Potlatch Forests, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 255 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of POTLATCH FORESTS, INC . and LOCALS 10-358 AND 10-361,
'INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKER S OF AMERICA , AFFILIATED WITH THE
.C. I. O.
.In the Matter of POTLATCH FORESTS , IN c. an l LOCAL 10-364, INTERNA-
TIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
In the Matter Of POTLATCH FORESTS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOOD-
, WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Cases Nos. R^5373 (19-R-1058 ), R-5,35741 (19-R-1083 ), 19-R-1164',
respectvvely
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND '
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 4,-194 i .
On November 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1943, pursuant to the Decision and
Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on October 14, 1943,1
an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and
supervision of `the Regional Director for the, Nineteenth Region
(Seattle, Washin(Tton). On November 15, 1943, the Regional Director
issued and duly served upon the parties a Report on Ordered Election.
Said report indicated that of approximately 2,886 voters in, the
unit, 2,178 cast valid votes, 1,118 of which were cast for International
Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., 953
were cast for Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, A. F. L., herein,
called the A. F. L., 21 ,were cast for neither, 3 were invalid, and 83
were challenged.2 Since a disposition,of the challenged ballots did
not affect the results of the election, the Regional Director made no
recommendation with respect thereto.
•'52N L.R B. 1377
21n his report , the Regional Duector stated with respect to the challenged votes :
* * * 3 were cast by employees of the Townsite department who were excluded
from the unit by the Board ' s Direction of Election Forty-tour challenged votes were
cast by the employees *of the Washington-Idaho-Montana railroad, which employee,
were excluded from the unit by direction of the Board . Of the remaining challenged
rotes, 36 in number , all challenges were made because it was claimed that the em-
plo%ees were excluded by the terms of the Board's Direction of Election
55 N L It. B. No. 44
25ii
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 17, 1943, the A. F. L. filed Objections and Exceptions
to Election with the Regional Director, alleging that (1) the order
directing the election was invalid, since no hearing was afforded,.by
the Board, as required by statute, and since the evidence considered
by the Board in ordering the election was, as to the A. F. L., hearsay
and ex parte; (2) a substantial number of employees of Potlatch
Forests, Inc., herein called the Company, who are now in,military
service, were erroneously excluded from participating in the election
because of the method' of conducting said election; (3) the order di-
recting the election excluded railway maintenance employees who
are members of the Potlatch local of the A. F. L., a party to the'Master'
Contract between the, Company and, the A. F. L.; (4) 'Townsite em-
ployees were improperly excluded,from participating in the election;-
and (5) 'a number of votes were cast-by employees added'to'the Com-
pany's pay roll subsequent to the Direction of Election.
On December 28, 1943, the Regional Director issued and duly served
upon the parties a Report on' Objections, ' recommending that, since
the matters contained in the objections were directed to the Decision
and Direction of Election herein, and not to the conduct;of the ballot,
the objections be overruled.
Thereafter, on January 11, 1944, the A. F. L. filed a motion with
-the Board, seeking reconsideration of the Decision and Direction,, of
Election herein, vacation of the election conducted pursuant, thereto,
a stay of certification, and an appropriate hearing. , In support of
said motion, the A.F. L. contended, in, general, that, (1) the. Decision
and Direction of Election was issued, ,ithout according the A., F. L.
a hearing in accordance with its statutory rights in that it was not
afforded an opportunity to,,present evidence with respect to issues
not present in the original proceeding,3 referring specifically- to Pot-
latch Mercantile and Potlatch , Townsite employees, and other em-.
ployees engaged in and about the; two operations not involved in that,
proceeding; (2) no opportunity vas accorded\the A. F.,
I
L, to present
evidence with respect to the appropriate pay roll to be' used for deter-
mination of eligibility, or with respect io'the proper times and places
for the holding of the election; 'and '(3) the A. F. L. was not given an
adequate opportunity to present evidence with respect to (a) the
status of Washington-Idaho-Montana railroad employees, (b) -the
validity of the statement of the' Field Examiner in 'Case No. 19-R-
1164, which was considered as part of the record in the Decision and
Direction of Election, (c) the status of employees of the Potlatch and
Rutledge operations who had entered the armed services of the United
3 Matter of Potlatch Forests, Inc, 51 N L R B 2S8
POTLATCH FORESTS, 1N C. - 257
States,4 (d) the impropriety of permitting the participation in the
election of employees added to the Company's pay roll between the
date of the hearing 5-and the dates of the election , and (e ) the nature
and status of the contractual relations between the Company and the
A. F. L. After due consideration , the Board, on January 27, 1944,
issued - an Order directing further hearing upon the matters raised
in the afore -mentioned objections and motion of the A. F. L., remand-
ing the proceeding to the Regional Director for the purpose of con-
ducting said .hearing. Said order further provided that a ruling upon
the motion of the A. F. L. would be deferred until the Board had
reconsidered the entire record, including the evidence to be adduced
at the further hearing. The aforesaid hearing was held upon due
notice at Lewiston , Idaho, on February 18 and 19, 1944, before Thomas
P. Graham, Trial Examiner . The Company , the C. I. 0., and the
A. F. L. appeared , participated , and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard , to examine and; cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner's rulings made.
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and . are hereby of-'
firmed.' ,.; All parties were,A orded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board . The A. F., L. made a request , at the hearing , and ;again _
subsequent thereto for oral argument before the Board. Said re-
quests are hereby denied. -
Upon the entire record in the case, including the Report on Elec-
tions, : the Objections and Exceptions of the A. F. L., the Report on
Objections , the motion of the A. F. L., and the further hearing on said
objections and motion , the Board makes the following:
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The jiincipal'contention of the A. F. L. is that it was not afforded a
proper'hearing a's provided by the National Labor Relations Act, and
the ' Boa'rd's Rules and Regulations. The record, in this consolidated
proceeding indicates the following sequence of events : '
The C. I. O.; 'in it s' original' petitions, had sought to represent the
employees of the Bovill, Headquarters, and Lewiston operations of
the Company in three separate units.? 'The A. F. L. appeared at the
4 The A . F. L. conceded in its motion that the 'policy of the Board on the subject is well
known , but contended that the representatives of these operations had the right to -present
evidence and arguments upon this subject in an effort to obtain revision or modification of
such policy.
c The A. F. L refers to the hearing 'conducted pursuant to the original petitions' (see
footnote 3, supra) in this, proceeding, which was held on May 14 and 15, 1943
O At the hearing, the A F. L sought to introduce several exhibits peitaming to persons
employed by the Company who had been inducted into the armed forces of the United
States The Trial Examiner rejected many of these exhibits on the groumid•that they we:e
cumulative, since he had already, received into evidence one such exhibit
7 Cases Nos 19-R-1058 (R-5313) and 19-R-10S3 (R-5374)
578129-44-vol 55-18
258- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing held pursuant to these petitions and was given an opportunity
t o participate therein. Thereafter,on July 13, 1943, the Board issued,
a Decision and Order, dismissing the said petitions on the ground
that the collective bargaining history between ,the Company and , the
A. F. L.'clearly indicated the propriety of a single unit composed-of
all logging and milling employees of the Company.8 Ou'July 16, 1943,
after the issuance of the Decision and Order, the C. I. O. filed a peti-
tion ° in which it sought a unit conforming to that which the Board
had indicated as appropriate in its decision. , Thereafter, on August
11, 1943, the C. I. O. filed a motion with' the Board for tin order reopen-
ing'tlhe original proceedings, amending the petitions 'therein to con-
form with its current petition, and directing an election among all em= .
ployees of the Company without further hearing; in the alternative it
moved that the record in the original proceedings be incorporated and
made a part of the record in the current one, and that an election be
directed thereon. After due consideration of the motion, the Board,
on'September 14, 1943, issued a Notice to Show Cause why (a) the
Decision and Order'previously issued-should not be vacated, (b) ,the
original petition'reinstated, (c) the new'petition should, not be.made
part of the'record in the original proceedings and treated as an amend-
ment to the petitions therein, (d) the statement of the Field Examiner
in the current proceeding, should not be made a part, of the record in ;
the original proceedings, (e) a reconsideration of the entire record as
thus supplemented should not be made, and (f) a new Decision and
Direction' of Election' should not be issued without 'furth'er' hearin
In answer thereto, the A; F. L. filed a "Protest and Objection to Order
of September 14, 1943," contending that the procedure contemplated
by the Board was based upon hearsay and is ex parte as to the A. F. L.,
that employees of two operations of the Company not included within
the scope of,the original petitions filed by the C. I. O.-had not been
given an opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf, and that
the Board had no authority to set aside an existing contract by such
proceedings. For reasons "stated in' the Decision and Direction of
Election subsequently issued,10 the Board found that insufficient cause
to the contrary had been,shown, and directed an election in accordance
with its Notice." As previously indicated, the C. I. O. obtained a
majority of the valid votes cast at said election and the Regional Di-
8 See footnote 8, supra.
8 Case No. 19-R-1164
10 See footnote 1, supra.
'i The A F L thereupon petitioned the District Court of the United States for the
Western District of Washington, Northern Division , to enjoin the Regional Director fiom
holding the election; the Court, however, retused to grant the relief sought oil the ground
that such action was 'premature , since the Board had not taken final action in this proceed-
ing See Inland Empire District Cos ecil v Thdmas P Graham, et al, Coil Action, Ao'
827, issued November 6, 1943, 11 L R R ^=i6
I
POTLATCH 'FORESTS, INC. 259
rector so reported.12 Thereupon, the A. F. L. filed Objections to the
Election Report and a motion for, reconsideration. As indicated here-
inabove, the Bbard remanded the entire proceeding to -the Regional
Director'for the purpose of conducting a further hearing upon the mat-
ters contained in-said objections and motion.
As stated above, the ' A. F. L. in substance contends that the
Board, was not authorized by the Act to order an election without
first having held a hearing 'on the petition of the C. I. O. in Case No.
19-R-1164, and consequently that no certification can be issued as a
result of the election. Assuming arguendo that the A. F. L. is correct
in contending that the statutory requirement. of a hearing was not
met by the procedure followed by the Board prior to the election,
such procedural defect, if any existed, is'cured inasmuch as the Board'
has since field a hearing on all matters objected to by,the A. F. L. and
has reconsidered the entire case on the basis of the records made at
both hearings. We find therefore that the requirements of an appro-
priate hearing have been met; the contention of the A. F. L. that it
has not been accorded a hearing is accordingly overruled.
The A. F. L. contended in its' motion that it had entered upon
contractual relations with the Company, between the issuance of the
Decision and Order '13 and the Decision and Direction of Election
herein'14 and that it was entitled to present evidence thereon. The
Board, accordingly, permitted the A. F. L. at the further hearing to
present whatever additional evidence it deemed pertinent to a full
disclosure of its contractual relations with )the Company.
The record shows that on June 5, 1941, the A. F. L. and the Com-
pany executed a master contract, effective June. 1, 1941, covering all
five milling and logging operations of the Company. The contract
provided that in the event "either party to this agreement desires to
modify or terminate the agreement, he shall give written notice to the
other party at least 'sixty days in advance of such modification or
termination." It further provided that unless the foregoing option
'=The 'A F L petitioned the Federal District Court for the District of Idaho, Central
Division, to enjoin the tiansmission of the election report by the Regional-Director to the
Board This proceeding was dismissed in November 1941, since service upon all the
defendants was not obtained See Local 2766, Lawbcr 'and Saiwntll Workers Onion, ct al
v. Eccre Hanson, Civil Action, No..1553.
The A. F L also sought similar relief in the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Northern Division. The Court granted a tempoiary restraining
oider on November 19, 1943, but thereafter dismissed the proceeding be older dated
December 9, 1943 See Inland Empire District Council , etc , ct al v 7' I' Cralranr. Jr
Civil Action, No 834
In addition to the foregoing actions, the A F L brought a proceeding,in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to set aside all pioceerluigs taken b}
the Board in this matter, including the Report on Ordered Election 'The Court, b^ order
dated December 15,1943, granted a motion of the Board to dismiss this proceeding on the
ground that the reliet sought cias premature See Inland Empire I) trict Conici1, Lun,her
and Farvnnll-11'oiber c Union, et nl v lr 7, li- R , et al , Cic rl \etum, Au 223 -.
1' See footnote 3, sepia.
14 See footnote 1, sapr it
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to modify or terminate "is exercised by either party at a prior date,
the agreement shall automatically' terminate one year from the date
of the agreement." On May 29, 1942, the Company advised the
A. F. L. that "we are willing" to renew the present Master Agree-
ment . . . which expires on June 1, 1942, for one year to cover the
period from that date to June 1, 1943." On "February 16, 1943, the
Company notified the A. F. L. in substance that, unless the A. F. L.
agreed to eliminate a clause in the master agreement requiring em-
ployees to maintain their-membership in the A. F. L., "we ask you
to accept this as notice of termination of the master agreement as
of May 1, 1943." The A. F. L. did not agree to eliminate the clause
objected to by the Company, and consequently the contract was ter-
minated, pursuant to the Company's notice, on May 1, 1943. The
record shows that no new contract has been entered into by the Com-
pany and the A. F. L. After termination of the contract and follow-
ing numerous proceedings, which it is unnecessary here to relate,
before an agency,of the National War Labor Board known as the
West Coast Lumber Commission, certain orders were issued directing
an extension of the contract. It, is unnecessary, to pass upon the
validity of these orders since the last order of the National War Labor
Board, dated January 31; 1944, on -its face states than the extension
is operative only "until a new exclusive bargaining agency is certified
by then National Labor Relations Board."
Both in its objections and in its motion, the A. F. L. contended that
it was entitled to introduce evidence relating to the status of em-,
ployees of the Company who had been inducted into the armed forces
of the United' States. , At the further hearing it was permitted to
introduce such evidence, the Trial Examiner rejecting only such ex-
hibits as were.corroborative of the evidence. already introduced. At
this hearing, the A. F. L. contended,that such persons should have
been entitled to ,participate in the election; and that the Board should'
have. made provision for the balloting of these' employees. We have
frequently had occasion to pass upon this issue, and, for reasons
stated in the Wilson Case,16 find that our customary practice; as set
forth in the Direction of Election,' was proper.
The A. F. L. contended in its motion that'it should have been af-
forded an opportunity to present evidence with respect to the proper
pay roll to be used for the purpose of determining eligibility to par-
ticipate in the election and with respect to the times and places for the
conduct of the election. It further contended, both in its motion and
in its objections, that it was not given an opportunity to present evi-
dence indicating "the_ inappropriateness of permitting persons added
15 Matter of Walson & Co., Inc., 37 N. L. R. B.1944; see also Mesta Machinery Company,
55 N L R B 59
i
POTLATCH FORESTS, INC. 261
to the Company's pay roll between 'May 14, 1943,18 and November
9, 1943,1' to participate in the election. Although it was permitted-
to do so at the further hearing,-the A. F. L. presented no evidence
sufficient to warrant a disturbance of our customary finding with
respect to eligibility which was made in Section V of the Decision and
Direction of Election.
The A. F. L. also contends that the Board considered the statement
of the Field' Examiner in Case No. 19-8-1164 without permitting
any opportunity to point out defects and weaknesses contained
therein. For reasons stated in our Decision and Direction of Election,
we find this contention to be without merit. 18
Both in its objections and in its motion, the A. F. L. contended
that it had not been given an opportunity to present evidence with
respect to the status of employees of the Washington-Idaho-Montana
railroad who were excluded from the voting group by the Decision
and Direction of Election. At the further hearing, the A. F. L.
presented evidence indicating that these employees were represented
by its Potlatch local for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
took the position, therefore, that they should have been given an oppor-
tunity to vote. The evidence adduced at said hearing clearly showed
that these employees were employed by a railroad company, which,
although a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company herein, is a
separate and distinct corporate enterprise. The evidence further
showed that these employees are covered by a contract between the
Potlatch local of the A. F. L. and the railroad as a distinct unit.
Since they are represented under _ a separate contract and are not
employees of the Company, we see no reason for disturbing our pre-
vious finding.19 ,
The A. F. L. contends that it had not been given an opportunity
to present evidence upon the status of Potlatch Townsite and Potlatch
Mercantile employees who had been specifically excluded from the
voting unit by the Decision and Direction of Election, and, at the
further hearing, took the position that these employees should have
been included within the voting group. The evidence adduced at
said hearing shows that Potlatch Townsite employees are mainte-
nance workers who are concerned primarily with the repair and main-
"'The first day of the original hearing in Cases Nos. 19-R-1058 and 19-R=1083.
17 The first day of the election herein. - '
19 In said Decision we stated :
Such statements, are based upon Board investigations which are necessarily ex
parte; they are not offered as final proof of representation, but are merely safe-
guards against the indiscriminate filing of petitions, and are not, therefore, subject
to cross examination . See Matter of Hill Stores, Inc., 39 N L . R. B 874 ; Matter of
Atlas Powder Company, 43 N L R B. 757.
11 It is unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the railroad company is subject to
the Railway Labor Act and hence not an employer within the meaning of'Section 2 (2) of
the Act.
'262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance of property within the town of Potlatch and that they per-
form their duties according to a working schedule which differs, from
that of the logging and milling employees; and that only on rare
occasions are .they asked to perform maintenance work at' the Pot-
latch Milling operation 20 Furthermore, the subsidiary contract be-
tween the Potlatch local of the A. F. L. and the Potlatch operation
of the Company 21 specifically excludes these employees from the unit,
as well as the Potlatch Mercantile employees. With respect to the
latter group, the record indicates that these employees are engaged
by and receive a salary from the Potlatch Mercantile Company," and
their duties are confined to the store which the Mercantile Company
operates. In view of the foregoing we see no reason for disturbing
our prior finding with respect to these groups.
Although the issue was not specifically raised in either its motion
or objections, the A. F. L. presented evidence at the further hearing
which showed that watchmen and guards of the Company, although
previously militarized and under, the. jurisdiction of.-the United States
Army, have, since January 10, 1944, been demilitarized. The evi-
dence at said hearing further indicates the watchmen, at least; are
still deputized by the county. We' see no reason, therefore, to dis-
turb the finding made in our Decision and Direction of Election, and
we shall specifically exclude deputized- as well as militarized guards,
and watchmen. -
We find that the objections of the A. F. L. raise no substantial
or material issue with respect to the conduct of the ballot or to the
Report on Ordered Election, and we therefore overrule them.
Furthermore, in view of our'discussion hereinabove, we see no reason
for disturbing our previous Decision and Direction of Election. Ac-
cordingly, we shall certify the C. I. O. as'the exclusive representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit. -
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International, Woodwor-kegs of Amer-
ica, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, has been
20 The record discloses that there is a separate maintenance crew attached to the mill
which ordinarily takes care of, the maintenance work of the mill '
'The master contract of June 5,'1641, specifically provides'fdr'the esec'ution'of'subsidiary
contracts between each of the five operations of the Company and the locals of the A F L
at these operations. These subsidiary contracts contain provisions, applicable to the
circumstances presented at the particular operation covered thereby
The Company's employees are hourly paid.
4
POTLATCFI FORESTS, INC. .263
designated and selected by a majority of all production and mainte-
nance employees of Potlatch Fores€s , Inc., Lewiston , Idaho, at its five
operations , including scalers , and railroad employees at the logging
operations who are not employees of the Washington-Idaho-Montana
railroad , but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote , discharge,'discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees , or effectively-- recommend such action , store em-
ployees , militarized or deputized guards and watchmen, clerical em-
ployees, confidential employees , employees of Potlach Mercantile
Company, , employees of the Townsite Department , foresters, and
temporary employees, as their representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining , and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act,
International Woodworkers of America , affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining , with respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment.
r