The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1941

30 N.L.R.B. 1093 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY. and THE
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 15
In the Matter of THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON' COMPANY and THE
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 15
Cases Nos. 0-846 and R-594.-Decided April 11, 1941
Jurisdiction : lumber industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coersion: anti-union statements and activities of
supervisory employees ; issuance and posting of anti-union notices.
Dsscrmination: discharges for union membership and activities ; discharge,
charges of, dismissed as to one person.
Collective Bardavnang: charges of, dismissed; insufficient evidencelto show union
represented a majority.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to place employees on preferential list for
employment as it arises whenever it resumes operations ; back-pay, including
reasonable value of any maintenance customarily furnished by employer,
awarded between the date of the discrimination and the date operations
ceased.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed in view of lapse of time since filing.
Mr. W. G. Stuart Sherman, Mr. Frederick P. Mett, and Mr. Jacob
I. Karro, for the-Board.
Jones, Day, Coc`kley c^ Reavis, by Mr. Luther Day and Mr. Thomas
F. Veach, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. F. H. Berg, Mr., R. W. Neeble,
and Mr. C. L. Peters, for the respondent.
Mr. William B. Barton, of counsel to the -Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 12, 1937, Local 2530, Lumber and Sawmill Workers
Union, affiliated with the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, in turn affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
30 N. L. R. B., No 154.
1093
0
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein called Local 2530,1 filed with the Regional Director for the
Twelfth Region (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) charges against the Cleve-
land-Cliffs Iron Company, herein called the ' respondent. On the same
day, Local 2530 filed with the said Regional Director a petition
alleging that a question had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the respondent and requesting an, investigation and
certification of -representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On November 27, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2),
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, ordered that the case initiated by the charge and the
case initiated by the petition be consolidated for the purpose of
hearing. -
On December 7, 1937, International Woodworkers of America, Lo-
cal 15, herein called the Union, filed an amended charge and on
January 3, 1938, it filed an amended petition.
Upon the charges and' amended charges, the Board, by the Re-
gional Director for the Twelfth Region, issued its complaint dated
January 13, 1938, against the respondent alleging that it had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
Concerning the unfair labor practices the complaint in substance
alleged that the respondent, by -its officers and agents had coerced,
intimidated, and threatened its employees at its lumber camps near
Munising, Michigan, with respect to becoming and remaining ineln-
bers of the Union and that the respondent terminated the employ-
ment of nine named employees and has since refused to reemploy
them because they had joined and assisted the Union and had en-
gagej in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The
complaint further alleged that the respondent by the acts enumerated
intimidated, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
The respondent's' answer to the complaint denied that it had en-
gaged or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices, denied
that it was engaged in commerce within the contemplation of the
Act, and asserted that the Act as construed and applied by the Board
' On August 30, 1937, the membership of Local 2530 voted to change its affiliation to
the International Woodworkers of America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization On or about September 2, 1937, the membership of Local 2530 surrendered
its charter to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and was
chartered as Local 15 by the International Woodworkers of America.
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 109rj
-was, in violation of the Fifth Amendment -to the Constitution of
the United States.
The complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union. Pursuant to the notice, a joint hearing
upon the petition and the complaint was held in Marquette, Michi-
gan, on January 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31, and on February 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, and 7, 1938, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and 'participated in the hearing. Full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the
complaint by striking therefrom the names of John Purgill and
Victor Wainio and by inserting therein the name of Carl McPherson
as an employee alleged to have been discharged and refused rein-
statement in violation of Section 8 -(3) of the Act. The respondent
objected to amending the complaint by adding the name of Carl
McPherson thereto' The Trial Examiner granted the motion, but
allowed the respondent 5 days in which to make answer to the com-
plaint as amended. Later in the hearing the respondent withdrew
its objection to this amendment.
The complaint, on motion by the Board's counsel, was further
amended at the hearing to allege that on or about June 23, 1937,
and thereafter the respondent refused to bargain with the Union"as
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit.
The respondent objected to this amendment, but waived its right
to 5 days' notice thereof. In view of our findings herein, it becomes
unnecessary to pass on the ruling which granted the motion for this
amendment. The respondent added to its answer a denial of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the above amendments.
During the hearing the respondent made several motions to dismiss
the complaint. The motions were denied. At the close of the re-
spondent's case, counsel for the Board moved that the complaint be
amended to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. The re-
spondent made no objection and the motion was granted. -During
the hearing the Trial Examiner also made various rulings on other
motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
On August 6, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found
that the respondent had engaged ih and was engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section,8 (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, but that the evidence was insufficient on
which to base a finding as to whether or not respondent had engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act.
-
. '
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 31, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report. On February 21, 1939, a hearing was held before the
Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral argument. Only
the respondent appeared and participated in the hearing. Thereafter
on February 27, 1939, the respondent filed a brief. The Board has
reviewed the respondent's exceptions and its brief and finds them to
be without merit except in so far as they are consistent with the find-
ings, conclusions, and order set forth below.
On September 11, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II,
Section 35, and Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, ordered "that the record be
reopened and that a further hearing be held on the issue of whether
the unfair labor practices alleged affect commerce, and that the pro-
ceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region
for the purpose of conducting such further hearing." Thereafter on
June 19, 1940, the Acting Regional Attorney for the Twelfth Region
filed a motion that an amended order be entered providing that a
further hearing be held on whether the alleged unfair labor prac-
tices affect commerce and on the relationship of the respondent to those
persons employed in the lumber camps of the respondent at any time
since the close of the hearing in these proceedings. On June 29, 1940,
the Board notified the respondent and the Union that on July 10,
1940, or as soon thereafter as might be convenient it would enter such
an amended order "unless sufficient cause to the contrary shall have
appeared." On July 10, 1940, the respondent filed a statement oppos-
ing the entry of such an amended order. On July 24, 1940, the Board,
after considering the above motion for an amended order and the
respondent's statement in opposition thereto issued an amended order
reopening the record for a further hearing on the matters requested
in the motion filed on June 19, 1940. r
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties a further hearing
was held at Marquette, Michigan, on September 19, 1940, before W. P.
Webb, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded the parties. During' the course of the hearing the re-
spondent again ' moved to dismiss the proceedings and renewed all
motions and objections made in the previous hearing. The Trial
Examiner made no 'ruling thereon. The motions to dismiss are de-
nied. We have reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the first hearing on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed.' The
rulings 'are affirmed. The Trial Examiner at the hearing on Septem-
ber 19, 1940, also made rulings on objections to the admission of evi-
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 1097
deuce. The Board has reviewed them and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. They are hereby affirmed.
On October 1, 1940, the Board issued an order that no Inter-
mediate Report be issued by Trial Examiner W. P. Webb. The
Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 37 (c), of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
further ordered "that Proposed Findings of Fact, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law and Proposed Order" be issued. At the same time
the Board further ordered, pursuant to Article II, Section 37, of said
Rules and Regulations, that the parties should have the right within
twenty (20) days from the date of said Proposed Findings of Fact,
Proposed Conclusions of Law, Sand Proposed Order to file exceptions
and to request oral argument and should have the right within thirty
(30) days from the date thereof to file a brief with the Board.
On November 30, 1940, the Board issued Proposed Findings, Pro-
posed Conclusions of Law, and,a Proposed Order. Thereafter, the
respondent filed exceptions to the Proposed Findings, Proposed Con-
clusions of Law, and Proposed Order, and also filed a brief in sup-
port of its exceptions.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the Board on Jan-
uary 21, 1941, for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent
was represented at the hearing and participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Proposed Findings
of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, and
the brief in support thereof, and finds them to be without merit
except in so far as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE-RESPONDENT
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, an Ohio corporation, has its prin-
cipal office and place of business at Cleveland, Ohio, and has licenses
to do business in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania,
and West Virginia. A large portion of the respondent's business
consists of the operation of iron-ore mines in northern Michigan.
About two-thirds of the ore produced by these mines is transported
on the Great Lakes in boats owned by. a subsidiary of the respondent
and most of it is sold outside the State of Michigan. The respond-
ent also operates a coal sales organization with offices at Cleveland,
Ohio, and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Through subsidiary companies it
operates,, among other enterprises, a railroad in the State of Michigan
and a light and power company in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The respondent'and its subsidiaries own timbered and other lands
in Michigan on which are approximately 1,550,000,000 board feet of
saw timber and 1,850,000,000 board feet of chemical or small wood.
Extensive lumbering operations on some of this land produces chem-
ical wood, sawlogs, pulpwood, mining timbers, logs for railroad ties,
and logs for the manufacture of various other wood products. This
case is concerned with the employees of some of those logging opera-
tions, which have been carried on'by the respondent in three camps
located approximately 6 to 11 miles from Munising, Michigan,-and
employing a total of about 300 men.2
In 1937 the sales value, of the timber cut from this land was
$655,360.76, which represents 45,647,569 feet of logs. Approximately
50 per cent of these sales were to Cliffs-Dow Chemical Company in
which the respondent.owns about 34 per cent of the voting stock
and is "represented on the board of directors by four out of ten
directors." This partially owned subsidiary company operates a
plant at Marquette, Michigan, for the production of charcoal and
wood chemical products. Lumber supplied by the respondent to
Cliffs-Dow Chemical Company is commingled with other lumber
used by the latter company in the course of its operations. The
total net sales of the products of the above plant for the calendar
year.1939 were in the sum of $1,180,638 .59.3 Sixty-two per cent of
the total net sales of products of this plant were in the years 1937,
1938, and 1939 for shipment to points outside the State of Michigan.
Approximately 30 per cent of the products from the above logging
operations in 1937 were sold by the respondent to the Piqua-Munising
Wood Products Company, a subsidiary in which the respondent
owns approximately 74 per cent of the stock.4 This company has
plants at Munising and Marquette, Michigan, and at Piqua, Ohio.
At the Munising plant this subsidiary manufactures household
wooden ware, such as chopping bowls, salad bowls, clothes pins, roll-
ing pins, and breadboards. At the Marquette plant it manufactures
finished utensil handles, lawn mower handles, carpet-sweeper handles,
and wooden frames for window screens. The Piqua, Ohio, plant
obtains- an occasional carload of wood from the Marquette plant,5
but obtains most of its wood from the vicinity of Piqua. At that
plant there are manufactured, among other products, binder slats,
2 As the discussion infra indicates , the respondent in 1938 discontinued carrying on"these
lumbering operations The operations since that time have been conducted by a firm
of independent contractors.
s The record does not disclose the amount of such sales for the years 1937 and 1938.
4 The vice president and controller of the respondent testified that the respondent controls
approximately 73 per cent of the voting power of this company , .. '
5 At times the logs obtained from the respondent are cut into squares and filches at the
Marquette plant and shipped to the Piqua , Ohio, plant for manufacture into the finished
product - '
THE CLEVELAND=CLIFFS IRON - COMPANY 4099
parts for agricultural implements, and ash-dimension stock for
various companies. 'The sales value of the shipments of products
of the above Munising plant in 1937 was' $524,840.45 and the sales
value of such shipments of the Marquette plant -during the same
year was $597,094.13. The respondent's timber holdings are the
chief source of supply for-the above Michigan plants of Piqua-
Munising Wood Products Company. The "approximate volume of
business of the Piqua-Munising Wood Products plants (in -Michi-
gan) 6 for shipment and use outside the State is 83.5 per cent."
The respondent used the remaining approximately 20 per cent of
the products of its logging. operations in 1937 in the operation of a
tie plant owned by it at Dixon, Michigan. The bulk of the ties
manufactured by it in that year were delivered to the Chicago and
North.Western Railroad 7 at Little Lake, Michigan. A small per-
centage were delivered to the Chicago and Great Western Railway
and to the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company, respec-
tively at Eben Junction, Michigan. The Chicago and Great Western
transported, the ties delivered to it at Eben Junction to a treating
plant in Minnesota. ' The respondent has not operated the above
tie plant since July 1938. However, the Piqua-Munising Wood
Products Company cuts from the outside of the logs sold it by the
respondent, wood which it uses in manufacturing the wood products
mentioned above. The remaining portions of the logs, known as
squares, are then cut by this company into railroad ties and sold to
various railroads, some of which are interstate carriers and others
intrastate carriers. The ties thus sold have a value of several thou-
sand dollars a year.
During 1937 the respondent bought outside the State of Michigan
at a total purchase price of $44,360.56 materials, equipment, and sup-
plies for the above land and lumbering operations. These purchases
represented 34.1 per cent of the total purchases made by the respondent
for such purposes during the year 1937. '
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 15,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization," herein called the C. I. 0., admitting to membership
employees of the respondent and other similar companies in the Upper
Peninsula of the State of Michigan "who are employed in or around
9 The two words enclosed in parenthesis have been added to this quotation in which
they appear. The quotation is part of a stipulation entered into at the second hearing.
It is obvious from an examination of the entire stipulation that the parties referred to
the Michigan plants. '
"Also referred to in the record as the Chicag and Northwestern Railway Company
8 Now the Congress of Industrial Organizations
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any operations or employment having to do with the processing of
wood products at all stages from stump to the finished products and
the handling of such, products."
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
During a period of several weeks prior to May 24, 1937,.lumberjacks
of the respondent at its lumber camps discussed the hatter of a
strike as a protest against the wages being paid and against filthy
bunkhouses, bedbugs and lice, lack of bathing facilities, and the pres-
ence of pigs about the camps and under the bunkhouses. On May 24,
1937, a strike vote was taken by certain leaders of Local 2530 at which
the lumberjacks voted to strike. They thereupon left the camps and
established strike headquarters at Munising. They also rented a meet-
ing hall at Munising.
There was considerable activity during the course of the strike in
opposition thereto by the police force of Munising and the sheriff of
the county in which Munising is located and also by a group of vigi-
lantes which started to organize early in June 1937. During such ac-
tivities and after a promise given by the respondent to Joseph Ash-
more, representative of the Department of Labor and Industry of the
State of Michigan, to reemploy all the strikers, the strike ended on
June 7,1937.
Francis Lincoln, an employee of the respondent since 1920 or 1922,
and who was at the time of the' strike active in Local 2530, testified
that shortly after the strike Harry Wynn, a camp foreman,9 informed
Lincoln that John M. Bush, superintendent of the respondent's land
department, wanted him to talk with Lincoln "about the boys going
to have a union in the,camp, and some of them they didn't talk up
enough. Lincoln testified that a day or two thereafter he telephoned
=Bush and that during the course of their conversation Bush "said
to go ahead and organize myself and get the camp committee and he
would meet us any time, but he wouldn't have anything to do with
our officers, with the heads of our union . . ." Although Wynn tes-
tified that Bush never said anything to anybody "about the Union and
that he didn't "remember of having said anything to anybody about a
union," Wynn did not specifically deny this conversation with Lincoln
to which Lincoln testified. Bush did not testify. We find that Wynn
and Bush made the statements attributed to them by Lincoln.
9 Each of the three lumber camps involved in this proceeding had its respective foreman.
The three foremen, Wynn, Fred Cannon, and Henry North, were responsible to James Wyse,
woods superintendent, and through him apparently to John M. Bush , superintendent of
the land department. `
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON' COMPANY 1101
About this same time, Fred Cannon, camp foreman, called a meet-
ing• off•employees:rat one' of the camps for the purpose, according to
his testimony, of ascertaining, whether the men were going to strike
again.' However, at such meeting, plans 'were made for the forma-
tion of an unaffiliated labor organization, in the form of a camp com-
mittee, and officers were elected. When questioned upon cross-ex-
amination as to who nominated such officers, Cannon testified, "I think
I picked them out and I told them after they got together there to pick
out their own men. I think I picked them fellows out and told them
to go ahead and get them started. I got them and told them to go
ahead and get them started, then I said, `Go ahead ,and pick out who
you like.' " He also admitted upon cross-examination that after the
strike he asked one of the employees in his camp to become an organizer
for the Upper Michigan Wood Workers Association, an unaffiliated
labor organization.
Either at the aforesaid meeting called by Cannon or at another
meeting called by Cannon, Wilford Fleury, a camp clerk, informed
the employees that the respondent "wouldn't stand for the C. I. 0."
because 'it "was of the Red element," but that "they would stand for
the A. F. of L." The testimony was uncontroverted that camp clerks,
whenever they find anything wrong with a sawyer's work, report such
fact to the foreman and that at times they take charge of the camp in
the foreman's absence.
On or about June 23, 1937, Local 2530 sent to the respondent a let-
ter in which it claimed the right to represent the employees at the
respondent's camps "as their bargaining agency" and at the same time
submitted a proposed contract. The respondent made no reply to the
letter, but about July 2, 1937, posted in conspicuous places about its
camps a notice, addressed "To Our Lumbering Department Employees"
and signed by the respondent, which stated as follows :
Doubtless you have been told by the organizers that if you do
not join the union you will lose your job. This is not true.
You do not have to join a union to keep your job and no one
has to join a union to get a job'with the Company.
The real object of these outside agitators is to force you into a
union and then make you pay dues to them for the privilege of
working. This Company is not going to compel any employee
to pay dues to anyone for the privilege of supporting himself and
his family.
The Company has been asked by organizers from Ironwood
to sign a proposed contract, the purpose of which is to force you
into a union whether you desire to belong in it or not.
This Company is not going to sign such, a contract and -we feel
that everyone of our employes [sic] should know of our decision.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Such a contract would bring about constant disturbances and
stoppage of work in our industry with great loss of wages to all
our employees.
This Company has been-paying is high wages as any lumbering
operator in this district and we expect to continue to do so, and to
that end you are informed that it has been decided to raise wages
effective June 7th, 1937, the date operations were resumed.
We also intend to make such improvements in camp conditions
from time to time as are practical.
A notice identical with that posted appeared with the name of the
respondent subscribed about July 2, 1937, in the Munising (Michigan)
News and in the Ironwood (Michigan) Daily Globe.
Carl L. McPherson, one of the employees named in the complaint
as being discriininated against, testified that in December 19137
Harry Wynn, camp foreman, told him that the employees "would
have been a lot better off" if they had joined the Upper Michigan
Woodworkers Association. Wynn denied having made such state-
ment to McPherson, but admitted that he might have discussed the
matter of unions with McPherson and forgotten about it. We find
that Wynn made the statement attributed to him.
We find that the respondent by the statements and activities of
John M. Bush, Harry Wynn, Fred Cannon, and Wilford Fleury, as
detailed above, and by the issuance and posting of the above com-
munication dated July 2, 1937, has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in' Section 7 of the
Act.10
B. The discharges
The complaint, as amended, alleges that the respondent at various
dates from about June 8, 1937, to about November 15, 1937, dis-
charged and thereafter refused to reinstate to employment, Albert
Donothan, Sr., Albert Donothan, Jr., E. J. Coburn, Edward Bielas,
Louis Kordish, John Kordish, Carl L. McPherson, and Steve Demo-
gola, because said employees had engaged in concerted activities with
"Even though the charging union in this matter did not officially come into existence
until on or about September 2, 1937, when it received a charter, we are of the view that
it properly filed the amended charge as to unfair labor practices prior to September 2,
1937, since soon after the strike ended in June 1937 activity for C 1 0 affiliation de-
veloped among the employees and culminated with a vote for such affiliation late in August
1937. The respondent 's contention that any finding of activities prior to September 1937
hostile to the C 1 0 must be erroneous , is clearly without merit
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 1103
other employees of the respondent for mutual aid and protection,
'because of the activities of such employees for and on behalf of the
Union and in order to discourage member"ship" in the Union and
other concerted activities by its employees. ' The respondent denies
that these employees were discharged, but contends that the Dono-
thans, 'Coburn, and Bielas were laid off because, of lack of work ;
that Louis "and- John Kordisli were, laid off because "they jumped
a strip . . . and they left trees along the brush line that they should
have cut" and, then argued when told to_ cut the, brush and the trees
in the strip which they jumped; that Carl L. McPherson left camp
without permission soon after the employees returned to work fol-
lowing the strike and has never returned to apply for reemployment;
,and that Steve Demogola did not'return to work at the close of the
strike.
Albert Donothan, Sr., 'and Albert Donothan, Jr. Donothan, Sr.,
was first employed by the respondent in 1919 and, except for cer-
tain temporary lay-offs, worked until September 1937. Donothan,
Jr., substituted for another employee for a few days in 1936 and
worked- regularly as a sawing partner of his father from February
1937. Both joined Local 2530 on May 24, 1937, and participated
in the strike which began on that date. The elder Donothan was
elected a delegate to attend a C. I. O. convention which was to be
held in Duluth, Minnesota, the latter part of the summer of 1937,
He testified that Stanley Jones, a log checker who was also an
assistant foreman, on August 2, 1937, warned him that he would
be discharged if he attended and advised him to tell two other em-
ployees, Victor Wainio and John Purgill, not to go to the convention.
The elder Donothan's testimony on the point was as follows :
Q. What did Jones tell you, if anything?
A. He told me I couldn't go to the convention, that the com-
pany had got wind of it, and they wouldn't stand for it, and he
said if I went, I would be discharged, and he said to tell Victor
Wainio and John Purgill to not go. He said, "You had bet-
ter go and see them." He came back three times and told me that,
in less than two hours time. The next morning, they discharged
these two men.
Cannon, Jones' superior and the camp foreman, testified at first
that he did not know where Jones got orders regarding such a mes-
sage, but subsequently conceded: "I told him (Jones) we had no
union., and to tell them we had no union there and I didn't know
whether their jobs would be there when they come back or not. We
didn't know whether their jobs would be there when they came back
or not. That is the words I told Mr. Jones."
1104 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Donothan, Sr., attended the C. I. O. convention at Duluth early in
August and then returned to work. Thereafter, on August 18, 1937,
Donothan, Jr., cut his leg while at work and was incapacitated for
work for about 2 weeks. Donothan, Sr., undertook to have another
son substitute as his sawing partner as such son had previously done
in the spring of 1937, but Cannon refused to allow the substitution,
and stated that Donothan, Sr., would have to lay off until Donothan,
Jr., was able to work again. On or about September 1, 1937, Donothan,
Jr., having recovered from his injury, he and Donothan, Sr.; under-
took to return to work. They were, however, according to their tes-
timony, informed by Cannon that they were not needed any more in
the camp. Cannon testified, "I told him (Donothan, Sr.) I didn't
want to put any more new men on; we had to lay off the -sawyers, and
I couldn't put any more new men on." He also testified that the re-
spondent had a large excess of logs on hand and that he had for this
reason laid off nine gangs 11 about the time the Donothans sought to
return to work. He did not, however, deny the testimony of Dono-
than, Sr., that the respondent retained in its employ at such time two
gangs which had less seniority than the Donothans.12 Moreover, the
testimony of Donothan, Sr., was that in the past the respondent had
followed the practice when reducing its force to lay off employees on
the basis of seniority. Unless the testimony of Cannon hereinafter
related is deemed a denial of such testimony the respondent never
denied it. Moreover the respondent has taken inconsistent positions
on the subject of seniority. At the hearing Cannon testified that
there was "no seniority in the woods" and that the respondent had
"no practice on that at all." During the hearing the respondent's
counsel stated that the respondent kept no list showing the seniority
of such employees.13 Now, however, in its brief and in oral argument
the respondent contends that it measures the seniority of each gang
of sawyers by the sawyer on the gang who has the least seniority.
In view of these inconsistent positions we give little weight to the
contention of the respondent that it measures seniority by the man
on a gang who is youngest in point of service. Even if we were to
accept such contention as the, policy of the respondent we are con-
"A gang consisted of two sawyers.
13 Donothan's testimony was : "There was two new gangs when j left "
13 During the hearing the respondent ' s counsel undertook to' elicit from foreman Henry
North testimony based on North 's recollection as to the length of service of the sawyers
in North's camp.. The Trial Examiner ruled that any such evidence should include evidence
as to seniority of all such employees in all three camps and after eliciting testimony from
North that North had been a foreman only 2 years observed that it "would be a physical
impossibility" to recollect the details as to the length of service of all employees who had
worked in such camp . During this discussion counsel for the respondent stated that, the
respondent had no service records of its employees going back over a period of years.
Upon suggestion of Board's counsel the respondent 's counsel- Indicated that be would
prepare and submit a typewritten list showing the length of service of employees. The
record does not show that the respondent ever submitted or offered in evidence such -a list.
THE CLEVELAND -CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 1105
vinced from the testimony that when the employment of the Don-
othans was terminated each of them had seniority over other sawyers
whom the respondent retained in its employment.
The respondent argues in its brief that in filling jobs at the camps
it hired men from those who were available at the time in the camps
and did not send for or otherwise communicate with the men who
were not working. We find no evidence in the record to support a
contention that the respondent had followed any such policy prior to
the" strike. On the contrary, such evidence as there is on this matter
indicates that the respondent at times prior to the strike had sent
such, communications to its, employees., '-However, even if we, -were to
accept'the above argument as a correct statement of,'tlie respondent's
policy we find the contention unconvincing as applied to the Dono-
thans. Donothan, Jr., in November, after the termination of his
employment, returned to the respondent's camp where he had worked
and asked Cannon for employment, but Cannon said "there wasn't
any vacancy." 14 That the respondent had work available for the
Donothans is shown by the fact that in at-least one camp it hired a
number of new sawyers after the termination of employment of the
Donothans between the date of discharge and November.
It was also the practice of the respondent when' laying off em-
ployees to permit such employees to retain their brass' identification
checks. Although Donothan, Sr., had been laid off on various occa-
sions during 11 years of employment with the respondent, he had
never been asked for his brass check, nor had Donothan, Jr., at any
time been required to turn over his brass check to the respondent.
However, at the time Donothan, Sr., and Donothan, Jr.,'attempted to
return to work about September 1, 1937, one Johnson, who was
temporarily acting as camp clerk in the absence-of the regular clerk,
asked that they surrender their brass 'checks. Although Cannon tes-
tified that any such request was without his instructions, he ad-,
mitted that he was present when Donothan, Sr., surrendered his brass
check and made no contention that he had raised any question in that
regard. Inasmuch as Donothan, Sr., had been carrying his' brass
14 The respondent contends that Donothan , Jr., was not active in behalf 'of, Local 2530.
In connection with the discharges of Donothan , Jr., and John Kordish, whose discharge
is discussed hereinafter , see Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company and Furniture
Workers Local Union No . 1174, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
3 N. L. R. B. 26, enf'd, Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company v . National Labor
Relations Board, 96 F. ( 2d) 1018 (C. C. A. 6), cert. denied 303 U: S. 627 , wherein the
Board stated : "A more effective mode of discouragement of union affiliation could hardly
be found than the knowledge that such activities put not merely the union member's
employment but that of those closely related to him in jeopardy." See also Mexia Textile
Mills and Textile Workers Orjanizing Committee, 11 N. L. R. B . 1167; enf'd, Mex,a Textile
Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d) 565 (C. C. A.,5) ; Fashion Piece Dye
Works, Inc. and Federation of Silk and Rayon Dyers and Finishers of America, 6 N. L.
R. B 274 , '1 N. L. R . B 285, enf'd National Labor Relations Board v Fashion Piece Dye
Works, 100 F. (2d) 304 (C. C. A. 3).
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
check for 11 years,, it is inconceivable that -Cannon would not have
raised some question as `to the surrender of the brass checks if the
Donothans were being laid off rather than discharged.'
Under all the circumstances, we conclude that Albert Donothan, -Sr.,
and Albert Donothan, Jr., were refused reinstatement and discharged
by the respondent on or about September 1, 1937, and that the dis-
charges were for the reason that they had joined a labor, organiza-
tion and engaged in concerted activities with other employees. We
find that the respondent by virtue of the said discharges discrim-
inated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Albert
Donothan, Sr., and Albert Donothan, Jr., thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization and interfering with, restraining,
,and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
E. J. Coburn worked a few months for the respondent in 1931
and from March 1934 until his employment was terminated ,in 1937:
He worked principally as a steam crane or jammer 'operator and
was engaged in such work at the time his employment was ter-
ininated. He joined Local 2530 on May,24, 1937, was active in
signing up new members for that organization, and participated
in the strike which began on May 24.
On the Saturday preceding Monday, June 7, 1937, the date on which
the strike terminated, Cannon, Coburn's camp foreman, met Coburn
at a gasoline filling station in Munising and at that time told Coburn
that he should not return to work on Monday inasmuch as another man
had been obtained- to take Coburn's place. Cannon testified at the
hearing that he had attempted to discharge Coburn at that time
because there were too many jammer operators and because another
operator, one Stinburg, who had worked for the respondent prior to
Coburn's employment "was ready to go to work." He admitted on
,cross-examination that Stinburg had previously been laid off for
drunkenness and that Stinburg was "not a steady man there, but he
goes out for a month or two at a time." Various witnesses testified
that Coburn was a capable jammer operator. After his conversation
with Cannon, Coburn communicated with Joseph Ashmore, represent-
ative of the Department of Labor and Industry of the State of Michi-
gan, who in turn communicated with James Wyse, the respondent's
woods superintendent. Thereafter Wyse instructed Cannon to allow
Coburn to return to work on June 7. When^Coburn reported to work
on that day, Cannon informed him, "Well, if it is all right with Mr.
Wyse, it's all right with me, but if I was you I-would look for another
job." About this same time, Cannon asked Coburn, "You knew about
this union coming in here two weeks before it did, didn't you?"
When Coburn replied in the negative, Cannon stated, "I thought you
did."
• THE • CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY•
r On August •26, 1937, Cannon informed Coburn and, the crew which
was, working with him that they, were being laid off. • About this, same,
time; three or four members of the crew were transferred to other-oper,
atioris. Although the record does. not disclose whether, or,not, Cannon
informed Coburn'as to the reason for, his lay-off, Cannon testified at,
the hearing that because an excess number of, logs had been cut the,
respondent decided .to operate, only the jammer on the, main line and
to discontinue the jammer on the, branch. line which-,was ,the one upon,
which, Coburn, was working. Several days ,after August, 26 Coburn,
protested to Wyse against Cannon's failure to transfer him to the jam-.
mer which was being continued in operation and, at the same time,
aceordilig to,Wyse, stated that Cannon "didn't know enough,to run a
camp, was, crazy and described him a very uncomplimentary man-,
ner:" Wyse informed Coburn that he could not'go back to work under
Cannon, but that he would give Coburn work on a jammer whenever
there was an opening in another camp.
About the middle of September 1937, the respondent resumed opera-
tion of the jammer upon which Coburn had worked. At such time
Wyse instructed Cannon not to reemploy Coburn, and Victor Sailo,• an
employee who had in the past worked at times as jammer operator and
at times been engaged in other duties, was transferred from another,
camp to fill Coburn's place. Sailo had less experience as a jammer
operator than Coburn. Wyse testified that Coburn was not reem-
ployed, at the time on the jammer in question because of his attitude
towards Cannon. When questioned by counsel for the Board as to
why he had not transferred some of the jammer operators from one
camp to another so as to make an opening for Coburn, Wyse testified,
"I don't know why, but the foremen liked the jammer men they had
pretty well." He admitted that the respondent had in the past at
times transferred jammer operators from one camp to another.
Under all the circumstances, we are convinced that the respondent
refused to reinstate Coburn to employment at the time operation of his
jammer was resumed on or' about September 20, 1937, because of
Coburn's union affiliation and concerted activity with other employees
rather than because of the reasons set forth by the respondent. We
think it unnecessary in this connection to make any deterininatioli as
to whether or "not Coburn made the remarks about Cannon- to which
Wyse testified. Even if such remarks were made, we think it clear
that they were not the basis for the respondent's decision not to rein-
state Coburn to the jammer on which Coburn had been working, but
instead to transfer a less experienced jammer operator from another
camp for such job. It is to be rioted in this regard that Coburn's
remarks, if any, were made shortly after'Carinon's attempt to discharge
Coburn during the strike. We think the evidence clearly shows that
440135-42-Vol. 30--71 ' • ,
11O8 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS =BOARD
such ' attempted discharge was based on Coburn 's- union 'membership
and activities.` `Moreover ; even ' if the respondent believed that it was
inaddis'ble` to assign Coburn to 'a jammer at the camp at' which Can-
non' was camp foreman, we think it clear that Coburn' would have been
assigned to another camp except' for the respondent 's.objection,to his
union membership and activities."
1" We find that ' the' respondent • discriminated against Coburn on-or
about September 20; 1937 , * in regard to his, hire and tenure of em-,
ployment , thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization,-
and interfering with',- restraining ; and coercing its employees • in the,
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of 'the Act.,,'
'' Louis Kordish, and 'John Kordish , brothers , were employed by the
respondent ' as wing ' partners ' about ' a.'week prior to-the - strike on,,
May 24 , 1937 . Louis ' had previously worked for the respondent alto-
gether approximately 12 years ' since 1918 : ' • , •
Louis Kordish joined Local 2530 ' on May 24; 1937 , and both he
and John Kordish participated in the strike which began on, that
date: Louis, a member of the-,strike committee , was particularly
active in' the' solicitatlon of union .members and funds and during the
strike made a trip - to Minnesota: in' connection with 'the solicitation
of 'funds .' His' name appeared in the local press of Munising, in •
connection with union matters. '
After the two brothers returned to work on June 11, following the'
termination' of the strike ,' Leonard Johnson, a timekeeper and log
counter who the evidence disclosed ' had supervisory authority, told
Louis Kordish that "the A. F. of L . was a good thing to join" but,
that the "C. I. O. would ' be no good" and "a man is a , fool to pay a)
dollar dues for the union ." ' Shortly thereafter , Louis Kordish' at-
tended the C. I.' O! convention at Duluth as a delegate . Soon after,
his return from. the convention he and his brotheri were assigned to,
cutting' elm trees, , a job disliked by the employees because it was
impossible ' to earn - ;as much money , on that job as was possible in
cutting other timber. Although Louis Kordish protested the assign-'
ment inasmuch as only he 'arid his,-brother' were given such ,- work'
whereas ordinarily several . gangs were assigned to it, the brothers,
undertook,the job and completed •it•,on or about August 29, 1937..' At.
that' time ' Louis Kordish asked Louis • Carr, another sawyer, what`
strip of timber was the next , one to be cut and Carr : replied, "It don't"
make any) difference which strip you take, they are all , even." The,
brothers then began to cut a new strip of timber . ' While they were
engaged in, this ' work Leonard Johnson' , came to that part of the camp;
'to count ' the' number - of logs which had, been cut and at, that time,
remarked, that ; the, Ko'rdishes ,' had "jumped a• strip.;' • Louis' Kordishr
replied that ' Carr , had, informed ' them that , the strips ,were all •" even`
and.Johnson apparently said nothing further, about-the--matter at
THE ; CL'EVEL'AND-CLIFFS: IRON cOMPAN , - 1409
that time., r Later, in the, day, however, Johnson returned and,,stated,
`;I,will count ,you; up` and'that is all there is going to,be for a while.,"11
In reply to a question by Louis Kordish as to the reason for Johnson's
action,, Johnson replied,;"jumping a strip is no good business, neither."
Louis, Kordish ,,protested' , at the time against the, retention by the,
respondent, of two. sawyers who, .admittedly had less, seniority ; than
the Kordishes but who the ,respondent contends, were more capable.
In ; response ',to a : question ,by, Louis Kordish as to, vvhether, Johnson
would let him know when he was needed again, Johnson ;replied in
the ;affi native.,, He mas,,,however, required to .surrender,-his brass
identification, check. '
enry {North; camp, foreman, aestified at ,ther.hearing ;that ,the ,re ,
\spondent was laying off a number of sawyers at the time in question
and that,-he, had. ordered ,Johnson to lay, off the Kordishes'because
they jumped a; strip and had argued with Johnson' when directed to
cut some trees' they had left along the brush line., .There was no'
evidence, other than, the testimony of, N^rth ,who was not present at
the: time Johnson admonished the iKo,'rdishes about jumping a strip,
of^ any ,argument between Johnson and the Kordish, brothers relative
to the cutting of any trees along the brush line. Louis Kordish'testi-
fied, with regard 'to , the , alleged, jumping of the strip; that several
weeks prior, to' his discharge, the two sawyers with less seniority who'
were retained ,by. the,'respondent .after hid' discharge, had jumped a'
strip and, ithat' no, action, was taken- with respect thereto. 'This testi
mony, .was not, controverted: There . is no' showing in the record, that
any 'employee' had ever been laid off,'by the respondent for jumping
a strip : ^; r: ) . „ , ,
Since pit is' clear from the record 'that other sawyers' 'with less ' sen!
ior'ity'than'these two employees were retained by the respondent after'
the date the respondent terminate& the; employment of the Kordishes,'
the 'staitenients.' nzade above on 'the subject of seniority as 46 the
Donothans also' apply ,to the Kordishes: 'Moreover, although ,we are
of the view That' neither 'of these employees was' under any duty to
apply' to .the' respondent for' work after the 'termination 'of 'their;
employment, "both•of'then'did so" during the fall thereafter. North
told'thern'that he'w's'"filled:up." , That therewas'work for them'to
do is'`indicated by. the'sarne•"obser`v'tion"that was"made'iii regard
thereto ,in' the: discussion above 'of the '.discharges •of the Donothans.
After `the respondent shad terminated"the employment' of the Kor-1
dishes;' Louis' Kordish had a' conversation ' with North, the camp fore=
man, in' a' tavern." Louis Kordish related this conversation as follows"'
in•his'testirnony`:I"That was at the'beer'tavern when I was,'talking'
to him. I asked him for a job and I said, `I suppose'I'would have
a job all right if I didn't go to Minnesota?' He said, `Yes.' Well,
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA$OR RELATIONS;"BOARD
then anyway he said something that soineboly else ' was beh'i'nd., -1
don't know what he meant, behind." 15 'Kordish's'testimohy was not
denied and we find it to be true. '
Under all the circumstances, we conclude that the termination of the
employment of Louis Kordish and John Kordish on,'or about Au-
gust 29, 1937, was'in effect a discharge and that such discharge was
based on the union activities of the two employees: -
We find that the respondent on or about' August 29, 1937, dis-
criminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Louis
Kordish and John Kordish, thereby discouraging -membership in a
labor organization and interfering with, restraining, and-coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Carl L. McPherson,, employed by the 'respondent at-different times
on various jobs from 1927 to 1934, worked regularly for the re-
spondent as log counter and assistant foreman from 1934 to the date
his employment terminated in June 1937. He joined Local 2530 on'
May 24, 1937, and participated in the strike which began on that date.
When McPherson returned to work on June 7, 1937, after the
termination of the strike, Harry Wynn, camp foreman, informed'
him, "Mr. Wyse told me to tell you to go hooking." McPherson tes-
tified that Wynn stated that Wyse had said that McPherson was being
assigned to this work, which McPherson considered as involving a
demotion, because McPherson "took too active a part in the strike."
Although Wyse and Wynn testified that they did not discuss the,
matter of a union with the employees or with other foremen, neither
denied specifically the above testimony of McPherson. We find that
Wynn made the statement attributed to him by McPherson. Fol-
lowing Wynn's conversation with McPherson, the latter undertook to
make a protest to Wyse, but, being unable to locate him, went with
fellow union members to Munising to see Ashmore, representative of
thr, Department of Labor and Industry of the State of Michigan:
Upon the latter's advice, McPherson then communicated with Bush,
th-e respondent's superintendent of the lands department, who in-
formed, McPherson that he would talk with Wynn and Wyse. Hav-
ing received no word from Bush, McPherson shortly after noon on
June 7 sought out Wynn and stated that he thought he knew where
he could get satisfaction. Wynn then went to the camp office and
after about 20 minutes returned with the information that McPherson
should return to his job as log counter. Wynn testified at the hearing
that Bush had given instruction to that effect. McPherson worked
the remainder of the afternoon of June 7 at the camp as log checker
and assistant foreman.
15 It would appear that North thereby ' meant that he was not responsible for the
termination of employment.
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON CODIPANY 1111
On the night of June 7 a meeting of some of the members of Local
2530 was held in Munising.. Shortly before the close of the meeting
Louis Pelletier, sheriff of the county in' which Munising is located,
appeared and stated that several truckloads of'nien with rifles and
machine guns were coming to Munising to chase the lumberjacks, off
the job. It also appears that Pelletier sent word to the employees
at the respondent's camps to such effect. The employees understood
this to mean that the union headquarters were sending armed men to
the camps to evacuate the strikers who had returned to work. Mc-
Pherson testified that because of the rumor about the armed men
"some of the boys took their packsacks and went right through the
woods." Due to the rumor, the employees at the camp were so
disorganized that no work was done on June 8.
On the afternoon of June,8 McPherson went to Ironwood, Mich-
igan, and there saw one Rehkman, a union official. McPherson in-
formed Rehkman about the rumor that armed men were being sent
to Munising and Rehkman replied that "the union wouldn't think
of doing such a thing."
After remaining over night in Ironwood, McPherson returned
to Munising the next day, June 9, and to the respondent's camp that
night. When McPherson appeared for work the next morning,16
he found his job filled by one Howard Merle," who was introduced
-to McPherson by Fred Moore, camp clerk. When McPherson met
Wynn, his foreman, that morning the latter did not speak. A short
time later McPherson again met Wynn and remarked, ". .. I guess
I had better take a few days vacation." Wynn made no reply and
walked away. McPherson thereupon left the camp.
Although McPherson testified at the hearing that he regarded
,himself as still on strike as far as the respondent was concerned, he
also testified that he had since June 10 been back to camp two or
three times and that on one occasion away from camp about 2 weeks
before Christmas in 1937 he "hinted`to Wynn that he would like
to have a job. He also testified that on the latter occasion Wynn
told him that the employees should have signed up with the Upper
Michigan Wood Workers Association "because the company would
negotiate with them." We have found in Section III A above that
Wynn made the aforesaid statement testified to by McPherson.
The respondent contends that it had a right to replace McPherson
inasmuch as he left camp on June 8 without consulting the respond-
19 The testimony was confusing- as to whether McPherson appeared for work on the
morning of June 10 or 11. McPherson's testimony as to the length of time he had been
away since starting to, Ironwood, however, indicates that he appeared for work on the
morning of June 10
17It is not clear in the record as to whether the name is Howard Merle or Howard
Merrill
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent', and did ^ not return for work, until June , 10. 'In view of 'the
entire, record,, we, are 'convinced, 'However, that the' r" espoindent's ,action
as regards McPherson was based on his, union' activity. and affiliation
ather'than on his absence from work.
We find that the respondent discriminated against McPherson on
June 10, 1937, in regard to his hire and tenure of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in 'a labor organization and inter-
fering with, restraining,and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the, rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Edward Bielas began his work with the respondent in they fall of
1934 and worked for it at times until, his employment was terminated
on or about November 15, 1937. Bielas was not,employed at the
time of the strike, but returned to work September 12, 1937. His .-
employment consisted of various jobs about the -camp, such as
swampinb,' working-'-in the. kitchen as `cook and, "cookie," driving,
making roads, carpentering, operating a tractor, hooking, "and just
about everything that could be done by a person, that is, in the work-
- ing line." Bielas appears never to have had any one certain job,
but was frequently transferred from job to job, sometimes at his
own request and other 'times at the request of the camp foreman.
'During the 2 weeks prior to the termination of his employment with
the 'respondent he worked as a sawyer, substituting for one Gal-
andia.18 He was not told, when he assumed Galandia's job, that
he would be laid off when Galandia returned to work.
Bielas joined the Union "early in November 1937. Shortly there-
after he was elected steward of the Union and also a delegate to a
union convention to be. held in Escanaba; Michigan, November 20
and, 21, 1937. '
About a week, after,Bielas' 'election- as a delegate f to the; union.
convention, Galan'dia, for whom Bielas was substituting' as a'sawyer,
returned to' work. Bielas reported to Wynn, the, camp ,foreman, the
fact of Galandia's return.' Wynn, "according to Bielas' testimony,
said, "he was sorry, but,. . . he would have to let me go for a while."
According to Bielas, he then reminded Wynn that when the 'latter
put Bielas to work in September' Wynn criticized Bielas for never
working very long,, and that Bielas "had, then stated that he was
willing to work through the winter. Wynn's only reply'was, "Well,
you can 'go any place you like. 'The world is big enough." Bielas
testified that others hired shortly prior to November 15 to work
about the camp were kept at work after his termination of employ-
ment. Wynn, the camp foreman over Bielas, failed to• deny the
above' testimony; but, testified. ,that Bielas, was, laid off, for'.,' lack: of
' Referred to in the record also as Salandia.
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY, ;1113
-work: The failure of the, respondent specifically to deny,his .testi-
-moriy, as stated above, when considered in connection with Bielas'
iexperience in doing a variety -of work about the camp, discredits,the
'contentioin of the respondent that Bielas was laid off for lack of, work.
We credit truthfulness to his testimony as stated above. -
-In view of Bielas' open activity for the Union we also regard as
significant the,fact that, although Wynn testified that he and Bielas
never discussed the subject of the Union, he did not testify that he
lacked knowledge of Bielas' activity for the Union.
A consideration of the above evidence, in the light of the entire
record, convinces us that the respondent discharged Edward Bielas
on or about November 15, 1937, because of his union membership
and activity, thereby discriminating against him in regard to hire
and tenure of employment and discouraging membership in a labor
organization, and that by the- above act the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the ' exercise of the
;r'ights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Steve Demogola worke'"for the respondent as a' sawyer for more
than 6 years prior to May 24, 1937. On'the latter date he joined
Local' 2530 and went on strike with the other employees. He testi-
fied that he was "elected to a committee of the C. I. O. union."
Demogola 'did not, in so far as is disclosed in the record, return
for work with the other employees on June 7, 1937, the date on
which the strike terminated. He apparently remained away from
the camp until about July 14, 1937, at which time he applied to
Wynn, camp foreman, for work. Wynn at that time informed
Demogola that no work•was available for him. Wynn testified at
the hearing that if Demogola had applied for work at the, time the
other employees applied on June 7 he would have -been given em-
ployment; but- that all the jobs-had been filled prior to the date on
which Demogola'made his application.
Demogola testified that about- a week after his talk with-Wynn
he met Wilfred Fleury, a timekeeper, 'who asked him, "Didn't I tell
you that you wouldn't get a job with the concern?" Demogola also
testified that previously Fleury had accused him of having been a
leader in the strike movement. Fleury did not testify at the hearing.
In view of Demogola's uncontroverted testimony relative to the
statements made to him by Fleury, we thing that considerable doubt
exists as to reasons for Wynn's' refusal to give work to Demogola
when he applied therefor. We do not think, however, that-the evi-
dence is sufficient to warrant a finding'that the respondent discrimi-
nated' against Demogola, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization. As 'noted above,' Demogola did not apply for
work until more than a month had elapsed after the date on which
-1114 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the strike .terminated.' There is no explanation advanced by Demo-
gola for his delay' in making application,for work. Wynn's testi-
mony that Demogola -would have been given work = if, he applied
therefor on June 7 is supported by the fact that all strikers who
applied on June 7 were given employment. -
We find that the respondent, has not discriminated against Steve
Demogola in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby
discouraging membership -in a labor organization.
C. The alleged refusal to bargain collectively
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges in substance'
that "the lumber workers employed by the respondent at its Munising
camps, except supervisory and clerical employees" constitute an ap-
propriate unit; that prior to June 23, 1937, and thereafter, the Union
represented a majority of the employees in said unit; and that on
or about June 23, 1937, and at all times thereafter, the respondent
has refused to bargain r ollectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in said unit. '
At the hearing the Union did not submit any evidence in support
of its claim that it represented a majority of the employees in the
unit claimed as appropriate. The Union and counsel for the Board
agreed, the respondent reserving its rights in the matter, that' the
Union should submit to the Board within ten (10) days "all of the
original union membership cards representing members and wood-
workers whom they claim work for the C. C. I. Company in its
three camps at, or near Munising, and also a typewritten list con-
taining the names of the men and other pertinent data." Subsequent
to the hearing, the Union submitted to the Board unsigned type-
written cards containing the names of approximately 240 persons
and dates on which dues are alleged to have been paid.1° It did not
submit any signed designation or membership cards or other proof
,in support of its representation claims.
We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to show that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the alleged ap-
propriate unit at the time of the alleged refusal to bargain collec-
tively or that it now represents a majority of such employees. It
becomes unnecessary, therefore, to discuss further either the ap-
propriateness of the unit alleged in the complaint to be appropriate
or the alleged refusal to bargain with the Union as the statutory
representative of the employees in such unit. We shall dismiss the
complaint,in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of
the Act. ' .. I ' '
11 The respondent employs approximately 300 persons at its three camps.
'THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 1115
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON' COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set- forth, in, Section, III
A and B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
respondent described in Section Iabove, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.-
V. THE REMEDY"
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices. We shall order the respondent to cease and desist
from , such practices. Moreover, we shall order the respondent to
take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We have found that Albert Donothan, Sr., Albert Donothan, Jr.,
Louis Kordish, John Kordish, E. J. Coburn, Edward Bielas,, and Carl
L. McPherson were discriminated against in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment.
Evidence adduced at the hearing on September 19, 1940, shows that
the respondent no longer operates the three logging camps discussed
above. It operated two of these camps until April 1938, and the third
until July 1938. Since those dates the only logging operations in the
camps have been carried on by a firm of independent contractors, one
of the camps being so operated at.the present time and the other two
being idle.20 Under the circumstances, we shall not, order that the
respondent now offer reinstatement to the employees named above,
but we shall order that it make them whole for any loss of pay which
they have suffered by reason of their discharges by payment to each
of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have
earned as wages, including the reasonable value of any maintenance
customarily furnished by the respondent," from the date of his dis-
charge to the date in 1938 when the respondent ceased operating the
logging camp in which such employee was working, less his net earn-
ings 22 during said period. In order to effectuate the policies of the
20 This firm of independent contractors carried on logging operations about 3 months
in 1939 in one camp and from September 1939 to the present time in another The only
activity in the third camp since the respondent ceased operations has been the cutting
of some chemical wood in 1938 under a permit granted by the respondent to one Arne
Lahti.
n See Matter of Southgate-Nelson Corporation and National Marine Engineers' Beneficial
Association et al., 3 N. L. R. B. 535; see also Matter of Waterman Steamship Corporation
and National Maritime Union of America, Engine Division, Mobile Branch, Mobile, Alabama,
7 N. L R. B. 237, enf'd 309 U. S. 206, reversing 103 F. (2d) 157 (C. C. A 5)
F By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with'obtaining work and,working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been 1 r ncurred but1for his unlawful
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, we shall also order the respondent to place these employees upon a'
preferential list for employment as it arises whenever the respondent
resumes logging operations.
VI. ; THE PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
In view of the lapse of time since the filing by the' Union of the
petition for an investigation and certification of representatives we
will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the, case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF, LAW
1. The International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No.
15, is a labor organization within the meaning' of Section 2 (5) of
the Act. '
2. By, interfering with, ' restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the 'rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the, Act, the
respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
^3. By discriminating in regard to the ' hire and tenure of ' employ-
ment of Albert Donothan, 'Sr., Albert Donothan; Jr., Louis Kordish,
John Kordish, E. J. Coburn, Edward Bielas; and Carl L.'McPherson,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the re-
spondent has engaged 'in unfair labor practices,' within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
4. By refusing the reemploy Steve Demogola the respondent has
not 'engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, ''Within
the meaning of Section' 8 (5) of the' Act. '
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning, of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
• Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant 'to Section 10 (c) of the, National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations board hereby orders that the
discharge and' the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See'Matter
of Crossett, Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Lmber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440. Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work -relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republac' Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.,
decided by United States Supreme Court, November 12, 1940'
I
THE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 1117
respondent,' -Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall':
1. Cease and desist from :
(a)• Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America', Local Union No., 15, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discharging any of its employees because of mem-
bership in the International Woodworkers of America; Local Union
No. (15, or any other labor organization, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment;
- (b) -In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
forni;t ^ join, or',assist 'labor 'organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage,in ,con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Albert Donothan, Sr., Albert Donothan, Jr.,
Louis Kordish, John Kordish, E. J. Coburn, Edward Bielas, and
Carl L. McPherson for any losses of pay they have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, by payment to each of them, respectively,
of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as
wages, including the reasonable value of any maintenance custom-
arily furnished by the respondent, during the period from the date
of such discrimination to the date the respondent ceased operating
the logging camp in which.such employee was working, less his net
earnings during said period;
(b) Place Albert Donothan, Sr., Albert Donothan, Jr., Louis
Kordish, John Kordish, E. J. Coburn,'Edward Bielas, and Carl L.
McPherson upon a preferential list for employment in the event that
the respondent resumes operation of logging camps, and offer em-
ployment to said employees before any new employees are hired, fol-
lowing a system of seniority, in making such offers to such extent
as has heretofore been the respondent's practice;
(c) In the event that the respondent resumes 'operation of log-
ging camps, immediately post notices in conspicuous places at each
such logging camp, and maintain such notices for it period of at
least sixty (60) consecutive days, stating : (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease
and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs
2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the respondent's em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of International Wood-
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
workers of America, Local Union No. 15, and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership
or activity in such organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region in writ-
ing within' ten (10) days from the date of this Order-what steps
the- respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT-IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint as amended be, and it
is hereby dismissed, 'in so far as it relates to Steve Demogola, and
in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5') of the Act;
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for investigation and cer-
tification of representatives be, and ' it hereby is, dismissed without
prejudice.
d