Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1941

35 N.L.R.B. 810 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY CLEMONS BRANCH
and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 3-2,
AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. C-1838.-Decided September 05, 1941
Jurisdiction : ]umber industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements
Discrimination: discharges for union activities.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Patrick H. Walker, for the Board.
Mr. W. E. Heidinger, of Tacoma, Wash., for the respondent.
Mr. Norman 111. Neel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges 1 duly filed by International
Woodworkers of America, Local No. 3-2, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Ogranizations, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued its
complaint, dated January 3, 1941, against Weyerhaeuser Timber Com-
pany, Clemons Branch, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by
notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) dis-
couraged membership in the Union by discriminating with respect to
the hire and tenure of employment of two named employees because
they joined and assisted the Union and (2) by the discharge of and
refusal to reinstate said employees, and by various other acts and_ state-
1 The original charges were filed on May , 11, 1940, and the amended charges on November
18, 1940.
35 N. L. R. B, No. 175.
810
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 811
meats, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section-7 of the Act.
On January 7, 1941, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
wherein it denied that it is engaged in, or that its operations affect
interstate commerce, and denied that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Montesano, Washington,
from January 16 to January 20, 1941, before Thomas S. Wilson, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the
issues was afforded all parties. At the opening of the hearing, the
respondent objected to the introduction of any testimony on the ground
that the operations of the respondent did not bring it within the juris-
diction of the Board. This objection was overruled by the Trial
Examiner. At the end of the hearing, the respondent moved to dis-
miss the complaint on the ground that the evidence did not sustain
the allegations of the complaint. Ruling thereon was reserved and
subsequently denied by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Re-
port. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made
rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
A brief by the respondent was received by the Trial Examiner. On
March 11, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he found
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices
and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Thereafter the respondent duly filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief. Oral argument before the Board was not re-
quested by any of the parties. The Board has considered the briefs
and the exceptions and, save as the exceptions are consistent with the
findings, conclusions, and order herein, finds them 'to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company is a Washington corporation en-
gaged-in the business of logging and manufacturing timber and tim-
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her products. Its corporate offices are located at Tacoma, Washington.
For the past several years, it has owned and operated logging opera-
tions 'and lumber mills at Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Longview,
Washington; a lumber mill at Everett, Washington; logging opera-
tions at Melbourne and Vale, Washington; and pulp mills at Long-
view and Everett, Washington. In 1939, the respondent's total sales
of lumber, pulp, and other forest products were $35,151,839. Ap-
proximately 85 per cent of the respondent's lumber mill products are
sold to customers in States other than those in which the products
are manufactured, and an even larger percentage of the products of
the pulp mills is sold to customers outside the State of Washington.
The present case involves the logging operations with local head-
quarters at Melbourne, Washington, known as the Weyerhaeuser
Timber Company, Clemons Branch, and referred to herein as the
Clemons Branch. The Clemons Branch is engaged in logging opera-
tions in and around Grays Harbor County, Washington. The logging
camps are located about 25 miles from Melbourne. The logs are
transported to Melbourne by rail, and are then made into rafts and
transported on the Chehalis River, it navigable stream, to mills in
Grays Harbor County, Washington. The entire output of logs of
the Clemons Branch is sold to lumber mills in Grays Harbor County,
Washington, not owned or operated by the respondent, which com-
mingle the logs purchased from the Clemons Branch with those pur-
chased from other logging operators. In 1940, the Clemons Branch
produced and sold approximately 105,000,000. board feet of timber
valued at about $14 per thousand feet. In 1940, Donovan Lumber
Company purchased 50,000,000 board feet of logs from the Clemons
Branch, and sold 56,000,000 board feet of lumber, of which 79 per cent
was sold to customers outside the State of Washington. In 1940, Grays
Harbor Lumber Company purchased 8 per cent of its logs from the
Clemons Branch, and sold 107,000,000 board feet of lumber, of which
75 per cent was sold outside the State of Washington. In 1940, Ameri-
can Mill Company purchased 1,797,285 board feet of logs from the
Clemons Branch, and sold 25,700,000 board feet of lumber, of which
18,727,129 board feet were sold to customers outside the State of Wash-
ington. In 1940, Harbor Plywood Corporation purchased 11,028,289
board feet of logs from Clemons Branch of a total of 36,946,167 feet
of logs purchased and sold lumber valued at $7,236,221.70 to customers
outside the State of Washington. In 1940, Saginaw Timber Company
purchased approximately 15 to 18 per cent of its logs from the Clemons
Branch and sold approximately 95 per cent of the lumber produced
by it to customers outside the State of Washington.
The Clemons Branch owns and operates the railroad which trans-
ports the logs from the logging camps to Melbourne. The locomotives
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 813
use fuel oil which is obtained from the Standard Oil Company. The
latter ships the oil into Grays Harbor by ocean-going vessels. The
Clemons Branch purchases about 30,000 gallons of such oil at 10-day
intervals throughout the year.
The Clemons Branch is directly under the supervision and manage-
ment of the respondent's officers and board of directors although the
operations of the Clemons Branch are in general entrusted by those
officers and the board of directors to a branch manager at Melbourne,
Washington. The Clemons Branch is owned and operated as a part
of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Local No. 3-2, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Backgrownd
During the year 1940, the logging operations of the Clemons Branch
were conducted at two camps, No. 2 and No. 3, located in the timber,
under the direction of F. W. Byles, who resided at the headquarters
in Melbourne. Carl E. Weiks, Jr., was the foreman in charge of all
the falling and bucking of timber at both camps. He had authority
to employ and discharge fallers and buckers at both camps, but cus-
tomarily spent only 1 day a week at Camp No. 3, the operations of
which were directly under the supervision of Olger Barman, bullbuck,
who had authority to hire and discharge the fallers and buckers at
Camp No. 3.
In 1935 nearly every logging or lumber operation in the section
of the State of Washington in which the Clemons Branch is located
was affected by a strike called by Local 2639, Carpenters and Joiners
Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The employ-
ees of the Clemons Branch, a majority of who were members of Local
-2639, took an active part in this strike, which was settled during the
same year by a written strike-settlement agreement to which the re-
spondent was one of the signatories. Subsequent to the strike, in
1937, Local 2639 changed its affiliation to the Congress of Industrial
Organizations and acquired the name of the Union.
The Union has sublocals at the various logging operations. Such a
sublocal has been in existence at Camp No. 3 since the change of affilia-
tion in 1937, and is herein called the sublocal.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The discriminatory discharges
On October 23, 1939, Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett, the em-
ployees whose discharges are involved herein, applied for employment
at the Clemons Branch. On the following day they were given em-
ployment and sent to Camp No. 3 as a set of fallers with Nordling in
the position of "head faller." As is customary Barman assigned them
an area of ground known as a strip in which they were to fall the
timber. After finishing the first strip, they were assigned to second,
third, and fourth strips where they worked together as a team and
were paid 45 cents per thousand board feet for logs felled.
Nordling had become a member of the Carpenters and Joiners
Union while engaged as a faller in the State of Oregon, and con-
tinued his membership after his local changed its affiliation to the
C. I. O. in 1937. Upon arriving at Camp No. 3, he became a member
of the sublocal. Burchett joined the Union in October 1939, and was
a member of its negotiating committee and sometimes served on the
grievance committee of the sublocal.
Shortly prior to his employment at the Clemons Branch, Nordling
had been appointed chairman of the Anti-Bushelling Committee of
International Woodworkers of America. This committee investigated
the method of pay in effect at most of the lumber- operations in the
Northwest, including those of the respondent. This method, known
as the bushelling system, provided for the payment of piece-work
rates to fallers and buckers. As chairman of the committee, Nord-
ling was the coauthor of a pamphlet condemning the use of piece-
work rates and advocating that the International Union demand that
fallers and backers be paid wages computed on the basis of day rates.
That pamphlet was published by the International Union with Nord-
ling's name on the cover as coauthor. The pamphlet was widely dis-
tributed at the Clemons Branch in January or February 1940. Bar-
man admitted at the hearing that he snatched a copy of the pamphlet
-from Burchett at about that time and that he read "some of it."
Soon after their employment Nordling and Burchett began to take
an active part in sublocal affairs. At meetings of the sublocal after
the arrival of Nordling and Burchett on October 24, 1939, the mem-
bers discussed various grievances against the respondent. The mat-
ters discussed included dismissal of certain cook-house flunkies, the
use of excelsior mattresses in the respondent's bunkhouses, the ques-
tion of poor food, the necessity of assistance to the head cook, and the
inadequate facilities for cooking. Nordling took an active part in the
discussions of these matters during the meetings. On each occasion
the sublocal instructed its grievance committee to confer with the
management in an endeavor to remedy the grievances. On several of
these occasions, Burchett was a member of the committee which met
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 815
with the management. A number of times after such meetings, Bar-
man walked back from the woods with Nordling and Burchett and
casually mentioned the matters which had been considered in the sub-
local meetings. On one occasion, Barman told Nordling that the ques-
tion of the cooking utensils was more important than that of the mat-
tresses. Barman ended this particular discussion by stating, "Don't
say anything about this though. Don't say anything about this, be-
cause the fellows won't back you up."
A few weeks before April 4, 1940, the respondent placed two extra
bunks in the bunkhouses which customarily contained eight bunks.
The sublocal complained about this and sent a committee to the man-
agement, which explained that it was a temporary matter and that
the extra bunks would be removed in about 2 weeks. Burchett was a
member of this committee. Subsequently, an extra bunk was placed
in the bunkhouse to which Nordling and Burchett had been assigned.
Burchett and another employee picked up the extra bunk, carried it
out of the bunkhouse, and placed it on the sidewalk. A fellow em-
ployee and Burchett exchanged heated words over the incident. A
few minutes thereafter Barman came to the bunkhouse and said,
"What the devil is going on here? That can't be done."
In the latter part of March 1940 Nordling was'elected by the sublocal
as camp steward, a position which carried with it the chairmanship
of the sublocal. His opponent in this election was an employee named
Hilding Lovin. At this same meeting definite plans were made to
enroll all employees into the Union and to make all members pay up
their delinquent dues. The day after the election, Barman remarked
to an employee, N. A. Petritis, that Nordling had been elected steward
in order to hold his job. Barman's remark angered Petritis, since he
considered it an attempt to interfere in union affairs. He so in-
formed Barman. On the afternoon of that same day, Barman walked
in from the operations with Nordling and Burchett. During the
walk, Barman remarked that it was too bad that Lovin had not been
elected steward.
Upon his election, Nordling proved to be an active camp steward.
By the first of April 1940 all but two or three employees had become
members in good standing of the Union, either by joining the Union
or by paying up their delinquent dues. Under Nordling's stewardship
the practice of having bunkhouse representatives whose duty it was
to solicit new employees was continued with considerable success.
Early in April 1940 Barman inquired of Lovin whether he knew
Nordling and whether Lovin thought Nordling would make a good
steward. After some discussion, Barman stated that he did not think
Nordling would be a good steward, that he did not have anything
against Nordling but that he did not like him "for some reason."
Barman added that he thought Nordling had too big a vocabulary.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 4, 1940, Nordling and Burchett were working on Strip 4
felling'a tree which is referred to in the record as "Tree X." This
tree was growing on a sloping hillside near the summit of the ridge.
Tree X was between 6 and 7 feet in diameter at the stump. The stump
of Tree X had been gutted by fire, and there was a hole in the base of
the tree about 21/2 feet deep and from 11/2 to 31/2 feet wide. The top
of the tree had a "lean" of approximately 4 feet on the down-hill side.
Nordling decided to fell the tree approximately parallel to the slope
of the hill. To do this he had to bring it down in a space of approxi-
mately 20 to 25 feet in width between a stump on the upper side of the
hill and a row of three stumps on the lower side. The first stump was
about 50 or 55 feet distant from the stump of Tree X. When Tree X
fell, it fell on the line of stumps on the lower side of the slope, a mis-
hap known as "stumping." Because of the stumping of this tree only
one short butt log was saved. The testimony shows that the upper
part of Tree X was. unmerchantable timber because of rot. The loss
was estimated by the respondent to be 3500 board feet.
After stumping Tree X, Nordling and Burchett continued felling
other trees in their strip. At 2 o'clock in the same afternoon Barman
arrived on his regular inspection trip. Nordling told him, "I want
you to take a look at a very bad sight above here." Barman imme-
diately went to the scene and inspected the damage to Tree X. After
the inspection, Barman returned and told Nordling and Burchett that
it certainly was "quite a sight," that it might have happened to the
best of them but stated that, under the circumstances, if such a thing
had happened to him, he would quit of his own free will. Nordling
answered that they did not want to quit, and that he did not believe it
would be fair to discharge them for stumping their first tree in 6
months' work, which he considered a good record. Barman replied,
"No, I won't fire you. But, of course, I will have to report you."
Barman testified that after Nordling's remark that Tree X was their
first stumped tree in 6 months, he answered, "No, it isn't your first one
by any means, and if I was you I would advise you to quit." The
Trial Examiner observed the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand
and did not credit Barman's testimony that he contradicted Nord-
ling's assertion that Tree X was the first tree they had stumped. We
find that Barman did,not contradict the assertion.
Barman then departed and the two men continued their regular
work for the remainder of the day. That evening at about 6:30
o'clock Barman and Weiks conversed over the telephone. Weiks testi-
fled that the conversation consisted solely of a request by Barman that
Weiks come to Camp No. 3 the next morning. Both men denied that
there had been any mention of the stumping of Tree X in that
conversation.
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 817
Weiks arrived at Camp No. 3 the following morning, April 5. He
testified that Barman did not inform him that Tree X had been
stumped but that about 10 a. in. he himself discovered Tree X and
"looked it over" for about 10 minutes. He did not gun 2 the undercut
of the tree to determine the line on which the tree should have fallen.
Following his inspection of Tree X, he went over to Nordling and
Burchett and said,"I see you have stumped another tree, so stack your
tools up here at the tree that you are working on. That will be-all."
Nordling denied that they had stumped any other trees and asked if
Weiks had considered the fact that Tree X was a rotten tree and that
stumping one tree in 6 months was a good record. Weiks then
answered, "That is not the question. We have a rule in this camp and
have had it for a long time that anyone who stumps a tree goes down
the line." Burchett stated that he knew of trees that had been
stumped before and that the men who had stumped them were still
working. Weiks replied that he did not know anything about that.
He thereupon walked over to Tree X with Burchett following. When
they arrived, Weiks turned to Burchett and used some profanity
toward Burchett and Nordling and their work. Thereafter Nordling
and Burchett returned to Camp No. 3 where they were given their
discharge papers, signed by Weiks, stating that they had been dis,
charged for "stumping tree."
Weiks testified that he did not see Barniau before noon on April 5.
Prior to noon on April 5, Barman inquired of Lovin where he was
going that week end.- Lovin stated that he was going to Portland
with Nordling in the latter's automobile, whereupon Barman asked
how Lovin was coming back. Lovin stated that he figured he would
come back the same way. After a moment of silence, Barman said
that he did not think that Lovin would have a ride back.
The following Monday, the sublocal appointed a committee of
three fallers to investigate the felling of Tree X to determine if Nord-
ling and Burchett had been guilty of poor workmanship. On Tues-
day the committee investigated and determined that Nordling had
gunned the tree too close to the stumps on the lower side of the hill
for safety. The committee did not exonerate Nordling from all blame
for the stumping of the tree. After the committee had so reported
to the sublocal, the sublocal requested.the respondent to reinstate
Nordling and Burchett.
Elvin Byles, acting assistant superintendent of the respondent, in-
vestigated the discharges by interviewing Barman and Weiks. He
testified that he was "very particular" during his investigation not to
2 Cunning consists of placing the bit of the axe in the undercut in such a manner that
the handle of the axe points toward the line of fall of the tree. Undercutting consists
of chopping out a section of the trunk in order to fix the direction of fall.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question the men about the union activities of Nordling and Burchett
and to restrict the investigation to their work record. Following his
investigation and on or about April 15 at a meeting with the committee
of the sublocal, Byles informed the committee that the discharges
were justified and that the respondent refused to reinstate the em-
ployees.
About a week or so after Nordling's discharge, Lovin was elected
camp steward to replace him. Sometime after Lovin's election and
after he had met with the management several times and conducted
numerous sublocal meetings, Barman stated to him that, if he were
Lovin, he would not "stick his neck out" because Lovin "might get it
in the bite [sic]" and that he would not like Lovin to lose his job.
Lovin understood this remark to refer to his activities as camp stew-
ard. This conversation was a clear warning to Lovin to restrict his
activities as camp steward, and we find, in accordance with the findings
of the Trial Examiner, that it constituted an interference with the
rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent's defense with respect to the discharge of Nordling
and Burchett is threefold : (1) that Camp No. 3 had long been organ-
ized by the Union without objection or restraint from the respondent;
(2) that Weiks, who discharged Nordling and Burchett, was unaware
of their union activities at the time of the discharge; and (3) that
Nordling and Burchett were discharged for poor workmanship.
Although the sublocal has consistently represented a majority of the
employees at Camp No. 3, it is apparent from the record that prior
to the arival in camp of Nordling and Burchett, the sublocal had been
a somewhat lethargic organization because of the difficulty it had ex-
perienced in securing an energetic camp steward. Thus Deny Dyer,
business agent of the Union, testified that it "was hard to get a .. .
steward who would function," and pointed to the neglect of organiza-
tion and membership records during the stewardship of Joe Stone, who
preceded Nordling, and the consequent necessity for frequent visits to
the camp by Dyer.3 There is no evidence that the sublocal was
energetically presenting grievances to the management during the
period from 1935 to 1939, and it is clear that the only working agree-
ment which the Union had with the respondent prior to December
1940, was the strike-settlement agreement entered into in 1935. More-
over, according to Nordling, the sublocal was not holding meetings at
the time of his arrival in October 1939, although he was unable to
3It is clear that since 1935 the union has followed an intermittent policy of requesting
all employees to become members or leave camp . However, deviation from this practice
has occurred because the sublocal, in the words of Dyer , "would be unable to elect shop
committeemen and . . . stewards, and if you did elect them, they wouldn't function like
they should , and therefore , you would have nonunion members until I . . . happen
into camp . . . and bring it up on the floor myself."
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 819
state whether such condition existed prior to his arrival. That the
respondent wished to preserve this condition of the sublocal is evident
from the warning given Lovin by Barman "not to get his head in the
bite" after Lovin had demonstrated his intention to be an active
steward.
Accordingly, we find as did the Trial Examiner, that the sub-
local had been relatively inactive for some time and, at the time of
the discharges, was engaged in an upswing of activity of which the
respondent was aware and to which it was opposed.
With respect to the respondent's knowledge of the activities of
Nordling and Burchett, Weiks denied that he knew anything about
the union activities of Nordling and Burchett other than that they
were probably members of the Union, which he assertedly assumed
from the fact that some employees had told him that Camp No. 3
was 100-per cent unionized. He denied having seen the Anti-Bush-
elling pamphlet written by Nordling until after the meeting with
the sublocal committee over the discharge on April 15. He further
denied knowledge that Nordling had been elected camp steward
until that same meeting. However, he admitted that he knew of the
sublocal meetings at which the discharges had been discussed. On
the other hand, Barman had immediate and minute knowledge of
the activities of both the sublocal and Nordling and Burchett, as
shown by his numerous remarks, hereinabove set forth, to various
union members about matters occurring at sublocal meetings. Bar-
man also had a copy of the Anti-Bushelling pamphlet, which he
,testified he had read and kept with other reading material in his
bunk. Both Barman and Weiks denied that Barman had ever told
Weiks of the activities of Nordling and Burchett. Burchett's ac-
tivities must have been known, as he met in person with a representa-
tive of the management concerning various grievances. Weiks ad-
mitted knowledge of one of the grievances upon which Burchett
acted as a member of the sublocal committee but testified that it was
a Camp No. 2 grievance and not one from Camp No. 3.
The Trial Examiner did not credit the denials of Barman and
Weinks concerning Weiks' knowledge of the union activity of Nord-
ling and Burchett for the reason that much of their testimony was
"inherently improbable." The evidence showed that Weiks and Bar-
man held daily telephone conversations about the progress of the
work. When first questioned concerning a telephone call on April
4, the day of the accident involving Tree X, Barman was unable to
state whether he had instructed the, time keeper to tell Weiks to
come up on spur F, or whether he had mentioned the stumping over
the telephone. On cross-examination, he admitted having made the
telephone call; yet denied that he had mentioned the stumping of
451270-42-vol. 35-53
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tree X during this conversation, although he had told Nordling and
Burchett that he would have to report the matter to Weiks, and his
only alleged reason for not thus reporting was that he "didn't get
a chance to" report it. Weiks remembered the usual telephone con-
versation about 6: 30 p. in. on that day, but testified that, the con-
versation consisted only of a request by Barman that he come to
Camp No. 3 the following day. Weiks testified further that he went
to Camp No. 3 as requested, that, before seeing or talking to Barman,
he, himself, found Tree X about 10 o'clock in the morning and there-
upon discharged the men. He further stated that he did not see
Barman until noon that day. Prior to noon on April 5, Barman,
in effect, told Lovin that Nordling would not be returning to the
Clemons Branch after that day. This fact, together with the prompt
discovery by Weiks of the matter about which Barman desired to
see him, leads us to agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner
that Barman telephoned Weiks about the stumping of the tree.
The apparent concealment practised by Barman and Weiks in the
matter of the telephone call and the consequent discovery of Tree X
by Weiks, Byles' asserted care not to investigate the union activities
of Nordling and Burchett, and Barman's intimate acquaintance with
their union activities which were of an inherently open nature, con-
strains us to believe, and we find, in accordance with the finding of
the Trial Examiner, that the union activities of Nordling and Bur-
chett were well known to the respondent's supervisory employees
including Weiks, who was chosen to effect the termination of their
employment.
Consequently, turning to the respondent's third contention, the
question presented is whether Nordling and Burchett were actually
discharged for poor workmanship or whether the stumping of Tree
X was used to camouflage a discharge growing out of their activities
in revitalizing the sublocal.
The work of Nordling and Burchett from October 24, 1939, to
about March 1, 1940, on the first three strips to which they were as-
signed involved the felling of approximately 1000 trees. The evi-
dence shows that their work in this regard was satisfactory. There
were no stumped trees in those three strips. Although Barman,
testified that as early as December 1939, and again in January 1940,
he criticized Nordling and Burchett -for some careless work, he ac-
knowledged at the hearing that he also commended their work upon
occasions, and that Nordling "was not the worst faller in camp."
There is also evidence that in February or March 1940, a tree felled
by Nordling endangered the life of a bucker by falling close to him.
Barman admitted at the hearing, however, that Nordling had warned
the man before felling the tree and it appears that no disciplinary
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 821
action was taken or even contemplated because of this incident. We
find that Nordling was not considered culpable and further that such
incident played no part in the respondent's decision to discharge
him.
In early March 1940, Barman assigned Nordling and Burchett
to a strip known in the record as Strip 4. Tree 15 in this strip was
a cedar which they felled safely. A few days thereafter a fir which
they felled hit the butt log of Tree 15 causing a loss of 1500 board
feet in the cedar. Barman criticized them for carelessness and for
felling the cedar prior to the fir, a practice frowned on by the
respondent. Thereafter, on or about March 24, and just prior to
Nordling's election as camp steward, Nordling and Burchett felled
Tree 31 with a resultant loss of 7000 board feet. On direct examina-
tion Barman testified that he would have discharged the men for
this loss except for the fact that he did not discover it until a few
days after the damage was done, at which time the matter was too
stale to take such action. On cross-examination, however, he ad-
mitted that, after looking at the tree, he "partly absolved" the men
from blame for the loss. Weiks corroborated this when he testified
that he did not discharge the men for this loss because Barman
pleaded that they be given another chance. The respondent imposed
no penalty for the loss, although Barman stated to employee Petritis
a few days later that Nordling had accepted the position as camp
union steward in order to keep his job. At the hearing, the parties
were in disagreement whether Tree 31 was stumped or unavoidably
injured by sliding into a wind-fall after falling to the ground. In
view of all the evidence, the Trial Examiner found that the loss of
Tree 31 was unavoidably caused by its sliding after falling. We
concur in his finding.'
Tree X was stumped on April 4, 1940, with a loss estimated by
the respondent at 3500 board feet. Prior to the felling of Tree X,
it had a stump cavity approximately 21/2 feet deep and from 11/2 to 3
feet wide,.and, as hereinbefore noted, it was rotten above the point
where it struck the stumps. Nordling testified that part of the
shavings from sawing Tree X were powdered, indicating that Tree
X was "doty," i. e. had lost its coherence, and that, when the tree
4 The evidence in this regard is as follows : Employee N. A. Petritis testified that the
tree was felled down hill, that it struck the ground first , then bounced, slid over a
wind-fall, and came to rest about 300 feet down in the canyon . Nordling testified that
it was felled with the intention that it strike a mound about 200 feet down and thus be
stopped, but that, instead , it caromed and caved into an 80 -foot gulch . Welke testified
that the tree slid after it hit a stump and that it had struck the stump before it reached
the ground-the mishap known as stumping But be then admitted that he "didn't pay
any attention" to see if the ground had been ploughed up above the stump, and thus, of
course, he could not have determined whether it actually had been stumped or hit the
ground first . We conclude that Petritis ' "wind-fall" was the same object as Weiks'
"stump," that it was located on the "mound " mentioned by Nordling , and that the tree
struck the ground first and thus was not stumped.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
started to fall, it broke within the first third of its fall so that
it was technically out of control and did not fall as it had been
gunned to do. Barman, Weiks, and others testified that the stump
was sound and that the tree left "slivers" between 18 and 24 inches
long on the stump which would indicate that the tree was sound and
did not break too soon. One witness for the respondent testified to
the presence of a sliver 7 feet long, 3 inches thick on the stump and
11/2 inches thick at a point 31/2 feet above the stump. As only one
witness noticed this alleged "sliver" we do not credit its existence.
It was agreed that after a tree is down it is difficult to determine
just where the tree should have fallen. Barman testified that from
his examination, Tree X was gunned to fall within 4 feet of the lower
stumps, that this was too close to the stumps for safety, and that
Tree X would have broken on the roots of the stump if it had fallen
exactly as gunned. Weiks did not gun Tree X during his investi-
gation. The Trial Examiner accepted the findings of the fallers'
committee which investigated the matter, and Carl Weeks, a member
thereof, and found that Nordling had gunned Tree X to fall too
close to the lower stumps for safety. Barman and Weiks testified
that Nordling exercised poor judgment in attempting to fell Tree X
between the stumps, as he should have felled it either to the right
or the left of them. The evidence shows, however, that if Tree X
had been felled in either of these directions, it _would have fallen
on down logs or across down logs and the top of the ridge, either
of which would have resulted in breakage. We find, therefore, that
although he gunned the tree too close to the lower strips for safety,
Nordling did not exercise poor judgment in selecting the place to
fell Tree X.
Although Barman took no action on the day Tree X was stumped,
Weiks discharged Nordling and Burchett the following day, stating
that the respondent had a long-standing rule that any faller stump-
ing a tree would be discharged. At that time the respondent main-
tained at its operations the following notice : "Fallers splitting trees
on stumps or stumping a tree without cause will be docked according
to the damage." Weiks testified that this rule had not been enforced
for a number of years, and that for many years the penalty imposed
upon the faller guilty of stumping a tree depended upon the amount
of damage done, the amount of blame attaching to the faller, the
past experience of the faller, and the other circumstances of the
individual case. The undisputed evidence shows that at least six
sets of fallers had stumped a tree or trees at Camp No. 3 without
having been discharged or docked for the damage. In at least two
instances either Weiks or Barman or both had been watching when
the tree was stumped, but imposed no penalty. It was admitted by
the respondent that occasionally the best faller will stump a tree.
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 823
Weiks attempted to distinguish the above cases from that of Nord-
ling and Burchett on the ground that none of these trees had been
stumped within the "vital" first 80 feet of the log, so that the damage
was relatively small. However, the evidence showed that four sets
of fallers had stumped trees within the "vital" area without penalty.
Weiks testified that the "code of the woods" formerly required a
faller to quit after stumping a tree but that this code was no longer
followed. In one case where a Clemons Branch faller did quit after
stumping -a tree, Weiks, himself, while in Aberdeen, Washington,
persuaded the man to return to work. In a similar case, Barman
persuaded the faller to remain at work.
The respondent contends that' Nordling and Burchett were dis-
charged because of a series of instances of poor work, that is, the
damage to Trees 15 and 31 followed by the stumping of Tree X. The
rule published by the respondent concerning stumping suggested
only the penalty of being "docked according to the damage," and the
record does not indicate the imposition of that penalty, much less
the penalty of discharge, in a single instance. Indeed, Weiks spoke
very casually of stumping when he was asked at the hearing whether
a certain tree was the first stumped by Ed Long, "I don't know; but
Ed has worked there quite a few years, and certainly has stumped
trees before." And Barman testified that "in a case almost parallel
to Nordlings," Barman persuaded the faller involved to remain at
work in order to secure a bonus which he would become entitled to
upon completing his strip. Moreover, the extent of the damage to a
tree was admitted by Barman to be a consideration entitling a faller
to be absolved from blame in some cases. The record clearly indi-
cates, and we find that discharge was not the penalty ordinarily
imposed for stumping. Yet Nordling and Burchett were promptly
discharged by Weiks despite the fact that "Nordling was not the
worst faller in camp," despite a good previous record of 1000 or
more trees in a period of 5 months, despite the fact that the damage
to Tree X was relatively small due to the existence of rot in Tree X
above the break, and despite the fact that Barman, in whose hands
the question of discharge resided, did not see fit to impose such
penalty at the time. Moreover, Weiks, who effected the discharge,
did not gun the tree to determine the amount of care exercised by
Nordling, but immediately discharged the two men.
The respondent's explanation of its discharge of Nordling and
Burchett is unsatisfactory. In our opinion the true reason for the
discharge lies in the union, activities of these two men, particularly
those of Nordling. At the time of the discharges Nordling was
chairman of the sublocal. Through the distribution of his pamphlet
which condemned the bushelling system of pay, his reports to the
824- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sublocal upon matters discussed at the Anti-Bushelling meetings in
Seattle, the leadership he assumed at sublocal meetings, and the con-
tacts he made with the men each day, it seems clear that Nordling
was responsible for a degree of militancy in the Union which did not
exist prior to his arrival. It is also clear, as we have found, that the
respondent was well aware of his activities in these respects, and its
efforts to conceal this knowledge, we believe, is a clear indication of
its illegal motive in discharging Nordling and Burchett.'
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by discharging and refus-
ing to reinstate Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett, the respondent
has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of their employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and by such
action, and by threatening Hilding Lovin, as hereinbefore discussed,
the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate
of Section 10 (c), to cease and desist therefrom. We also predicate
our cease and desist order upon the following findings. The re-
spondent's course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organ-
ization and its objects. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct
and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that the unfair labor
practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor
practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct'in the past.,,
The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is
coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make effective
:The extent of Burchett ' s union activity is not here decisive . Even if it be said that
the direct cause of Burchett 's discharge was the fact that his falling partner was dis-
charged, still the antecedent cause was discrimination against another union member in
regard to hire and tenure of employment thereby discouraging membership in the Union.
Accordingly , Burchett 's discharge was discriminatory . See Matter of Memphis Furniture
Manufacturing Company and Furniture Workers Local Union No. 1174, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, 3 N . L. R. B. 26, enfd 96 F. (2d) 1018
( C. C. A. 6), cert . denied 305 U. S 627.
11 See N. L R. B. v. Express Publishing Company; 312 U . S. 426.
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., CLEMONS BRANCH 825
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent, by discharging and refusing
t) reinstate Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett, discriminated in
regard to the hire and tenure of their- employment in violation of
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. We shall, therefore, order the
respondent to offer each of them immediate reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against him by payment to him of a sum of money equal to
the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from April
5., 1940, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings 7
during said period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, Local No. 3-2, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The foresaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
7 By "net earnings" Is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Josner8 of
America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R . B. 440 . Monies re-
ceived for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-relief
projects shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Board, 311 U. S. 7.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Clemons Branch, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Ceast and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of
America, Local 3-2, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
criminating against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges;
(b) Make whole said Seth Nordling and Volney Burchett for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against them by payment to each of them of, a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from April 5, 1940, until the date of the offer of reinstatement less his
net earnings during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its logging opera-
tions in or near Grays Harbor County, Washington, and keep posted
for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of
posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that the respondent will
not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) above; (2) that the respondent
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b)
of this order; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to
become or remain members of International Woodworkers of Amer-
ica, Local No. 3-2, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, and that the respondent will not discriminate against any
employee because of membership or activity in that organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.