United States Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1106 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL WOODWORKERS OF. AMERICA, LOCAL 9-26, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2565.-Decided May 36, 19413
DECISION
AND
ORDER
i
Upon complaint issued pursuant to charges duly filed by Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, Local 9-26, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial 'Organizations, herein called the Union,
against United States Plywood Corporation, herein called the re-
spondent, a hearing was held before a_ Trial Examiner at Seattle,
'.Washington, from February 1 to 3, 1943, in which the Board, the
respondent, and the Union participated by their representatives.
The Board has reviewed the I rulings of the Trial Examiner made
on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On March 29,.1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, finding that the respondent had not engaged in .the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the
complaint be dismissed. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report
-and .9.-,,brief were =thereafter filed by the Union. None of the parties
requested oral argument before the Board. The Board has consid-
ered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby affirms and adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon _the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the ' National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein against the
respondent, United States Plywood Corporation, Seatle, Washington,
be, and it-hereby is, dismissed.
49 N. L . R. B., No. 160.
1109
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1107
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Louis" S. Penfield, for the Board.
McMicken, Rupp & Schweppe, by Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe, and Mr. J. Gordon
Gose, of Seattle, Washington, for the respondent.
Mr. Dell Baska, of Seattle,,Washington, for the Union.
- STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed January 21, 1943,' by International Wood-
wor.kers of America, Local 9-26, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, herein called the Union, th'e National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
(Seattle, Washington), issued its complaint dated January 21, 1943,. against
United States Plywood Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent bad engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449„ herein called the Act.
With respect to the ,unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) commencing about June 1941 and at various times
thereafter attempted to influence Charles Meyer, one of its employees, to become
less active in the Union by promising him better jobs if he would cease his
union activities and by threatening him with discrimination if he did not;
(2) in July 1942 ordered the Secretary of the Union out of the boat shop and
ordered him to cease posting union notices in the boat shop; (3) on or about
September 1, 1942, attempted to disrupt the activities of the Union by urging
and suggesting to the Secretary of the Union that all problems arising between
the Union and the respondent be adjusted locally without resort to the interna-
tional union with which the Union was affiliated; (4) on or about August 3,
1942, discharged and has since refused to reinstate Charles Meyer because
of his membership in and activities on behalf of the Union; and on or about
September 8, 1942 offered Chailes Meyer employment, but immediately withdrew
such offer of employment because of Meyer's membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union; and (5) by the foregoing acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondent and the Union.
In its answer, the respondent denied that it had committed the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint, and with reference to'Charles Meyer stated
that he was discharged on or about August 3, 1942, because of misconduct and
disobedience to instructions and has since been refused reinstatement, that on
or about September 8, 1942, through inadvertence he received a work card, but
that such work card was almost immediately withdrawn when its issuance was
brought to the attention of respondent's officials who had knowledge of his prior
discharge
Pursuant to proper notice a hearing was held February 1, 2 and 3, 1943, at
Seattle, Washington, before Frank-A. Mouritsen, the Trial Examiner duly des-
lignated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel, the Union by its business representative. All participated
in the liearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
1 The original charge was filed September 18, 1942.
531647-43-vol 49--71'
1108 DE'CTSIONSS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing'on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the end of the hearing counsel for the Board and counsel for the respondent
argued the matter orally upon the record. Counsel were advised that they
might file briefs with the undersigned within 5 days from-the close of the-
hearing. No briefs have been-received.
'Upon the entire record in the case and from-his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF 'THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a New York- corporation engaged in the manufacture, dis-
tribution and sale of plywood and related products. Its head office is located
in New York City. In various cities throughout the country it owns and operates
4 manufacturing plants, and 15 sales warehouses. At Seattle, Washington, the
respondent operates a' manufacturing plant, known as the Aircraft Division, and
w-sales warehouse, known as Branch 15. Only the manufacturing plant and the
sales warehouse located at Seattle, Washington, are involved in this proceeding
`='At- the ' Seattle manufacturing plant the respondent is chiefly engaged in the
m"a"nufaduie `Fof Douglas Fir plywood. During the year 1942 the plant used
mat'erials' valued at 'approximately $1,400,000, consisting principally of lumber
and adhesive's. For the same period, the sales approximated $4,000,000. Approx-
imately 90-percent of the products in dollar volume were shipped to points out-
side the State of Washington. The value of the materials brought into the State
of Washington' for the year 1942 approximated' $325,000. The volume of incoming
and outgoing materials for the warehouse operation carried on at Seattle was not
given. The respondent, however, conceded that its operations are subject to the
jurisdiction'of the Board. At the time of the hearing approximately 460 employees
were employed in the Seattle operations. -
II TIrE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Local 9-26, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to, membership
employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. , The discharge of Meyer
The respondent in its operations at Seattle has had a collective bargaining
contract with the Union since some time in the year 1937 or 1938 The contract
between the respondent and the Union in effect at the time of the hearing is dated
July 8, 1940. It provides that members of the Union be given preference in
employment, and that employees not4 members of the Union when hired shall
become members within 30 days from the date of their employment. The contract
does not by its terms expressly include or exclude the'respondent's Seattle ware-
house. Various amendments to the contract have been made since its execution,
by agreement between the parties. The contract is a uniform contract which has
been entered into between 13 concerns engaged in the manufacture of plywood,
and 10 local unions affiliated with the C. I 0 'Plywood Council and the Con-
gress of .Industrial Organizations through the International Woodworkers of
America. The contract in each case is between the local union and the particular
plywood company and not between the- companies and the international union
0
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1109
or the Plywood Council. A procedure for the handling of employee grievances is
outlined in the contract, as well as the procedure to be followed in the event the
Union desires to negotiate or bargain respecting the suspension or discharge of
an employee. The contract also provides for the creation•of a Standing Committee,
composed of 6 representatives of the Plywood Council and 6 representatives of the
'plywood manufacturers. The Standing Committee negotiates on wage matters,
considers problems of interpretation arising under the contract, and other prob-
lems referred to it by the unions or companies . The contract provides that any
decision of the Standing Committee affecting interpretation of the contract shall
be, binding upon the parties. Questions of interpretation of the contract may be
referred to the Standing Committee by either of the parties. Any grievance other
than one involving interpretation of the contract may be referred for negotiation
and recommendation to the Standing Committee by joint reference of the Union
and the respondent. The Standing Committee meets frequently for the purpose
of disposing of problems arising under the contracts. i
Charles Meyer was first employed by the respondent to work in the boat shop,
part of its warehouse, in February 1941. He was hired by A. W. Buerk, manager
of the warehouse, who at the time he employed Meyer told him that he would
probably "have to" join the Union. In the early part of April Meyer joined the
Union, was elected shop committeeman and executive board member for the, boat
shop, and thereafter took an active and aggressive part in presenting grievances
to Buerk on behalf of the boat shop employees.
Mrs Pat DeCaprio, Meyer's step-sister, who had been employed as housekeeper
foi Buerk and his wife during the year 1940, testified that in the summer of 1941,
Buerk, in discussing with her Meyer's work, said that his work was very satisfac-
tory, but asked her if she wouldn't talk with Meyer and "try to get him to kind of
leave the Union alone." She testified that she talked with Meyer, but that it had
no effect. Then in October 1941, she testified that she had a similar. conversation
with Buerk, and she asked Buerk why he did not fire Meyer if he was causing
trouble Buerk denied that he had asked Mrs. DeCaprio to attempt to influence
Meyer to become less active in the Union, although he admitted discussing Meyer
and his work with her. Buerk's denial, however, was not convincing, and his
version of one of the conversations with Mrs. DeCapiio was implausible. The
undersigned credits Mrs. DeCaprio's testimony, and finds that Buerk made th'e
statements she attributed to him.
On August 3, 1912, Meyer was discharged by Buerk. The reason given by the
respondent for his discharge is misconduct and disobedience to instructions. The
Board alleges that the reason is Meyer's Union activities. Buerk claimed that
Meyer had disobeyed his instructions that no visitors were to be permitted in
the boat shop without a permit. These instructions were first given by Buerk
about January 1, 1942, and a sign containing the legend "No entrance without
permit" was posted on the door to the boat shop at that time. Buerk testified
that prior to the institution of the rule the cost per unit on the assembling of boats
had been increasing, and that he attributed the increase in part to the fact that
many people were visiing the boat shop during working hours. Meyer admitted
that there were quite a number of people who came to the boat shop, including
salesmen, other employees and Allen Coupland, secretary of the Union. It was
not shown that the purpose of the imposition of the rule that people were not to
be admitted to the boat shop without a permit was discriminatory. Neither
Meyer nor the Union protested the imposition of the rule. Such a rule had been
in effect in the manufacturing operations for some time prior thereto. Meyer
admitted that some people continued to enter the boat shop without permits after
Buerk gave him and Daymon, the only other employee in the boat shop, the
1110 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
original instructions in January. He further admitted that on one occasion in
February Buerk found an ice cream salesman in the boat shop .without a permit
and,that Buerk at that time told him and Daymon that he wanted his instructions
,followed. Meyer first.testified that he did not recall any other occasions when
Buerk told him that he wanted his instructions with reference to the permit rule
carried out. Buerk testified that on three other specific occasions he had observed
-people going into the boat shop, had charged Meyer and Daymon with failing to
follow his instructions about permits, and had again told them that he wanted
them to -observe the rule. His testimony with respect to two of the warnings
,was corroborated by Genevieve Jolly-and June Nelson, employees who worked in
Buerk's office. When questioned after •Buerk, Jolly and Nelson had testified,
Meyer denied that he had received the additional warnings from Buerk. Buerk
.fixed the date of, the last warning given Meyer prior to his discharge as "about the
.middle of May" 1942. On May 29 Daymon left the employ of the respondent, and
Meyer was the only employee left in the boat shop.
There is no dispute over the material facts surrounding the discharge of Meyer
on August 3. During working hours Frank Costello, one of the employees in the
sawmill, which' is located some distance from the boat shop, entered the boat
shop without a permit and engaged. Meyer in a conversation about a grievance
he had against the foreman of the sawmill. Meyer stopped the sanding machine
he was operating to talk with Costello. Costello told Meyer that he had received
conflicting orders from his foreman, which had led to some heated words, and
that after considering the matter he had decided to quit. Meyer urged him to
remain at work and to take the matter up-through his shop committeeman in
the sawmill and to try to remedy the grievance as prescribed in the Union
contract.
In the meantime. Buerk had observed Costello enter the boat shop. He testified,
and his testimony was corroborated by Jolly, that he and Jolly noted the length
'of time that Costello remained in the boat shop: When he did not reappear for
12 or 121/ minutes Buerk left' his office and went to the -boat shop He asked
'Meyer what Costello had been doing in the boat shop, and Meyer told him that
Costello had an argument over in the sawmill and had consulted Meyer about it.
Buerk then told Meyer that he was discharged
Meyer testified that his conversation with Costello lasted "probably not over five
minutes," Buerk testified that it lasted over 12 minutes. The longer figure is
accepted by the undersigned as more accurate, in view of the subjects covered
and the length indicated in Meyer's own account of the conversation. -
On August 13 when Buerk met with Meyer and the Union committee and gave
his reasons for Meyer's discharge, he stated that Meyer had been discharged
because he disobeyed instructions, and'stated further that he had warned Meyer
six times about visitors in the boat shop before he discharged him Meyer tacitly
admitted that people without permits had been in the boat shop, and that lie had
been cautioned about observing the permit rule, by his reply at that time that he
was hired as a boat painter and not a "bouncer," and that he did not consider that
he had been warned in a manner that would constitute a warning. The under-
signed therefore, credits the testimony of Buerk,- Jolly and, Nelson that Meyer
had been warned on several occasions to observe Buerk's instructions about
requiring permits to enter the boat shop.
On the day of Meyer's discharge the business agent' of the Union protested his
discharge in writing to Buerk, and stated that the matter would be taken up
as outlined in the contract between the Union and the respondent.
On August 12, the Union representatives attempted to negotiate regarding
Meyer's discharge with the officials of the manufacturing operations of the
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1111
respondent. The officials stated that Meyer's discharge did not concern them,
inasmuch as the boat shop and warehouse were not covered by their contract
with the Union, and that it was a problem to be taken up with Buerk.
On the following day, August 13, Meyer and representatives of the Union met
with Buerk. Buerk advised them that Meyer had been discharged for cause, and
further that he was under no duty to discuss the matter with the Union as the
warehouse operations did not come under the contract with the Union. He added
that the warehouse operations were separate and apart from the manufacturing
operations, and that W. C. Bailey, head of the manufacturing operations in
Seattle, had no authority to sign a contract covering the warehouse operations.
However, he then told the Union representatives that if they wanted to pursue
the matter further, they could refer it to the Standing Committee and obtain a
ruling.
The Union -did refer the case to the Standing Committee, and on September 2,
1942, the Standing Committee considered the problem and made its finding and
recommendation. No decision regarding the merits of Meyer's case was made
by the Standing Committee. As noted, that could be done only if a grievance of
this kind were submitted by joint reference of the respondent and the Union, and
in this case the Union alone had referred the matter to the Standing Committee.
After considerable discussion of Meyer's case it was decided that the first point to
be settled was whether the warehouse operations were covered under the contract.
Meyer stated his position on the matter. A sub-committee was appointed to make
a recommendation , and it reported as follows :
The sub-committee finds that at least by implication that the Boat Works,
Branch 15, of the U. S. Plywood Corporation, has recognized Local 26 in
negotiations.
Therefore, we recommend that a contract identical with the one now signed
with Local 26 and the U S. Plywood Corporation (Aircraft Division), be
signed with Local 26 and the Boat Works and signed as of January 1, 1941.
The report of the sub-committee was adopted by the Standing Committee. Meyer
expressed dissatisfaction with the action of the Standing Committee. As noted,
the findings of the Standing Committee on interpretation of the contract are
binding upon the parties.
Shortly after September 2, H G Glanville, labor relations representative of the
respondent, advised Dell Baska, business agent of the Union, at a meeting with
shop-committeemen of the Union, that Buerk was prepared to sign a contract
as recommended by the Standing Committee, and that Meyer's case could then be
handled through the grievance machinery. Baska replied that the Union had
not ratified the recommendation of, the Standing Committee, but that the matter
-would be taken up at a Union meeting in the near future When the Union did
meet, it refused to ratify the recommendations of the Standing Committee. ,The
Union did not carry out the recommendation of the Standing Committee and
sign a contract covering the warehouse operations, nor did it attempt to meet
with Buerk to negotiate further regarding Meyer's discharge. Instead on Septem-
ber 18, it filed charges with the Board.
Glanville and Allen Coupland engaged in what they both termed a friendly
discussion of general problems affecting the dealings of the respondent and the
Union shortly after September 2. Among other'subjects they discussed Meyer.
To Glanville's statement that he could not understand why the Union did not
follow the recommendation of the Standing Committee and sign the contract,
Coupland replied that the Union would thereby be breaking down its own argu-
ment that the warehouse and the manufacturing plant constituted a unified
i
1112 DE'CTSIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operation. Of Meyer, Glanville said that he was young, ambitious, overzealous,
anxious to promote himself in the Union, and that he was looking only after his
own interests. Coupland disagreed. Glanville added that he did not see that it
was so important that the Union support Meyer, as he was young and healthy
and could get a job anywhere.- Glanville testified without contradiction that-
Coupland agreed that their talk was to be "off the record." i
On September 8 Meyer went to the respondent's manufacturing plant. He-
testified that he went there for the purpose of conferring with the business
agent of the Union about going to work in the manufacturing plant. As he
waited in a room near the time clock with several other men, Superintendent
Emil Neiman, who • did not know that Meyer had previously been discharged
by Buerk, asked, him if he wanted to go to work. Meyer replied that he did,
was asked to fill out a time card, and started through the plant to go to work.
Bailey and Keith Gunderson, assistant superintendent, saw him and informed
him that he would not be permitted to go to work until his difficulty with Buerk
had been settled. Bailey charged Meyer with taking advantage of the situation.
Meyer replied that he would do his talking through the Union, and Bailey with
some heat told him to do so. Bailey then asked Meyer to leave the plant which
Meyer did. Gus Rystad, an employee who was present when Bailey told Meyer
to leave the plant, and who interceded in Meyer's behalf, testified without con-
tradiction and the undersigned finds that Bailey later in discussing the occur-
rence with him told him that Meyer had taken unfair advantage of the situation,
that he was a troublemaker, and that Bailey did not want him around.
The Union sent a letter dated September 8 to Bailey,.in which they protested
Bailey's action in denying employment to Meyer. Meyer testified that nego-
tiations regarding this second protest were handled by the shop committee when
he was not present. The action taken by the shop committee was not shown.
B. Conclusions regarding Meyer's discharge
From the foregoing it is clear that Meyer was not following Buerk's instruc-
tions with respect to the permit rule on the occasion of his discharge, and that
he had received prior warning that Buerk wanted him to follow such instruc-
tions. It is also clear that he was engaging in union activity at the time, but
during working hours. ,
Even assuming the boat shop to be under the existing contract (which the
Standing Committee, in effect found it was not) the contract does not permit
Meyer's discussion of the grievance with Costello during working hours. Under
the contract a shop committeeman may handle grievances of Union members
under his jurisdiction during working hours. Costello was not under Meyer's
jurisdiction, since Meyer was shop committeeman for the boat shop and Costello
worked in the sawmill, which was a considerable distance from the boat shop.
However, in the opinion of the undersigned, Meyer's conduct on the particular
'occasion would hardly merit discharge, if he had not prior theieto received,
repeated admonitions to follow Buerk's instructions regarding visitors in the
boat shop.
- In conjunction with Mrs. DeCaprio's testimony, the following facts are to be
considered with reference to Buerk's attitude toward Meyer and his Union
activity. Mrs DeCaprio was a non-employee, who was related to Meyer and
was friendly with Buerk. Buerk's first request that Mrs. DeCaprio talk to
Meyer about his Union activity was made over a year before his discharge, and
9 The above findings are based upon Coupland's testimony which was not disputed by
Glanville.
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1113
shortly after Meyer and another employee had claimed and had been paid a
comparatively large sum for overtime , which they had allowed , to accumulate
for several months. The last request by Buerk was made 9 or 10 months before
Meyer's discharge. In July 1941 Buerk told Meyer that the boat orders were
diminishing , and if lie would be a "good boy" there would be a job for him in
the warehouse when necessity for further curtailment arose. Thereafter , despite
the fact that Meyer continued his Union activities. Buerk granted him a number
of concessions , such as the classification of head painter with increased pay
although Meyer was the only painter on the job at the time . In addition, in
May 1942 Buerk granted Meyer's request for a week 's leave of absence to act
as executive secretary of the Union , and on one other occasion in 1942 Buerk
granted him leave of absence to transact some business of the Union.
Glanville's derogatory stateinents to Coupland regarding Meyer were made
some time after Meyer's discharge , and while they indicate disapproval of Meyer,
cannot be attributed to Buerk since it appears that Glanville had nothing to-do
with Meyer's case until after Buerk had discharged him. The effect of Glan-
ville's remarks regarding Meyer is somewhat dissipated by his willingness, ex-
pressed at that time , to dispose of the Meyer case as recommended by the Stand-
ing Committee.
The undersigned does not attach significance to the refusal of the respondent
to permit Meyer to go to work on September 8. Neiman, who told Meyer to go
to work on. that occasion , did not know of his prior discharge . Bailey had
attended' conferences where the Meyer case had been considered and knew that
it was still pending at the time when Meyer appeared in the plant . His state-
ments at that time, and later to Rystad and Anderson 3 indicate annoyance at
finding that Meyer was attempting to go to work while his case was still pending
and nothing , more. The determinative question is whether Meyer was dis-
criminatorily discharged in the'first instance. The undersigned is not convinced
that Bailey had anything to do with that discharge.
While the case is not free from doubt, the undersigned is not convinced from
a consideration of all material facts that Buerk discharged Meyer because of
his activities in behalf of the Union . Apart from the alleged discriminatory
discharge of Meyer there is a notable absence of anti-union conduct on the part
of Buerk and the respondent as a whole. Meyer failed to obey Buerk's instruc-
tions despite repeated warnings On the occasion of his discharge he relied
upon the Union contract for protection, but the contract afforded no protection
for his activities on that occasion.
It will be recommended that with regard to Meyer the complaint be
dismissed.`
I L. Anderson , foreman of the sawmill , testified that on September 8, Bailey told him
that it was possible that the re'pondent might have to pay Meyer some back pay, but that
be wasn't going to do it, and Meyer would have to take it to court Anderson further
testified that Bailey described Meyer as a disturber and a trouble-maker.
6 While conceding that the Board has jurisdiction to decide the Meyer case upon its
imerits , the respondent contends that the Board in the exercise of its discretion , should
refuse to decide the case because the Union has not exhausted the grievance procedure
under the contract between the parties Recently, in the Matter of Consolidated Aircraft
Corporation etc, Case No C-2378, decided Februaiy 1943, the Board refused to act upon
t" o alleged discriminatory discharges because the parties had not exhausted the remedies
under their existing collective bargaining contract , which contained grievence machinery
for the handling of such disputes with respect to Meyer's discharge on August 3, under
the finding of the Standing Committee, there was no existing contract providing machinery
for the handling of the dispute . Grievance machinery would be established only if the
Union followed the recommendation of the Standing Committee , and signed a contract
specifically covering the warehouse employees . This the Union refused to do. By refusing
1114 DE'CTSIONS OF 'N'ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Interference , restraint , and coercion
During the course of the conversation noted abode wherein Glanville and
Coupland talked about Meyer, they also discussed an article written by Coupland
which had appeared in the Union paper. ' In the article Coupland argued that
the Union should carryon negotiations through the international union, instead
of through the Plywood Council as was-then being done. ,Glanville said that
he thought that the existing method of negotiating was satisfactory, in fact„that
it constituted one of the outstanding examples of collective bargaining in the
United States. Coupland disagreed and maintained that in dealing through the
Plywood Council the Union was not acting in accord with the principles of true
industrial unionism. The conversation does not appear to have been anything
more than a friendly exchange of ideas, wherein the parties differed somewhat
as to the method of negotiations then in effect.
'-Sometime during the latter part of July 1942, Buerk saw Coupland-in the boat
shop This was after the notice had been posted on the boat shop which stated
that no one was to be permitted to go into the-boat shop unless he had a permit.
Buerk told Coupland to get out of the boat shop, and Coupland left. That same
day Coupland protested Buerk's action to Keith Gunderson, superintendent of
the manufacturing operations, in Buerk's presence, and stated that he had been
in the boat shop for the purpose of posting union notices. ' Coupland said that he
was going to take the matter up with the Union. Gunderson stated that the
matter could be settled amicably, and according to Coupland's testimony advised
Coupland that he could continue to post union notices in the boat shop.
In considering the above incidents, the undersigned finds that, Glanville was
guilty of no unfair labor practice in entering into a friendly discussion with
Coupland regarding the latter's article in the Union paper. As to the incident
wherein Buerk told Coupland to get out of the boat shop, it appears from Coup-
land's own testimony that on a number of occasions he had spent some time in
the boat shop during working hours discussing different matters with Meyer.
Upon Coupland's protest, Gunderson immediately advised Coupland that be could
continue to post notices in the boat shop. It is not clear that Buerk was attempt-
ing to restrict Coupland's legitimate activity of posting Union notices in the boat
shop by telling him to get out The undersigned does not therefore find it vio-
lative'of the Act With regard to the testimony of Mrs. DeCaprio its materiality
lies principally in the light it sheds upon Buerk's attitude toward Meyer. Since
it was an isolated statement to a non -employee, which was not communicated to
employees other than Meyer, the undersigned does not find that it constitutes
interference, restraint, and coercion, within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
O
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of the respondent at its manufacturing plant and, its ware-
house operations in Seattle, Washington, occur in commerce, within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
to decide the case upon its merits the Board would in effect , tell the Union that it
should follow the recommendation of its Standing Committee, sign a contract , and exhaust
the grievance machinery therein set up,, before resorting to the Board. This is clearly
further than the Board went in the Consolidated Aircraft case On September 8 Meyer
did not become an employee of the manufacturing plant and thus come under the contract
in existence there. It is clear that his grievance could not be handled under the grievance
procedure contained therein The, undersigned has therefore considered the case on its
mel its
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD 'CORPORATION 1115
2 International Woodworkers of America, Local 9-26, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3 The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
whole record herein, the undersigned recommends that the complaint herein be
dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-effective October 28,
1942, any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Wash-
ington. D C , an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
such exceptions to the Internnediate Report or to any other part of the record
or proceedings (nicluding rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies
upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof.
As further provided in Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue
orally before the Board, request therefor, must be made in writing, to the
Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to
the Board.
FRANK A. MOURTTSEN,
Trial Examiner.
f
I
Dated March 29, 1043.