M. and M. Wood Working Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 1, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 372 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of Al. AND Al. WOOD WORKING COMPANY and PLYWOOD
AND VENEER WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 102, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS of AMERICA
Case No. C-3.45.Decided A pril 1, 1938
Woodworking Industry-Interference, Restraint , or Coercion-
Discrimina-tion : discharge of employees under "closed shop " contract where contract is
made with local union and local union has changed name and affiliation-Rein-
statement Ordered-Back Pay: not awarded because of uncertainty shrouding
employer 's rights under contract.
Mr. G. L. Patterson and Mr. Thomas P. Grahain, Jr., for the Board:
Mr. Robert L. Sabin, Jr., of Portland, Oreg., for the respondent.
Mr. Ben Anderson, of Portland, Oreg., for Local No. 102.
Mr. C. W. Robison, of Portland, Oreg., for Local No. 2531.
Mr. Julius Schlezinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Plywood and Veneer Workers Union,
Local No. 102, herein called Local No. 102, the National Labor Re-
lations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles W. Hope, Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its
complaint dated December 8, 1937, against Al. and M. Wood Working
Company, 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 (1) and (3) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act, in that the respondent had refused to reinstate,
following a temporary shut-down of its plywood plant in Portland,
Oregon, employees who failed to maintain membership in Local
Union No. 2531 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, herein called New Local No. 2531.1 The complaint and
1 A supplemental complaint naming approximately 425 of the employees denied rein-
statement was issued by the Regional Duector on December 29, 1937. The complaint
was subsequently dismissed at the hearing in regard to L M Jolley , one of the persons
named therein.
372
DE CI S IONS AND OIIDERS 373
accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
The respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied
that it had engaged in unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held at Portland, Oregon,
from January 4 to January 18, 1938, before Jesse E. Jacobson, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the commence-
ment of the hearing, a motion to intervene by New Local No. 2531
was granted. The Board, the respondent, Local No. 102, and New
Local No. 2531 were represented by counsel and participated in the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-
forded to all parties. By agreement of the parties, seven volumes of
testimony taken in another proceeding involving the same parties,
before a Special Master of the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, together with the pleadings in such other pro-
ceeding, certain exhibits, the report of the Special Master and his
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the opinion of the Court,
were made a part of the record of this proceeding.? At the con-
clusion of the hearing, motions to amend the complaint and the an-
swer to conform to the proof were grantocl. At the conclusion of
the Board's case and again at the conclusion of the hearing, the
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. The motions were
denied by the Trial Examiner and exceptions taken. During the
course of the hearing exceptions were also taken by the parties
to various other rulings of the Trial Examiner on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
All rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed.
At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint as to all persons listed therein whose names do not
appear in Board Exhibits P and Q.3 Ruling on this motion was
reserved by the Trial Examiner. The motion is hereby denied.
By order of the Board, dated January 12, 1938, the proceeding
was transferred to and continued before the Board in accordance
with Article II, Section 37, of the Rules and Regulations. On Jan-
uary 25, 1938, after notice to the parties, a hearing for the purpose
of oral argument was held before the Board, in which the respondent,
Local No. 102, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America participated.
2M. and M. Wood Working Co., a corporation v Plywood and Veneer Workers Local
Union No 102 , affiliated with International Woodwoi hers of America of the C I 0 , et at ,
U. S Dist Ct, D Ore,, decided January 10, 1938
3 These exhibits contain the names of the persons listed in the complaint who have
expressed a desire to be reinstated to their former employment and who have not
received substantially equivalent employment elsewheie.
374 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The M. and M. Wood Working Company, an Oregon corporation
having its principal office at Portland, Oregon, is engaged in the
manufacture of different wood products. It operates in the city of
Portland, two door plants under its own name,4 a plant for the man-
ufacture of wood tank and pipe under the name of the National
Tank & Pipe Company, and a plywood plant under the name of the
Plylock Corporation. Under the name of M. and M. Plywood Com-
pany, it operates another plywood plant at Longview, Washington.
The Plylock Corporation and the M. and M. Plywood Company man-
ufacture approximately 15 per cent of the plywood produced in the
United States.
The only plant of the respondent involved in this proceeding is
that of the Plylock Corporation, herein called the Plylock plant.
Douglas fir plywood products and various specialty items such as
Rezo doors, hot-plate plywood, vertical-gram panels, vertical-grain
cupboard stock, Philippine mahogany panels, and Philippine ma-
hogany Rezo doors are manufactured in the Plylock plant. The
Plylock plant has a monthly capacity of about 61/2 million feet and
employs approximately 515 men.
The principal raw materials processed at the Plylock plant are
Douglas fir logs. Approximately 40 per cent of these logs are ob-
tained by the respondent from the State of Washington and the
other 60 per cent from Oregon. The raw materials for the manu-
facture of vertical-grain products and Rezo doors are purchased in
Washington and those for the production of Philippine mahogany
products are imported from the Philippine Islands. The respondent
also consumes a large quantity of glue in the manufacture of ply-
wood. It manufactures a portion of this glue from raw materials
imported from Belgium and purchases the remainder from concerns
located in Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania.
More than 90 per cent of the products produced at the Plylock
plant are shipped to customers located outside the State of Oregon.
These products are sold by the respondent directly, and through
territorial representatives located in Los Angeles, California, Detroit,
Michigan, New York, New York, and Biloxi, Mississippi, to jobbers
throughout the United States. The respondent also ships products
of the Plylock plant to the Fisher Body Corporation in Seattle,
Washington, the Seaman Body Corporation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
4 The respondent operates a glue factory at one of these plants.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 375
a,nd to the various - distribution warehouses ' throughout the country
of Reed's Lumber & Veneer Company and Montgomery Ward &
Cornpany.
The respondent also owns 15.8' per cent of the stock of Pacific
Forest Industries, a Washington corporation organized as an export
monopoly under the Webb-Pomerene Act, through which all of
the plywood produced in the United States for foreign consumption
is sold. Through the Pacific Forest Industries it annually sells
from 12 to 16 million feet of plywood to various foreign countries,
S to 10 million of which is manufactured at the Plylock plant. -
II. THE UNIONS .
Local Union No. 102 of the International Woodworkers of America
is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial
Organization. It admits into membership all of the employees of
The respondent at the Plylock plant" excepting shift foremen.
Local Union No. 2531 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and, Joiners of America is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. It, also, admits into membership
all of the employees of the respondent at the Plylock plant excepting
shift; foremen. •
III. TIIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES -
A. Background of, the dispute
Organization among the employees at the Plylock plant first began
-in ' May 1934'. At 'that time a union was formed which affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor as Federal Local No. 19487.
It grew rapidly and within a few months succeeded in obtaining as
members practically all the workers at the plant.
Early in -1935 the American Federation of Labor granted to the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein
called the Carpenters' Union, jurisdiction overall persons employed
as' woodworkers. Federal Local No. 19487 thereupon became Local
No.-2531 of the Carpenters' Unions
On February 1, 1936, the Plylock Local," now known as Local No.
2531 of the Carpenters' Union, entered into a written contract with the
respondent covering hours, wages, and other conditions of employ-
ment. Under the terms of the contract the Local was recognized as
the- collective bargaining agency for its members.
5 The record discloses that there was' considerable dissatisfaction. at the time among
the members of the Plylock Local over their transfer to the Carpenters'- Union.
e The term "Plylock Local" as used- herein refers to the- local -union at the Plylock
plant which was organized as Federal Local No. 19487, then became Local No. 2531 of
the Carpenters ' Union, and subsequently , as we hereafter find, became Local No. 102 of
the I. NV A.
80618-38-von vi--25
376 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 3, 1937, following several weeks of negotiations, the Ply-
lock Local entered into a new contract with the respondent. Under
this contract the Local obtained several valuable concessions, includ-
ing seniority rights, a substantial wage increase, and an agreement
for the arbitration of grievances. The contract also contained a
"closed shop" provision requiring the respondent to employ only
members of the Local in good standing. The contract was to run
until March 1, 1938.
During May and June 1937, the members of the Plylock Local began.
considering the advisability of terminating their connection with the
Carpenters' Union and affiliating with the Committee for Industrial
Organization, then engaged in an organization drive among the wood-
workers of the Pacific Northwest. At a meeting held on June 30,
1937, the Local decided to take a secret ballot on the question of affilia-
tion. , The members cast their votes in the union hiring hall during
the first 2 weeks of July. The sealed ballot boxes were then sent to a
convention of the Federation of Woodworkers which was held from
July 15 to July 19 at Tacoma, Washington. Other locals which had
voted on the question also forwarded their ballots to the convention.
The ballots were counted at the convention. An overwhelming
majority of them, including 89 per cent of those cast by the Plylock
Local, were in favor of affiliating with the Committee for Industrial
Organization. International Woodworkers of America, herein called
the I. W. A., an international union composed of workers in the
various branches of the lumber industry, was then set up as an affili-
ate of the Committee for Industrial Organization. The Plylock
Local subsequently ratified the action of the Convention 'aiid, re-
quested a charter from the I. W. A.
About the middle of August' 'Neil Malarkey, the respondent's vice
president, was informed by members of the Local's executive com-
mittee that the employees of the Plylock plant were in favor of the
C. I. O. and that the Plylock Local intended installing an I. W. A.
charter. Malarkey did not raise any objection at that time. How-
ever, following the receipt of telegrams during the last week in Au-
gust from various customers stating that, because of a boycott by the
Carpenters' Union, they would be unable to use the respondent's
products if its employees went C. I. 0., Malarkey became disturbed
about the situation.
On August 31 the plant was shut down for about 2 hours to enable
the employees to attend a meeting at which they were addressed by
representatives of both the Carpenters' Union and the I. W. A. At
this meeting the members of the Local voted overwhelmingly in
favor of the I. W. A., and more than 300 of them signed I. W. A.
application cards that day.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 377
On September 1 the respondent received a telegram from- A. W.
Muir, vice president of the Carpenters' Union, stating that a boycott
had been placed upon its products by the Carpenters' Union. A
similar boycott which had been instituted against several Portland
sawmills appeared to be quite effective, and the respondent, consider-
ably alarmed, informed the Local's executive committee that it would
be unable to operate in the face of such a boycott. - The respondent,
further informed the Local that under, the terms of the contract of
May 1937 the respondent would be unable to employ workers who
did not retain membership in good standing in Local No. 2531 of
the Carpenters' Union.
. It appears that during the first week in September conferences were
held almost every day between the respondent's officials and the exec-
utive committee of the Plylock Local. The respondent took the posi-
tion that if the Local installed an I. W. A. charter it would not be
able to operate the Plylock plant because of the boycott and that if it
did operate the plant it would not be able to employ persons who had
failed to maintain membership in Local No. 2531 of the Carpenters'
Union. With the Local's permission, copies of the telegrams con-
cerning the boycott which had been received by the respondent were
posted on the bulletin boards within the plant. During this same
period, members of the executive committee received conflicting ad-
vice from several attorneys whom they had consulted with respect to
the question of whether a change in affiliation would be a violation of
the contract. Finally, on September 8, the respondent shut down the
Plylock plant and informed the Local that it would not reopen until
the latter definitely determined its position in regard to affiliation.
On September 9 the Plylock Local decided by a vote of 210 to 203
to install an I. W. A. charter on Sunday, September 12. The closeness
of the vote appears to have been due largely to the position which the
respondent had taken with respect to the contract and the fear on
the part of many workers that the plant would remain closed if the
Local changed its affiliation during the life of the contract.
The Plylock Local held its -last meeting as an affiliate of the
Carpenters' Union on September 12, 1937. At this meeting, at-
tended by about 450 of the 500 members of the Local, a motion to
install an I. W. A. charter immediately was carried with but 7 dis-
senting votes, and one to close the Local's affiliation with the Car-
penters' Union was passed with but 1 dissenting vote. The new
charter was thereupon installed and the Plylock Local became Local
No. 102 of the I. W. A. By a motion from the floor all of the officers
of Local No. 2531 were retained. A resolution was passed stating
the intention of the Local to-carry out under its new name the provi-
378 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.sions of the contract. Following the meeting, the charter of Local
No. 2531 was mailed to the Carpenters' Union at its national offices
in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a copy of the above resolution was
presented to the respondent. Apparently some 39 members of Local
No, 2531 did not sign applications for membership in the I. W. A.
Several more conferences were held during the 2 weeks following
the meeting of September 12 between the respondent and the execu-
tive 'committee of the Local. No progress was made, however,
toward a solution of the controversy. In the meantime Randolph
Dodge, the only member of the Plylock Local who had voted against
the severance of affiliation with the Carpenters' Union, began recruit-
ing other employees of the plant in an attempt to reorganize Local
No, 2531. He was assisted in this task by Bert Sleeman, the repre-
sentative of the Carpenters' Union in Portland, to whom the charter
of Local No. 2531 had been sent by the Carpenters' Union after its
receipt at the national offices in Indianapolis. About September 21
Dodge informed Malarkey that he had between 40 and 50 Plylock
employees who were willing to return to work as members of Local
No, 2531 of the Carpenters' Union. Thereupon, on September 23,
Malarkey mailed a notice to each employee on the pay roll of Sep-
tember 8, stating that the respondent intended to reopen the Plylock
plant with members of Local No. 2531 and that it was requesting
Local No. 2531 to advise it as to which workers were members in
good standing of such Local.
About the same time that the respondent mailed the notice re-
ferred to above, Dodge's committee, consisting of himself and three
other members of former Local No. 2531, mailed cards to 248 em-
ployees of the Plylock plant, announcing a meeting on September
25 at the American Federation of Labor Temple in Portland.
Dodge testified that the persons selected were ones whom his com-
mittee and several foremen assisting them believed were in favor of
"living up to the contract".
Thirty-one persons, two of whom left, were present at the meet-
ing of September 25. Temporary officers were appointed by Slee-
man and the group decided to "reorganize" Local No. 2531. Addi-
tional meetings were held on September 27 and 29. At the meeting
of September 27 a new oath of allegiance to the Carpenters' Union
was administered to those present. About October 1 Sleeman pre-
sented the charter of Local No. 2531 to the business agent of New
Local No. 2531.
The Plylock plant reopened on October 6 with about 50 workmen
supplied by New Local No. 2531. Local No. 102 immediately placed
a picket line around the plant and forced it to shut down again on
October 11. The plant, under heavy police protection, reopened for
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 379
the.second time on October 14. It was operating at the time of the
hearing in this case.
B. =Th;e contract
The complaint alleges that the refusal of the respondent' -to re-
tain in its employ after September 7, 1937, persons who failed to
maintain, membership ,in good standing in Local No. 2531 of the
Carpenters' Union constituted an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. The respondent de-
nies that such refusal constituted an unfair labor practice and con-
tends that it was obligated to refuse employment to such persons
by the "closed shop" provision of the contract of May 3, 1931. This
provision reads as follows :
The Company recognizes the • fact that all its employees are
members of the Union. The Company recognizes the Union,
as representing, for the purpose of collective bargaining, all of'
its employees except those acting as shift foreman and in the:
plant office and not paid on an hourly' basis not at present in,
the Union, or any replacement of such personnel. It is the de-
sire of the parties hereto that the employees covered by this
agreement shall maintain in in good' standing in the
Union. In -order that this desire may be effectuated, and in
order that the Union may discipline its members for the effec-
tive operation of this agreement, the Company agrees to release
from its employ any person who fails or refuses to maintain
membership in good standing in the Union.
The question is whether, after the action taken by the Plylock
Local and the other events described above, the respondent was justi-_
fled by the contract in refusing to retain in its employ those persons
who were not members of New Local No. 2531. In our opinion the
respondent was not so justified and its actions constitute discrimina-
tion against its employees contrary to Section 8 (3) of the Act.
In the first place it is plain that the contract was made with the
Plylock. Local. The contract states in its preamble that the parties
thereto are the respondent and "Plywood & Veneer Workers Union
No. r 2531; affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners, hereinafter known as the Union". The contract was nego-
tiated' on behalf of the Union by representatives of Local No. 2531
and of the Plywood District Council.' Bert Sleeman, the representa-
tive of the Carpenters' Union in Portland, Oregon, affixed his signa-
7 The Plywood District Council is a council of the various locals in the plywood
industry in Washington and Oregon . At the time the contract was negotiated it was
affiliated with the Carpenters ' Union. Since the formation of the I. W. A ., however, it
has transferred its affiliation to the latter organization.
380 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ture to the respondent's copy of the contract several weeks after May
3 but did not sign the Local's copy of it. It is thus clear that the
reference to the Carpenters' Union in the preamble of the contract is
merely descriptive of the Local. The Plylock Local, and not the
Carpenters' Union, was a party to the contract and the Plylock Local
is the union referred to in the "closed shop" provision.
It also seems clear to us that the Plylock Local legally withdrew
from the Carpenters' Union in accordance with the terms of the
constitution of the Carpenters' Union. That constitution provides :
"A Local Union cannot withdraw from the United Brotherhood or,
dissolve so long as ten members in good standing object thereto."
At the meeting on September 12 when, after a series of meetings and
much discussion, the Plylock Local took final action upon the ques-
tion of continuing its affiliation with the Carpenters' Union, only
one, member of the Plylock Local voted against the motion -to sever
all connections with the Carpenters' Union. Immediately thereafter
the Plylock Local returned its charter to the Carpenters' Union.
While it is true that 39 members of Local No. 2531 never joined
Local No. 102 of the I. W. A., no formal objection to the withdrawal
of affiliation was ever made by any member of Local No. 2531 except
the lone dissenter at the September 12 meeting. Under any practical
interpretation of the provision above quoted we must conclude that
on September 12 the Plylock Local legally severed its affiliation with
the Carpenters' Union.8
Thereafter the Plylock Local installed the charter of Local No.
102 of the I. W. A. The membership of Local No. 2531 almost
unanimously constituted the membership of Local No. 102 and the
officers of the one were retained as officers of the other. Local No.
102 then formally recognized the continued existence of the con-
tract by acknowledging to the respondent, immediately upon the
adoption of its I. W. A. charter, its intention to carry out the provi-
sions of the agreement.
It is 'not necessary to decide here, however, whether or not the con-
tract remained in force with the Plylock Local after the change in
name and affiliation. If the contract continued as a valid con-
tract with Local No. 102, as the successor of Local No. 2531, plainly
the respondent had no authority thereunder to require membership
8 The constitution of the Carpenters ' Union provides that if a local union withdraws
or is dissolved , it must forward all its property , books, charter , and funds to the General
Secretary of the Union. The Plylock Local, upon its change in affiliation , did not forward
its books and funds to the General Secretary in accordance with this provision. It
seems clear , however, that compliance with this provision is not a prerequisite to with-
drawal or dissolution . The failure of the Plylock Local to forward its books and funds
to the General Secretary raises merely a question between the private parties involved
and has no bearing upon the issue of withdrawal of affiliation.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 381
in New Local No. 2531 as a condition of employment.9 On the other
hand, if the contract expired as a result of withdrawal of the. Plylock
Local, from ,the Carpenters' Union, the respondent likewise cannot
rely upon the contract as justification for requiring membership in
New Local No. 2531. In either event the respondent's activities con-
stitute unlawful discrimination against its employees contrary to
Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Under the foregoing view of the case it is unnecessary to deter-
mine, and we do not here determine, the status of a valid contract
where the officers and virtually the entire membership of the local
union with which the contract was made vote to withdraw affiliation
from the parent body, though such withdrawal is not effected strictly
in accordance with the constitution of the' parent body or the charter
of the local union. Nor do we here determine the status of a valid
contract where the union with which the contract was made continues
'in existence under 'the same name and affiliation but a majority of
the employees in the 'bargaining unit have shifted their allegiance
to another union.
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in
passing upon a motion by the respondent for a temporary injunction
to restrain Local No. 102 from picketing the plant, has taken a
somewhat different view of the' rights of the parties under the
e It is interesting to note that in World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin, N. Y. Sup Ct., N. Y.
County , Special Term Part III, decided January 19 , 1938, the Court held that an em-
ployer who had entered into a contract with a local union affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor could not escape its obligations under such contract because of the
local union's severance of its connection with the American Federation of Labor and
transfer of its allegiance to the Committee for Industrial Organization . The Court said :
It is plaintiff's contention that by so doing ( transferring its affiliation ) the de-
fendant changed its nature and in legal contemplation became a different entity.
With this argument the court cannot agree. As admonished by Kelso v. Cabanagh
,(137 Misc. 653), it must be held that defendant ( local union ) is still the same union.
Its identity, structure , operation , constitution , bylaws, officers and membership are
still the same as they were when the agreement was made. Only its affiliation and
name have changed. The power to disburse funds, to perform and take advantage
of contracts to collect dues and distribute surplus is still in the same hands and
belongs "to the same legal entity. Abundant authority can be marshaled in support
of the proposition that severance or change of affiliation of a local union with the
parent body does not alter the identity or take away the rights and responsibilities
of the local . In Oakes on Organized Labor and Industrial Conflicts, page 90, we
read : "The identity of a local union is not affected by its withdrawal from one
general organization and its affiliation with another." In a sister jurisdiction,
Shipwrights , Joiners & Caulkers Association Local 2, of Seattle v. Mitchell (60 Wash ,
529) it was held that "regardless of the change in membership, and the changes
in its affiliations , the association itself has remained the same." In consequence no
approval can be given plaintiff's (employer ) argument that change of affiliation from
the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization has
altered the nature and structure of the defendant.
See also Cassetana, etc. v . Filling Station Operators' Union Local Union No. 410,
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, decided December 28, 1937, reported
in Labor Relations Reports, Vol. I, No. 19.
382, NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS- BOARD
contract.1° The Court takes the position that the respondent was
not bound to accede to the change of affiliation from A. F. of L. to
C. I. 0.; that the withdrawal of the membership of Local No. 2531
from the Carpenters' Union did not destroy Local No. 2531 since the-
Local could not destroy itself without the consent of the parent
union; that irrespective of whether Local No. 2531 remained in,
existence the employees who joined Local No. 102 were not members in,
good standing of Local No. 2531 and therefore respondent had the•
right to discharge them. We cannot agree with this view. As,
already stated, it is not necessary to determine whether the con-
tract was binding on the respondent after the change of affiliation
from A. F. of L. to C. I. 0. As to the destruction of Local No.
2531, we think it plain that'the constitution of the Carpenters' Union
expressly contemplated that local unions could withdraw from affilia-
tion ; that the Plylock Local followed the correct legal procedure-
and did so withdraw ; and that this being so, Local No, ,2531, as.
affiliated with the Carpenters' Union, ceased to exist and New Local
No. 2531 cannot be considered the same organization. Nor can 'we
agree with the argument that the respondent had the right to dis-
charge its employees because they did not maintain good standing
in Local No. 2531. We are of the opinion that either Local No.
102 succeeded to the rights of Local go. 2531 under the contract,
in which case only membership in Local No: 102 was required,- or;
Local No. 2531 being extinct, the contract provision was no longer in
force.
We find that the respondent refused to retain at work after Sep-
tember 12, 1937, employees who failed to maintain membership in
good standing in New Local No. 2531 of the Carpenters' Union. By
such conduct the respondent has discriminated against its employees
in regard to hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights,
guaranteed in Section 7 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 de-
scribed 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
JO M.' and M. Wood Working Co, a corporation v. Plywood and Veneer Workers Local
Union No. 102, affiliated with International Woodworkers of America, at al., supra.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
V. THE REMEDY
383
The employees who were refused reinstatement by the respondent
after September 8, 1937 , because of their failure to maintain mem-
bership in good standing in Local No . 2531 of the Carpenters ' Union,
having lost their jobs as a result of an unfair labor practice, would
normally be entitled to reinstatement with back pay. However, their
discharge was due in this case to the respondent 's belief that it was
required to deny them employment by the contract of May 1937.
The legal rights and obligations of the parties under the contract
have been involved in doubt, - and the record indicates that the re-
spondent 's conduct has been predicated in large part upon an honest
reliance on interpretations of the contract by its attorney and the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon . In this
case, therefore , we shall not require it to pay them back pay for
the period between their discharge and the date of this decision.'
Since the discharge of these employees constituted an unfair labor
practice , the respondent is under a duty to restore the status ' quo
which -existed prior to its unlawful act. The respondent must , there-
fore, upon application , offer to these employees reinstatement to their
former positions , without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
or privileges . Further, we shall order the respondent to pay such
employees back pay from the date of their applications for rein-
statement to the date of the offer of such reinstatement.
If after reinstating its employees pursuant to our order and dis-
missing employees hired since ' September 8, 1937 , the respondent
determines that the services of any of its staff as then constituted are
not required , it may reduce its staff , provided the reduction is made
without discrimination against any employees because of their union
affiliation in or activities in behalf of Local No. 102, following the
system of seniority which has heretofore been applied in the opera -.
tion of the Plylock plant , subject to any modification introduced by
agreement with Local No. 102.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union No. 102, affiliated with the International Wood-
workers of America, and Local Union No. 2531, affiliated with the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, are labor
organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act..
2. The respondent, by discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in
384 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
unfair labor practices; within the meaning of Section 8 (3)` of
the Act.
3. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in'Section'l of
the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair- labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The afore-mentioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relation`s
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, M. and M. Wood Working Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Local Union No; 102 of the In-
ternational Woodworkers of America or encouraging membership in
Local Union No. 2531 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, by discharging or refusing to reinstate: any of
its - employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their
employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to,self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to its employees who were refused reinstatement after
September 8, 1937, because of their failure to maintain membership,
in good standing in Local No. 2531 of the United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole such employees for any loss of pay they will have
suffered by reason of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them, upon
application, following the issuance of this order, by payment to them,
respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each would nor-
mally have earned as wages during the period from the date of such
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 385
application for reinstatement to the date of the offer of reinstatement,
less any amount each will have earned during that period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the Plylock
plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days
from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the
respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.