Capital Lumber Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 187 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY , IXC. 187
spondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions,16 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which he or she would normally have earned less net
earnings," which sum shall be computed on a quarterly basis during the period
from the discrimination to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement.l" It will
also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board, upon
request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of
back pay due.
The discrimination found herein indicates a purpose to limit the lawful
organizing rights of the Respondent's employees. Such purpose is related to
other unfair labor practices, and it is found that the danger of their commission
is reasonably to be apprehended. It will therefore be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIoNs OF LAW
1. United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ruth
Maginity, Paul Klaas, Bernice Klaas, Richard Kerby, R. R. Linsenmayer, John
Frestick, Jr., and Wilbur Mast, thereby discouraging 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 interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by 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 within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
10 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
17 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440.
is F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 20-CA-740. March 2, 1953
Decision and Order
On January 13, 1952, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
103 NLRB No. 32.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Re-
spondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the Union and the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs, and the Respondent
filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and proposed
findings and order.
The Board 1 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. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations.
Order
Upon the entire record in this 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, Capital Lumber
Company, Inc., of Fort Seward, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the International Woodworkers of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
or all such conduct except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion 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) Post at its plant at Fort Seward, California, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Styles,
and Peterson].
2 This notice , however , shall be , and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order " 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."
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 189
for the Twentieth Region, shall, after having been duly signed by
the Respondent or its authorized representat.ve, be posted imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Respondent
shall take reasonable steps to see that such notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint, insofar
as they allege that the Respondent: (1) Discharged Grady Jenkins
and Edmund Cruson from its employ because of their activities in
behalf of the Union; (2) threatened employees with evictions and
increases in rentals of houses owned by Respondent on account of
their union activities; (3) made promises of benefits to employees in
order to persuade them to reject the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing agent; (4) interrogated employees as to their membership in
and/or sympathies for the Union; and (5) threatened employees that
the plant would be closed if the Union was successful in its organiza-
tional effort, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, filed a
charge and an amended charge on June 23 and August 28, 1952, respectively,
against Capital Lumber Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent. On
October 2, 1952, the Regional Director for the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, on behalf of the General Counsel for the Board, issued
a complaint against the Respondent pursuant thereto, alleging that the Re-
spondent had committed and was committing unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and (3) and 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called
the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that, commencing on or about May 19, 1951, and at various times thereafter
the Respondent by its officers, agents, or representatives : (1) Threatened
employees that the plant would be closed if the Union was successful in its
organizational effort ; (2) interrogated employees as to their membership, in,
and sympathies for, the Union ; (3) threatened employees with discharge and
other reprisals on account of their union activities; (4) threatened employees
with evictions and increases in rentals of houses owned by the Respondent,
on account of their union activities; and (5) made promises of benefits to
employees in order to persuade them to reject the Union as their collective-bar-
gaining agent. The complaint further alleged that on about June 19, 1951,
the Respondent had discharged Grady Jenkins and Edmond Cruson from its
employ, because of their activities on behalf of the Union. The Respondent's
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
answer, filed on October 17, 1952, admitted the discharges but denied that they
were for the cause alleged, averring that they were for incompetency and in-
efficiency ; and the answer denied the commission of all other unfair labor
practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me, the duly designated Trial
Examiner, in Garberville, California, on November 5 to 7, 1952, inclusive. At
the opening of the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that it had not been alleged that the Union had not complied with
the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The motion
was denied. The Respondent then moved to dismiss the complaint as to para-
graph IV, the allegations of violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, on the
ground that they were not based on the charge. This motion was likewise denied.
The attorney for the General Counsel, hereinafter referred to merely as General
Counsel, moved to amend the complaint to add certain facts on commerce. His
motion was granted. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondent
moved to dismiss for failure of proof. On the ground that a prima facie case
had been shown, I denied the motion. At the close of the hearing, the Respond-
ent again moved to dismiss on the merits, and ruling was reserved. It is now
granted in part and denied in part as hereinafter stated. The parties waived oral
argument and the filing of briefs with the Trial Examiner.
From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a California corporation, maintains places of business at
Sacramento and Fort Seward, California, where it is engaged in the business
of manufacture and sale of lumber. During the fiscal year ending November 30,
1951, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, sold lumber
valued in excess of $1,800,000, of which amount in excess of $50,000 worth was
sold and shipped to Pacific Forest Products, Inc., a California corporation,
which annually ships out of California and Oregon to other States in excess of
$25,000 worth of lumber. The Respondent concedes that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and I so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The mill and its management
Signar Lindroth and his wife, Rose, are president and vice president, respec-
tively, of the Respondent in addition to being the principal owners. Lindroth,
who also operates a retail lumberyard in Sacramento; acts as manager of the
mill , although his experience is principally in the retail end of the business
and he relies on men with more experience than his to keep the mill operating.
The mill property was acquired by the Respondent in 1948. Most of the ma-
chinery was bought secondhand, although a new headrig was installed at that
time. The secondhand equipment , though usable, frequently called for adjust-
ment and repairs. With such equipment the mill turned out between 35,000
and 45,000 board-feet of lumber a day.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 191
The mill was located in a fairly isolated spot. Housing was difficult to find
off the mill property. On the property there was a bunkhouse and some family
houses which, to the extent available, the Respondent rented to employees.
For a time, the Respondent had a mill superintendent by the name of Strand-
berg, who was familiar with the operation of the mill and who was also capable of
doing mechanical work, and he apparently did some of the repair work either
with the millwright or independently. However, Strandberg left in about
August 1951. Just before Strandberg left, the Respondent employed Bernard
Schauer and made him foreman. Schauer was inexperienced in the operation
of lumber mills, having had prior experience in mills only in the capacity of a
bookkeeper. Because neither Lindroth nor Schauer had much experience in
the operations end, they relied heavily on the experience of their employees,
particularly the sawyer and the millwright.
B. Employment history of Jenkins; duties of millwright
Grady Jenkins was employed by the Respondent in February 1948 as an
operating millwright. A millwright has the duty of keeping the machinery
running, making repairs when anything breaks down, and maintaining the mill
in condition and in compliance with safety regulations. There was some con-
flict in testimony, but I find that, although it would be the duty of the mill-
wright to call attention of the superintendent to conditions that require correc-
tion if they could not be made without major expense or without interrupting
operations, lie could not, on his own, interrupt production to improve operations.
Incident to keeping machinery running it is the responsibility of the millwright to
see that it is kept oiled and greased. At the Respondent's mill the edgerman was
required to oil his edger, and the setter was supposed to oil and grease the
headrig.
Some of the equipment was in such poor condition that to put it in proper
condition would have required extensive overhauling. In order not to interfere
with production, the Respondent permitted Jenkins to work overtime, and he
frequently did. In the fall of 1950, he poured three bearings on the edger and
lined it up, but, he testified, the edger never made first-class lumber because the
collars that held the saws on did not fit and the arbors and other parts were
worn out. Something on the edger appeared to require work done on it almost
continually.
In January 1951, Jenkins told Lindroth that if something were not done to
improve the condition of the mill, he was going to quit. In March 1951 he did
quit, telling Superintendent Strandberg it was mainly because of the condi-
tion of the mill. At that time the mill was down and some work was being done
on it, but, according to Jenkins, the work being done was not what was most
needed. Lindroth testified that in the early part of 1951 he contemplated
changes in the mill and that he had a man in to eliminate a bottleneck in the
back end of the mill where the passage to the trimmer would get blocked up and
to start work preparatory to installing larger electric motors, but Lindroth felt
that an expert was needed and, not being satisfied with the man he hired, he
dropped the work after a couple of months.
After he quit in March 1951, Jenkins hired out as a millwright at a mill
about 35 miles from the Respondent's mill, but because they had no sawyer there,
he acted as sawyer, doing some millwright work on weekends. Occasionally
he returned to the Respondent's mill to visit friends. On one of these visits, in
September 1951, he encountered Lindroth by the machine shop, and Lindroth
asked him if he would consider returning . Jenkins said that he had been sick
and was not then able to work but that he might consider it later . On another
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visit, in February 1952, Jenkins met Lindroth , who told him that he was short-
handed and had the planerman running the edger. Lindroth asked Jenkins
to give them a hand on the edger temporarily and to consider coming back per-
manently . Lindroth said he had an engineer coming down to rebuild the whole
mill. Jenkins ran the edger for the Respondent for about 2Y/2 days. Then, after
notifying his employer that he was quitting , he returned to the employ of the
Respondent as millwright on February 28, 1952, and remained until his dis-
charge on June 19, 1952, as hereinafter related . Rose Lindroth , commenting
to employee Armand Earley on Jenkins' return , said "Well , at least when he
was here before he kept the mill running."
Innumerable things required the attention of a millwright after Jenkins ' return.
Foreman Schauer asked Jenkins to make use of an old pump to hook it up to the
boiler feed to supply water automatically to the boiler as a safety measure in
case the injector failed to work. He also asked Jenkins to take the slack out of
the drive chain for the headrig roll case where it doubled back and the upper
level of chain rubbed against itself in reverse direction at a point where the
lower portion of the chain was reversing its direction again around a sprocket.
During the period between February 28 and June 19, a cable pulling the log
car from the pond to the deck broke, a branch sticking out of a log on two occa-
sions caught on an upright post supporting the roof over the log deck and pulled
it aslant , a bearing cap under the log car was broken , a shaft on the set works
slipped and , as a result , a sprocket was being worn down on the side . I shall
relate what Jenkins did about these things later herein . At times, Jenkins told
Schauer or Lindroth or both that the edger should be taken to the shop to be
rebuilt. Although 3 bearings had been poured on the edger only 2 or 3 years
before, they again needed repouring . The press rolls and feed rolls were also
worn . The carriage of the headrig needed work done on it ; there was slack in
the knees , some countersunk bolts in the skids had broken off, the track needed
lining up , and the top saw guide had become frozen. Jenkins was told that the
Respondent did not wish to spend money on the edger , because a new edger was
going to be installed when the mill was rebuilt. Although he recognized the need
for occasional repairs or adjustments , Lindroth would not believe that the head-
rig was in need of overhauling , because it was only 4 years old . The Respondent
did order a new top guide for the saw and a new sprocket to replace the worn one.
When the guide was received , Edmond Cruson , the sawyer , and Jenkins decided to
replace the bottom guide instead of the top guide because it needed replacing and
was used much more than the top guide . This could be done, because the type of
guide used was interchangeable . But after using the new guide on the bottom,
they did not inform Schauer that a new one should be ordered to replace the
frozen top guide. Cruson testified that the top guide was needed only for large
logs 3 feet or more in diameter , that the mill did not run many of the larger
logs, and that for a short run of the larger logs he did not have to reset the top
guide. I find , however , that for expert work the top guide should have been
replaced.
The Respondent obviously wished Jenkins to do all that was necessary to keep
the mill operating , but, so long as it got a fair grade of lumber , it was not dis-
posed to do any overhauling that would interrupt operations . Having arranged
to have the mill redesigned and rebuilt by an engineer , the Respondent was
trying to hold off any major repairs until the rebuilding work was to be done.
The Respondent did not like to interrupt production even for simple repairs
except in case of a breakdown . Schauer would ask Jenkins if they could "get
by" until night, expecting Jenkins to make the repair after hours . Some of the
work, such as pouring the bearings on the edger , could not have been done in an
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 193
evening, but it could have been done over the weekend by two men, although there
was some chance that the edger might not be ready to go first thing on Monday
morning. Schauer did not specifically say that Jenkins should not pour the bear-
ings, but in view of the amount of overtime involved and Jenkins' estimate
that the work might take 3 days and thus keep the mill shut down on a work-
day, Schauer apparently withheld approval, expecting the edger to hold together
until it was replaced with the remodeling of the mill. Furthermore, pouring the
bearings was not likely, alone, to improve the quality of the lumber. The result
was that Jenkins never did pour the bearings; rather he attempted to make
adjustments designed to keep the edger turning out passable lumber.
During the last week of May 1952, while Joseph Willey, the edgerman, was off
sick, Jenkins ran the edger and attempted to do his millwork before and after
hours and at noon During this time he did some work on the edger that im-
proved its operation, but without a complete overhaul any repairs made were
of a comparatively temporary character. Even after Willey returned to his job,
Jenkins, without instruction to do so, relieved Willey at the edger for short per-
iods while he was recuperating. The Respondent apparently did not approve of
Jenkins' leaving his own work to relieve Willey.
C. The employment history of Cruson
Edmond Cruson was employed by the Respondent as sawyer on July 6, 1949.
On May 1, 1950, he quit because of a dispute as to the amount of overtime pay
that he claimed. He got another job at a mill nearby, and, like Jenkins, made
several visits back to the Respondent's mill. Lindroth had difficulty getting a
satisfactory replacement for Cruson and part of the time that Cruson was away
he had Jenkins act as sawyer. Jenkins was away from about December 19, 1950,
to January 10, 1951, and while he was away Lindroth hired Cruson back. Cru-
son testified that he "was fixing to change jobs" because he "got into it with the
boss" at the other place. He had been getting $2.35 before he returned to the
Respondent. He came back on January 3, 1951, for $2.25 plus 5 cents per thou-
sand feet of logs scaled per day.
In late August or early September of 1951, Cruson told Lindroth that he would
have to change jobs because his son was entering high school. There were no
high schools in the vicinity of the mill and there were no buses to the high schools
from there. Lindroth proposed that Cruson put his wife and son up at Mayr Flat
near the high school and that Cruson stay at the bunkhouse without charge;
Cruson accepted the proposition and stayed on.
On one occasion, shortly after Schauer was employed as foreman,' the trim
saws got jammed and the lumber was beginning to pile up on the floor. Schauer
went to Cruson and told him to slow down. Not knowing then about the difficulty
with the trim saws, Cruson got mad, shut off the power, and went to talk to
Strandberg, the superintendent. Cruson did no more work that day. The evi-
dence is conflicting as to whether or not Cruson came to work on time the next
morning. Schauer and Francis Tonzi, the planer foreman, testified that Cruson
did not come to work at 8 o'clock the next morning when all the other men were
there ready to work, that Schauer asked Tonzi to go after Cruson, that Tonzi took
the pickup truck and went to Cruson's home, where he found Cruson sitting in a
chair. Tonzi asked Cruson if he were of going to saw that day. When Cruson
' Cruson identified the time as October or November 1951 Schauer testified that it
was about a week after he started with the Respondent in August 1951. As Schauer
also testified about the high school matter just related and, as that probably occurred
in late August. the two incidents must have occurred at close to the same time anc1
posGibly in the reverse order here set forth.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said lie was not, Tonzi told him that Lindroth was in Sacramento that day and
that, if Cruson would come up and saw, he could get his troubles straightened out
when Lindroth returned. Cruson returned to the mill and went to work between
8 and 8: 30 a. in. Cruson, on cross-examination, acknowledged that Tonzi once
came to his house to ask him to come to work, but he testified that this was several
weeks before the time when Schauer had told him to slow down and that he had
not gone to work that morning because he was half sick. Cruson did not tell any-
one that he was sick. I find that the incident occurred as testified to by Schauer
and Tonzi.
In March 1952 work ran out because a "donkey" had broken down in the
woods and the logs were not coming through. Cruson asked Schauer for per-
mission to do some work leveling the track or some repair work on the planer.
According to Cruson, Schauer refused, saying. "No, we will just let that go
today. We will not run any more this week. The donkey has broken down in
the woods, and we will not have any more logs." Cruson probably misunder-
stood, because the mill did operate the next day. Meanwhile, Cruson, not lik-
ing the loss of pay, went to Ukiah to look for another job. He apparently re-
turned the same day, because the next morning when the whistle blew at the
mill and Cruson was not there, Lindroth went after him. Later that week,
Cruson went to Lindroth and told him he was going to change jobs. Lindroth
asked what was the matter. Cruson apparently explained that he had another
offer because Lindroth asked what kind of a deal he would get at the other
place, and when Cruson told him, Lindroth said that he could pay it if they could,
that he would give Cruson a 25-cent raise, and that Cruson should stay on. He
did, until June 19, 1952, when he was discharged as hereinafter related.
Lindroth, on direct examination for the Respondent, testified to only one
time when he spoke to Cruson critically about his work. According to Lindroth,
this was about a week before the discharge of Cruson and Jenkins. The Re-
spondent had an order for structural timber (20 pieces measuring 4" x 14" x 28')
and had certain logs sorted out in the operations in the woods for that purpose.
When Cruson started cutting the order, Lindroth thought he was cutting the
timbers from the log too close to the heart, whereas it should have been cut
close to the outside where the grain is finer. Lindroth testified that he went to
the mill and asked Cruson if he could "get it on the outside more," and that
Cruson had replied that he would try to, but that he never did. Cruson was not
asked if Lindroth had told him to cut the structural timbers more from the
outside. He was asked if, and denied that, Lindroth had come to him and
asked why he was "not cutting structural out of those logs." As will appear
later, this incident probably did not enter into the decision to discharge Cruson,
because the decision and effort to replace him had already been made. The
Respondent's only purpose in injecting it into the case seems to have been to
picture Cruson as an unskillful sawyer. As to this I can draw no conclusion from
Lindroth's testimony, since he did not testify as to the quality of the logs. The
desired quality could not be obtained if the logs had rot or large knots near the
outside. It may well be that Cruson did as well as any sawyer could have done.
D. The organization of the Union; interference, restraint, and coercion
Jenkins had belonged to a local of the Union at Garberville, California, dur-
ing the period that he was away from the Respondent in 1951. About mid-
April 1952, Kenneth McKee, an international organizer for the Union in Gar-
berville, who had unsuccessfully attempted to organize the Respondent's mill in
the fall of 1951, went to the mill again with a view to organizing. When he
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 195
arrived, Schauer approached him and asked him for whom he was looking.
McKee told him that he was looking for Jenkins. Schauer, who noticed McKee's
union button, notified Jenkins. The latter went out, and be and McKee dis-
cussed organizing the mill. McKee gave Jenkins some application cards but
advised him not to use them right away. After McKee left, Jenkins told Schauer
that McKee was an international organizer for the Union.
On May 13 McKee returned to the mill, again asked Schauer to see Jenkins,
and spoke with the latter. That night he met with Cruson and Jenkins at Jen-
kins' home and appointed them an organizing committee, suggesting that they
get others on the committees He left some pamphlets, application cards, and a
contract that the Union had with another company in the area.
A few days after McKee first called on Jenkins, an employee named Briggs
told Schauer that Jenkins was organizing a union a Schauer asked what differ-
ence it made if Jenkins was organizing. Briggs replied that he would not join
a union, and Schauer told him that that was up to him whether he joined or not.
Schauer reported to Lindroth that the employees were forming a union, and
according to Schauer, Lindroth replied that he had been a union man for a long
time and did not care if "the boys" wanted it, but he asked if they all wanted
it. After this, Schauer frequently spoke to Jenkins and the other employees
about the Union. Jenkins told Schauer about the conditions that the Union
hoped to improve and the way in which the Union might help the Respondent.
During the month of May 1952, according to Jenkins, Schauer commented to
Jenkins about some difficulty that Lindroth had had with the truckdrivers, whom
he wished to have work in the mill where the Respondent was short-handed,
and who apparently refused to work. Schauer said that Lindroth was just getting
over his gripe at the Union about organizing and that now he was mad all over
again. Schauer, on several occasions, asked Jenkins how the organization was
going and had discussions with him. Schauer's comments about Lindroth's
attitude toward the Union and other evidence portray Lindroth as a man who
was not opposed to unions, as such, but who was disturbed over the effect it
might have on operations and who believed that the employees should not have
felt they needed a union at the mill.
McKee visited the mill again on about May 29. That evening he again met at
Jenkins' home with Jenkins and Cruson and discussed the number of signed
applications that they had. Then they went to the house of one of the employees
on the mill property. Several of the members of the Willey family came out,
and, during the course of a discussion which followed, signed application cards.
While they were talking there, Lindroth passed by in a truck. It seems probable
that Lindroth saw the group there, but the evidence does not make it clear that
Lindroth identified each member of the group. If he saw McKee, as seems prob-
able, he would undoubtedly have drawn the correct inference as to what he was
doing there.
On June 3, 1952, McKee went to the mill at noon and met with Jenkins, Cruson,
and other employees at the green chain. At this time he gave them a supply of
union buttons, and all the union advocates started wearing them. That same
day Schauer asked Cruson how many men had signed up. Cruson told Schauer
that he could tell by looking at the buttons. Schauer said that Lindroth did not
care, that Lindroth had told him he wondered why the boys had not organized
a long time ago, but that he said he was not going to do anything to encourage
2 The evidence does not disclose the result of this suggestion.
3 I find it significant that, so far as management was concerned, Cruson does not appear
to have been identified as an organizer, although his views toward the Union were known.
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it. That same day, a union meeting was arranged to be held the night of June
12 at the schoolhouse for the purpose of electing temporary union officers.
On the afternoon of June 12 , McKee went to the mill , and, after speaking with
Jenkins, met Lindroth who invited him to the office to discuss the question of
recognition with him and his wife. At the office there was some discussion of the
appropriate unit. Lindroth expressed the desire to speak with his lawyer ; so a
meeting was arranged for the evening of June 20 to continue the discussion. The
General Counsel placed emphasis on the fact that McKee could not get a plain
commitment that the Respondent recognized the Union as the representative of
the employees at this meeting . But even if this were a fact, despite the Respond-
ent's evidence to the contrary, I cannot infer from it an antiunion attitude on Lin-
droth's part , because the question of recognition is closely tied to the question of
the appropriate unit, and it appears that the parties did not reach agreement on
the unit at this meeting.
According to the testimony of Marion Huston, who, until June 19, 1952, was a
truckdriver for the Respondent , he was attempting , between April and June
1952, to rent a house on the mill property . Early in June , Huston spoke with
Lindroth about the prospect of renting such a house . Lindroth said that he might
work out a deal on the John Willey house . John Willey had been a truckdriver
for the Respondent until April 30, 1952. The Respondent had permitted him to
build a house on the mill property , letting him take the necessary lumber free
of charge to build the house and permitting him to occupy it rent free while he
was an employee . Willey had built himself a house larger than average size.
Huston testified that he told Lindroth he did not see how he could work out a
deal on that house because he could not afford to pay $75 a month . Although it
is possible that Willey was paying some rent after he ceased to be an employee,
there is no evidence of that or , if he were paying rent , that the rent was in
fact $75 at that time . According to Huston , Lindroth said that he did not see
why they could not work out a rent of $45 or $50 a month , and they went to the
office to speak with Lindroth ' s wife, Rose , who said that the renting of the
houses was her department and that she would run it the way she wanted to,
that now that they were going to have a union, the rent on the John Willey house
would be $85 or maybe $90, not less than $85 a month, that they had started to
build a house next to the John Willey house , and that she did not think they
would finish it "because she did not feel you could pay $2.80 per hour for a
union carpenter ." He also testified that Mrs. Lindroth said she thought they
might have to raise the rent on the other houses , too. Rose Lindroth admitted
having had a conversation with Huston about the John Willey house but testified
that she told him that she planned to make a duplex out of that house, and she
denied that she said that she was going to raise the rent to $85 or $90 a month
"now that you are going to have a union ." She volunteered that she had , during
the summer , raised the rent on three houses , but only to new employees. It
does not appear, however, that the so-called Willey house was one of those on
which the rent was increased . The only statement which, by Huston ' s testimony,
would have a coercive meaning, is that concerning raising the rent on that house
because the employees were going to have a union . A resolution of the conflict
is rendered more difficult because of the failure to prove that the rent of that
house was $75 a month or, in fact , that any rent was fixed at the time of the
conversation I credit Rose Lindroth 's testimony that she told Huston she was
going to make a duplex out of the Willey house. It would appear , therefore, that
she was not bargaining with Huston nor claiming a higher rent for it in the
same condition. It would not be surprising that a duplex would bring a greater
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 197
rental than a single-family dwelling or that she may have mentioned the rent
of $85 to $90 as the amount that a duplex should bring. I did not receive the
impression that either witness was deliberately giving false testimony, but
whatever Mrs. Lindroth may have said about the Union, I believe and find that
she did not say that the rent of the Willey house was going to be raised, on
account of the Union. I do not find her remark that they v^ould not finish con-
struction of one house because she did not feel they could pay $2.80 an hour for
a union carpenter to be coercive.
On the evening of June 12 at the meeting in the schoolhouse , Jenkins was
elected temporary president . Cruson was not elected to office. Schauer appar-
ently had heard that such a meeting was going to be held, because that day he
asked Jenkins if there was going to be a meeting that night.
Although Schauer's questioning and remarks about the Union prove that he
knew of the progress of the organization almost from the start , I do not find any
unfair labor practices as a result of his questions or his utterances . His attitude
appeared to be friendly and personally neutral , and I find that his statements
and questioning were not coercive.
On or about June 16, 1952, according to John Willey, who, although not then
an employee , was still living in a house on the mill property , Lindroth stopped his
car in front of Willey's house at about 8 p. in. and honked his horn. Willey went
out and asked Lindroth how things were going. Lindroth replied that he did
not know and asked Willey what he had heard about the boys forming a union.
Willey said that he had not heard much except a little that he had heard from
his brothers. Lindroth said that he did not "see where they needed a union."
Willey agreed but said that he did not see why they should not have one and
that it should not make much difference to Lindroth one way or the other.
Willey testified , "He [Lindroth ] said, well , that they could have a union all
right, but he was going to do some work on the mill and if they wanted a union,
well he did not necessarily have to keep them all working ; that he planned to,
shut down and that he just didn't see where they needed a union, when he could
shut down for 30 to 60 days to build, where he had planned to run while he rebuilt
the mill ." Willey testified that Lindroth referred more than once to "the sneaky
way" the employees went about forming a union. From his disarranged testi-
mony, from other portions of Willey 's testimony, and from other evidence, in-
cluding references by Lindroth , himself , I conclude and find that Lindroth said
that he had planned to continue operations during the rebuilding period , having
most of the installations prefabricated, and closing down only for a week or 2
while the installations were actually being made, but that if the employees
wanted a union, he could close down completely for a month or 2 while the mill
was being rebuilt. However, as John Willey was not then an employee, Lindroth's
statement, although throwing some light on his attitude toward the Union, was
not coercive.
On June 13 at about 7: 30 a. m., Cruson, the sawyer, and Lindroth were in the
filing room. According to Cruson, Lindroth asked Cruson, "What is going to
happen around here now that you guys are bringing the Union in here?" Cruson
said that he did not know, that he was going to wait around and see. Lindroth
said that his Sacramento yard had been organized under the A, F. of L. Teamsters
for 25 years , that if the employees of the mill brought the C. I. O. in , it was apt
to cause friction between them . As the mill and yard employees would not come
into contact with one another, I assume that Lindroth had reference to the truck-
drivers who might make deliveries from the mill to the yard . Lindroth told
Cruson that he did not think he should have a union at the mill when none of
the other lumber companies around there had one-"all of that redtape to go
257965-54-vol . 103-14
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through, dues to hold out." Cruson testified that Lindroth "kept asking me a few
questions" about the Union, that, not being familiar with the Union (having
formerly been a member of the Teamsters), he did not answer Lindroth, and
that the latter began to grow angry, a mood which Cruson testified he recognized
by the way Lindroth rolled his cigar around in his mouth. Cruson continued,
"So, about that time Grady [Jenkins], the millwright, come walking up. He
started out. I believe he seen Grady through the window so he said : "Well, I can
tell you one damn thing. If the Union don't go through, here is one that is going
to go down the road."' Lindroth denied having made the last quoted statement.
Considering all the evidence in addition to Lindroth's denial, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I find that he did not make the statement last above
quoted.
Jenkins likewise testified that he had a conversation at the mill with Lindroth
on June 13 Lindroth, although acknowledging a conversation with Cruson,
denied having had one with Jenkins. Jenkins, stating that he noticed a change
in Lindroth's attitude toward him the day after the union meeting, testified :
"Mr. Lindroth was up in the mill. I met him in the carriage track along by the
head rig. They had been running the mill some on Saturday and I asked him
if he was going to run the mill on a Saturday. I wanted to talk to him about the
bearings on the edger. I wanted to find out if he had intentions of running
Saturday. When I asked him-he had been writing some letters up on the
board-and he just turned and walked away. When I asked him if he intended
to run the mill Saturday, he hesitated and said : `I don't know. I may shut the
damn thing down for good.'" In addition to denying that he had had any conver-
sation at all with Jenkins that day, Lindroth specifically denied having made the
quoted statement. The manner in which Jenkins related the foregoing passage,
first testifying that Lindroth just turned and walked away and then testifying
to an answer actually given, taken together with Lindroth's denial, leads me to
question whether Lindroth spoke at all. I am inclined to believe, and so find,
that if Jenkins did see and speak to Lindroth as he testified , Lindroth was un-
aware of it and did not reply for that reason.
As a result of the discharge of Jenkins and Cruson on June 19, 1952, as here-
inafter related, the majority of the employees went out on strike.` On July 8,
after the Union and the Respondent had entered into a consent -election agree-
ment, the Union called off the strike. But the mill did not reopen for production.
On July 9, some of the employees returned for a time to do construction and
cleanup work. The planerman testified that he returned to his regular work,
but on all the evidence, I conclude that he was working on lumber cut before
the strike.
In an American Tube Bending type of letter sent to the employees shortly
before the election, the Respondent made this statement among others :
Now as long as I am in contact with you in the above matter, you should
know our tentative plans for the future. Many of you know that we had
planned to install some new equipment and make other changes during
off shift hours, permitting continued employment at the Mill. This, we
were unable to do as you know, because of circumstances not related to
our improvement program. With the Mill shut down, we have proceeded
on a full time improvement program which will make it impossible to
go into operation until around September 1st, depending on the usual
problems that effect [sic] putting a Mill into operation.
We may be able to use some of you ahead of that date. but when the
Mill opens, we will require more. Naturally we will want to employ as
4 The meeting previously scheduled for June 20 was held nevertheless.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 19:)
many of our old employees as are qualified to do the work with the improved
and new equipment , and as will be needed in the new operations.
This matter of the Mill operating is of course , not related to the Election
we discussed above, but so many of you are out of contact with the whole
situation, we thought it only fair to make this sort of Bulletin letter, so as
to keep you fully advised.
The statement with regard to inability to continue operations "because of
circumstances not related to our improvement program" had reference, I as-
sume, to the strike. It might be argued that a preelection letter which com-
bines an implied suggestion that the employees vote against the Union with a
statement which implies that less than all employees might be taken back when
the mill reopened is a subtle form of coercion. I find such an argument without
sufficient evidential support.
It may be argued that the failure to reopen the mill for production after the
strike, considered in the light of Lindroth's statement to John Willey of such
a possible course of conduct in the event that the employees organized a union,
proves that the Respondent shut down the mill to discourage organization.
This argument might have some merit had the strike not occurred. As the
strike closed operations anyway, and as the duration of the strike could not be
anticipated at its inception, a decision to utilize the period for the planned
remodeling of the mill could not be criticized unless the strike be found to have
been provoked by the Respondent by an unfair labor practice. In view of
my subsequent findings, I conclude that the complete closing of the mill was not
an unfair labor practice.
The election was held on the evening of Friday, July 18, 1952. On that
afternoon McCreary asked his foreman , Francis Tonzi ,b if he should return on
Monday of the following week for the purpose of running some 3 by 10's for
decking at the mill. According to McCreary, Tonzi replied, "No, come Tuesday
and we will run them. The motor won't be back until Tuesday ." This is
the only reference which was made to the absence of some motor, and there
is no evidence to disclose whether or not the motor actually was back on the
following Tuesday. That evening as McCreary and Wayland Williamson were
on their way to vote in the union election , they passed the planer mill and
Tonzi accosted them . According to McCreary , Tonzi said , "You boys had
better win the election or I suppose you know you will be going down the road."
McCreary testified that Tonzi said "we could not win ; that they had a lot more
men going to vote against us than I knew about ." McCreary testified that he
replied , "I suppose you mean Kirby and his men ?" Kirby was not identified
in the record , but I infer that the reference was to the contractor and, his
employees who were doing the reconstruction work or to others who would
not have been eligible to vote. McCreary testified that Tonzi answered his
question in the affirmative . Then , he testified , he told Tonzi that he had heard
Kirby's men got a $15 bonus for the Fourth of July and that Tonzi had answered
that Lindroth had not paid it. According to Tonzi's testimony, the foregoing
incident occurred when McCreary and Williamson stopped at the planer in their
pickup truck on their way over to vote. Tonzi testified, "So I hollered at them-
I said, Be sure and vote the right way.' The car proceeded about three car
lengths, and Curley McCreary put his head out of the car and he said, 'Don't
worry. We are going to make Sig [Lindroth] pay through the nose for this.' "
Tonzi testified that both he and McCreary were joking. When McCreary was
cross-examined, he was not asked if he was joking or if he understood Tonzi
s Tonzi is Lindroth's brother- in-law.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be joking, but a portion of McCreary's testimony regarding the Respondent's
ringers to vote against the Union has every evidence of being a joshing remark
and I credit Tonzi's testimony that it was, regardless of whether or not he made
the statements exactly as quoted by McCreary.
On the following Tuesday, July 22, McCreary and Williamson reported for work
in accordance with Tonzi's previously given instructions. McCreary testified,
"Bud [Tonzi] informed us that Sig [Lindroth] had decided not to run the planer ;
and we were talking there a little bit. I kind of got the drift of it and I said,
`Well, I do not suppose, then, I will be working here until the mill starts up
again?' He said, `Well', he said, `you guys crammed the union down Sig's throat.
He's going to see that you don't benefit a damn by it.' So he said, `When the mill
starts up,' he said, 'if there is anything you are able to do, why, we'll call you
back."' Williamson testified Tonzi's statement was "that inasmuch as we had
crammed the union down Sig's throat, that no man who had anything to do with
this union would profit [by] it one dime." Tonzi was not questioned about this
conversation at all. I find that Tonzi made these statements substantially as
quoted by McCreary and Williamson. Two questions are raised by this finding:
First, does it constitute interference, restraint, and coercion? And, second, is the
statement to be taken as proof of the fact that the Respondent closed down all
operations as a spite measure because the employees organized? As to the first
question, the Respondent may argue that inasmuch as the remark was made
after the Union had won the election, it could not have the effect of discouraging
union membership and activity. I do not accept such argument, because a remark
of that character, even after the election, indicating that employees were being
punished because of their past union activity, might well have a coercive effect
upon the employees for future union membership and activity. I therefore find
that by Tonzi's statement, whether it correctly represented Lindroth's intentions
or not, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As to the second question, although
Tonzi's remark may be some evidence of an intention on the part of the Respond-
ent to keep McCreary and Williamson or other employees from working because
of their support of the Union, I am constrained to find this evidence to be insuffi-
cient by itself to establish such an intention. It may have been a conclusion on
Tonzi's part. The mill had already discontinued operations for remodeling, and,
as previously stated, this course may have been properly taken because of the
strike. There is no evidence that the requisite motor had been returned so that
the planer could operate, and there is no evidence that the work which these
men would have done was still needed in connection with the rebuilding of the
mill. Furthermore, from McCreary's testimony, it affirmatively appears that
some of Tonzi's statements explained why they would not continue work on the
planer were omitted, and it is possible that, if the entire conversation were related,
the explanation for the change in instructions might have appeared.
Joseph Willey, the edgerman, testified that he had a lengthy conversation with
Foreman Sehaner at the mill 2 or 3 days after the end of the strike about the
Union. Schauer acknowledged having had such a conversation with Willey, but
fixed the time as following the election. On the basis of all the evidence, I con-
clude that the conversation was in fact after, rather than before, the election.
According to Willey's version, they talked about the picket line and what had
happened since ; Schauer asked him why he wanted the Union and Willey gave
his reasons, and they also discussed the discharge of Jenkins and Cruson.
According to Willey, "Ben [Schauer] figured that being as small a plant and
everything that it was, and figuring Sig [Lindroth] was a good guy and everything,
he did not think that we needed a Union there." Except for the fact that Schauer
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY , INC. 201
testified that the conversation opened with his congratulating Willey on the
election results , his version does not differ materially from Willey 's. But even
from Willey 's testimony , it is apparent that Schauer was expressing only his
personal views. In any event I find nothing in the conversation which constitutes
interference , restraint , or coercion.
The General Counsel offered evidence concerning the Respondent 's request that
certain former , or currently unemployed , employees vacate the houses on the
mill property which they occupied . In most of these instances the employee
himself had terminated his employment or the Respondent had admittedly dis-
charged him . In one instance the employee had taken other employment during
the period that the mill was shut down . Mrs. Lindroth mentioned the fact that
he was working for someone else and that people should live where they work.
Evidence is lacking that this particular employee was ready , willing, and able to
return to the Respondent 's employ when there was work for him. And so far
as appears from the record , therefore , Mrs. Lindroth was merely following the
usual policy of the company of using the houses for its own employees. I find no
violation of the Act as a result of her request for possession of houses on the
mill property.
E. The discharge of Jenkins and Cruson
In November 1951 Lindroth telephoned long distance to Joseph Riley, a design
engineer whom he had previously met, with a view to having Riley redesign and
improve the Respondent 's mill. Riley informed Lindroth that he was then busy
On another job and that he would not be free until after the first of the year.
As a result of further communications , Riley came down from his home in Port-
land to the mill in the latter part of February , took measurements of the mill,
returned to his home in Portland , and prepared some blueprints . These he sent
to Lindroth on about March 21 , 1952. Lindroth requested Riley to go ahead
with the work, but it was not until about May 15 that Riley arrived to take charge.
For the first week or 10 days , Riley made an inspection and study of the mill.
In the course of his stay , Riley made observations concerning the physical aspect
of the mill and some on the qualifications of employees working there. Riley
left the mill to return to Portland on June 3 and , just before he left, Lindroth
asked him to take over as superintendent of the mill . Riley agreed.
Riley testified that as a result of his inspection of the mill he came to the
conclusion that the millwright and sawyer were not qualified and he suggested to
Lindroth that they be replaced . I judge, from the testimony of Schauer, Lind-
roth , and Riley, that Riley was , in part , influenced in his opinion of Cruson by
stories of Cruson's history which would portray him as temperamental and as
being likely to quit on short notice . But from his observations of Cruson's
work and the results thereof he also decided that Cruson was not getting the
most lumber out of the logs which he cut and that he was not adequately taking
care of his equipment . His decision with respect to Jenkins' lack of qualifica-
tions appears to have been reached as a result of his observation of things that
needed a millwright 's work but had not received it, and in a few instances be-
cause of his disapproval of the way in which work actually done by Jenkins had
been done . He told Lindroth that it would be useless to put in new equipment
with the sawyer and millwright that were there. Schauer testified that when he
first learned that Riley was coming down from Portland he had suggested to
Lindroth that perhaps Riley could get them some men "from up there." He
also testified that he had from time to time reported , apparently critically, to
Lindroth incidents involving the manner in which Jenkins and Cruson had been
doing their work. Both Lindroth and Riley testified that the suggestion of re-
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
placing Jenkins and Cruson came from Riley. Although there is reason to
suspect that the suggestion might have come from Lindroth, there is not suffi-
cient evidence to support a finding to that effect. In any event, Lindroth did
not oppose Riley's suggestion and gave him authority to hire qualified men for
certain jobs, including those of sawyer and millwright.
Riley left the mill to return to Portland on the morning of June 3. En route,
be asked a number of acquaintances in related businesses to keep their eyes
open for qualified men. He left a statement of his requirements at several
places where millhands might seek employment, including the California State
Employment Service at Eureka, the Oregon State Employment Service at Port-
land, and the CIO office in Roseburg, Oregon. At each, he left a request for a
sawyer, an edgerman, 3 millwrights, and 2 laborers. The fact that Joseph
Willey, who had been elected vice president of the Union, was the edgerman
creates the appearance that the Respondent was seeking to rid itself of the
leaders in the Union. However, Riley testified that because of Willey's poor
health, he contemplated training him as a lumber grader, a less strenuous job.
Although Riley's request for three millwrights was not explained, I deduce that,
in addition to an operating millwright, he sought construction millwrights for
the contemplated construction work.
In addition to the foregoing efforts to procure men, Riley also caused adver-
tisements to be placed in 2 Portland newspapers. As a result of 1 of these
advertisements, Marcus Fulgham, a millwright who had been employed at a
certain mill in Oregon for 8 years but who desired to go to California, telephoned
Riley. As a result of their telephone conversation , Riley employed Fulgham g
He also employed a man by the name of Winston Watts as a construction mill-
wright.
Riley returned to the mill on about June 8 or 9. He testified that it was at
this time that he first learned of the organizing by the Union, when Mrs. Lind-
roth told him all the men had blossomed out with union buttons while he was
away. On June 16 Fulgham told Riley that he had worked with a sawyer at
his last place of employment whom he regarded as the top circle sawyer in
Oregon, and that this sawyer had considered coming down to northern California.
Riley immediately telephoned the sawyer, Clarence Falk, at Willamina, Oregon.
Falk agreed to come down to look things over, and Riley had him flown down
the next day. On the night of June 18, Falk agreed to take the job. Both Ful-
gham and Falk were offered pay in excess of what they had been receiving in
Oregon. Falk had been getting $3 an hour but he was employed at the rate of
$3.50 an hour by the Respondent. Cruson's last rate was $2.50 plus 5 cents a
thousand feet of logs sawed. The additional 5 cents a thousand would not have
amounted to more than 10 cents an hour. Fulgham and Falk both testified
that they were members of the local of the Union at Willamina, Oregon, at the
time when they were employed by the Respondent, but that Riley had not asked
them about their union membership.
On Thursday morning, June 19, 1952, the day after Falk's employment as
sawyer, at about starting time, Schauer informed Cruson and Jenkins that the
mill was not operating that morning and that everyone was to go to the green
chain where they were to have a meeting. Cruson testified that Schauer, after
telling him to shut down, added, "They are fixing to pull a fastie." Just as Cruson
was shutting off the last motor, Riley came up to him and told him that he was
6 Riley testified that in response to the advertisements he received about 20 calls. It
does not appear what kind of jobs they called about nor does it appear that Riley rejected
any applications ; for all that appears the callers may have been the ones to make the
rejection after hearing the terms of employment.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 203
relieving him and Jenkins of their jobs as of that time . Cruson asked what
the matter was, but Riley did not answer ; he just asked where Jenkins was.
Cruson told him, and Riley then went and told Jenkins that he had just relieved
Cruson of his job and that he was doing the same for him. Jenkins asked the
reason and Riley said , "It is for personal reasons."
Riley then went to the green chain where the employees were assembled
and told them that he had taken charge, that he had relieved the sawyer and
millwright of their jobs, and that the mill would be closed down until noon in
order to give the new sawyer an opportunity to get acquainted with the carriage
and the setter ; that the sawing operations would resume at noon ; that the crew
were to remove their cars from the operating mill yard and do various cleanup
jobs around the mill. He said that he had already made some changes and was
going to make some more . He spoke of rebuilding the mill and electrifying it,
and he told them a big housing project was planned. He said they were going
to pipe water down from the hills so there would be water for lawns and gardens.
He outlined other innovations planned, like an on-the-job training program and
a safety program. At one stage of his speech he paused and said : "I want you
to know that this has nothing to do with the Union." He continued that he
could look around the job and tell which employees were interested in their
work and which ones were not. As an example, he commented on the way
the logs were piled , that they were not piled straight or even . He said he was
going to have to drain the pond , cut the logs off, and straighten the log deck.
He said that he was going to clean the bunkhouse out and have a better place
for the men to stay. He said that there would be absolutely no drinking on
company property and that anyone caught drinking there would be automatically
fired. It is apparently the General Counsel's position that this speech amounted
to an offer of benefits to the employees to dissuade them from organizing. In
view of the fact that a complete overhauling of the mill and mill property
appears to have been within the improvement program initiated before the Union
l,egan its organizing, although there is no evidence that the cleaning up of the
bunkhouse and bringing in of a water supply was planned that early, I do not
believe that the evidence is strong enough to substantiate the contention of the
General Counsel. Rather than assume that Riley was speaking with his tongue
in his cheek when he said that "this has nothing to do with the Union," I am dis-
posed to take his statement as true.
When Riley finished, Jenkins, who had remained to hear Riley's speech, went
to the employees who were standing there and told them of his and Cruson's
discharge and the employees decided to strike. Jenkins, Cruson, and a few
other employees , starting to walk down the road, encountered Lindroth . Piecing
together the testimony of Jenkins and Lindroth, I find that Lindroth asked a
truckdriver to help on the construction of a bridge and that the driver had
replied, "We are not going to work any more." Lindroth asked what was the
matter, and Jenkins spoke up and said that Lindroth knew what the trouble
was. Lindroth said that he did not know, and Jenkins said that Riley had
discharged him and Cruson and that the employees had decided that they were
not going to work any more. Lindroth said that he had put Riley in charge
and that whatever he had done was all right with him. Jenkins asked if Lind-
roth did not know the labor laws, and when Lindroth had made some reply,
Jenkins said that they were going to make it plenty tough for him.
Cruson and Joseph Willey telephoned the secretary of District 13 of the Union
at Oroville and were instructed that, if the employees were out on strike and did
not wish to go back to work, they should find out if they wanted to put on a
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
picket line. As a result of a vote taken, a picket line was established.? As the
mill did not operate from that time on until November 3, 1952, Falk, the sawyer,
went back to Oregon and did not return until the mill reopened. When the mill
reopened, the Respondent offered employment to most of the employees employed
before the strike other than Cruson and Jenkins, and as additional operations
started, the Respondent planned to offer employment to the few who had not
already been employed, with the exception of Cruson and Jenkins. The Re-
spondent refused to reemploy Cruson and Jenkins in their former jobs.
Although Cruson got a job at another mill in the vicinity, he retained possession
of the house he was occupying at the Respondent's mill. About a month after
Cruson's discharge, Lindroth asked him if he had procured another house, saying
that he needed the house. Cruson answered negatively. About 2 weeks later
Lindroth again asked C'ruson if he had found another house, and when Cruson
said, "No," Lindroth gave him 48 hours to move. Cruson testified that Lindroth
said, "I am tired of messing with you union guys around here." Lindroth
denied that he had made this statement and I credit his denial. But even if
he did say it, it would not necessarily support the contention that Cruson had
been discharged for union activity because the attitude expressed by such state-
ment might well have been provoked by events following Cruson's discharge,
such as the strike and Cruson's continued occupation of the Respondent's house
after his discharge.
F. Concluding findings
The General Counsel introduced considerable evidence to prove that Jenkins
was not to blame for failure to repair or do necessary work. The Respondent
on the other hand adduced evidence at variance to that of the Respondent. A
few examples will suffice.
The pump for supplying water to the boiler : Jenkins testified that he had,
after his return in 1952, completely hooked up the pump, that another employee
with Schauer's knowledge and consent had disconnected it to rig up a steam
cleaner for truck motors, that he had not hooked it up again because he needed
a bottom tap die, and that, although the Respondent ordered one, the one that
came was not a bottom tap but a second tap. According to Jenkins, he had done
the job in the first place by welding the pipes since he could not thread them
without the proper dies. Of course, if this were true, he could have welded them
again. It is not unlikely that, with the mill in the condition it was in, one
man had all he could do to keep the machinery operating and could not, without
working around the clock, get to the innumerable other things which needed im-
provement. It should be remembered that, when Jenkins had previously been
employed, there was a superintendent who not only knew what needed to be done
but knew how to do it himself So, in effect, there were two millwrights on the
job then. When Superintendent Strandberg left and Schauer became foreman,
Jenkins had the full responsibility with only such help as he could get from
individual machine operators, since Schauer knew nothing of millwright work.
If Jenkins completely failed to hook up the pump, it is possible that the failure
might be excused by the press of repair work, but not, I find, by the lack of proper
dies. To Riley, coming in without knowing Jenkins' background or the problems
7 The General Counsel brought out the fact that Fulgham disregarded the picket line
and went to work during the strike to establish the fact that he was not a very good
union man Fulgham testified that he had been informed by members of the AFL who
were working there on construction that the strike was a wildcat strike. As there is no
evidence that Riley hired Fulgham with knowledge of Fulgham's union views, I find no
significance in this evidence.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 205
created by inadequate management, Jenkins' failure to hook up the pump-a
matter of an hour's work-might make Jenkins appear as negligent.
The slackness in the roll-case drive chain, previously mentioned, which Schauer
asked Jenkins to work on. was removed to a certain extent by Jenkins by the
removal of several links in the chain Jenkins testified that he did not put up
the board for the upper loop of chain to drag across to separate it from the
lower loop and sprocket. Schauer testified that he did. Jenkins testified that
if he took out enough links to raise the top loop clear without such a board
(which he testified Strandberg put up) the chain would be so tight that when
bark or pieces of wood got between the chain and sprocket, the chain would fly
off Riley testified that, instead of allowing the chain to drag across the board,
Jenkins should have installed an idler sprocket to hold the upper loop of chain
away from the lower To Riley the job had been done in a makeshift and
unsafe manner.
The evidence was conflicting as to whether the broken cable on the log car
mentioned earlier herein was refastened by use of an easy splice or a rolled eye.
The latter would have been the proper and safe way to splice the cable, the
former would not, at least not with the one clamp which Jenkins used above the
splice. Jenkins testified that he used a rolled eye. Schauer and Riley testified
that it was an easy splice. A picture offered in evidence may or may not suffice,
to the trained eye, to settle the dispute. To me, the picture appeared to support
the testimony of Riley and Schauer.
The log-deck roof support mentioned earlier : Apparently it was not unusual,
before the remodeling of the mill, for a branch sticking out of a log to pull the
roof-supporting post out of position. Jenkins testified that he had once repaired
it by raising the roof and putting a drift pin down through the beam which rested
on the upright posts and into the top of the post, and he testified that it had
been knocked out of position again just a few days before his discharge. Riley
testified that the post should have been reinforced at the top with an angle iron
and that in any event the post had been out of position from the time he arrived
in May.
Concededly Jenkins did not repair the broken bearing cap on the log car,
although he testified that he had on previous occasions done so.
The worn sprocket in the set works, Jenkins testified, did not affect the op-
eration of the machine and, therefore, although a new sprocket had been re-
ceived several weeks before his discharge, he did not take the time to put it in;
he was waiting for "a more favorable time."
On the weekend before Jenkins' discharge, Riley and Fulgham poured the
bearings on the edger. This is something that should have been done earlier,
but, as previously stated, it was not a repair that would materially improve
the quality of lumber that went through the edger Riley and Fulgham testi-
fied that pouring bearings was a regular part of a millwright's duties and that
no authority from management had to be procured before the work was done.
Jenkins testified that this was a major repair, that management had to au-
thorize it first, and that he never got authorization although he had frequently
mentioned the need for repair to Schauer and Lindroth. If Jenkins could have
poured the edger bearings without interrupting operations, I am satisfied he
would have needed no special authority, but I believe his estimate of the time
it would take ran substantially into production time and Schauer would not ap-
prove this as long as the edger could operate as it was and as long as pouring
the bearings would not have resulted in better lumber. But whether or not
Jenkins should have been able to pour the bearings without interrupting pro-
duction and should have gone ahead and done it, I find that Riley believed that
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a good millwright could and would have done so and that this, in part, influenced
his opinion of Jenkins' ability.
Riley also testified that the machinery was not adequately oiled and greased.
Jenkins disputed this. Of course, at the Respondent's mill it was the duty of
the edgerman and setter to oil their own machinery, but it would be the overall
responsibility of the millwright to see that they did oil and grease as they were
supposed to. I find it difficult to believe that the edger hearings could get in the
condition they were in just 3 years after they were poured the last time if the
bearings had been kept properly oiled.
Without deciding whether Jenkins was to blame for all that Riley attributed
to him, I find that Riley, with a perfectionist's approach, might honestly have
concluded that Jenkins was not the kind of millwright he wanted in a mill for
which he was responsible. I take into account that an fficiency expert such as
Riley might be more critical than one who was not.
It is even more difficult, without the aid of a disinterested expert witness who
had observed the sawyer in his day-to-day operations, to determine the quality
of the sawyer's work. It is possible that Cruson, under adverse conditions at-
tributable to the condition of the mill and machinery, was doing a reasonably
good job. Even so, it would not be surprising that Riley should demand a
higher degree of skill and knowledge, and I can understand how a very critical
person might seek more consummate skill than Cruson had. Although I infer
that Riley was influenced in deciding to replace Cruson more by the stories he
heard from Lindroth and Schauer which portrayed Cruson as a temperamental
man, always likely to pick up and leave on short notice, than he was by the
quality of Cruson's work, I do not reject Riley's testimony that he was not
satisfied with the quality of Cruson's work.
Lindroth obviously preferred not to have a union at the mill, and the promi-
nence of Jenkins and Cruson, especially Jenkins, in the organizational movement,
and the timing of the discharges, which came within a week after the Union's
demand for recognition, are facts which give rise to understandable suspicion.
One may suspect that Lindroth was determined to get rid of either or both
Jenkins and Cruson because of union activity, that he directed Riley to get re-
placements for them and then discharge them ; but no direct evidence proves this,
and, on the record, I find that the preponderance of the evidence does not justify
an inference to that effect. On all the evidence, therefore, I find that the Re-
spondent did not discharge Jenkins and Cruson discriminatorily because of their
union membership or activity.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, to the extent
that they have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, 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 ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
As it has been found that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent did not discriminate in regard
to the hire and tenure of Grady Jenkins and Edmond Cruson, it will be rec-
ommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them.
JACKSON DAILY NEWS 207
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Grady Jenkins and Edmond Cruson by discharging them on
June 19, 1952, and by thereafter failing and refusing to reemploy them.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such conduct except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this
union, or any other labor organization.
CAPITAL LUMBER COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By-----------------------------------------
Dated ---------------------- ( 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.
JACKSON DAILY NEWS and LOCAL No. 215 OF INTERNATIONAL PRINTING
PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case
No. 15-CA-515. March 0, 1953
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1952, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
103 NLRB No. 9.