begert, Jim
English, Monty Warden, and Billy Joe Jackson be
overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of
Dwayne Jarvi, Roger Van Dyke and Kelly Evers be
sustained Thereafter, the Employer filed timely ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation
that the objections be overruled and to his conclu-
sions with respect to the ballots of Begert, Jackson,
Van Dyke and Evers The Union filed timely excep-
tions to the Regional Director's recommendation
that the challenge to the ballot of Dwayne Jarvi be
sustained
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
i In his report, the Regional Director inadvertently stated that the payroll
period for eligibility purposes was the semimonthly period ending Novem
ber 15 , 1976 The correct date is November 15, 1975
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer
3 A question affecting commerce exists concern-
mg the representation of the employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The parties stipulated and we find that the fol-
lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All logging, sawmill and veneer plant employees
employed by the Employer out of its facility lo-
cated in Forest Grove, Oregon, but excluding all
office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act
5 The Board has considered the Regional
Director's report and the exceptions thereto, and
hereby adopts the findings 2 and recommendations
of the Regional Director, as modified herein ^
In recommending that the challenge to the ballot
of Dwayne Jarvi be sustained, the Regional Director
concluded that Jarvi, an economic striker who had
been permanently replaced, was not eligible to vote
in the election because he had rejected the
Employer's offer of reinstatement We find merit in
the Union's exceptions and we do not adopt the Re-
gional Director's conclusions and recommendations
regarding the challenge to Jarvi's ballot
The Regional Director's investigation revealed
that an economic strike commenced at the
Employer's facility on June 24, 1975 During the
strike, the Employer commenced hiring permanent
strike replacements, and on September 8, 1975, the
Union informed the Employer that employees would
be returning to work Pursuant to the Union's an-
nouncement, Dwayne Jarvi, who prior to the strike
had been employed as a millwright on the construc-
t Insofar as the objections involve alleged misrepresentations Chairman
Murphy agrees with the conclusion that the election should not be set aside
inasmuch as the same result is reached under any view of the applicability
or validity of Modine Manufacturing Company 203 NLRB 527 (1973) and
Hollywood Ceramics Company Inc 140 NLRB 221 (1962)
3 In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt pro forma the Regional
Director's recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Jim Eng-
lish and Monty Warden be overruled
4 The relevant portions of the Regional Directors Report and Recom
mendations on Challenged Ballots and Objections to the Election are at-
tached hereto including the Union s letter of January 2 1976 which was
attached to the report as Appendix A
224 NLRB No 66
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and maintenance crew, reported to the
Employer's mill Jarvi was thereupon notified that he
had been permanently replaced and that there were
no openings in his former position Plant Manager
Keeney suggested, however, that he bid on a posted
millwrightjob involving work on the barker machine
Jarvi had no knowledge of the electrical work in-
volved, but Keeney stated that he would see to it that
Jarvi received training Jarvi replied that he would
wait and take his chances for an opening on the con-
struction and maintenance crew Based on the fore-
going, the Regional Director found that had Jarvi
availed himself of the bidding procedure he would
have been assured of a substantially equivalent posi-
tion The Regional Director concluded that Jarvi's
refusal to bid for the job on the barker machine was
tantamount to a rejection of the Employer's offer of
reinstatement We find, contrary to the Regional Di-
rector, that in the circumstances herein Jarvi main-
tained his interest in his former job, notwithstanding
his refusal to bid on the barker machine job 5
In Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company,' the Board
stated that an economic striker is presumed to con-
tinue in that status and thus is eligible to vote under
Section 9(c)(3) of the Act To rebut the presumption,
the party challenging his vote must affirmatively
show by objective evidence that the economic striker
has abandoned his interest in his struck job The evi-
dence here demonstrates that Jarvi, at the time he
declined to bid on the barker machine, told the plant
manager that he would prefer to take his chances and
wait for an opening to occur on the general construc-
tion and maintenance crew Furthermore, after
learning that the barker machine job was filled by a
millwright from the construction crew, Jarvi returned
to the mill and again asked if there were any open-
ings on the construction crew There is no evidence
that the Employer told Jarvi that he would no longer
be considered for employment In these circum-
stances, we conclude that Jarvi had not abandoned
5 In view of our finding, we need not decide whether the Employer's offer
to bid on the job was tantamount to a job offer
Chairman Murphy disagrees She believes that in order properly to decide
Jarvi s status, it is necessary to resolve the issue of whether the Employer's
suggestion to Jarvi (that he bid on the barker machine job) constituted an
offer of a job substantially equivalent to the one he had prior to the strike
For, if he were offered such a job and refused it, then the Chairman would
affirm the Regional Director, regardless of the fact that Jarvi was still inter-
ested in his old job However, she concludes that the Employer s suggestion
that Jarvi bid on the barker machine job must be construed literally that is
simply as an invitation to bid on the Job if he so desired, and cannot validly
be assigned any greater or more concrete meaning than that Unlike the
Regional Director she is unwilling to convert the opportunity to bid on a
job into a firm offer of employment simply because no other employees bid
thereon In the Chairman's view, there was no more obligation on Jarvi to
bid than on any other employee be he a striker or nonstriker In these
circumstances she agrees with her colleagues that Jarvi had not abandoned
his interest in his struck job and thus had not forfeited his status as an
economic striker eligible to vote in the election
6 137 NLRB 1358 (1962)
his interest in his struck job, and that the Employer
failed to rebut the presumption of Jarvi's continued
eligibility Accordingly, we hereby overrule the chal-
lenge to the ballot of Jarvi, and direct that his ballot
be opened and counted
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 19, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, within 10 days from the date of this Decision
and Direction, shall open and count the ballots of
John Begert, Jim English, Monty Warden, Billy Joe
Jackson, and Dwayne Jarvi and thereafter prepare
and cause to be served on the parties a revised tally
of ballots, upon the basis of which he shall issue the
appropriate certification
APPENDIX
The Objections
In support of the objection allegations, the Em-
ployer submitted a letter drafted by the Union and
mailed to all of the employees eligible to vote in the
election Inasmuch as there is no dispute as to the
existence of the specific writing and as it is the totali-
ty of the evidence proffered by the Employer in sup-
port of its objections, I am affixing a copy of said
letter hereto as Appendix A
The undisputed evidence submitted by the Union
establishes that the letters were prepared and depos-
ited in the mail on Friday, January 2, 1976 The Em-
ployer submitted evidence establishing that the post-
mark on at least one of the envelopes containing the
mailing was Monday, January 5, 1976 While there is
a dispute as to whether the mailings would likely
have been received by a majority of the employees
one, two or three days prior to the election, the un-
dersigned concludes for the reasons hereinbelow that
the resolution of that issue is not essential to the dis-
position of the Objections
In the second paragraph of Appendix A the Union
asserts that, absent a collective bargaining agree-
ment, the employees have no guarantee of what their
wages and benefits might be While the tenor of the
letter demonstrates the Union's desire to sway em-
ployee emotion in its favor, the undersigned con-
cludes that this introductory passage puts the em-
ployees on notice that should the Union lose the
election, no one could predict with precision how
wages and benefits might be altered
In succeeding paragraphs the Union similarly
points out that whatever changes in benefits may
STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 569
have been promised or rumored, there were no guar-
antees of what would actually occur In this light, the
document fails to carry the strength required for a
fording that threats were made to the employees to
coerce them into voting for the Union Rather, the
statements are mere predictions of events beyond the
Union's capacity to effect
The bulk of the letter, relating to pension and
health and welfare benefits, like most campaign pro-
paganda, paints a biased picture The statements
made therein would have the employees believe that
only through the Union's intervention could they re-
ceive the fruits of their labor in bounteous propor-
tions, while conversely, absent the Union's interven-
tion, they would receive but scraps at the whim of the
Employer While common sense and experience may
not enable employees to precisely know the accura-
cies or inaccuracies of the information in such a doc-
ument, they are certainly able to identify the publica-
tion for the propaganda it is and discount it
If anything be gained by a publication which over-
states the virtues of one party and the vices of anoth-
er, it is all but lost as the reader attributes to it a
diminishing degree of credibility
The undersigned concludes that the complained-of
letter contains no more than campaign propaganda
of the type the Board has long left to the good sense
of the voters to sift through and evaluate When the
document is easily discerned as propaganda, as here
is the case, the Board has held the exaggerations, in-
accuracies and half-truths, though not condoned, will
not be grounds for setting aside an election Modine
Manufacturing Company, 203 NLRB 527, Hollywood
Ceramics Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 221, Calcor
Corp, 106 NLRB 539
Inasmuch as the letter mailed by the Union to the
employees did not contain any remarks which could
be interpreted as threats within the Union's power to
carry out, and as it falls within the scope of campaign
propaganda which the Board has consistently held as
an insufficient basis for the setting aside of an elec-
tion, the undersigned concludes that it is unnecessary
to establish that the Employer has a reasonable
amount of time within which to effectively reply
Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc, supra
In accordance with the foregoing, it is recommend-
ed that the Objections be overruled in their entirety
The Challenged Ballots
The ballots of Dwayne Jarvi and John Begert were
challenged by the Employer on the grounds that they
were not employees on the date of the election
The ballot of Jim English was challenged by the
Union on the ground that he was no longer an em-
ployee on the date of the election, the ballot of Mon-
ty Warden was challenged by the Union on the
ground that he is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act
The ballots of Bally Joe Jackson, Roger Van Dyke
and Kelly Evers were challenged by the Board Agent
as their names did not appear on the voter eligibility
list
The Strike Issue
The Employer takes the position that Jarvi, Jack-
son and Begert participated in an economic strike
which ceased prior to the election, that they had all
been permanently replaced prior thereto and that be-
tween the end of the strike and the election date they
abandoned their interest in employment with the
Employer
The Union contends that the three above-named
individuals were economic strikers up until Septem-
ber 4, 1975, when the strike was terminated, and the
individuals, having been permanently replaced, re-
tamed their eligibility to vote in the election
The facts with respect to the strike are not in dis-
pute Following a bargaining history in excess of 30
years, the most recent collective bargaining agree-
ment between the parties expired on May 31, 1975
No agreement on a new contract having been
reached, the employees commenced an economic
strike on June 24, 1975 The strike continued
throughout June, July and August 1975
Beginning on about August 26, 1975, the Employer
commenced hiring permanent strike replacements
and on September 3, 1975, several of the striking em-
ployees returned to work notwithstanding the contin-
ued presence of the Union's picket line On approxi-
mately September 3 or 4, 1975, the Union ceased
picketing and attempted to finalize a collective bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer While no
agreement was reached on the contract, the parties
did agree that the strikers who had not been replaced
could report to work on September 8, 1975 The
Union took the position that the strikers who had
been replaced would return as well
On September 8 and 9, 1975, most of the strikers
including Jarvi and Jackson, reported to the
Employer's mill Jarvi and Jackson, along with a few
other employees, were immediately notified by the
Employer that they had been permanently replaced
As Begert was out of town that week, he did not
report to the mill, nevertheless, he was immediately
notified by the Employer by letter that he also had
been permanently replaced The uncontroverted evi-
dence reveals that prior to September 3, 1975, the
positions previously held by those three employees
were filled by permanent replacements
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inasmuch as the parties had agreed that the strik-
ers would report to work on September 8, 1975, and
as the Employer informed Jarvi, Jackson and Begert
that they had been permanently replaced and would
be called to work as openings occurred, the Employ-
er acknowledged, and the undersigned concludes,
that the Union made an unconditional offer to return
to work on behalf of these individuals
Dwayne Jarvi
Prior to the strike, Jarvi was employed as a mill-
wright on the Employer's general construction and
maintenance crew In that position he performed
work primarily for construction, but also for mainte-
nance on the various machines and equipment in the
mill
The evidence reveals that during the week of Sep-
tember 5, 1975, the millwright position on the
Employer's barker machine became open as the for-
mer millwright had successfully bid into another po-
sition The millwright position on the barker was
posted for bid in the plant and the Union was thus
notified Within a day or two Jarvi returned to the
plant and asked plant manager Bud Keeney if there
was an opening for a millwright Keeney responded
that the millwright on the barker was up for bid but
that there were no openings on the construction and
maintenance crew
Jarvi inquired as to whether there would be a mill-
wright opening on the construction crew in the near
future According to Keeney, he responded that he
could not state when there might be such an opening
and he suggested to Jarvi that he bid on the job that
was then open Jarvi testifies he was aware that the
previous millwright on the barker had acquired elec-
trical training and certification while on the job, and
since Jarvi had no electrical experience, he asked
Keeney if the job required it According to Jarvi,
Keeney responded yes, but Keeney claims to have
responded that it was not a requirement Following
this disputed portion of the conversation Keeney did
tell Jarvi that he would see to it that Jarvi received
electrical schooling Jarvi responded that he would
prefer to take his chances and wait for an opening to
occur on the general construction and maintenance
crew
The millwright job on the barker was the same
classification held previously by Jarvi, had the same
rate of pay, and Jarvi was either totally or partially
qualified to perform the job Assuming that Jarvi
lacked required electrical experience, it is undisputed
that the Employer offered to send him to school, and
Jarvi understood he could be awarded the job under
those conditions As no qualified employee bid on
the job, the Employer immediately sought out one of
the millwrights on the construction and maintenance
crew, Steven Allen, and transferred him to the barker
position Allen has no electrical experience or train-
ing The Employer has chosen to leave the position
vacated by Allen on the construction and mainte-
nance crew unfilled until business conditions war-
rant
It is the Employer's position, and the undersigned
concludes from the evidence submitted, that the Em-
ployer, by its suggestion to Jarvi that he bid on the
barker job and by its offer to send him to school
while performing that work, considered Jarvi suffi-
ciently qualified for the position The evidence cer-
tainly indicates that Jarvi was as qualified as Allen
Normally the posting of ajob for bid would not nec-
essarily be the same as a direct offer of the position,
however, as no other qualified employees bid on the
job, the position would have been Jarvi's had he
availed himself of the bidding procedure
The undersigned concludes that inasmuch as the
barker job was substantially equivalent to the posi-
tion previously held by Jarvi and as the facts present-
ed are tantamount to an offer of that position to Jar-
vi, Jarvi's refusal to bid on the job was no less than a
rejection of an offer of reinstatement
The undersigned thus finds that Jarvi was not an
eligible voter, and it is recommended that the chal-
lenge to his ballot be sustained
Billy Joe Jackson
Prior to the strike, Jackson occupied the position
of driver on the Employer's large lift truck on the day
shift at a rate of $4 70 per hour As referred to above,
Jackson was permanently replaced prior to Septem-
ber 3, 1975, and was so notified on September 8,
1975 Subsequent to that time neither his position as
driver of the large lift truck nor an equivalent posi-
tion has become available No other positions have
been directly offered to him by the Employer
On approximately the last day of June 1975, Jack-
son obtained employment at a mill in Portland, ap-
proximately 30 miles from his residence in the com-
munity of Forest Grove He began working in a
general laborer classification as a "puller" on the
"green chain" at a rate of $4 80 per hour Near the
end of July 1975, he was promoted to the position of
driver of a "966 Cat" log mover on the night shift at
the rate of $6 41 per hour The investigation reveals
that Jackson did not notify Stimson of his employ-
ment with the Portland mill, and Jackson testifies
that he has retained his desire to return to work at
Stimson because of its proximity to his residence
STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 571
Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Jackson has
abandoned his interest in his employment with the
Employer, and as the Board has held that the acqui-
sition of substantially equivalent employment else-
where is insufficient in and of itself to establish such
abandonment, the undersigned concludes that Jack-
son has retained his eligibility to vote in the election
notwithstanding the cessation of the strike prior
thereto Akron Engraving Company, Inc, 170 NLRB
232, Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company, 137 NLRB
1358, see also L E M, Inc d/b/a Southwest En-
graving Co, 198 NLRB 694
Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge
to his ballot be overruled
John Begert
Prior to the strike Begert was employed by the Em-
ployer in the capacity of driver of a "966 Cat " The
wage rate for that position following September 1,
1975, was $6 115 per hour
After having been informed by the Employer's let-
ter that he was permanently replaced, Begert did not
go to the plant to seek reemployment On two or
three occasions following September 8, 1975, the Em-
ployer notified Begert that there were openings for
laborers in the plant and that if he was interested, he
should so notify the Company
Begert testifies that he was not interested in a
laborer's job which paid only $5 04 an hour and so
he did not respond to the Employer's initial letter
After the second or third such letter Begert called the
Employer and stated that since he had worked for
the Employer for almost 22 years, he felt he was enti-
tled to his old job back and he did not feel required
to begin at a laborer's rate
The investigation reveals that the Employer made
no offers of employment to Begert following the
strike except for those with the laborer rate
On approximately December 18, 1975, Begert be-
gan working for Forest Grove Lumber Company, lo-
cated in Forest Grove He has remained employed
there to date in the classification of lumber carrier
driver at a rate of $5 455 per hour Begert has never
informed Stimson Lumber Company of his current
employment, nor has he indicated to Stimson an
abandonment of his desue for reemployment Begert
testifies that he has retained his desire for reemploy-
ment at Stimson
Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Begert has
rejected an offer of substantially equivalent employ-
ment with the Employer, and as the mere acceptance
of employment elsewhere is insufficient to establish
that he has abandoned his interest in reemployment,
the undersigned concludes that Begert has retained
his eligibility to vote in the election Dalton Sheet
Metal Company, Inc, supra, Akron Engraving Compa-
ny, Inc, supra
Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge
to his ballot be overruled
Roger Van Dyke and Kelly Evers
The Employer contends that Van Dyke and Evers
are eligible to vote in that theirjob classifications are
not specifically excluded from the stipulated overall
unit The Union contends that the two individuals
have never been employed within the appropriate
collective bargaining unit and, therefore, are ineligi-
ble to vote
Van Dyke and Evers have been employed by the
Employer for about two years each, in their re-
spective positions of assistant to the log scaler and
assistant to the contract logging supervisor The par-
ties agree and the evidence establishes that neither
Van Dyke nor Evers were ever covered by the collec-
tive bargaining agreement between the parties which
coincides with the description cited hereinabove
They have never been members of the Union even
though the contract contained a union security
clause, nor have they been paid wages in accordance
with the contractual wage scales
Neither the Union nor the Employer had ever
sought to have Van Dyke or Evers included in the
contractual bargaining unit nor had either individual
sought to be so included prior to the election The
Employer did not place the names of Van Dyke or
Evers on the voter eligibility list for the instant elec-
tion
Van Dyke With respect to Van Dyke's position as
assistant to the log scaler, he is one of the two indi-
viduals whose job it is to inspect and grade incoming
logs and to set the price which the Employer will pay
and seller will receive The log scaler, Robert Hayes,
has similarly never been included in the bargaining
unit nor covered by the collective bargaining agree-
ment
As between Hayes and Van Dyke, it is Hayes who
has the expertise and discretion necessary to act as he
does in setting a fair price for the incoming timber so
as to strike a balance between protecting the
Employer's interests and satisfying a necessary sup-
plier In such a position Hayes acts in the interest of
the Employer in matters directly affecting the
Employer's financial and business relationships with
suppliers, and indirectly affecting the Employer's en-
tire profit structure
Inasmuch as Van Dyke and Hayes are the only
two individuals involved in this particular area of the
Employer's business and as the evidence indicates
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the nature of their work is closely related to and
integrated with managerial procurement functions
rather than the production of the logging, sawmill
and veneer plant operations referred to in the stipu-
lated unit, the undersigned finds substantial evidence
to indicate that neither individual is employed within
the collective bargaining unit This conclusion is bol-
stered by the uncontroverted evidence that for what-
ever reason, neither the Employer nor the Union has
ever contended or considered them to be within the
unit until after Van Dyke voted and was challenged
in the election
Based upon the foregoing and the evidence as a
whole, the undersigned concludes that Van Dyke was
not employed within the bargaining unit on the crit-
ical dates herein Accordingly, it is recommended
that the challenges to his ballot be sustained
Evers Kelly Evers' status as assistant to the con-
tract logging supervisor is analogous to that of Van
Dyke The job of Stanley Olson, contract logging su-
pervisor, is to oversee the cutting of timber by non-
Stimson employees on non-Stimson property in or-
der to ensure that it is being cut to proper lengths
and to minimize the amount of waste left on a given
parcel of land Since a good deal of the timber pro-
cessed by Stimson is purchased as standing timber
from outside suppliers, it is essential to the profitabil-
ity of the operation that the Employer exercise some
control during the felling process Thus, while Olson
does not supervise any Stimson employees, he exer-
cises supervisory control over the contractors who
are felling the timber and in so doing uses his inde-
pendent judgment in the interest of the Employer
Evers was hired for the express purpose of taking
some of the work load off Olson Evers performs the
same function as does Olson except he exercises less
control The vast majority of Evers' time is spent in
the field examining and inspecting the work per-
formed by the non-Stimson employees in the felling
of the timber referred to above If he discovers exces-
sive waste, or logs cut to improper lengths, it is his
function to report his findings to Olson who is to
remedy the situation
On occasion Evers is called upon to do some ma-
chine repair work on Stimson road building equip-
ment which has broken down in the general area of
the woods where Evers is working Additionally, Ev-
ers is occasionally called into the shop to do similar
repair work if it cannot be handled in the field This
repair work, representing only a minor portion of Ev-
ers' work time, is the only time when he comes in
contact with other Stimson employees during the
course of his employment
Like the nature of the scaling and grading opera-
tion discussed above, the undersigned concludes that
inspection and quality control of the contracted fell-
ing operation involves duties and responsibilities
which do not clearly fall within the instant collective
bargaining unit Olson and Evers are authorized to
make judgments and decisions affecting the
Employer's relations to its contract log suppliers
While it might even be that the functions are mana-
gerial, such a determination is not necessary here
As it is clear that the duties, responsibilities, and
situs involved in the contract logging operation are
separate and distinct from the Employer's own log-
ging, sawmill and veneer plant operation, and as the
parties have historically never sought to include Ol-
son and Evers in the collective bargaining unit, the
undersigned concludes that Evers was not employed
in the appropriate collective bargaining unit during
the critical period herein
Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge
to his ballot be sustained
[Regional Director's Appendix A]
January 2, 1976
Dear Sir and Brother
The National Labor Relations Board election sched-
uled for Thursday, January 8, 1976, commencing at
3 00 p in in the plywood building, will have a dra-
matic effect on you as employees of Stimson Lumber
Company, and, of course, your family as well, since
they are dependent on the wages and benefits you
earn
The issue to be decided on January 8th is really quite
simple It is whether you want those wages and bene-
fits guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement
between the company and your union, or whether
you are willing to rely on company promises made in
an attempt to destroy what has been your union for
38 years
This, of course, has not been the first time Stimson
Lumber Company has attempted to dislodge the
union One can only imagine at what a miserably low
level your wages and fringes would be today if the
company had been successful years ago in their at-
tempt to break the union The company, through
their stooges, who are known to you, as well as me,
claim they would provide another union Three of
the company's lackeys did, in fact, contact both the
IWA and the AWPPW, who immediately advised us
of the contact They, of course, would have nothing
to do with it, since no respectable union would at-
tempt to represent employees of a company under
terms and conditions laid down by that company
through their lackeys
STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 573
Now the company's message carriers reportedly
claim the company has changed their mind and de-
cided you don't need a union at all The company's
plan of deceit is so preposterous and clumsily execu-
ted that it fools no one except a handfull of quislings
and misinformed individuals who would probably be
the first to suffer termination if the company were to
be successful
We know that the company plans to write several
letters to you prior to the election date They know it
is illegal, under the Labor Act, for them to make
implied or actual threats or offers of reward or finan-
cial inducement if you vote the way they wish In-
stead, they have elected to do it through their same
handful of pitifully misinformed dupes
As an example, these individuals have floated a level
of benefit health and welfare plan through the plant,
claiming the company would put it into effect if the
union were voted out Who says so' And more im-
portant, what contract guarantees it? With respect to
pension they have shown a TO C non-union pen-
sion program which the same pitifully, misinformed
group claims the company would put into effect
Same question-who says so, and what collective
bargaining agreement guarantees it9
In the area of health and welfare and pension, be-
cause of the highly legalistic language, it is not hard
to fool people into believing almost anything, and
the company, of course, knows this Did you know,
for example, the health and welfare plan which the
company's appointed messengers are circulating, re-
quire that you must pay your own premium if you
are sick, injured, or laid off, and will allow you to do
that for only four months
Your union plan pays your premium for you out of
trust funds for three months if you are laid off and 27
months if you are sick or injured Did you know that
under the same plan being advanced by the company
stooges, if the experience is good the company gets
all the rebates which go directly into their pocket
Remember health and welfare premiums are actually
converted wage money Under the union health and
welfare plan, if the experience is good and there are
rebates, those rebates go directly into the trust fund
and come back to you in the form of additional
health and welfare benefits
The real danger to you, however, lies in the area of
pension You know the pension benefits which are
provided by the union-negotiated pension program
because you have seen fellow employees retire under
it and most of you know the benefits are well-funded
through a contractually required 33 cent per hour
employer contribution But what do you really know
about the T 0 C non-union pension program being
advanced by the company'
Did you know for example, that you cannot dupli-
cate past service credits under that plan, contrary to
what you have been told by the company? Are you
aware that if you went under the non-union plan that
all the years since 1961, which are paid for at $12 00
a year under our union plan, would be paid at $5 00
a year as a past service benefit under the employer,
non-union plan9 And even more important, what do
you know about the funding of the non-union plan,
which is controlled by Timber Operators Council
board of directors?
Under this type and kind of non-negotiated pension
plan, many employees who had earned benefits on
paper, found that there was no money available to
pay the benefits because the companies were paying
interest only on the unfunded liability and paying
nothing in some years with more in other years, de-
pending on what gave them the best tax advantage
And of course, without a union or a collective bar-
gaining agreement, there is no assurance the compa-
ny would put in a pension plan at all
In talking to the officers and committeemen of your
union, we feel that most of you have decided how
you intend to vote next Thursday I would only ask
that before you exercise your vote, you take some
time and consider some of the questions I have
raised, and consider what kind of company Stimson
Lumber Company has been over the years, and in
light of that, consider where you would have been
with respect to your wages and benefits had your
union not always been there, whatever you as an in-
dividual may think of it
I urge all of you to vote on Thursday, and sincerely
believe those of you that take time to consider the
questions which have been raised, both pro and con,
will vote to retain the union
Fraternally yours,
WESTERN COUNCIL
Lumber, Production and Industrial
Workers
/s/ James S Bledsoe
Executive Secretary