Western States Regional Council No. 3 IWA, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
language of Section 9 (c) (2) of the Act, which reads in part as
follows :
In determining whether or not a question of representation af-
fecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of decision
shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the
petition or the kind of relief sought... .
Clearly, the contract here would not constitute a bar to a petition filed
by a rival union. Indeed, the contract here would not constitute a bar
if this union were uncertified and if it, itself,had filed a representation
petition."' Thus, in holding that it does bar the Employer's petition
and that for this reason no question concerning representation exists,
our colleagues, contrary to the express provisions of the Act, have
fixed different "rules" for determining the existence of such a ques-
tion, and have made their decision dependent on "the identity of the
persons filing the petition."
For these reasons, we would affirm the Board's earlier decision.
Board has stated unequivocally and without limitation that " . . . any contract having a
fixed term in excess of 2 years shall be treated , for the purposes of contract bar, as a
contract for a fixed term of 2 years . . . .. Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper
Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990, 992.
16 General Box Compang' , 82 NLRB 678 ; A'atona Mills , Inc., 97 NLRB 11 ; Pazan Motor
Freight, Inc., 116 NLRB 1568.
Western States Regional Council No . 3 International Wood-
workers of America, AFL-CIO and International Woodworkers
of America , Local 3-101 , AFL-CIO 1 and Priest Logging, Inc'
Case No. 19-CC-168. May 25, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 25, 1962, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued
his Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents had not engaged in any unfair
labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, Respondent Regional Council and the General Counsel
filed exceptions and supporting briefs.'
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made .
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Regional Council and the Local, respectively.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Priest.
3 The exceptions of Respondent Regional Council went solely to the failure of the Trial
Examiner to find that it was not properly named as a Respondent.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Leedom, Panning,
and Brown].
137 NLRB No. 31.
WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 3 IWA, ETC. 353
the proceedings, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings
and conclusions only to the extent that they are consistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order hereinafter provided.
1. The conduct alleged to be in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act.
As set forth more fully in the Intermediate Report, the record
clearly establishes that the Respondent Local engaged in picketing
at the premises of Bayside Log Dump CO.' with the object of forcing
Bayside to cease doing business with Eclipse Lumber Company'
and/or Priest while the employees of Eclipse (which the Respondent
Local represented) were on strike. The Trial Examiner found that
Bayside was not a neutral in the primary dispute between Eclipse
and the Respondent Local and that, accordingly, the latter's picketing
was not in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner's conclusion reflects his determination that Bay-
side had become an "ally" of Eclipse within the meaning of the "ally
doctrine." This doctrine provides that a neutral employer becomes
an "ally" of a strikebound primary employer (and not within the
protection of Section 8 (b) (4)) "when he knowingly does work which
would otherwise be clone by the striking employees . . . and where
this work is paid for by the primary employer pursuant to an arrange-
ment devised and originated by him to enable him to meet his con-
tractual obligations."'
In concluding that Bayside became Eclipse's "ally" the Trial Ex-
aminer relied on the facts that Eclipse arranged and paid for Bayside's
acceptance of Eclipse logs from Priest; that Eclipse had never before
used Bayside's facilities; and that the work tasks of unloading Priest's
trucks, which Bayside employees performed, duplicated work tasks
which the striking employees ordinarily performed at Eclipse's prem-
ises. However, while these facts are all relevant, the Trial Examiner's
exclusive reliance upon them for purposes of affording the Respondent
the defensive benefits of the "ally doctrine," is misplaced. This is so
because the purport of that doctrine is to recognize the legitimate
interests of a union representing striking employees to induce, by
picketing or other similar activity at the premises of other employers,
the cessation of work being performed by such other employers for a
strikebound employer where it appears that such work necessarily aids
the latter in "breaking" the strike.' We agree with the General Coun-
Hereinafter referred to as Bayside.
Hereinafter referred to as Eclipse.
v N L R B v Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local
459, et al., 228 F. 2d 553, 559 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 351 U S. 962.
8 See N L R B v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board
Local 459 , et al, supra at 558; International Die Sinkers Conference , et al, 120 NLRB
1227; and Douds v Metropolitan Federation of Architects , etc, Local 231 (Pro)ect
Engineering Company ), 75 F. Sapp. 672 (D.CNY.).
649856-63-vol. 137-24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sel that in the instant case Bayside's services to Eclipse were not
"struck work" services . Thus, Bayside's acceptance from Priest of
Eclipse logs for temporary storage while Eclipse's operations re-
mained strikebound neither aided Eclipse in the conduct of any busi-
ness activity constituting the reason for the latter's existence, nor
deprived the striking Eclipse employees of any of the work oppor-
tunities they were legitimately interested in preserving. We note in
this connection that Eclipse is in the business of manufacturing logs
into lumber; that no part of the storage service furnished to Eclipse
and/or to Priest during the strike aided Eclipse either directly
or indirectly in carrying on its manufacturing activity; s and that,
while the unloading work tasks performed by Bayside employees as
an incident to Bayside's storage of the logs were work tasks which
Eclipse employees would have performed as an incident to Eclipse's
business activity, the performance of these tasks by Bayside employees
did not supplant or take away work from the striking employees and,
hence, did not represent performance of "struck work." For the logs
were destined for later delivery to Eclipse when its operations were re-
sumed, and the normal unloading work of the striking employees
thus remained tobe performed.'°
We find, accordingly, that by the picketing at Bayside the Re-
spondent Local induced and encouraged the employees of Bayside and
Priest to engage in a concerted refusal to handle Eclipse logs and
threatened, coerced, and restrained Bayside and Priest, with, in both
instances, an object of forcing or requiring Priest and Bayside to
cease doing business with Eclipse in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act.
2. We turn next to the additional question not reached by the Trial
Examiner which goes to the joint liability of the Respondent Regional
Council for the picketing found unlawful above.
The pertinent facts relevant to this issue are not in dispute. They
relate to the role played by Respondent Regional Council's administra-
tor, James Fadling, both in the negotiations preceding the Eclipse
strike and in the unlawful picketing conducted by the Respondent Lo-
cal at Bayside as an incident to that strike. Specifically, the facts es-
tablish that Fadling admittedly acted, during the prestrike negotia-
tions, as agent for both Respondents; that he voiced and supported
the demands for which the Local eventually struck; that he personally
intervened in the unlawful picketing dispute at Bayside by authorita-
tively setting forth to Bayside the terms upon which the pickets at its
9 Indeed, the record tends to establish that Eclipse arranged for the storage of its logs
with Bayside purely as a convenience to Priest , an undisputed "neutral" in the economic
dispute between Eclipse and its employees
10 Cf N L IL B V Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Boas d,
Local 459, et al, supra, and Douds v Metropolitan Federation of Architects, etc, supra
And see Local 810, Steel, Metals , Alloys , etc (Fenn Can Corp. ), 131 NLRB 59 , enfd 299
F 2d 636 ( CA. 2) ; and Marsh Foodliners, Inc, 114 NLRB 639
WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 3 IWA, ETC. 355
premises would be withdrawn; and that the nature and extent of
Fadling's authority was described, with his knowledge and/or that
of other Regional Council officials, in the notice opening the negotia-
tions which the Respondent Local sent Eclipse, as follows :
This local union . . . notifies you that the Western States Re-
gional Council . . . has sole authority to represent it in all
negotiations on the proposed amendments and revisions stated
above and also on all negotiations on any amendments or revisions
requested by you . . . . Any departure from this notice must be
in writing to you over the signature of the Western States Re-
gional Council No. 3.
The Respondent Regional Council does not deny that it authorized
Fadling to act on its behalf in the prestrike negotiations. It claims,
however, that Fadling's power to bind it, under its intraunion regula-
tory scheme, was limited strictly to the negotiation and settlement of
"industry terms" 11 and that any further participation in the negotia-
tions once those terms were "settled" was purely as a spokesman for the
Respondent Local and at the latter's request. Further, relying upon
the conceded fact that "industry terms" had been settled and that the
strike occurred because of disagreement over "local" issues, Re-
spondent Regional Council claims that Fadling acted solely as an
agent for the Respondent Local after the settlement of such "industry
terms," and, hence, his actions could not be attributed to the Re-
spondent Regional Council. We disagree.
It may well be true that the Respondent Regional Council did not
expressly authorize Fadling's participation in the Eclipse dispute
beyond that necessary to serve the Respondent Regional Council's
interest in "industry terms." However, it never made clear to any of
the parties in interest when the authority with which it had cloaked
Fadling to act as its agent terminated. Nor did it ever disavow any
of Fadling 's conduct. Furthermore, Fadling himself never undertook
to advise the interested parties that he was not acting for his employ-
ing principal, the Respondent Regional Council, at any of the times
material here.
In these circumstances, and in light of the fact that Fadling was
acting within the apparent scope of his authority as an agent of the
Respondent Regional Council, in the respects above noted, we find the
Respondent Regional Council jointly liable with the Respondent Lo-
cal for the conduct found to be in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and
(ii) (B) of theAct. 12
11 "Industry terms" refers to proposed contract terms which result from bargaining be-
tween the LW A and employer associations or which are selected by convention action
.of the LW A.
12 International Longshoremen & Warehousemen's Union, and Local No 13 , 124 NLRB
813, 816, and Fruit d Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760, et at ( Tree Fruits
,Labor Relations Committee, Inc.), 132 NLRB 1172
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Bayside, Priest, and Eclipse, 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Bayside
and Priest to cease performing services for Bayside and Priest, re-
spectively, with an object of forcing or requiring Bayside and Priest
to cease doing business with Eclipse , Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) (B)
of the Act.
2. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Bayside and Priest
with an object of forcing or requiring Bayside and Priest to cease
doing business with Eclipse, Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) ( B) of the
Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the Respondents, Western States Regional Council No. 3
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America, Local 3-101, AFL-CIO, their offi-
cers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Inducing and encouraging any individual employed by Priest
Logging, Inc., or Bayside Log Dump Co., or of any other employer, to
engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to per-
form any services with an object of forcing or requiring Priest Log-
ging, Inc., Bayside Log Dump Co., or any other employer, to cease
doing business with Eclipse Lumber Company.
(b) Threatening , coercing or restraining Priest Logging, Inc., or
Bayside Log Dump Co. with an object of forcing or requiring Priest
WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 3 IWA, ETC. 357
Logging, Inc., and/or Bayside Log Dump Co. to cease doing business
with Eclipse Lumber Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) As to the Regional Council, post at its main offices and at all
meeting halls and other places where it customarily posts notices to
members of Local 3-101, and as to Local 3-101, post at its offices, meet-
ing halls, and at all places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, shall, after they have been signed by Respondents'
authorized representatives, be posted by them immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the said Regional Director copies of the afore-
mentioned notice for posting by Bayside Log Dump Co., Priest Log-
ging, Inc., and Eclipse Lumber Company, if they be willing, at places
where they customarily post notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken by Respondents to
comply herewith.
13 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL No.
3 INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO AND INTER-
NATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 3-101, AFL-CIO; AND
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PRIEST LOGGING, INC., BAYSIDE LOG DUMP Co.,
AND ECLIPSE LUMBER COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by
Priest Logging, Inc., Bayside Log Dump Co., or any other em-
ployer, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to perform any services with an object of forcing or
requiring Priest Logging, Inc., Bayside Log Dump Co., or any
other employer, to cease doing business with Eclipse Lumber
Company.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Priest Logging, Inc.,
and/or Bayside Log Dump Co., with an object of forcing or re-
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quiring Priest Logging, Inc., and/or Bayside Log Dump Co. to
cease doing business with Eclipse Lumber Company.
WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL
No. 3 INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 3-101, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Members or employees may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone
Number, Mutual 2-3300, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Priest Logging, Inc., filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National
Labor Relations Board on September 15, 1961. After amendments thereto, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on October 10, 1961, issued
a complaint against Western States Regional Council No. 3 International Wood-
workers of America, AFL-CIO and International Woodworkers of America, Local
3-101, AFL-CIO.
In essence, the complaint alleges that Respondents on September 13, 1961, by
engaging in picketing, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.'
,On consideration of Respondents' brief, the entire record, and my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
1 The pertinent section of the Act Is:
'Sac. 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
• • . • • s :
(4) (i) to engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by any per-
son engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike
or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object
thereof Is*
♦ $ t • 4 i
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor,
or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or
requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as
the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been
certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of sec-
tion 9: Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (P,) shall be construed
to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary
picketing ; . .. .
WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. 3 IWA, ETC. 359
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANIES INVOLVED AND JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
Priest Logging, Inc., herein called Priest, is a Washington corporation engaged at
Port Angeles, Washington, in the business of logging timber lands and road building.
It annually receives income in excess of $50,000 for performing services for other
business enterprises that ship products to points outside the State of Washington
valued in excess of $50,000.
(2) Bayside Log Dump Co., herein called Bayside, is a Washington corporation
engaged at Everett, Washington, in the business of storing, sorting, and fashioning
logs into rafts. It annually receives income in excess of $50,000 for performing
services for business enterprises that ship products to points outside the State of
Washington, valued in excess of $50,000.
(3) Eclipse Lumber Company, herein called Eclipse, is a copartnership located at
Everett, Washington, where it is engaged in the operation of a sawmill. It annually
ships lumber outside the State of Washington valued in excess of $50,000.
Priest, Bayside, and Eclipse are each employers within the meaning of the Act
and are engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Western States Regional Council No . 3 International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Council,2 is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
International Woodworkers of America , Local 3-101, AFL-CIO, herein called
Respondent Local, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background events
In October 1958, Priest and Eclipse executed a written agreement whereby Priest
undertook to deliver logs obtained from timberlands owned by Eclipse to the sawmill
of Eclipse at Everett, Washington. Pursuant to this agreement, Priest delivered logs
to the sawmill of Eclipse. The logs were either dumped in the water or placed on
land in piles, which practice in the lumber industry is termed "cold decking."
Whether the logs were piled on land or made into rafts after being dumped in the
water, employees of Eclipse handled the unloading and grouping of the logs after
the Priest trucks had brought the logs onto the premises of Eclipse.
Prior to September 13, 1961, Eclipse and Respondent Local which represented the
employees of Eclipse were involved in a labor dispute. The employees of Eclipse
went on strike and placed pickets at the entrance to the sawmill. Because of the
strike, Eclipse could not use the logs Priest was delivering to its premises and advised
Priest that it could no longer accept log deliveries. The contract between Priest and
Bayside did not permit Priest to be reimbursed for the cutting and hauling of logs
until they were delivered at the permises of Eclipse. Actuated by these financial
considerations, Priest prevailed upon Eclipse to arrange with Bayside Log Dump
for the storing of Eclipse logs that would be delivered to it by Priest, and Priest
would then receive reimbursement. Eclipse agreed to make such arrangements with
Bayside and did so. Carrying out this arrangement on September 13, 1961, Priest
trucks delivered Eclipse logs to Bayside. Shortly after the Priest trucks began
making deliveries to Bayside, a picket of Respondent Local appeared at the entrance
to Bayside premises, carrying a picket sign with the following legend, "ON STRIKE
ECLIPSE LUMBER COMPANY, UNFAIR TO 3-101, AFL-CIO." Priest trucks
brought in six or seven loads on September 13, the majority of which were brought in
after the picketing had commenced. A substitute employee or agent of Bayside, at
the direction of Bayside, unloaded Priest trucks, although it is possible that before
they stopped working, Bayside regular employees may have unloaded one or two
loads of Eclipse logs. In any event, after the picket appeared, Bayside employees
stopped working, including those that customarily unloaded the logging trucks The
picketing was terminated on September 19, 1961, when Bayside agreed not to handle
any more Eclipse logs. Bayside employees returned to work on this date, after the
pickets of Respondent Local were removed.
Priest trucks stopped delivering logs to Bayside because Bayside's storage facilities
were filled and there were no employees available to move out the logs. There is
2 Resnondent Council provides services for various locals of the same International
Union including Respondent Local and receives per capita dues from such locals
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no evidence in the record that the picket line stopped any truckdriver from bringing
a load of logs onto the Bayside premises during the time of the picketing.
B. Analysis and concluding findings
In summary form, it is the contention of the General Counsel that the picketing
at Bayside by Respondent Local was unlawful because an object of the picketing
was to force Bayside and Priest to cease doing business with Eclipse by inducing
employees of Bayside and Priest to withhold their services from their respective
employers. Although the General Counsel correctly depicts the object of the picket-
ing by Respondent Local, on the facts presented here, the picketing is not prohibited
by Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act.
In Truck Operators League of Oregon, 122 NLRB 25, at page 27, the Board states:
As indicated by the Trial Examiner an "ally" stands in the shoes of the primary
employer, and to the extent that he acts as an "ally" he must therefore be
regarded as the primary employer.
Examination of the decisional precedents make it clear that the "ally" theory oper-
ates to make an employer, legally a primary employer, when there is a transfer of
work from a struck employer to another employer and the transferee employer
knowingly undertakes to have its employees perform work that was done by employ-
ees of the struck employer. In this situation the transferee employer is excluded
from the protection of the 8(b)(4) provisions of the Act. See International Die
Sinkers Conference, et al., 120 NLRB 1227; N.L.R.B. v. Business Machines and Office
Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459, et al., 228 F. 2d 553 (C.A. 2);
Gerald A. Brown v. Local 17 Amalgamated Lithographers of America, et al. (Em-
ploying Lithographers Div.), 180 Fed. Supp. 294 (D.C. Calif.); and Douds v. Metro-
politan Federation of Architects, etc., 75 Fed. Supp. 672 (D.C. N.Y.)
In view of these precedents, it is clear that under the circumstances here present,
Bayside became an "ally" of Eclipse and in legal effect its premises became a site
of primary picketing. Hence, Bayside employees are in the same legal position as
as the employees of Eclipse and no violation stems from their refusal to work while
the picketing is of a primary nature under the "ally" theory. With respect to the
employees of Priest, similarly, if the picketing is permisssible at the premises of
Eclipse aimed at them (which it clearly is), it also follows that the picketing at the
premises of Bayside is also permissible to the extent that it may contain an appeal
to the employees of Priest to cease work.3
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Western States Regional Council No. 3 International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, and International Woodworkers of America, Local 3-1,01, AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Priest Logging, Inc., Bayside Log Dump Co., and Eclipse Lumber Company,
are each of them engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and are employers within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. The aforementioned labor organizations have not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8,(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) ( B) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
g The record in the matter contains a substantial amount of evidence relating to the
question of whether Respondent Council should be regarded as a joint participant with
Respondent Local. This evidence included not only the events which occurred in connec-
tion with the dispute here involved and the strike, but also provisions of Respondents'
constitution and past practice with respect to negotiations. Because of the determination
that there was no illegality involved in any of the conduct of Respondent Local, the ques-
tion of Respondent Council's responsibility need not here be reached, inasmuch as any
question of illegality of Respondent Council's conduct hinges totally on that of Respond-
ent Local