Campbell & McLean, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1049
ableness of such a ratio where the operation, as in the instant
case, is spread over a 400-square - mile area. Y
For the reasons stated above and on the record as a whole,
we find that the "street supervisors" responsibly direct the
Employer's bus operators in their work and that they are,
therefore, supervisors within the meaning of the Act.3 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 See New York City Omnibus Corporation , 104 NLRB 579
3See New York City Omnibus Corporation , supra.
CAMPBELL & Mc LEAN, INC. and COOS BAY AREA DISTRICT
COUNCIL and JOHN TENVORDE. Cases Nos . 36-CA-317
and 36-CA-318 . August 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13, 1953, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway
issued his Intermediate Report in this consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The- Board I has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. 2 The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent's
exceptions, and the entire record in these cases, 3 and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications and additions.
1. The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred
in refusing to grant its motion for dismissal of Case No.
36-CA-317, based on the charge filed by the Coos Bay Area
District Council, because the record establishes that a local
had been formed and was in existence at the time the charge
was filed. As the record contains no evidence that the local
was in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act,
iPursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members
Styles and Peterson].
2 We find no prejudice in the Trial Examiner's granting the General Counsel's motion to
correct the pleadings and formal papers in these.cases to conform to minor matters in-
volving dates in the proof. Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner's ruling. Weaver
Wintark, 87 NLRB 351; see also Cedartown Yarn Mills, Inc., 84 NLRB 1.
313ecause the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the positions of the parties,
the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied
106 NLRB No. 171.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent contends that the Council was "fronting" for
a noncomplying local when it filed the charge and that the
complaint should therefore be dismissed . The Trial Examiner
denied the motion as worded,4 and indicated that he would
also have denied the motion intended on three grounds:
(1) Although there had been a charter issued to a local of
the Union in 1952, it had become inactive and its charter
had been revoked before the time of the hearing ; (2) there
was no evidence that the local was not in compliance
and no evidence thereof was offered ; (3) dismissal of
Case No. 36-CA-317 would have accomplished nothing,
as it would not have affected the complaint which would
have stood on the charges filed in Case No. 36-CA-318
alone.
Although we do not adopt his reasoning , we agree that the
motion to dismiss was properly denied . The local became
defunct immediately after the discharge of John Tenvorde,
its temporary president , and never received the charter which
Balke, the international representative , obtained on its behalf.
Under these circumstances , we find that the local was not
in existence when the complaint was issued . Accordingly, no
question relating to the effect of its alleged noncompliance
exists.5 Because compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
is a matter for administrative determination , not litigable by
the parties , we find no merit in the Trial Examiner's second
reason .6 Nor do we find merit in his third reason as the
propriety of granting a motion is obviously not dependent upon
its effect.
2. The Respondent also excepts to the Trial Examiner's
finding that the general wage increase , 7 reflected in the pay-
checks received on March 7, violated Section 8 (a) (1). We find
merit in this exception . The raises were given pursuant to
a promise by the Respondent , made in the early part of 1951,
that the wages would be raised when the plant had new equip-
ment completely installed and was operating so that a raise
could be afforded . The second clipper, the last of the new
machinery to be installed , was put into operation about Febru-
ary 1, 1952 . The raises were given effective February 17.
Although Superintendent Tegner testified that he had marked
the raises on "Time Cards " on March 2 , 1952--when he did
know of the union activities begun February 27, 1952--the
timecards were not the book of first entry of the raises.
The Respondent was denied the opportunity of distinguishing
between the entry of the timecards and the entry in the book
4 The motion referred to the right of the Union "to file a complaint," rather than a charge.
5 See National Gas Company , 106 NLRB 819; Dant & Russell , Ltd , 92 NLRB 307, 95
NLRB 252, affirmed 73 S. Ct 375 , reversing 195 F. 2d 299 (C. A. 9).
6N. L R. B. v . Arthur J. Wiltse , d/b/a The Ann Arbor Press, 188 F. 2d 917 (C A. 6),
enforcing as amended , on other grounds , 85 NLRB 58 , cert. den. 344 U S. 819.
7As distinguished from the promises of pay increase to Clyde Beebe.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1051
of first entry. In view of the timing of the effective date of
the pay raise and the fulfillment of the condition for a promised
wage increase and the fact that the wage increase was granted
without comment, we find the evidence insufficient to support
the Trial Examiner's inference that Tegner granted the wage
increase for the purpose of causing the employees to accept
or reject a representative for collective bargaining.8
3. For the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we
find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by discharging
John Tenvorde on March 7, 1952.9
THE REMEDY
Unlike the Trial Examiner , we find no reason at this time to
depart from our standard wording of the back-pay order.
We shall therefore order that the Respondent make John
Tenvorde whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of such discrimination against him, by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as
wages from the date of the Respondent ' s discrimination as to
him to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net
earnings during such period in accordance with the formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Campbell & McLean, Inc., Gold Beach, Oregon, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Coos Bay Area District
Council, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL, or in any other labor organi-
zation of its employees , by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating
in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any terms or
condition of employment of any of its employees.
8See Cherry Rivet Company, 97 NLRB 1303, 1304; cf. The Standard Transformer Com-
pany, 97 NLRB 669, 682.
9In so doing, we accept the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc. v. N L. R. B., 188 F 2d 362 (C. A. 3). The Trial Examiner stated that "The
Respondent adduced evidence of a great many faults of Tenvorde--so many, in fact, that it
is surprising that the Respondent retained him in its employ for 1 month, let alone a year and
a half " We interpret this statement as an allusion to two well-established grounds from
which the Board has inferred discriminatory motivation, i.e., the fact that the conduct which
is urged as a defense to a discharge had earlier been condoned and the fact that the reasons
urged at the hearing as justification for the discharge were other than those given at the
time of the discharge. See, e.g., N L. R B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., 185 F. 2d
285 (C. A. 2), cert. den. 342, U. S 812; N. L. R. B. v. Tennessee Valley Broadcasting Co.,
192 F 2d 82 (C. A 5).
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
Coos Bay Area District Council, affiliated with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Tenvorde immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make John Tenvorde whole for any loss he may have
sustained as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against
him by paying him a sum of money computed as set forth
in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social-
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to determine the
amount of back pay due.
(d) Post at its plant at Gold Beach, Oregon, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appen-
dix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region of the Board (Seattle,
Washington), shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
10 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner," the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is en-
forced 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."
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1053
Upon charges duly filed by Coos Bay Area District Council , affiliated with the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, herein called the Union, and by
John Tenvorde , an individual , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called , respectively , the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for
the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), on April 14 , 1953, issued a complaint against
Campbell & McLean , Inc., herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce , within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act Copies of the charges , order consolidating
cases and notice of hearing , and consolidated complaint were duly served on the Respondent,
the Union , and John Tenvorde
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that com-
mencing on about February 18 , 1952 , the Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by
threatening to cut the wage scale of the employees , to cease giving overtime , to cease giving
makeup time , and to change work assignments in the event that the employees engaged in
concerted activities or union activities or continued to engage therein; by offering more
money to the employees if they did not engage in concerted activities or union activities or
did not ally themselves with the Union , and by unilaterally giving wage increases to the em-
ployees in varying amounts in order to undermine and sever the employees sympathy for,
action on behalf of, membership in, and allegiance toward the Union. The complaint further
alleged that on about March 7, 1952, the Respondent discharged and thereafter failed and
refused to reinstate John Tenvorde because of his membership in, sympathy for, and activity
on behalf of the Union or because of his engaging in concerted activities , or both , or to dis-
courage the aforesaid conduct.
The Respondent ' s answer and amended answer denied the commission of the unfair labor
practices alleged
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Gold Beach , Oregon , on May 25 and 26, 1953,
before me , the duly designated Trial Examiner The General Counsel and the Respondent
were represented by counsel and the Union by a representative. Tenvorde , although present,
did not officially enter an appearance Full opportunity was afforded the parties to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues.
At the close of the hearing , the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to conform
to the proof with respect to dates and spelling of names. The motion was granted without
objection . The Respondent then moved that the first of the two consolidated cases , in which
the Union had filed the charge , be dismissed on the ground that there was a local union in
existence at the time of the filing of the charge by the Union , that the local had not complied
with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and that the Union was "fronting" for the local,
citing Brookings Plywood Corporation , 100 NLRB 431 . The motion was denied . The motion
was directed to the right of the Union " to file a complaint" rather than to the authority of
the Board to issue a complaint based upon a charge filed by the Union . But even if the motion
had been properly worded , I should have denied it, for the following reasons: (1) Although
there had been a charter issued to a local of the Union in 1952, it had become inactive
and its charter had been revoked before the time of the hearing; (2) there was no evidence
that the local was not in compliance and no evidence thereof was offered, (3) dismissal of
Case No. 36 -CA-317 would have accomplished nothing , as it would not have affected the
complaint which would have stood on the charges filed in Case No. 36-CA -318 alone. At the
close of the hearing the parties were afforded the opportunity to argue orally . The Re-
spondent and the Union made brief statements. All parties declined the opportunity to file
briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Upon my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case , I make the
following:
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon , with its
principal office at Eugene , and with plants at Eugene and Gold Beach , Oregon . is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of green veneer and plywood. In the conduct of its business, the
Respondent causes and has caused at all times material herein substantial quantities of
materials , supplies , and equipment to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce
to its plants in the State of Oregon , from and to other States of the United States. During the
12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint , the Respondent manufactured and
shipped substantial quantities of its products , valued in excess of $ 750,000 , to points outside
the State of Oregon.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Coos Bay Area District Council, the Union herein, is affiliated with the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Martin Balke , an international representative of the Union , was sent to Gold Beach to
attempt to organize a local . After locating several plants in the area , he began looking up
employees of the Respondent . After procuring applications from two eit`lployees on the morn-
ing of February 27, he was taken to John Tenvorde's home and procured his application. He
gave each a union button Tenvorde was the only one to wear his at this time Balke got one
other application that morning at an employee ' s plant and spoke to others before work
Balke left at 12: 30 p. m when the plant operation began, returning at about 3:30 p. m. to
speak with Superintendent Cletis Tegner for about an hour. He told Tegner that the Union
was organizing the plant and already had some employees signed up . Tegner asked why they
were picking on him first in the community, that it would make him look bad to be the first
to be organized. Tegner also said that he had had some experience with unions and did not
believe they should be there and, furthermore, he said that he was sure that the Respondent
would rather have the CIO union because they had that union at Eugene. Balke testified that
while he was speaking with Tegner, Tenvorde came in, laid some papers down, had a con-
versation about some shipping orders, turned and left the room Balke further testified that
Tenvorde's union button was on the left side of his cap visible to Tegner, who, he testified,
got excited and said: "I see you do have some of them in the union. I should have fired some
of these guys around here a long time ago. I've sure been good to them , been keeping them
on the job." Tegner did not specifically deny the quoted words, but by inference he denied
them when he testified that he did not see Tenvorde when he was talking with Balke, and
testified , " If he [Tenvorde] made out bills of lading , those bills of lading were put in their
box on the outside of the place there, and, if he came in, it was unbeknown to me on that day."
Tenvorde testified that he had come into the office to leave a record of veneer loaded on
a truck, that he could see whether Tegner observed him, that Tegner looked worried and his
face was colored up more than usual, but that he (Tenvorde) did not take part in any conver-
sation. The record does not contain a description of the office. It is not certain, therefore,
whether or not Tegner had a room separate from the rest of the office Tegner's testimony
that the place for bills of lading was outside suggests that it was not in the same room as his
desk, but whether it was inside the building or outside is not certain. From other evidence,
I infer that it was outside. From Tenvorde's testimony that he did not take part in any con-
versation, I find that if Tenvorde came inside the building to leave a bill of lading at all, he
did not speak with Tegner Although most of Balke's testimony was completely uncontroverted
and therefore must be presumed to be acknowledged by the Respondent as correct, and
although I received the impression that Tegner attempted in his testimony to stretch the
truth with respect to Tenvorde's faults, I am inclined to credit Tegner's denial in this in-
stance Whether or not the quoted words are deemed to be specifically denied by Tegner, I
do not find that Tegner spoke them on that occasion
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC 1055
The Union held a meeting on Sunday, March 2, 1952, at which Tenvorde was elected
temporary president and William Wells was elected financial secretary. i A negotiating and
grievance committee was also elected with Tenvorde, Vancie Clarno, and Tom Hatcher as
members. At this meeting, Balke told the others to start wearing their union buttons too.
When the shift started on Monday, March 3, Balke went into the plant and conversed with
Tegner. He asked Tegner if there were about 30 employees at the plant. When Tegner said
that that was about right, Balke said that on that basis the Union had a majority and that it
had a committee to meet with him to negotiate, and he named the committee. He also told
Tegner the names of the officers, commenting that he thought Tenvorde was a particularly
happy selection Tegner said, according to Balke's testimony, which Tegner did not deny,
that Tenvorde was all right, that he had no complaints against him except that he did "do a
little bellyaching," but that Tenvorde was "a good, hard, faithful, reliable worker, and from
a man like that" he (Tegner) "could stand a little bitching once in a while." Tegner also
said, according to Balke, "John [Tenvorde] is always on the job, loaded those trucks out
there at night, or whenever they came in, and he is really an exceptional worker" and that
that was what he needed in the plant When Balke told Tegner that the Union had a negotiating
committee, with Tenvorde as chairman, and with employees Vancie Clarno and Tom Hatcher,
Tegner asked why the Union was picking on the Respondent and why they didn't go down to
a certain local lumber company who was worse than the Respondent. Tegner then asked who
started the Union at the Respondent. Balke answered that he did. Tegner asked who among
the employees had started it Balke said none of them. Tegner told Balke that he did not have
authority to bargain with the Union and would have to consult with his principals. Balke said
that he would write a letter making a formal request, in which he would say that they had an
organization and a majority, would request recognition, and would name the officers and the
committee, and Balke repeated their names.
That evening Balke wrote such a letter, addressed to the Respondent at Gold Beach, and the
next day he mailed it registered mail, requesting a return receipt.2
Tegner kept the Respondent at Eugene informed by telephone of developments at Gold
Beach Cogswell Campbell, the Respondent's president, first learned of the union organiza-
tion at Gold Beach from one of the truckdrivers hauling plywood from Gold Beach to Eugene.
Tegner, in a telephone conversation, told Campbell that the Union was pretty strong and
that he should come down (to Gold Beach) to protect his interests. Tegner also apparently
reported his conversation with Balke on March 3, for Mac McLean, the Respondent's vice
president, testified that Tegner told him the Union had a majority and that he was going to
receive a letter from the Union. McLean could not remember if Tegner had told him what
would be in the letter, but I infer that he did. McLean told Tegner to refer questions of
negotiating a contract to him or Campbell.
At about 9.30 a. m. on Friday, March 7, Balke went to the post office to get his mail.
Tegner was at the one window in the small post office, holding a return receipt card in his
hand and seeking information on what the return receipt was for, when Balke came up behind
him Balke said to Tegner, "Go ahead and get it It won't bite you It's the one I wrote you."
Tegner said that Campbell was coming down that day and that maybe he'd better not get it.
Tegner asked Balke to step outside and talk to him. Outside, Tegner again spoke of Tenvorde
in the same vein as in his conversation with Balke on March 3. He told Balke that Campbell
was expected that day and that Balke would have to see him, saying, "I don't know what to do
about this," referring to the return receipt. Tegner asked Balke what was in the letter, and
Balke quoted it "practically verbatim," saying it was a letter requesting recognition. He told
Tegner that he had given the names of Tenvorde and Wells as president and financial secre-
tary, respectively, and the names of the committeemen, Tenvorde, Clarno, and Hatcher,
and he again urged Tegner to get the letter. Tegner said, however, that he had to wait for
Campbell.
That afternoon Campbell arrived in Gold Beach. Tegner told Campbell about the registered
letter but what he said about it or its contents does not appear in the record. Later. Balke
came to the plant and introduced himself to Campbell and had a lengthy conversation with
iTemporary officers presumably held office until receipt of a local charter. Balke testi-
fied that, having more than enough names for a charter application, he sent in for one on
March 1.
2 The postmarked envelope was not produced at the hearing. Other evidence leads me to
believe that this letter might have been mailed later than March 4, but such a slight variance
in the date is not of importance.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him Balke asked for recognition of the Union and Campbell said , " Nothing doing," that
he did not want any part of the AFL, that he wanted the CIO, because if the Gold Beach plant
went AFL and if the AFL went on strike , the Respondent would have to close the Eugene plant
or vice versa , and he said he would use every legal means at his command to delay an elec-
tion at the Gold Beach plant as long as possible because the Respondent 's experience with
the union at Eugene had cost the Respondent a considerable sum extra in the operation of
the plant Balke quoted Campbell as saying that he had called some CIO men in Eugene to
send a man to Gold Beach and that he had Balke told Campbell that the law did not give
Campbell the right to designate the union Campbell said he knew the law and intended to
designate the union , that he had told "some of them" to join the CIO and keep it that way.
During the conversation , Balke told Campbell that they were establishing a local union there
and that the Respondent could deal with it, and he named the committee and told Campbell
who the officers were. 3
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On about March 5 Tegner stopped at the tipple to speak with employees Vancie Clarno and
Kenneth Thielen, as was his custom Clarno said, "I wonder what's going to happen when we
get the union in " Tegner replied, "I don't know, Vance, but . . as far as I know or under-
stand that in Eugene I do not believe they work overtime any more since they went union,
and so I doubt if they will work overtime here as a plant operation " 4
Francis Reller, the assistant superintendent at the Gold Beach plant, heard from Tegner
that the Eugene plant had quit paying overtime when it went union, and in a conversation with
employees Kenneth Thielen and Clyde Butler in late February or early March, when the
subject of unions came up, he made a statement similar to Tegner's, that when the plant at
Eugene went union they quit paying overtime and that "they may do the same here."
When Balke made contact with Clyde Beebe, the first employee he met on February 27, he
gave Beebe a copy of a contract, which the Union had with another employer, and which
contained a wage scale He took this with him to the plant that day and discussed the wage
scale with other employees. Beebe testified that Tegner came up and asked to see the book
containing the wage scale and that he showed it to Tegner Tegner denied that Beebe had
shown him a wage scale, but he did not deny the rest of the conversation as testified to by
Beebe I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict 5 Beebe told Tegner that his wages were
8 cents low. Tegner said that Beebe was 212 cents low, but that if the Union did not come in
he would make it 5 cents Beebe asked why 5 cents when he was 8 cents low. Beebe also
testified that when Tegner asked to see the book, he said, "Oh, yes, John will have to take
a cut," referring to Tenvorde. Beebe told Tegner not to level his sights at Tenvorde, that he
was not the only one in the Union, that there were 10 or 12 in it then Tegner asked who,
and Beebe replied, "Me, for one." Before this time, the employees had been permitted to
make up time and to work on Saturdays Tegner told Beebe that if the plant went union, there
would be no more making up time on Saturdays, 6 He also said that if they were going to get a
union, he would rather see the CIO there.
3This is based on Balke's testimony. Campbell could not remember whether or not Ba Ike
had told him the names of officers. Campbell denied some portions of Balke's testimony
regarding this conversation. I have made no finding on the clearly denied portions, not
because I am satisfied that Campbell's testimony was reliable throughout but because I
am not thoroughly satisfied that Balke's recollection would be accurate in all details.
4 Thielen quoted Tegner as saying that at Eugene they had to cut out overtime when they
went union and they planned to do the same thing at Gold Beach if it went union there Accord-
ing to Balke's undenied testimony, Campbell confirmed that there would be no more overtime
if the plant went union.
5 Tegner testified that he, himself, had a book showing the scale of the local union. I infer
that he was referring to the agreement between the Respondent and the union at Eugene.
6 The evidence was not too clear as to what, exactly, the practice was with respect to
when overtime, or making up time, was permitted, but from various portions of testimony
not directed to the 8 (a) (1) aspect of the case, I conclude that overtime work was not exten-
sive but that some employees had worked outside of the regular shift hours. Tenvorde had
often worked overtime. Sometime in February or early March 1952, the date not being
fixed with certainty, Campbell said he was going to let the employees work every other
Saturday at premium rate. I deduce that the Respondent intended to eliminate this if the
Union came in.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1057
On about March 3, 7 Tegner made up the payroll for the 2-week period from February 17
to March 1. On the timecards he raised the rates of 12 employees 8 He sent these new rates,
with the time, to Eugene to have the paychecks made out. These checks were received and
distributed on March 7, and the employees affected learned of the raises then for the first
time . 9 Tegner testified that he was unaware of union interest at the time he gave the raise.
He testified that he gave such increases because he had promised those who were under
scale that they would be given a raise when the Respondent put in a lathe and second clipper
and when production was going faster. It developed that this promise was allegedly made
before the Respondent put in the first clipper early in 1951 The lathe had been put in "a few
months before" the date of the wage increase and the second clipper had been put into oper-
ation about the last of January or the first of February In view of the Respondent's delay in
granting such wage increases until after the Union began organizing and probably after Balke
had notified Tegner that the Union had a majority, for the new rates were actually sent to
Eugene on about March 3, I do not credit Tegner's assertion that he had no knowledge of
union activity when he granted the increases. His intent, unlike the wage increase, may not
be given retroactive effect. I find, therefore, that the increase was given in March 1952 for
the purpose of discouraging employee interest in the Union.
On all the evidence I find that the statements of Reller and Tegner about the elimination of
overtime or makeup time if the plant went union, Tegner's offer to give Beebe a greater
increase if the Union did not come in, Tegner's question to Beebe as to the identity of union
men, ii and the pay increases which Tegner arranged on March 3, 1952, after the Union
commenced organizing, were coercive in character and that thereby the Respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. it
C. The discriminatory discharge
1 Tenvorde's employment history
John Tenvorde was employed by the Respondent on September 7, 1950, at its Gold Beach
plant on heavy construction. His starting rate was $1.65 per hour. On March 15, 1951,
the Respondent put Tenvorde on the job of operating the lift truck, referred to throughout the
record as the Hyster, apparently a trade name. On June 29, 1951, while he was still on this
job, Tegner procured a wage increase for Tenvorde to $ 1.85 per hour, and on July 27, 1951,
another increase to $19211 per hour About mid-August of that year, Tenvorde was trans-
ferred back to carpentry work on construction. The Respondent had been doing construction
work intermittently from the time the plant started at Gold Beach until about 2 weeks before
the hearing. From August 17 to December 3, 1951, Tenvorde remained on carpentry work
but occasionally he filled in on the Hyster. On the latter date, the man who had taken Ten-
vorde's place on the Hyster was transferred to another job and Tenvorde was put back on the
Hyster and remained there until March 7, 1952, when he was discharged.
2. The discharge
At about 8:45 p m., near the end of the shift on March 7, the same day as Balke's talk with
Campbell, previously related, Tegner met Tenvorde near the office and told the latter that
he wanted to speak to him They went into the office, and there Tegner told Tenvorde that
7Tegner testified that it was on March 2 or 3. As March 2 was a Sunday, I find the date to
be March 3.
8Another employee, who had started on the green chain on February 21 and who was made
an assistant to Tenvorde sometime between then and March 7, was raised from his hiring
rate of $1.65 to $1.78 retroactive for the full period of his employment without regard to the
date of his reclassification.
9'Clyde Beebe got an 8-cent increase.
ii Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 103 NLRB 377.
ii The Respondent sought to establish that employees were not actually influenced by
these acts. Failure of purpose is immaterial. N.. L. R. B. v. Link Belt Co., 311 U. S. 584;
Somerset Classics, Inc., 90 NLRB 1676.
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he would have to let him go. Tenvorde asked why and Tegner replied, according to Tenvorde's
undenied testimony , " You've been tearing up too much veneer lately ... I've been having a
lot of complaints . . Mr. Campbell has been complaining to a great extent ... I've stuck up
for you."iz Tenvorde asked if there was anything else. Tegner replied that Mitchell
Brothers , the trucking firm that had a contract with the Respondent for hauling green veneer
from the Gold Beach plant to the Eugene plant , had put in a call to the home office and in-
formed McLean that the truckdrivers had threatened to quit unless Tenvorde was taken off
the job of loading the trucks . Tenvorde asked if there was any other reason. Tegner said,
"No." About that time employee Wells came in. Tenvorde told Wells that he was being
discharged and that he wanted to hear the reasons Tenvorde repeated the reasons given by
Tegner and asked Tegner if that was what he had said Tegner said it was
March 7 was a regular payday for the pay period February 17 to March 1. Tenvorde was
given his check , prepared in Eugene , for that period and a separate check for his final week,
which Tegner drew on a local account . 13 Tenvorde told Tegner that he would accept the
checks subject to the question of vacation pay. Tegner showed Tenvorde a letter from the
files on that subject and then pulled a post-office registered mail return receipt from his
pocket and said , " Now, see, John? I've still got the card for the registered letter ... I
don't know what is in that letter, have no knowledge of it . . I don't . . don 't say or even
think the union is the cause of this discharge . I don't even know whether you belong or not."
3. The Respondent ' s explanation of the discharge
The Respondent adduced evidence of a great many faults of Tenvorde -- so many, in fact,
that it is surprising that the Respondent retained him in its employ for 1 month, let alone a
year and a half . It is apparent that Tegner discharged Tenvorde on March 7 at the instruc-
tions of Campbell The evidence as a whole convinces me that Tegner , himself, would not
have discharged him otherwise . Many of the Respondent 's justifications go beyond the
reasons given by Tegner to Tenvorde at the time of his discharge , but I shall consider all
that was mentioned that might have had any bearing on the discharge. 14 I note that the Re-
spondent , although adducing testimony of Mitchell Brothers truckdrivers critical of Tenvorde,
did not seek to prove that the truckdrivers threatened to quit unless Tenvorde was removed,
and the evidence proves the contrary to be true.
According to McLean 's testimony , which I do not fully credit, he told Tegner to discharge
Tenvorde about 4 months before his actual discharge because " . . it's my job, I believe,
to observe , and in my estimation I don't believe that he fit our organization , as far as doing
us any good was concerned , and, actually , I wanted him taken off the payroll and I didn't know
you had to have any reason for taking a person off your payroll." Tegner testified that he
had orders from Eugene to discharge Tenvorde " on account of the bundles [of veneer]
coming in in the condition they were in " Tegner did not explain what condition he was talking
about, whether muddy, broken , unpainted , or otherwise . McLean testified after Tegner, but
I note that McLean did not confirm Tegner on the reason. In any event Tegner disregarded
the instructions to discharge Tenvorde, if there were any He explained that about 4 months
before Tenvorde was fired, the Company got after him for not discharging Tenvorde. I note
that 4 months before March 7, 1952, was approximately the time that Tenvorde was put back
on the Hyster after having been on construction work most of the time since August 1951.
Bearing in mind the increases in pay which Tegner gave Tenvorde in June and July of that
year while he was the Flyster operator , I am not persuaded that he was deemed unsatisfactory
then Ken Luttrel, who was Hyster operator from August 17 to December 3, 1951, was trans-
ferred to another job on the latter date and Tenvorde became the Hyster operator . Assistant
Superintendent Reller testified that Luttrel was transferred to a better paying job. I am not
convinced that the Respondent at that time had so formalized a wage structure that it could
not have given Luttrel a wage increase as a Hyster operator if he had, in fact, been a better
12 The omissions are not from the quoted statements of Tegner themselves but are only
interpolations in Tenvorde's testimony
13 This check was dated March 6, but Tegner testified that the date was an error and that
he had actually made out the check on March 7.
141 do not mention such faults as were offered purely for prejudicial reasons and had no
claimed relation to the discharge
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC 1059
operator than Tenvorde . Such evidence among other things causes me to doubt the testimony
of McLean and Tegner that the former had given instructions for Tenvorde 's discharge
because of any dissatisfaction with Tenvorde ' s performance . Tegner further testified that
McLean came to the Gold Beach plant 2 or 3 weeks before March 7 and said of Tenvorde,
"I though he was fired." Tegner testified that he told McLean that he would discharge
Tenvorde but neglected to do so, for one reason because the Respondent was shorthanded and
it was hard to get help.
McLean testified that before Campbell came to Gold Beach on March 7, 1952, he told him
that Tenvorde had been discharged and to be sure he was off the job. McLean also testified
that on March 2 and 3 , Clay Thomason , the superintendent at Eugene, had complained about
the inaccuracies in Tenvorde ' s bills of lading and that McLean had then instructed Owens,
the accountant at Eugene , to call Tegner and have Tenvorde terminated . He also testified
that he instructed Owens to make up Tenvorde ' s final paycheck . Tegner testified that he re-
ceived no such call from Owens, and obviously Owens did not make up fenvorde ' s final
paycheck , as Tegner , himself did that Owens was not called as a witness . March 2 was
Sunday and there is no evidence that the Respondent operated on that day If McLean's testi-
mony were to be credited , I would still eliminate March 2 as a date that Thomason called
errors to McLean's attention . However, I do not credit any of McLean ' s testimony with
respect to directions given by him to discharge Tenvorde.
Thomason testified that on March 4 he had complained to Tegner , but did not testify that
he made any complaint to McLean , about errors in bills of lading , and that on March 6 he had
told the office manager to call Tegner and tell him to do something about incorrect bills of
lading . The Respondent introduced 5 bills of lading signed by Tenvorde between March 3 and
5 Changes , purporting to be corrections , appeared on 2 of the bills of lading and on 4 of the
tally sheets , 1 of which accompanied each bill of lading Tenvorde admitted having made
some errors from time to time and that errors had been called to his attention , but I am not
finding that he made all the errors shown on the exhibits because the person who presumably
changed the figures on the tally sheets and bills of lading was not called to verify them.
Tegner testified that he got after Tenvorde "half a dozen times on bills of lading, and that
was all . I never had time to go around there and get after him too much . I was more in-
terested in bundles not being tipped over . So I never got after him too much on his ineffi-
ciency on the bills of lading " It .was the practice of the Respondent to check each bundle
received in Eugene against the tally sheet and bill of lading , and errors were corrected at
that time . In view of this check , I assume that the errors were not likely to occasion any
monetary loss, and this may have been the reason why Tegner was not too much concerned
over such errors . The evidence indicates that others likewise made similar errors , although
errors did not occur with regularity . Errors in bills of lading was not a reason given by
Tegner when he discharged Tenvorde . McLean's testimony concerning his decision and
instructions to discharge Tenvorde on March 3 , considered with all the other evidence,
gives indications of having been thought up after Tenvorde was discharged and is not credited.
I find that mistakes in the bills of lading were not the real reason for Tenvorde 's discharge.
Among other faults of Tenvorde listed by the Respondent were that he was a clutch rider,
he dumped bundles , he was insubordinate , cantankerous , and did not get along with truck-
drivers. It will not be necessary to consider each of these in great detail because I am
satisfied that if these had been considered cause for discharge , Tenvorde would have been
discharged long before he was. If Tenvorde were not worth his pay because of the way he
wore out the clutch of the Hyster or spilled bundles of veneer, it is peculiar that the Re-
spondent would see fit to give him 2 increases in pay in 1951 , one on June 29 , a raise of 20
cents per hour , the other about a month later of 7z ents per hour, both at the time when
the records show he was the Hyster operator and it is also peculiar that the Respondent
would see fit to return him to that job in December 1951, if he had been deemed unsatis-
factory In comparison with the rates given for 12 or 13 employees whose rates are in evi-
dence , Tenvorde was receiving more than any upto the date of the retroactive increase, which
appeared in paychecks on the day of his discharge . On that date , only 1 employee , of the 12
who received increases , was given a rate higher than Tenvorde's.
The evidence did not support the Respondent 's claim that Tenvorde was insubordinate.
Sometimes because of lack of time he failed to perform . assignments , and it is probable that
Tenvorde grumbled to a certain extent when things went wrong or when he was given more
work than he felt he could conscientiously handle . but this is not insubordination. Tegner and
Reller testified that Tenvorde " refused " to do what he was told or "balked " at doing them,
but I find that these words were not being used in the ordinary sense. It was admitted that
+322615 0 - 54 - 68
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tenvorde did not, in words, refuse to perform any assignment Reller testified that when
he would speak to Tenvorde about the way he was doing his work "sometimes he'd just grunt
and look at you. Sometimes he said he was driving the Hyster ; sometimes he wouldn't say
anything , but it was his actions ." There were also occasions when Tenvorde might argue.
Specific examples of this were lacking, and I can draw no inferences therefrom inasmuch as
I can conceive of instances when it would not only not be improper but would be expected that
an employee would question an order , as if he had knowledge of a condition not possessed
by a supervisor and if such knowledge might influence the supervisor ' s decision . Failure of
Tenvorde to perform assignments was one example given of insubordination . On all the
evidence I am convinced that Tenvorde did not willfully fail to perform assignments. It is un-
doubtedly true that he did not get around to everything that the Respondent wanted done. For
example , at one time the Respondent asked the Gold Beach plant to paint the ends of plywood
bundles with different colored paints so that they could distinguish plywood of their own
manufacture from that purchased on the market and thereby more easily prove liability for
damage in transit to the purchased plywood Tenvorde was assigned this extra task of
painting the ends. Tenvorde testified that he occasionally did not paint the bundles because
there was no way to screen the paint , the paint gun would get clogged , and he would not have
time to stop and clean it without causing other employees to be made idle. When trucks were
being loaded, the truckdrivers , always impatient and complaining of the loading time , 15 would
require uninterrupted service from the Hyster driver , and employees producing veneer for
shipment would be calling Tenvorde to haul a load away . About the first of the year 1952, the
Respondent installed a new lathe and an extra clipper and production was being increased. I
have no doubt that the increased production would increase the pace at which the Hyster
driver would have to work even without the additional work of painting the ends of the bundles
and, toward the latter part of Tenvorde ' s employ, the additional assignment of weighing the
bundles before loading Tegner undoubtedly appreciated the difficulties Tenvorde had of
performing all duties , for, in February , 1952, he gave Tenvorde an assistant . If Tenvorde
had, in fact , been insubordinate , I am convinced that Tegner would have discharged him
without hesitation.
The Respondent called witnesses to testify that Tenvorde burned out the clutch in the
Hyster a number of times because of the way he operated it I received the impression that
witnesses for the Respondent were inclined to blame all burned-out clutches on Tenvorde
without regard to the possibility that others may have been at least partially responsible.
The dates when clutch repairs were made could not be remembered by the witnesses, and no
records , if any were available , were offered to establish dates . During a period of time
following March 1951 there was a night shift with a Hyster operator and, when there was no
night shift , the truckdrivers themselves operated the Hyster to load their trucks. Earl
Hixson , the truck company's agent over the drivers, admitted on cross -examination that he
would argue with Tegner over whether it was his drivers or Tegner ' s man who was " tearing
up" the Hyster But Tegner in his testimony not only blamed Tenvorde --he testified that
during the last 2 or 3 months of Tenvorde 's employ "I believe we put in two or three
clutches . . " Robert Stehn , the employee who repaired the clutch , did not have even as
good a memory as this for dates . Conceding , for the sake of argument , that Tenvorde may
have worn out the clutch , I am not convinced that this fault entered into the cause for his
discharge Tegner did not give it to Tenvorde as a reason for his discharge at that time,
according to Tenvorde, and Tegner never denied Tenvorde ' s testimony concerning the
reasons stated for the discharge on March 7 , 1952. On all the evidence I am convinced that
the testimony regarding clutch repair was just makeweight.
Testimony that truckdrivers complained of Tenvorde does not convince me that he was
discharged for that reason . That he had arguments with truckdrivers is conceded . Tenvorde
testified that he had the most trouble with truckdrivers when he was trying to carry out the
Respondent 's orders. Hixson , the agent over the truckdrivers, testified that most of the com-
plaints were over the time it took to load. Hixson testified that he complained of that himself
periodically from shortly after the time he came to Gold Beach in June of 1951 After Ten-
vorde ' s discharge , the Respondent got a second 2-ton Hyster and a 4-ton Gerlinger lift
truck . With this increased capacity and with improvement in the yard by addition of more
sand and gravel , the Respondent is.now able to load in the time Hixson believed it should take,
but such conditions did not exist on March 7 , 1952, and I do not believe that Tenvorde was to
be blamed for the slower loading time then.
is If they could complete their trip in less than 8 hours , they received 8 hours' pay anyway.
Otherwise they just got hourly pay.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1061
The reason given Tenvorde by Tegner for his discharge was that he had been "tearing up
too much veneer lately." Although veneer might be torn up in other ways, Tegner's testi-
mony indicates that he meant by dropping bundles of veneer. A number of witnesses for the
Respondent testified that they had seen Tenvorde "spill" or "dump" bundles of veneer.
This meant that, through haste or carelessness of the operator, a bundle would fall off the
Hyster or be carelessly pushed off the truck being loaded When this happened, the bundle
sometimes had to be restacked, if it was salvageable. At the least, the fall would break the
protective strips on the sides of the bundles, which would allow the veneer to get muddy. No
record was shown of the number of bundles damaged and there was not even any testimony
from which I could compare damage caused by Tenvorde with that caused by others. It was
not uncommon for bundles to be dumped. The truckdrivers themselves sometimes dumped
bundles when they would load their own trucks at night. Dumping could cause waste and was
therefore a matter of primary concern for the Respondent. However, I am not persuaded that
dumping bundles was the immediate cause for Tenvorde's discharge. When an employee is
careless , the expected course would be for his supervisor to warn him. If his carelessness
continues, it is most likely that his supervisor would discharge him, if he intended to, at the
time of the next careless act or at the time the supervisor learned of a specific act of care-
lessness. No such evidence was offered here. Tegner did not testify to any act of careless-
ness by Tenvorde on March 7 His testimony was in terms of generalities This in itself
makes it appear improbable that Tegner was discharging Tenvorde for such cause. But, as
I have found, Tegner, himself, who was in a position to know whether Tenvorde was so care-
less with bundles that he should be discharged, did not act on his own. He waited until Camp-
bell instructed him to discharge him According to Campbell, he would not have ordered
Tenvorde discharged but for an incident which he testified he observed on March 7. He
testified that half an hour after he arrived at the plant he observed Tenvorde trying to back
the Hyster up an incline with the steering wheel crosswise, 16 'and he stalled the engine
three times deliberately, without looking at why it wouldn't go back up the hill, and I said
to Mr. Tegner, 'That man will be fired this evening."' On cross-examination, Campbell
testified, ". . I probably wouldn't have fired him at that time because I know the provisions
of the Taft-Hartley law and I was taking a chance to fire him at that time, but a man abusing
a machine like that, I had enough of it. That was the finish." Campbell made no mention of
damaged veneer in his testimony Tenvorde could remember no difficulty he had had with
the Hyster on March 7, but he testified to an incident, more fully described below, about 8
weeks before his discharge when Campbell had spoken to him angrily about his operation of
the Hyster. The inference is that this is the one referred to by Campbell. Campbell, however,
did not testify that he spoke to Tenvorde at all on March 7, and if he had spoken to him
angrily on that day I do not believe he would have neglected to testify about it
A truckdriver, called as a witness by the Respondent, recalled an incident involving Camp-
bell such as Tenvorde described but was vague about the date. Tenvorde explained that, on
the occasion mentioned, the housing on the steering wheel had become clogged with mud
which had dried and hardened so that the wheel could not be turned. Not realizing that the
wheel was so frozen, he had apparently concluded that he was just stuck in a mudhole and,
according to the truckdriver's testimony, was rocking the Hyster and killed his motor
several times. The truckdriver remembered the incident because it was the only time he had
even heard Campbell speak to an employee, but he had no knowledge of the necessity for
removal of the caked mud and apparently concluded that Tenvorde was just an unskillful
operator. Tenvorde testified that it was necessary to get a "cat" to push the Hyster up the
grade into the building, where the shield was removed, and it was discovered that 60 or 70
pounds of dried mud, gravel, and chewed-up veneer had lodged in the housing. When this was
broken off, Tenvorde continued to operate the Hyster I am inclined to believe that this inci-
dent did occur, as Tenvorde testified, some weeks or months before his discharge, that
Tegner knew the cause of Tenvorde's difficulty with the Hyster on that occasion, and that he
found the cause to be a sufficient excuse for Tenvorde's apparent roughness with the Hyster.
If the incident had occurred on March 7, why would Tegner not have given that to Tenvorde
as the reason for his discharge9 If such an incident were witnessed by both Tegner and
Campbell, as appears to have been the case, Tegner certainly would have known, even if
Campbell had not explained to Tegner, that that was the reason for Campbell's order to dis-
charge Tenvorde, especially if Campbell had promptly ordered the discharge as he testified
16 The Hyster steers with a single rear wheel, which will turn at right angles to the front
wheels.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tegner's failure to give this as a reason at the time of Tenvorde's discharge, or even when
he testified, convinces me that Campbell transposed the time of the incident in his testimony.
I find neither that incident nor the dumping of bundles was the immediate cause for Tenvorde's
discharge.
The Respondent's opposition to the Union, its unconvincing reasons for the discharge at that
time, its obvious efforts to tie unrelated incidents to the discharge, the timing of the dis-
charge of the known president and negotiating committee chairman within a few days after
the first request for recognition and on the very day when Campbell came to Gold Beach to
"protect his interests" and when there was known to be a formal demand for recognition at
the post office, which the Respondent hesitated to pick up, Tegner's attempt to disavow knowl-
edge of Tenvorde's union membership after he had been informed of it by Balke, and the
entire record in the case, including my observation of the witnesses, convince me that the
real reasons for the discharge of John Tenvorde were his union membership and activities
and the Respondent's desire to discourage membership in and representation by the Union.
I find, therefore, that the Respondent, by discharing John Tenvorde on March 7, 1952, dis-
criminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent has discriminated against John Tenvorde in regard to
his hire and tenure of employment by discharging him on March 7, 1952, and thereafter by
failing and refusing to reinstate him, I will recommend that the Respondent offer him im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position 17 and that
it make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in the employ of
the Respondent but for the discrimination plus the amount of any expenses reasonably in-
curred by him in seeking other employment, 18 less theamount of his earnings in any employ-
ment elsewhere for the period from March 7, 1952, the date of the discrimination against him,
to the date of the offer of reinstatement. To avoid the result which may unintentionally be
occasioned by the use of the expression " net earnings " in those cases where expenses
incurred in seeking other employment exceed interim earnings 19 in any calendar quarter
within the back-pay period, I have purposely refrained from using the words "net earnings"
herein. In accordance with the Board's established practice, I shall recommend that the
amount necessary to make Tenvorde whole be determined on the basis of each calendar
quarter or portion thereof during the period from March 7, 1952, to the date of the Re-
spondent's offer of reinstatement.E0
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Coos Bay Area District Council , affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
17 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
18 For the meaning of "expenses," see Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8.
19 See English Mica Company, 101 NLRB 1061.
20 See F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC. 1063
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John Tenvorde
to discourage membership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing and by otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Coos Bay Area District Council, affiliated
with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, or in any
other labor organization of our employees , by discharging , refusing to reinstate, or
otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of any of our employees
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist Coos Bay Area District Council , affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America , AFL, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activ-
ities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
WE WILL offer John Tenvorde immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges , and we will make him whole for any loss suffered by him by reason of the
discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, to remain, or to refrain from becoming or re-
maining, members of the above-named union or any other labor organization, except to the
extent that this right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
CAMPBELL & McLEAN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ... By. . . . ... . ... .. ........................ ... ........
(Representative ) ' (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material