Potlatch Forests, Inc.

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