Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1371 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1371
properly be viewed as the entering into of another agreement with'-terms similar
to article 25 and similarly unlawful . On this record it is my conclusion that the
Union and the automobile dealers "entered into" an agreement within the meaning
of Section 8(e) by their action in June 1960 wherein they acknowledged and main-
tained the current effectiveness and application of article 25 and , more particularly,
by the conduct of Local 618 in urging that , pursuant to the aforesaid provision in
the collective-bargaining agreement, Clayton Motors and Forest Cadillac cease doing
business with Seat Cover Mart. In so doing, the Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8 (e) as alleged in the complaint.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 618 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
2. Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers and Upholsterers Association, Inc.,
and its members, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondent Union violated Section 8 (e) of the Act by entering into and
maintaining contracts with the members of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Associ-
ation , Inc., whereby those employers agreed that when they found it feasible to send
out work that would ordinarily be performed by their own employees , preference
would be given to shops or subcontractors having contracts with the Union.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local *4. Case No. 13-CA-3750. December 19, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25,1960, Trial Examiner Charles W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain alleged unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed, as
set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
General Counsel and the Charging Party, Amalgamated Lithogra-
phers of America, Local *4, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and briefs in support thereof. The Respondent filed a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report but excepted to rulings of the Trial
Examiner excluding certain evidence proffered by the Respondent.
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 this
case, and for the reasons discussed below finds merit in the General
Counsel's and Charging Party's exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port. Accordingly, the Board adopts only those findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner which are consistent
with the decision herein.
134 NLRB No. 150.
1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'The Employer operates a folding box and paper carton factory at
Chicago, Illinois. It employs production and maintenance workers
in the manufacturing section of the plant, as well as letterpress and
lithographic printing employees in the plant's printing department.
On March 7, 1960, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local
#4,1 filed a petition for a representation election requesting a unit of
"all lithographic production employees." 2 At the hearing in this
representation case, Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union
No. 415, International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of a showing of
interest, and subsequently on April 28, 1960, filed a petition for "all
production and maintenance employees of the Company, including
plant clerical [s]." S Hearings in Case No. 13-RC-7069 were held
on April 11 and 12, 1960; hearing in the consolidated proceedings,
Cases Nos. 1-3-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168, were held on May 31 and
June 1, -1960.
On June 17, 1960, the Respondent filed a motion in the representa-
tion proceedings, as consolidated, asking that the record be reopened
and the cases remanded to the Region for further hearing. It alleged
in a supporting affidavit of its 'labor relations manager, James A.
Brooks, that it had instituted `a program of training and interchange
among the printing department personnel since the conclusion of the
representation case hearings on June 1, 1960, so that henceforth all
personnel in that department would be trained in the operations of
both lithographic and letterpress equipment, and that after June 10,
1960, they would be used interchangeably on both types of equipment.
The affidavit declared further : "6. The purpose of this change is to
avoid the necessity of abandoning lithographic printing due to the
uneconomical and uncompetitive working conditions which have been
and will be demanded by the Amalgamated Lithographers of Amer-
ica when lithographic production workers are separated from all other
production and maintenance workers at this plant." The Respondent
moved that further evidence be taken on this interchange since it al-
leged that the interchange was substantial in relation to the doctrine
of Pacific Pxess 4
The record of proceedings in the aforementioned representation
cases,5 of which we take official notice, discloses that 16 regular litho-
graphic production employees, including first pressmen, second press-
men, machine feeders, helpers, and floormen, spent all of their time in
i Hereinafter known' as Lithographers.
Case No. 13-RC-7069.
$ Case No 13-RC-7168.
' Paotfic Presa, Inc., 66 NLRB . 468. In that case, the Board held that when inter-
change between offset and letter pressmen is substantial , the Board will not direct an
election in a separate unit of offset or lithographic pressmen, but will find an overall unit
of all pressmen to be the appropriate unit.
s Cases Nos . 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1373
the operation of lithographic presses, except during occasional pro-
duction emergencies or to avoid layoffs, when they were assigned to
nonlithographic work elsewhere in the plant. It is clear that at the
time of the representation proceeding and before the Respondent
initiated the changes in the printing department the lithographic
production employees constituted a traditional unit of lithographic
production employees entitled to separate representation's
The complaint in the instant proceeding alleges, and the Respond-
ent admits in it's answer, that Lithographers requested collective
bargaining on or about March 7, 1960, for all lithographic production
employees, apparently by the filing of a- petition. The complaint also
alleges, and Respondent in effect admits, that it has instituted the
aforesaid, training and interchange program and has, thereby, been
erasing the distinction which previously existed between lithographic
and letterpress employees. Although the Respondent had been aware
for a considerable period of time of the organizing activities of the
Lithographers among lithographic workers, at Respondent's other
plants, and although it claims that it had considered making the inter-
change in question for several years, the fact remains that Respondent
did not institute the interchange until organizing activities began
among its lithographic employees. According to its vice president, it
thereafter instituted the changes in order to- avoid "fragmentizing"
the Chicago, plant, because it, was,concerned that the effect of such
"fragmentizing." would impair its ability to, fill orders in accordance
with customers' specifications and to adjust the production load of the
plant. Respondent further asserts that its decision to interchange was
also influenced by- a desire to preserve "flexibility" of, working crews
and to enable employees to become proficient hi both lithographic and
letterpress work.7 . , • , ; ,
As the Trial Examiner indicated, one of -the issues in this proceed-
ing is whether the Respondent,. by this interchange of .lithographic
and letterpress, employees after the close ,of-the representation hear-
ings, violated the rights of its employees guaranteed by' Section 7 of
the Act to freely join and support a union of their own choosing. In
resolving this issue, he concluded that there was "no evidence" iii this
proceeding to show that any employee had been .unlawfully interfered
with, restrained, or coerced. We do not agree. We find, rather, that
e Note our issuance of Decision and Direction of Elections in these representation cases,
Cases Nos 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168, issued simultaneously with this decision as
134 NLRB 1381.
7In its brief, Respondent asserts that the Trial Examiner erred in refusing to allow
the introduction of certain evidence regarding its cost experience at other plants in deal-
ing with Lithographers, and bargaining demands of Lithographers at those plants,
especially its experience at Rochester, New York. In view of the fact that the Trial
Examiner allowed introduction of other evidence of this type, we find that to have allowed
the introduction of additional evidence sought by Respondent would have been cumulative
We hereby affirm the rulings of the Trial Examiner since adequate evidence with regard
to cost and plant operation is adduced in the present record.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by organizing its printing department in such manner as to remove
the basis for finding a unit of lithographic production employees
appropriate, Respondent sought to frustrate the desires of the litho-
graphic employees to organize and to select Lithographers as their
bargaining representative. Such conduct is, we find, clearly in viola-
tion of the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act. We
further find that such conduct tended to unlawfully discourage
membership in Lithographers.
In so finding, we,are not•overlooking Respondent's claimed-interest
in reorganizing its operations for economic, and not for antiunion,
considerations. Thus, the Respondent points out that its competitive
position in the market would be seriously impaired if it had to pay the
rates which, it speculated, would be demanded by Lithographers, since
no comparable plants in the Chicago area had collective-bargaining
agreements with the Lithographers. We find no merit in this posi-
tion; for what it would mean, in essence, is that every potential in-
crease • in costs for an employer in a competitive market which can
result from the organizing activities of its employees is justification
for interfering with such organizing activities, and, therefore, that
no employees may ever achieve union organization unless an employer
is convinced that such organization will not alter the employer's com-
petitive position, or the employer is willing to assume this risk. The
situation here is clearly in conflict with the policies of the Act.e We
find, moreover, that Respondent's misplaced reliance on such cases as
Adkins Transfer 9 cannot be persuasive in this proceeding. Unlike
those cases, the Respondent here found no reason to, nor was it de-
sirous of, discontinuing its lithographic operations. In denying en-
forcement in, the Adkins case, the court observed that the employer
had discontinued its operations and had not thereafter hired any other
employees or replaced those discharged. Moreover, we have expressed
our respectful disagreement with such cases io
Although it -was not. shown that; the lithographic production em-
ployees involved in the interchange program have suffered any specific
monetary losses as -a result of their new training and assignments, it
s At no point in this proceeding -does Respondent contend that it instituted the inter-
change in question for any 'reason except to avoid the possibility that its lithographic
employees might be organized by Lithographers, with the single exception of an assertion
that the interchange was instituted to preserve "flexibility." However, the evidence
fairly establishes that the Respondent would not have taken such action to preserve
"flexibility," or other action , but for the incidence of organizational activity on the part
of its lithographic production employees.
c N L R B. v Adkins Transfer Company , Inc., 226 F. 2d 324 (C.A. 6) ; N L.R.B v. The
R. C. Mahon Company, 269 F 2d 44 (GA. 6) ; N.L.R.B. v. The Houston Chronicle Publish-
ing Company, 211 F 2d 848 (C.A. 5). See also N L R B v. Tennessee-Carolina Transporta-
tion, Inc, 226 F. '2d 743 (CC A 6) ; N.L R B. v. J. M Lansing, et at., d/b/a Consumers
Gasoline Stations , 284 F 2d 781 (C.A 6), cert denied 366 U S. 909; Jays Foods Inc, an
Illinois Corporation v. N.L R B., 292 F . 2d 317 (C A. 7).
io Jays Foods Inc., 129 NLRB 690, footnote 2 (enforcement denied, supra , at footnote 9)
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1375
is established that loss to employees is not a necessary element in
establishing a violation of Section 8 (a) (3).11
We conclude that by reorganizing its printing operations in the
above-described circumstances , Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8 ( a) (1) of the
Act, and that it has also violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act 12 These
are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
As we have found that Respondent engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, we shall issue an appropriate
order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from such conduct
and to perform certain affirmative acts in order to remedy the unfair
labor practices committed. The remedy provided for herein is related
to our concurrent decision in the aforementioned representation
cases.l3
. In fashioning a remedy in this proceeding, we do not find it neces-
sary at this time to order the Employer to restore the physical or-
ganization of its printing department to the status quo ante at the time
of the representation proceedings in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act. We think it will suffice if we order that an election be con-
ducted among the lithographic employees, the details of which are
set out in our-decision in the representation cases , to permit them to
determine for themselves whether, they desire to be represented by
the Lithographers. Since no lithographic employee has been deprived
of a job or suffered any economic loss as a result of the Respondent's
unfair labor practices, and since we are not directing the restoration
of the status quo ante, we shall make no provision for reinstatement
or the payment of backpay.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Weyer-
haeuser Company, Chicago, Illinois, its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
11 Montauk Iron t Steel Corp ., 127 NLRB 993 , 1006; Herman Nelson Division , American
Air Filter Company, ]no, 127 NLRB 939, 940 , 946-947 ; El Diario Publishing Co, Inc.,
114 NLRB 965, 975
19 N•L R.B. v. Hugh Mayor, d/b/a Hugh Major Truck Service, 296 F 2d 466 (CA 7) ;
N L R B. v. Missouri Transit Company , et al , 250 F . 2d 261 (C.A. 8) ; Williams Motor
Company v . N.L R.B., 128 F. 2d 960 (C.A 8).
13 Cases Nos . 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168 Issued simultaneously herewith and are
reported in 134 NLRB 1381.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local #4, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by discriminating in regard to hire, tenure, or any term or
condition of employment, through retraining, interchanging, or trans-
ferring lithographic production employees, or any other employees,
or by discriminating against them in any other manner.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any
other concerted activities for the purpose of. collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and' all such
activities, except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
amended, as.modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
2. Take the- following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all -other records necessary to identify lithographic production
employees and their replacements, as they were constituted on the
date of the representation hearings in Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and
13-RC-7168, for the purpose of conducting elections therein.
(b) Post in its plant at Chicago, Illinois, copies of the notice -at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall;
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure.--
that said notices are 'n& altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
u 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."
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1377
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, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in'Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, Local #4, or in any other labor organiza-
tion of our employees, by discriminating in regard to hire, tenure,
or any term or condition of employment through retraining,
interchanging, or transferring lithographic production em-
ployees, or any other employees, or by discriminating against
them in any other manner. -
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting 'and Disclosure Act of, 1959.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining, members of any union'or other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that this right is affected by a collective-
bargaining agreement that conforms with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act,
as modified-by the Labor-Management -Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959. ' 1 '
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated- --------------- BY--=---------- ------------------------
(Representative ) , ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for' 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a , complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board , and an answer having been filed by the above -named Respondent,
a hearing involving allegations of unfair 'labor practices in violation of Section
630849-62-vol. 134=88 -
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was held in
Chicago, Illinois, on September 22, 1960, before the duly designated Trial
Examiner.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel, and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Briefs have been received from all parties.
The Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, upon which ruling was re-
served at the conclusion of the hearing, is disposed of by the following findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT -
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Weyerhaeuser Company is a Washington corporation, maintaining a principal
office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and various other plants and places
of business in 26 States of the United States. At such plants it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of folding boxes. The Chicago plant is the
only one involved in these proceedings.
During the calendar year of 1959 the. Respondent purchased, transferred, and
delivered to the Chicago plant goods and materials valued at more than $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Illinois. I
During the same period it sold and shipped goods and materials valued at more
than $50,000 from the Chicago plant to points outside the State of Illinois.
The"Respondent is' engaged '-in commerce within, the., meaning, of the ^Act.^
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local #4, is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
At,the ,opening , of the hearing . the following stipulation of, the ,parties was read
into the record:
Charging party on March 7, 1960, petitioned for an election in a unit of all
lithographic production employees, but excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, at the
Respondent's Chicago, Illinois, branch in Case No. 13-RC-7069. Hearing was
held on this petition on April 11 and 12, 1960. Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union No. 415 intervened. Respondent and Printing Specialties
and Paper Products Union No. 415 both took the position that a separate
unit.of lithographic production employees was inappropriate.
Printing Specialties and Paper Products -Union No. 415 on May 2, 1960,
petitioned forAn election in a unit, of all. production and maintenance employ-
ees,` includiiig plant' clericals, but'excludin'g office"clerical', professionhl'employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act at the Respondent's Chicago,
Illinois, plant in Case No. 13-RC-7168. At the request of Respondent and
Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No. 415, the Board on May 10,
1960, ordered the record in Case No. 13-RC-7069 reopened and remanded
the case to the Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region for the purpose, of
consolidation with Case No. 13-RC-7168. The cases were duly consolidated
on May 11, 1960, and hearing thereon was held on May 31 and June 1, 1960.
Charging Party intervened in Case No. 13-RC-7168 and took the position that
a separate unit of lithographic production employees was appropriate.
On June 17, 1960, Respondent filed a motion to remand for further hearings
in consolidated Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168. Said motion is
marked for identification as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2 and is hereby
offered into evidence by counsel.
In support of its motion, Respondent attached to it and filed with it the affi-
davit of James A. Brooks, Respondent's manager of labor relations:", Said
affidavit is marked for identification as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3 and
is hereby offered into evidence by the General Counsel without objection
from Respondent or Charging Party.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1379
If Brooks were called as a witness today he..would testify that the matters
contained in General Counsel's exhibit,3 were true and correct as of the time
the affidavit was-made.
The Charging Party filed a pleading in opposition to the Respondent's motion
to remand but no counter-affidavit with respect to the facts has been filed in
Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168.
The Board has not yet acted on Respondent's motion to remand for further
hearings, nor has it handed,down its decision in Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and
13-RC-7168.
Respondent reserved the right to object to the materiality of any and all the
facts stated above.'
The Respondent's motion to remand, referred to as General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 2, dated June 16; 1960; reads as follows:
Weyerhaeuser Company, Respondent, by Bell, Boyd, Marshall & Lloyd and
Thomas R. McMillen, its attorneys, respectfully requests that the above-
entitled cause (Cases Nos. 13-RC-7168 and 7069) be remanded to the Re-
gional Director, Thirteenth Region, for further proceedings in the light of
the substantially changed circumstances which have occurred since the hearing
was concluded on June 1, 1960. In support thereof, Respondent attaches the
affidavit of James A. Brooks, which is made a part hereof by reference.
Respondent is presently engaged in operational changes which substantially
alter the unit claimed to be appropriate by petitioner Amalgamated Lithogra-
phers of America. These changes create a unit of employees who utilize both
lithographic and letterpress operations and equipment interchangeably. The
interchange is substantial, with the doctrine- of.Pacific Press, 66 NLRB 458.
The unit sought by Petitioner Amalgamated -Lithographers'of America is not
appropriate in such circumstances.
Respondent respectfully submits that the full facts of these changes should
be investigated by a further hearing and that the National Labor Relations
Board should not decide the question of an appropriate unit or hold an election
in the above cause until the changes circumstances can be fully considered
by the Board.
Weyerhaeuser Company, Respondent, further requests that the time for
filing its brief in the above-entitled cause be extended until 14 days after com-
pletion, of the hearings on,remand or. 14 days after other disposition of this
motion, whichever is later, since a brief should not be required until the
Board has determined that the record is completed.
The affidavit of Brooks, referred to in the stipulation above, reads as follows:
James A. Brooks, having been first duly sworn, on oath states:
1. He is manager of labor relations of the Weyerhaeuser Company, boxboard
and folding carton division, with his office located at 919 North Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. He makes this affidavit in such capacity on behalf
of Weyerhaeuser Company.
2. On June 3, 1960, he held a. preliminary meeting with:an international rep-
resentative, of the Amalgamated Lithographers of America as the certified bar-
gaining representative • df the, lithographic production employees dt,. Weyer-.E
haeuser Company's folding box plant at Middlebury, Indiana. The meeting
was the first one held between the company and the Lithographers Union and
was held in compliance with an order of the United States Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit entered on May 23, 1960, in Case No. 12793 entitled
National Labor Relations Board v. Weyerhaeuser Cornpdny. - '
3. Some of the union's demands submitted for lithographic production work-
ers at said meeting on June 3, 1960, and the comparable terms and conditions
of employment now existing' for those workers at the Middlebury plant are: 2
All other production and maintenance workers at the Middlebury plant ex-
cept for lithographic workers are covered by a collective bargaining contract
embodying terms set forth-in the right-hand column above, except.that hourly
I The two exhibits referred to were„received in evidence without objection. 'Coungel,for
the Respondent objected to the materiality of certain 'facts contained in the stipulation
but conceded their accuracy. His objections and motion to strike such facts as he con-
sidered immaterial were overruled. .
2 The comparative list is omitted herein, in the interest of space saving
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates are different for different job classifications . This contract extends to
May 16, 1962.
4. The provisions demanded by the Amalgamated Lithographers of America
are part of the nationwide bargaining pattern of the Amalgamated Lithogra-
phers of America. They are substantially the same terms as are embodied in.
the contract between Local No. 4 of the Amalgamated Lithographers of America
and the Chicago Lithographers Association which is identified as Company
Exhibit 2 in this cause. The Weyerhaeuser Company managerment has now
decided that a contract embodying even part of the terms demanded by the
Amalgamated Lithographers of America would make it unprofitable for the
company to continue to use lithographic printing in manufacturing folding boxes
at Middlebury or elsewhere. Furthermore, the unrest and dissension which
these terms would create among the other employees of the Chicago plant
and of the Middlebury plant would jeopardize if not destroy the company's
competitive position in the remainder of the operations at those plants. The
Amalgamated Lithographers of America does not represent the lithographic
employees of any of Weyerhaeuser's competitors in the Chicago or Middlebury
area, and those competitors will therefore not be subjected to the demands
and disruption caused by the Amalgamated Lithographers of America at Middle-
bury. On the other hand, the lithographic process of printing constitutes such
an important proportion of the company's production that a temporary or
permanent interruption of this process, by strike or abandonment, would cause
irreparable harm to the company and to its employees.
5. Affiant and other officials of the Weyerhaeuser Company have concluded
that a change in the organization of the company's printing departments is
necessary to preserve the company's right to continue to use the lithographic
process. Therefore on June 10, 1960, a change in the organization of the
printing department in the company's Chicago Branch was instituted. Effec-
tive- immediately , all personnel engaged in printing operations will be trained
in the operation of both offset and letterpress equipment interchangeably and
will be used interchangeably on 'both types of equipment. After a period of
training and transition, there will no longer be any distinction between offset
and letterpress personnel insofar as their skills and duties are concerned, and
the personnel will be alternated from one method of printing to the other so
that each man will spend a substantial amount of time on each process. Hours,
rates of pay, and other working conditions will continue to be standardized
between the two types of printing. •
6. The purpose of this change is to avoid the necessity of abandoning litho-
graphic printing due to the uneconomical and uncompetitive working conditions
which have been and will be demanded by the Amalgamated Lithographers of
America when lithographic production workers are separated from all other
production and maintenance workers at this plant.
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that on June 10, 1960, the reorgani-
zation of the Respondent's printing department was effected as set out in the above-
quoted affidavit . By this reorganization and training, the complaint further con-
tends and the answer admits, the Respondent has been erasing whatever distinction
there may have been between the offset and letterpress personnel insofar as their
skills and duties are concerned. ' -
It is General Counsel's claim , opposed by the Respondent, that the above-described
changes have been instituted "so that Respondent can avoid bargaining collectively
with the (Charging) Union as the exclusive representative of all lithographic pro-
duction employees in the printing department ," and that the action discriminates
"in regard to the hire , or tenure , or terms, or conditions of employment" thereby
discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, and furthermore interferes with, restrains , and coerces "employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act" in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the. Act.
B. Conclusions
With the introduction of the stipulation and the documents above described,
General Counsel rested his case . The sole question here is whether the reorganiza-
tion effected violated the Act-and specifically Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
It appears to the Trial Examiner that General Counsel has overlooked the
prime fact that each of the sections of the Act which he invokes accords certain
rights to employees only-and not to labor organizations . The one section-
8(a) (5) which prohibits an employer from refusing to bargain with "the repre-
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY 1381
sentatives of his employees" and thereby through indirection provides a labor or-
ganization with rights as the agent of such employees-is not invoked by General
Counsel. That is, there is no claim that by the action in question the Respondent
has failed to bargain in good faith with the Charging Union . Obvious reasons
exist for the lack of such claim . Both the unit and the majority elements are
.still before the Board, and in the investigation stage.
So far as the record before the Trial Examiner is concerned , there is no evidence
that any employee has been interfered with, restrained , or coerced in his right
to join or not to join any labor organization , or to select as his bargaining agent
any labor organization , or that individually or collectively employees have been
-discriminated against in fact or for the purpose of discouraging or encouraging
membership in any labor organization.
Brooks' affidavit makes it clear that the Respondent does not relish the idea of
splitting off its lithographers from the rest of its printing department, and that as
an economic move it has effected a reorganization . And unless it be held that a
labor organization acquires some proprietary control over an employer's way of
conducting his business merely by asking to 'bargain for a specific group of his
employees , the Trial Examiner fails to perceive how any section of the Act has
been violated.
It would appear that General Counsel is anticipating a possible right which the
Charging Union may acquire, at some future time, as the bargaining agent of the
lithographers only. But until that right has been certified, by the Board, it does not
exist and can hardly be violated. And until that right is violated, there can be
no derivative violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Weyerhaeuser Company and Amalgamated Lithographers of
America, Local No. 4, Petitioner
Weyerhaeuser Company and Printing Specialties & Paper Prod-
ucts Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing
Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-7069 and 13-RC-7168. Decem-
ber 19, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, consolidated hearings were held before Rush F. Hall,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases,' the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
i The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record in this pro-
ceeding, including the briefs of the parties , adequately presents the issues and positions
of the parties.
2 The parties stipulated that the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of folding
cartons and paper boxes at its Chicago, Illinois , plant and produces and ships goods
directly outside the State of Illinois in value exceeding $400,000 per annum.
134 NLRB No. 151.