Puget Sound District Council, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 547
Employees or members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office,
Room 2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone
No. Main 1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice of compliance
with its provisions.
Puget Sound District Council , Lumber & Sawmill Workers,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO ; and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union , Local 2767,
affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO and United States Plywood Corporation,
Kosmos Division . Case No. 19-CC-150. June 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and sub-
mitted copies of their brief to the Trial Examiner in support of their
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommendations.
'The complaint herein does not allege a violation of Section 8(e) of the Act; the Trial
Examiner's conclusions of law finds no such violation, and the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order pro%ides no remedy for any such violation The last sentence in section
III C of the Trial Examiner's Decision states, however, that "section 1(a) of article A(1)
of the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties-to the extent that said sec-
tion, as construed and interpreted by Respondent-falls within the proscription of Sec-
tion 8(e) . " We disagree with this dictum The natural reading of the contract
clause in question does not bring it within the prohibition of Section S (e) and the clause
was administered in accordance with its natural meaning The fact that Respondents
contended at times that the clause meant something which would be within the prohibition
of Section 8(e) is relevant to the Section 8(b) (4) (A) issue, but does not support a finding
that the clause violated Section 8(e) Meat and Highway Drivers, Docknrerc, etc, Local
710 (Wilson d Co) v. N L R B., 335 F 2d 709, 716 (CA D C.)
Respondents' exceptions are directed toward the issue of whether the coercion and
threats of coercion that Respondents directed at United States Plywood were lawtul
priinaiy activity aimed at preserving unit work The iecoid clearly demonstrates that
Respondent's pressures upon United States Plywood were secondaiy in nature and violated
Section 8(b) (4) (n) (A) and (B) of the Act In the absence of an exception to the Trial
Examiner's finding that Respondents' conduct also constituted inducement or encourage-
ment of United States Plywood's employees to engage in a work stoppage proscribed by
subsection (i) of Section 8(b)(4), we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondents also violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (A) and (B) of the Act
153 NLRB No. 56.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondents, Puget Sound District Council, Lumber & Sawmill
Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO; and Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2767, affili-
ated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order .2
2 The telephone number for Region 19, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read: Telephone No. 682-4539.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on August 6, 1964,1 by United States Plywood Corpora-
tion, Kosmos Division, herein called USP, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel 2 and the Board,
through the Acting Regional Director for Region 19 (Seattle, Washington), issued
a complaint , dated September 22, against Puget Sound District Council, Lumber &
Sawmill Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Council, and against Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union,
Local 2767, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 2767,3 alleging that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein called
the Act.
A copy of the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly
served upon Respondent and a copy of the complaint and notice of hearing were
duly served upon USP.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that (1) at all times material, the Council and
Local 2767 have been the recognized collective-bargaining representatives of USP's
Kosmos, Washington, production, maintenance, and logging employees pursuant to
a certain written agreement between USP and Respondent; (2) said agreement con-
tains a union-security clause, and a so-called "contractor's clause," which provides
in article A(1) section ( a), "It is understood and agreed that contract employees of
the Company [USP] shall be covered by the provisions of this Agreement"; (3) USP,
during all times material, has contracted with various independent contractors to
perform certain stated operations for USP in the area of its Kosmos operations; (4)
since July 17, 1963, USP has contracted with Howard Logging Company, herein
called Howard, among others, whereby Howard has agreed to log certain salvageable
timber and to haul and deliver it to USP's Kosmos lumber mill; (5) Howard's employ-
ees are not represented by Respondent or by any other labor organization, and it has
no collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent or with any other labor orga-
nization; ( 6) since May 1, 1964, Respondent has demanded that Howard recognize
and bargain with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employ-
ees pursuant to article A(1) section (a) of the aforementioned agreement between
Respondent and USP; (7) at all times material, Respondent has been engaged in a
labor dispute with Howard; (8) at no time has Local 2767 or has the Council been
certified by the Board as the statutory collective-bargaining representative of any
employees of Howard; (9) since November 22, 1963, Respondent has demanded that
USP comply with article A(1) section (a) of the aforementioned contract and
require the employees of Howard, and those of other independent contractors with
whom USP contracts portions of its logging operations, to become members of Local
1 All dates mentioned herein refer to 1964, unless otherwise noted.
2 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing
8 Conjointly the Council and Local 2767 are referred to herein as Respondent.
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 549
2767; (10) USP agree to contract out such logging operations only to employees who
are, or agree to become, signatories to collective-bargaining agreements with Respond-
ent and cease doing business with those logging contractors who fail and refuse to
do so; (11) in May and July 1964, in furtherance of the above-described demands
on USP and on Howard, Respondent threatened to strike; and (12) Respondent's
members, at a meeting held on July 28, 1964, authorized such a strike.
On October 26, Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the
unfair labor practices alleged. The answer affirmatively averred (1) that USP, in
violation of its collective-bargaining contract with Respondent, awarded certain of
its Kosmos operations to Howard and to others, which Respondent contends was
work of the character embraced within the bargaining unit as being reserved for
the exclusive performance of those employees in said unit; and (2) that Howard and
its employees were, in fact, USP employees and not independent contractors.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, from Novem-
ber 16 through November 18, before Trial Examiner Howard Myers. Each party
was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full and complete
opportunity was afforded the parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, to introduce evidence relevant to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the
conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before December 15?
Each party filed a brief and each brief has been carefully considered
Upon the record as a whole and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. USP'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS
USP, a New York corporation, has its principal offices at New York, New York.
It is engaged in the manufacture of plywood and related products in various States
of the United States.
At and in the vicinity of Kosmos, Washington, USP is engaged in the logging of
timber and in the operation of a lumber mill.5 During the 12-month period immedi-
ately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, USP, in the course and conduct
of its business, sold and shipped from the aforesaid Kosmos and vicinity operations
to points located outside the State of Washington lumber products and related mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, I find, in line with established Board author-
ity, that USP is engaged in and during all times material was engaged in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
its business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of
jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Council and Local 2767 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
The Kosmos Division is mainly a logging operation which supplies logs for USP's
Seattle, Washington, plants. Incidental thereto, USP operates a small salvage saw-
mill near Kosmos. Timber is obtained from lands owned by USP, from public and
private lands in which USP has purchased cutting rights to the timber thereon, and
also through the purchase of logs from log suppliers. At the time of the hearing
the Kosmos Division employed 110 persons
The Kosmos Division attempts to, and under normal conditions does, produce 50
million board feet of logs annually. In recent years, production figures have been
close to the desired goal.
In 1946, USP acquired the Kosmos operations. Since 1948, it has had a series
of collective-bargaining contracts with Respondent covering said operations. The
series of contracts consist of the original 1948 agreement together with written
renewals negotiated from time to time. The provision of said contract directly
involved in the instant proceeding is article A(1) section (a), which provides-
It is understood and agreed that contract employees of the Company shall be
covered by the provisions of this Agreement.
* At the request of Respondent's counsel, the time to file briefs was extended to Jan-
uary 13, 1965.
5 This is the only USP operation involved herein.
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Logging includes cutting down trees, and in the jargon of the industry, this is known
as falling. When the felled tree is trimmed and cut into lengths of logs, the process,
is called bucking The logs are then moved to a landing in the woods where they
are loaded on trucks by either one of two methods. One method is the so-called
high-lead method which involves the use of a spar from which the draglines go out
pulling the logs. The other method is the so-called Cat method which involves
pulling the logs in by crawler tractors. The logs are then taken from the woods by
truck to a reload station, scaled (measured), and then reloaded for shipment to
USP's Seattle plants.
Since the acquisition by USP of the Kosmos operations in 1946, the makeup of
the logging crew, from time to time, has changed because of the installation of
improved equipment. Prior to 1948, much of the cutting at the Kosmos operations
was done by hand and a single crew consisted of five men, the faller, the second
faller, and three buckers 6 Through the introduction of electric, and later gas-
powered, saws, the crew has been reduced to two men, a faller and a bucker. Pres-
ently USP employs nine crews or sets. Three sets make up a side so at Kosmos
USP presently operates what is commonly called a 3-side logging operation
Those logging crews, who provide their own equipment, have been customarily
paid by the number of feet of timber which they cut, whereas those who use com-
pany equipment have been traditionally paid on an hourly basis 7 The collective-
bargaining contracts between Respondent and USP have dominated the specific
hourly rates, but with respect to piece-rate employees, the contracts provide merely
a compensatory hourly rate to be paid plus the piece rate. The actual piece rate is
negotiated between the woods foreman 8 and the crews' busheler committees
For a great many years the Kosmos Division had been employing from three to
seven sides, which practice necessitated the employment of more sides during the late
spring and early autumn than during the rest of the year. USP, in 1961, attempted
to eliminate this unbalanced employment by running three sides the year around
by the means of logging at higher elevations in warm weather and lower in cold.
Since about 1946, USP has continuously followed the practice of entering into
written agreements with independent operators 9 to perform certain portions of its
Kosmos logging operations. The contracts involve all aspects of logging, including
the falling-bucking of the tree and cutting into desired lengths, the transportation of
logs to a landing in the woods, loading the logs onto trucks, and hauling the logs.
In some instances, the contract covers the entire logging operation Under the terms
of these contracts, the independent operator provides all the needed equipment, hires
his own men, and may, on occasion, subcontract one or more portions of the opera-
tion covered by the contract.
Through the years, the practice of contracting operations to gypos has also involved
all types of logging situations, from the cleanup of isolated "stands" to the logging
of large stands of undamaged, green timber, to the logging of hardwood species.
These particular contracts are generally referred to as "salvage" contracts. a term
which has been used broadly to include the logging of all salvageable or merchantable
timber.
Between 1950 and 1957, USP entered into over 50 falling and bucking contracts
with independent operators.
Since 1950, USP has entered into over 50 logging contracts with independent oper-
ators In addition, since January 1963, USP has entered into 14 contracts with inde-
pendent operators covering logging, falling and bucking, and road construction
In May 1963 there were in effect at least five contracts with independent operators
covering various types of logging operations.
In only 1 year in the past 8 has the relative proportion of contract logging, in terms
of thousand board feet, dropped below 10 percent; the normal proportion of con-
tract logging has been between 10 and 15 percent of the total volume of log produc-
tion at Kosmos.
Since acquiring the Kosmos operations in 1946, USP has followed a policy of
negotiating and entering into contracts with independent opeiators without regard
to whether or not the employees of those contractors were represented by a labor
organization Similarly, at no time between 1946 and 1963 was USP's practice of
entering into logging contracts with independent contractors discussed by and
between USP and Respondent
In the industry. a "crew" is also known as a "set "
The term "busheler" or "busheling" is herein used to denote the piece-rate payment
system
8 Also referred to in the record as "bull buck
9 Known in the industry as "gyppos "
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 551
On October 12, 1962 , the Pacific Northwest experienced a terrific windstorm 10
which flattened vast areas of standing timber in that area, including timber directly
owned by USP or on which it owned cutting rights.11 This situation presented to
USP and others engaged in the industry in that area critical problems , among which
were the ever present danger of fire and the mounting deteriorating condition of
the fallen timber.
B. The pertinent facts 12
Due to the tremendous amount of fallen timber which had accumulated as a result
of the Columbus Day storm , plus the fact that the resulting accumulation had com-
pelled USP to operate in hazardous areas , management , in March 1963, began
exploratory talks with Local 2767 looking toward the changing of the method of
paying the fallers and buckets employed at Kosmos from the then piece-work or
busheling-rate method to an hourly or day rate basis 13
In March 1963 , at a meeting held in the office of William O. Larson, the logger
manager of the Kosmos operation , 14 USP was represented by Larson , Jim Donovan,
a bull-buck, and Frank Sickler , the personnel and safety director of the Kosmos
division . Local 2767 was represented by its business agent , John D. Sloan, and by
three members of the bushelers ' negotiating committee 15
Regarding what transpired at the meeting referred to immediately above, Larson
credibly testified that - He proposed that the method of paying the fallers and buckets
working in the blow down areas be changed from the piece -rate basis to an hourly
or day basis and that USP and Local 2767 negotiate the question of paying additional
compensation to the falters and buckets for supplying their own powersaws; the
representatives of Local 2767 stated that they objected to the proposed change since
it provided for the men to supply the powersaws , adding that they thought USP
should supply each crew with the necessary powersaws , he replied that USP was of
the opinion that it was employing sufficient numbers of piece-work cutters and it did
not desire to hire any additional such men; he then said he believed from what he
gathered from the statements made by the Union's representatives , he had a choice
of doing one of the following , viz,' (1 ) to put the fallers and buckers on a piece-rate
basis, ( 2) to purchase powersaws and supply the crews with them, or (3) to contract
the falling and bucking work to an independent operator ; the union "men indicated
that this was [Larson 's] prerogative", and that the meeting broke up after he stated
he would not buy powersaws , and with the union representatives stating that Local
2767 would not agree to the proposed change in method of compensation for the
fallers and cutters involved.16
'0 Commonly referred to as the Columbus Day storm
11The pioduct left in the storm ' s wake is referred to in the industry as "blow down
timber '
12In the light of my observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all
the persons who testified herein and after very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of
which has been carefully read and pasts of which have been reread and rechecked several
times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility
problems herein involved , of the fact that in many instances testimony was given regard-
ing events which took place many months poor to the opening of the hearing , and of the
fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this case,
coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all
the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein , the following
is a composite picture of all the factual issues involved and the conclusions based thereon
The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings, and conclusions
herein the record as a whole has been carefully considered , relevant cases have been
studied, and each contention advanced has been weighed even though not specifically
discussed
"This latter method of compensating the fallers and buckers was the method estab-
lished in the then existing collective -bargaining agreement.
13 Larson is highest management official at the Kosmos operations.
15 Namely , Emmett Dalton , Howard Lowery, and Gene Swanson
16 Sloan was the only other witness testifying about the above-referred - to meeting, and
his version of what took place thereat is at variance with Larson' s In the light of the
entire record in the case and from my observation of Larson and Sloan while on the
witness stand , coupled with the fact throughout Larson ' s long and searching cross-
examination , his testimony on direct was not materially shaken, I find that Larson's
version of what transpired at the aforesaid meeting to be substantially in accord with
the facts
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Being unable to get Local 2767 to negotiate with respect to an hourly or day rate
to be paid the men who were to fall and buck the fallen timber, USP proceeded to
contract out certain falling and bucking work to independent contractors. For
example, on or about May 25, 1963, a falling and bucking contract was entered into
with Hale Cutting Company (herein called Hale); in or about April or May 1963,
complete logging contracts were awarded to Howard Logging Company (herein
called Howard); to Workman & Workman; to Monroe Hanger, and to Smith Grasseth.
Hale's May 1963 falling and bucking contract was completed in September, and
in October 1963, a second such contract was entered into by and between USP and
Hale, and work thereunder was commenced immediately and the job was completed
in December 1963.
Pursuant to a telephone call from Sloan to Larson on November 20, 1963, request-
ing a meeting, a meeting was held on November 22 in Larson's office. Present on
behalf of USP were Larson, Wesley Nellist, logging and timber manager of USP's
Washington Division, and Sickler. Present on behalf of Local 2767 were Sloan and
three other representatives. The Council was represented by George Casseday, its
president.17
At the aforesaid meeting of November 22, Casseday, after stating that Respondent
was unhappy over the contracts let to Hale, because it was its position that falling
and bucking was work covered by the job classifications embraced within and set out
in the collective-bargaining agreement, and that USP did not have the right to take
that work and give it to someone else,18 he demanded that USP immediately cancel
the second Hale contract and not permit Hale's employees to do the work called
for thereunder.
Larson, the spokesman for USP at this meeting, stated that in his opinion the
Hale contract was valid and that he knew of no way it could legally be canceled.
When Casseday remarked that Respondent desired that USP not contract out any
more falling and bucking work, Larson replied that USP felt such contracting out
was up to management, "that the cutting requirement required it" and "this was the
reason" USP contracted with Hale to do the necessary falling and bucking work.
Casseday, after remarking that he could understand USP's desire to contract out
complete logging jobs (falling, bucking, logging, and hauling), due to the money
factors involved, stated he felt that the contractors should come under the section
1(a) of the bargaining agreement. In response thereto, Larson stated that his own
personal view was that said section applied only to USP employees who were paid on
piece-rate basis and not to employees of independent contractors.19 Casseday then
stated that USP should have hired more cutters, bought powersaws, and had the
falling and bucking work performed by its own employees instead of contracting
with Hale to have that work done. Larson replied that the contracting out was a
problem completely up to management to decide and that USP intended to con-
tinue to contract out jobs.
Casseday also requested at the meeting, referred to immediately above, that USP
agree not to enter into any more falling and bucking contracts with independent
operators, adding that USP need not agree, in writing, to this request since its verbal
assurances were sufficient for him.20 Larson declined to go along with this request.
During the course of a telephone conversation between Casseday and Nellist in
December 1963, the former asked Nellist whether his interpretation of section 1(a)
of article A(l), as he had expressed it at the November 22 meeting, was the same
as that of USP.21 When Nellist replied in the affirmative, Casseday inquired whether
USP had, or would change its mind, with respect to that clause. Nellist said it had
not and it would not change its mind because it did not consider USP was doing
anything improper by contracting out falling and bucking work. Thereupon, Casse-
14 Casseday was spokesman at this meeting for each respondent. It is well settled
that when two unions engage, as here, in a joint venture, each is responsible for the
acts attributable to the other. Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc, Si NLRB 886
19 This was the first occasion either respondent raised the question as to USP's right to
contract out falling and bucking work.
19 At this juncture, Nellist stated that was also USP's position.
20 Casseday assured the USP officials at this November 22 meeting that Respondent and
St. Regis Paper Company, which has logging operations near Kosmos , have had an oral
agreement whereby St . Regis will contract out falling and bucking contracts only to those
independent operators whose employees are represented by Local 2767.
21 At the November 22 meeting , Nellist told Casseday that he would check with his
superiors and ascertain whether his expressed interpretation of the clause in question jibed
with LISP's official understanding thereof.
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 553
day remarked, "The men were considerably unsatisfied and sought some action from
Mr. Sloan ... if this thing came to a full disagreement that [Respondent] could keep
U. S. Plywood in court until the barrel ran dry ... [Sloan] was under some pressure
to do something ... [Sloan] at that particular time did not care to pacify the men ...
that sometime in the future they [Respondent] may have to do something about this,
but [USP] wouldn't know it was going to happen, and that [Respondent] would
choose the battle fields, and the place to take on U. S. Plywood when [Respondent]
thought they could win ... that it would be perfectly legal for the union to strike
in the future to obtain a proper contractor's and sub-contractor's clause."
The conversation referred to immediately above concluded after Nellist said that
it always has been USP's opinion that section 1(a) of article A(1) applied only to
piece work employees of USP and in accordance with that opinion the clause would
be so enforced.
At the request of Respondent, the parties met in Larson's office on April 16, 1964.
After some expressions of concern by Respondent's representatives regarding the
construction of a proposed dam by the city of Tacoma and what effect the conse-
quent flooding by its reservoir of the Kosmos mill facilities would have on USP's
Kosmos operations, Casseday turned again to the question of contract logging and
made three requests of USP. The first was for a written contract to run a 3-side oper-
ation exclusively. The second was for assurances that USP would not enter into
complete logging contracts at Kosmos. Finally, after receiving negative replies to
each request, Casseday concluded by requesting that as long as USP intended to
continue to enter into logging contracts, USP could at least help Local 2767 organize
the employees of the unorganized conti actors. When Larson responded that it was
not only Respondent's responsibility to organize the unorganized, but it was unlawful
for USP to engage in such activities, Casseday said that all he wanted to do, like St.
Regis Paper Company has been doing, was to tell the independent contractors to
whom USP was letting the falling contracts that their crews had to join Local 2767.
Larson replied that USP would not engage in any such practice
At Larson's request, a meeting was held in his office on April 23. Besides Larson,
Sickler, Casseday, and Sloan, there were also present three bucking committee mem-
bers. There, Larson read to those assembled an intracompany memorandum con-
cerning USP's future plans regarding the area which might be affected by the
Tacoma dam. USP's logging plans for the next 2 years, including plans for contract
logging, were then discussed. So far as the record discloses, neither Casseday nor
any other Respondent representative voiced any objection to the aforesaid USP pro-
posed program, nor were any objections raised to the announced program of con-
tinuing to contract out logging and bucking operations.
Pursuant to a telephone call from Casseday to William Bennett, general manager
of USP's Western division, a meeting between the two took place in Bennett's office
on May 1. After some discussion about the problems which might arise due to the
construction of the Tacoma dam, the subject of contracting out at Kosmos was then
brought up. Casseday said that the men felt so bitter about the use of contractors
to do the falling and bucking jobs that they might strike, although he, personally,
saw no reason for a strike.
Casseday then suggested that USP consider an arrangement such as Respondent
has at St. Regis Paper Company whereby that company lets contracts only to orga-
nized contractors. Bennett said that USP would not enter into any such agreement,
and then went on to explain that the exceptionally large amount of logging then
being done at Kosmos was due solely to the blow down, and that he expected to
have production down to normal by the end of the 1966 season. The meeting con-
cluded with Bennett stating that he would instruct Nellist to give Casseday a state-
ment, in writing, about the anticipated cut-back in producion.
On May 6 Nellist and Larson met with Casseday, Sloan, and several members of
the negotiating committee in Larson's office.
After Casseday and Sloan had informed those representing USP that the men
were upset over the flooding which might ensue upon completion of the Tacoma dam,
and after Larson and Nellist had explained that they weie discussing that situation
with the officials of the city of Tacoma, the question of contracting out was brought
up by Casseday. He again reminded the parties about the possibility of a strike if
the practice of contracting out was continued and about his desire to enlist the aid
of USP in organizing the unorganized independent contractors.
Under date of May 11, Nellist wrote Sloan as follows-
In the several meetings which you requested you have conveyed to us your
concern over the volume of current logging activity at the Kosmos operation.
It has been necessary to increase our usual planned volume of liquidation since
during the past logging season we were unable to achieve the expected activity
in the removal of large amounts of blowdown timber.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The loss of production in 1963 must be regained, currently and over the
coming fiscal period, if we are to successfully remove the remaining blowdown
timber prior to any further losses due to sap rot and ambrosia beetles. Conse-
quently, logging activity this year will be expanded approximately 50%. If the
correlation of planning to performance is positive, it is expected a substantial
reduction of logging activity will occur in following operating periods.
Marvin Howard, the owner of Howard Logging Company, testified that in June,
Sloan came to where he and his men were working under a contract with USP and
that the following conversation took place between him and Sloan
Well, he [Sloan] came up and asked me to join the union. I told him no. He
wanted to know the reason why, and I told him there was a couple of seasons
why. I said for one I am an employer. I said my men are over there If you
want to talk to them, why, you go ahead and sign them up for the union, but
I said not me I am not signing them up because I have had National Labor
Relations Board election for my crew conducted by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and they voted no union, so I said this is one reason why I am not
signing them up 22
Regarding his June talk with Howard, Sloan testified as follows:
I told Mr. Howard that I considered all the work there under U S. Plywood
should come under the contract of U. S. Plywood and that we would like to
have him under contract the same as the rest of them, other operators there had
agreed to the contract, and he informed me at that time that he had no inten-
tions of signing the contract or be under a union, that his people had already had
an election and they had voted non-union At that time I turned around and
drove away.
In the light of my observation at the hearing of the conduct and deportment of
Howard and Sloan, and after very careful scrutiny of the entire record in the case,
I find Howard's version with respect to his talk with Sloan, referred to immediately
above, to be substantially in accord with the facts. This finding is based mainly, but
not entirely, upon the fact that Sloan-like Casseday-gave me the distinct impres-
sion that he was studiously attempting to conform his testimony to what he thought
was to the best interests of Respondent. On the other hand, Howard impressed me as
being one who is careful with the truth and meticulous in not enlarging his testimony
beyond his actual memory of what was said.
In the latter part of June or in the forepart of July, Sloan informed Larson that
three of the four previously unorganized operators, then performing work under
contracts with USP, had signed working agreements with Local 2767, that one con-
tractor had agreed to sign such an agreement if the other unorganized contractors
doing work for USP would sign, and that Howard had refused to sign a contract
with Local 2767. Sloan thereupon asked Larson to talk to Howard, and try to
convince him to sign a contract with Local 2767, or, at least, sign a working agree-
ment with Local 2767 Larson refused to do as Sloan requested
During the last week of July, the following notice was posted in several locations
at the Kosmos operations:
SPECIAL MEETING LOCAL 2767 L.S.W.
U. S PLYWOOD EMPLOYEES 4.30 p.m.
Tue 7/28/64 Blue Room Kosmos Wn.
Strike Vote over
Unorganized Gyppos of
U S. Plywood
On July 29, Casseday telephoned Bennett and stated that the Kosmos situation
was critical; that a strike vote had been taken regarding this "gyppo thing"; that of
the four operators then doing business with USP, only Howard had refused to sign
an agreement with Local 2767; and that USP either "officially or unofficially" should
attempt to persuade Howard to sign an agreement with Local 2767. When Bennett
told Casseday that the problem of organizing Howard's employees was one for the
Respondent to work out and USP would not intervene. Casseday again suggested
that USP use the procedure used by St. Regis Paper Company in contracting out
work. Again, Bennett refused to be involved in such a procedure The conversation
ended after arrangements had been made for a meeting on August 5.
22 Sloan left Howard's premises without talking to the employees
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 555
Howard further credibly testified that on August 4, Sloan came to where he and
his men were engaged on a job for USP and that the following conversation took
place:
Well, he [Sloan] came up and asked me if I changed my mind about joining
the union, and I said no, you could go up and talk to the men, but I haven't
changed my mind in any way He said he had signed some of the operators up,
and he would like to make it 100 per cent. I said I didn't care what the other
operators did, but I was not signing up. He says, "Well, what would happen if
you took your logs down and they wouldn't unload them," and I said, "Well, I
will cross that bridge when I come to it." So he left, and that was the last I saw
him that day.23
On August 5 Bennett, Larson, Sickler, and Fred Erlendson 24 met in Larson's office
with Cassedy, Sloan, and three negotiating committee members.
Bennett opened the meeting by stating that he had been informed that a strike had
been set for August 10, and then asked for an explanation for such action Casseday
stated- A strike vote had been taken and August 10 had been set as a deadline; all
Respondent wanted was for USP to abide by the terms of its collective- bargaining
agieement, which it was not doing, the agreement provided for the employees of
the independent operators with whom USP had contracts be covered by the agree-
ment, unless Howard signed an agreement with Local 2767, the Kosmos operations
would be shut down on August 10, and three of the four contractors then doing work
for USP were willing to sign agreements with Respondent, provided Howard did.
Larsen then asked Sloan if he had spoken to each of the four contractors. Sloan,
after answering in the affirmative, added that he had not spoken to Howard's employ-
ees because it would be useless since they pieviously had voted against unionization.
Bennett credibly testified that, at this juncture, the following then ensued:
I said that I couldn t understand why a strike deadline had been set over an
interpretation that could require some lengthy legal determination as to its mean-
ing, at which point George Casseday brought up the matter of rewriting the
contract. He said they would prefer a wording that excluded the use of contrac-
tors, but that as a second choice or second preference they would want what he
termed a legal subcontractor's clause. He then asked me if the company would
immediately go into a negotiation to rewrite the contract I said I would con-
sider this, but felt we had a valid working agreement. It was about at this point
of the meeting that I stated in summary that it appeared that the company had
two choices One was to accept the union interpretation of the clause under
question, or the second choice was to get Mr Howard to sign the working agree-
ment. I asked George Casseday if he had a copy of this working agreement.
He said they didn't have one with them, but they had one up in the union hall.
He asked if they should go and get a copy of this, and we indicated agreement,
so he and Mr Sloan left the premises and returned with an agreement which they
left with me, and that concluded our meeting that day.
Regarding a conversation he had with Sloan on August 6, when the latter came to
where he and his men were working, Howard testified as follows-
Well, he [Sloan] came up and wanted to know if I had changed my mind,
that they had taken a strike [ballot] and were going to go on strike if I didn't
change my mind. I told him, "No, I hadn't changed my mind." He said,
"Well, Friday night will be the last you work then There is going to be a picket
line on Monday." I said, "Well, if those men were crazy enough to go on strike
for something that didn't involve them, then they ought to be on strike then."
On August 7 Casseday telephoned Bennett and inquired if he had seen Howard
about the agreement. Bennett replied that he had decided against approaching How-
ard and that Respondent should proceed as it saw fit.
C. Concluding findings
Section 8(e) of the Act, as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959, provides in pertinent part:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer
to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such
employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using,
23 Sloan left Howard' s premises without talking to the employees
21 Connected with USP's Washington division
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other
employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract
or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agree-
ment shall be to such extent unenforceable and void: Provided, That nothing in
this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization
and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or sub-
contracting of work to be done at the site of the construction , alteration , paint-
ing, or repair of a building , structure , or other work:... .
Section 8(b), as amended in 1959, provides in relevant part that:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-
(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage
in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to ... Perform any serv-
ices; or ( ii) to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case an object thereof is.... .
*
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease doing business with any
other person ... .
Section 8(e) implements and reenforces the secondary boycott provisions added by
the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendment to the Act. These provisions were specifically
designed to limit the area of industrial dispute in order to confine its effects to the
parties immediately concerned and to prevent its extension to employers not directly
involved.
Section 8(b) (4) renders unlawful, as did the corresponding provisions of the 1947
Act, the implication of neutral employers in disputes not their own where an object
is to force the cessation of business relations between the neutral employer and any
other person. "The impact of the section [is] directed toward what is known as the
secondary boycott whose `sanctions bear, not upon the employer who alone is a party
to the dispute, but upon some third party who has no concern in it.' International
Brotherhood of Elechical Workeis v. N.L R.B., 181 F. 2d 34, 37, affd. 341 U.S 694 "
Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (General
Electric Company, Intervenor) v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667, 672.23
As the Board has succinctly pointed out in several cases, the execution and enforce-
ment of a contract clause which prohibits the subcontracting of work performed by
employees in a bargaining unit covered by such contract may be lawful because its
objective is the preservation of work in the unit.26 On the other hand, where a
clause allows subcontracting only under certain conditions, e.g., a provision by which
the subcontractor is under contract with the union or is approved by the union, the
basic target of such clause concerns the employment conditions of the employees of
another employer, it is secondary in nature and therefore within the scope of Section
8(e).27
The credited evidence, as epitomized above, leaves no doubt that the Council and
Local 2767 each, through its respective representatives, including Casseday and
Sloan, attempted "to induce and encourage [an] individual employed by any person"
and threatened a "person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce," to bring about a work stoppage proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(A)
and (B) of the Act. This finding becomes inescapable when consideration is given
to the numerous demands and appeals of Casseday and Sloan to officials of USP and
to Howard, coupled with the fact that the strike vote was solely over the question of
USP letting contracts to unorganized independent operators. Doubtlessly, the afore-
See also N.L.RB V . Joint Council of Teamsters No. 88, et al (California Assn of
Employers), 338 F. 2d 23 (CA. 9) ; N.L R B. Y Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, Local 753,
etc (Pure Milk Association ), 335 F. 2d 326 (C A 7).
'6 See, for example, Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, etc, 136 NLRB 977, Milk
Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, Local No. 546, etc, 133 NLRB 1314, affil. sub nom;
Minnesota Milk Co. v. N.L.R.B , 314 F 2d 761 (C.A. 8)
27Distriat 9, International Association of Machinists ( Greater St. Louis Automotive
Trimmers & Upholsterers Assn ) v N L R.B , 315 F 2d 33 (C A.D C.) ; Los Angeles Mailers
Union No. 9, etc. v. N.L.R B , 311 F. 2d 121 (C.A.D C.) , Bakery Wagon Drivers and Sales-
men, Local Union No. 484 (Continental Baking Co., et al.) v. N.L.R B., 321 F. 2d 353
(C.A.D.C.) ; N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Ind ) and Local No.
17, etc. ( Lithgraphers and Printers National Assn , et al ), 309 F. 2d 31 (CA. 9) ;
N.L.R B. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38, supra ; Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, Local
753, supra.
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 557
said strike vote of Local 2767 and the above-described demands and appeals of Cas-
seday and Sloan were solely for the purpose of having USP discontinue contracting
out to independent operators with whom Respondent had a "primary " or "ultimate"
dispute. The strike vote taken by Local 2767 and the announced deadline of
August 10 for the commencement of the strike clearly establishes that "an object"
of Respondent 's conduct was to force or require USP to cease doing business with
Howard and with any other unorganized independent operators with whom Respond-
ent had a labor dispute. The Council and Local 2767 each sought thereby to
conscript the aid of USP in these disputes.
The nonunion men involved were employees of the various independent operators.
It thus follows that by the aforesaid actions of the Council and of Local 2767,
Respondent sought to induce a work stoppage with an object of cessation of business
between a neutral employer and the primary employer; a clear violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i), ( ii)(A) and B.28
In short, it is settled law that a labor organization cannot use means proscribed
by Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (u ) and pressure an employer who has no control over
whom another employer hires.
By the above -described conduct and activities , Respondent was attempting to force
USP to "cease" or to "refrain" from doing business 29 with employers who did not
hire persons who were not members of Local 2767 or of one of its sister locals, when
doing work under contract with USP.
Assuming , as Respondent contends , that Respondent also had other objectives, e.g.,
uniformity of wages and working conditions among the independent operators doing
business with USP, a desire to treat all signatories to the collective -bargaining agree-
ment alike and the preservation and stabilization of established working conditions
in the Kosmos area, it can draw no comfort from this . It is settled law that if an
object of a union's activity is unlawful , the legality of its other objectives does not
insulate its conduct from the proscription of Section 8(b)(4).30 Indeed, even if
Respondent 's ultimate objectives were lawful, "a finding of an illegal intermediate
objective is all that is required." 31
Respondent 's reliance on Retail Clerks Union, Local 710 v. N.L.R B., 335 F. 2d
709 (C A D C.) is misplaced . That case does not hold that a union may engage in
prohibited conduct against an employer where another employer controls the work
in question , a situation which the instant case is faced with.
Respondent further contended at the hearing and in its brief that by engaging in
the activity described above, it was merely attempting to preserve the working
standards in the area set up in the collective bargaining under consideration, and
hence its conduct in that regard was not violative of the Act.
In support of said contention Respondent relies heavily on Orange Belt District
Council of Painters No. 48 (Calhoun Drywall Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 328 F. 2d, 534 (C.A.
D C.). In that case the court , referring to two of its earlier decisions ,32 held that
2s Besides the cases cited supra, see N.L R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, etc. (Van Transport Lines, Inc.), 298 F. 2d 105 (C A. 2) ; N.L R B.
v. Plumbers Union of Nassau County, Local 457, etc. (Bomat Plumbing & Heating), 299
F 2d 497 (C.A. 2) ; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al.
(Samuel Langer) v. N.L.R.B., 341 U S. 694; N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction
Tr odes Council, et al. (Gould & Preisner), 341 U S. 6T5; N.L R B. v Milk Drivers and
Dairy Employees, Local 584, et al., 341 F. 2d 29 (C.A. 2), enfg 146 NLRB 509 Com-
pare NLRB. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc., Local 294 (Island Dock
Lumber, Inc ), 342 F 2d 18 (C A. 2), enfg. 145 NLRB 484.
21 There is no doubt that USP had "business" arrangements with Howard and certain
other unorganized independent operators and that Respondent wanted USP to "cease"
carrying out those arrangements. Section 8(e) reaches agreements to "refrain" from
doing business with another employer as well as agreements to "cease" such activity.
The language and legislative history of the "cease doing business" provision show that
it was intended as a catch-all clause, inserted to cover any agreement within the con-
gressional intendment which the language of the "cease" or "refrain" part of the section
might not cover. (2 Leg. Hist. 1959 at 1162 ; 2 Leg. Hist. 1959 at 1708, 1 Leg. Hist.
1959 at 683.)
30 N.L R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al (Climax Molyb-
denum Company), 341 U.S. 675 , N.L R B. v Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
& Joiners of America (Watson's Specialty Store), 341 U.S. 707.
31 Amalgamated Meat Cutters it Butcher Workmen of North America (Swift it Company)
v. N L R.B., 237 F. 2d 20, 25 (C.A D.C )
2Retail Clerks Union Local 770 etc. (U.S. Hardware it Paper Company, et al.) v.
N.L.R.B. , 296 F 2d 368 ( C.A D.C. ), and International Assn. of Machinists v. N.L.R.B.,
315 F 2d33 (CA.D.C.).
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clauses which seek to limit contracting to employers who maintain "labor standards"
commensurate with those of the employer party to a collective-bargaining contract
with a union are "primary" in that they seek to preserve and protect such standards
and are not proscribed by Section 8(e). The disputed contract provisions and
Respondent 's conduct in the instant case do not permit reliance upon the court's
reasoning in Orange Belt.
Not only is section 1(a) of article A(1) inapposite to the type of clause referred
in Orange Belt,33 but the facts belie the contention.
Respondent's further contention that one of the main purposes of section 1(a) of
article A(1) of the collective-bargaining agreement was to preserve "unit work."
The Board has held that contract provisions, which does no more than define and
reserve exclusive performance of employees in a bargaining unit work of a kind that
traditionally has been performed in that unit, have a different function from the con-
tracts which Congress was concerned with under Section 8(e). For the sole, direct,
and primary aim of such clauses is to protect and preserve work, and therefore jobs
for employees within the bargaining unit.34 On the other hand, it is now well estab-
lished that clauses in a collective-bargaining contract which expressly or impliedly
permit the subcontracting of unit work only to employers under contract with the
union violates Section 8 ( e).35 The clause of the collective -bargaining agreement
33 See, for example, Heat and Highway Drivers, etc, Local Union No 710 (Wilson &
Co.) v.NLRB., 335F 2d709 (CADC)
31 N.L R.B. V. Local 38, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (S Simon Con-
struction Co ), 339 F 2d 197 (CA 6), enfg 141 NLRB 983; Ohio Valley Carpenters Dis-
trict Council etc (Cardinal Industries, Inc ), 144 NLRB 91, enfd 339 F 2d 142 (CA 6).
It is interesting to note at this juncture that in disposing of the issues in the Ohio
Valley case, the court observed
The foregoing is part of the so-called "secondary boycott" provisions of the
statute. [8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B)] We need not venture into a general discussion of
their purposes or meaning The problem has been before the courts in numerous
varying fact situations [Citing cases ]
The Supreme Court has pointed out that the statute cannot be applied literally,
for "it would ban most strikes historically considered to be lawful, so-called primary
activity" [Citing cases ] At the same time the objectives of the statute in respect
to secondary boycotts must be achieved. "[D]ual congressional objectives," the
Court has called the provisions [Citing cases] Thus lines must be drawn, and
accordingly, as the Court has told us, the Board and the courts have attempted to
devise criteria. "The nature of the problem, as revealed by unfolding variant situa-
tions, inevitably involves an evolutionary process for its rational response, not a
quick, definitive formula as a comprehensive answer" [Citing cases ]
The basic criterion is, as the statute (Section 8(b) (4)) specifically provides, the
object, or objects, of the union action [Citing cases ] So the problem is: What
was the object9 The Board has held several times that, if a union demands that a
contractor do something he is powerless to do except by ceasing to do business with
somebody not involved in the dispute, it is manifest that an object of the union is to
induce this cessation of business [ Citing cases ] The courts to which this prob-
lem has come have agreed with the holdings.
We think this is rational and proper reasoning So in the case before us Hankin's
only means of compliance with the union demand was to cease doing business with
Cardinal. Hankins had no power to do by its own act what the union demanded
that it do, that is, build the framing with its own men on the jobsite It is reason-
able to hold that the object of the union was not an impossible act but was the
alternative possible.
The union says its agreement with Hankins was a legal one, designed to preserve
to its members ( Hankin's employees ) work normally theirs . But it is established
that a legal contract does not immunize illegal action employed for its enforcement.
[Citing a case ]
35Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers , Local 107, et al . ( E A. Gallagher & Sons), 131
NLRB 925, enfd 302 F. 2d 897 (C.A.D .C.) ; District No. 9, International Association of
Machinists ( Greater St . Louis Automotive Trimmers & Upholsters Assn ), 134 NLRB
1354 , enfd. 315 F. 2d 33 (C.A.D.C.) ; Bakery Wagon Drivers and Salesmen , Local Union
No. 484 (Continental Baking Co., at al ), 137 NLRB 987, enfd . 321 F 2d 353; Building
and Construction Trades Council, etc.
(CA.DC.).
(Gordon Fields ) v. N.L R B., 328 F. 2d 540
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 559
here under consideration, realistically appraised, is nothing more than an implied
union signatory agreement restricting USP to those employers under contract with
Respondent or one of its sister locals, without regard to unit considerations. Thus,
the clause places restrictions which are not "strictly germane to the economic integrity
of the principal work unit . . . it is, rather, a provision to make certain the primary
employer [i.e, the employer whose employees are to perform the work] is under
contract with the Union .11
I am not unmindful of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir-
cuit, in Meat and Highway Drivers, etc v. N.L R.B., supra, where, in overruling the
Board the court found a so-called work allocation clause was not proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(e). Since the facts in that case are clearly distinguishable from those in this
one, Respondent's appaient reliance thereon is misplaced. This finding becomes
eminently clear when consideration is given to the fact that in Meat and Highway
the question there involved was one of "work recapture" while here we are concerned
merely with work allocation.
USP's practice of logging contracts at the Kosmos operation has been continuous
since 1946; that between 1950 and 1957, USP had entered into in excess of 50 falling
and bucking contracts; that since 1950, it has entered into at least 50 complete logging
contracts; and that since January 1963, it has entered into 14 contracts covering log-
ging, falling and bucking, and road construction. In fact, since 1950, there have been
approximately 114 contracts let by USP covering all types of logging operation, from
cleanup of isolated stands, to the logging of large stands of green timber, to the log-
ging of hardwood species The practice in general has always been recognized by the
parties as a part of the Kosmos operations. Similarly, the details of contract logging
have been handled exclusively by USP. At no time prior to the latter part of 1963,
was the subject ever raised or discussed by Respondent.
All revisions of the collective-bargaining agreement since the one executed in 1948
have been made without any reference to USP's practice of entering into logging
contracts.
Since the credible evidence in this case clearly establishes that by attempting to
induce USP employees to cease work by threatening and coercing Howard, where
an object of said attempts, threats, and coercion was to have Howard's employees
join Local 2767, and USP employees to strike if Howard's employees did not join, I
find that the Council and Local 2767 violated Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B)
of the Act I further find section 1(a) of article A(1) of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the parties-to the extent that said section, as construed and inter-
preted by Respondent-falls within the proscription of Section 8(e) of the Act.36
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the business operations of USP, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Council and Local 2767 each has violated Section 8(b) (4)
(i), (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that each of them cease
and desist therefrom and that each take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a whole,
I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Council and Local 2767 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Howard is engaged in commerce, or in a business affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. By threatening to strike USP's Kosmos operations and by communicating said
threats to Howard, with an object of forcing or requiring Howard to enter into an
agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the Act, the Council and Local
2767 have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (u) (A) of the Act.
36 See Allied Chemical Corporation (National Aniline Division). 151 NLRB 718.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. By threatening to strike USP's Kosmos operations, and communicating said
threat to Howard, with an object of (1) forcing or requiring USP to cease doing
business with Howard, and (2) forcing or requiring Howard to recognize and bar-
gain with Local 2767 as the representative of his employees, although Local 2767
had not been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act, the Council and Local 2767 have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is
hereby ordered that the Respondent Puget Sound District Council, Lumber & Saw-
mill Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and Lum-
ber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2767, the Council and Local 2767, their respec-
tive officers, representatives, agents, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by USP or Howard, or any
other employer, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities or perform any services, or threatening, coercing,
or restraining USP or Howard, or any other employer, where in either case an object
thereof is to force or require USP to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by
Section 8(e) of the Act.
(b) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by USP or Howard, or any
other employer, to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the course of his employment to
use or handle any materials or perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or
restraining USP or Howard, or any other employer, by a strike where in either case
an object thereof is: (1) forcing or requiring USP to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with
Howard; (2) forcing or requiring Howard to recognize or bargain with Local 2767
as a representative of his employees unless Local 2767 has been certified as the rep-
resentative of said employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective business offices and meeting halls, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by representatives of
the Council, and by the assigned representative of Local 2767, be posted by each
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each Respond-
ent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Sign and deliver copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 19
for posting by USP and Howard, the companies willing, at all locations where notices
to their respective employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt by each Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps it has taken
to comply therewith 38
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Decision, each respondent notifies the said Regional Director that it
will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order requiring each respondent to take the action aforesaid.
37 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith"
VICKERS, INCORPORATED 561
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by
United States Plywood Corporation, Kosmos Division or by Howard Logging
Company, or any other employer, to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the course
of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or perform any serv-
ices, or threaten, coerce, or restrain USP or Howard, or any other employer,
where in either case an object thereof is to force or require USP to enter into any
agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by
USP or Howard, or any other employer, to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the
course of his employment to use or handle any materials or perform any serv-
ices, or threaten, coerce, or restrain USP or Howard, or any other employer, by
a strike or picketing where in either case an object thereof is: (1) to force or
require USP to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing
in the products of or to cease doing business with Howard; and (2) to force or
require Howard to recognize or bargain with Local 2767 as the representative of
his employees unless Local 2767 has been certified as the representative of such
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
PUGET SOUND DISTRICT COUNCIL, LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 2767 AFFILIATED
WITH UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Information regarding the provisions of this notice and compliance with its terms
may be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board,
327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-4553.
Vickers, Incorporated and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 792. Cases Nos.
15-CA-1363, 15-CA-1407, and 15-CA-1453. June 15, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 5, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set
153 NLRB No. 45.
796-027-66-vol. 153-37