Stimson Lumber Co.

STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 567 Stimson Lumber Company, Employer-Petitioner and Lumber, Production and Industrial Workers, Local Union No. 2829, AFL-CIO Case 36-RM-845 June 10, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election executed by the parties and ap- proved by the Regional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board on November 26, 1975, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on January 8, 1976, under the direction and supervision of the said Re- gional Director Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of bal- lots was furnished the parties which showed that there were approximately 116 eligible voters and that 113 ballots were cast, of which 53 were for the Union, 53 were against the Union, and 7 were chal- lenged The challenged ballots are sufficient in num- ber to affect the results of the election Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct af- fecting the results of the election In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the issues raised by the challenged ballots and the objections, and on February 18, 1976, issued and duly served on the parties his Report and Recom- mendations on Challenged Ballots and Objections to the Election I In his report, he recommended that the Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety, that the challenges to the ballots of John Begert, Jim English, Monty Warden, and Billy Joe Jackson be overruled, and that the challenges to the ballots of Dwayne Jarvi, Roger Van Dyke and Kelly Evers be sustained Thereafter, the Employer filed timely ex- ceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation that the objections be overruled and to his conclu- sions with respect to the ballots of Begert, Jackson, Van Dyke and Evers The Union filed timely excep- tions to the Regional Director's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Dwayne Jarvi be sustained Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- i In his report, the Regional Director inadvertently stated that the payroll period for eligibility purposes was the semimonthly period ending Novem ber 15, 1976 The correct date is November 15, 1975 tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds 1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein 2 The labor organization involved claims to rep- resent certain employees of the Employer 3 A question affecting commerce exists concern- mg the representation of the employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act 4 The parties stipulated and we find that the fol- lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All logging, sawmill and veneer plant employees employed by the Employer out of its facility lo- cated in Forest Grove, Oregon, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employ- ees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act 5 The Board has considered the Regional Director's report and the exceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the findings 2 and recommendations of the Regional Director, as modified herein ^ In recommending that the challenge to the ballot of Dwayne Jarvi be sustained, the Regional Director concluded that Jarvi, an economic striker who had been permanently replaced, was not eligible to vote in the election because he had rejected the Employer's offer of reinstatement We find merit in the Union's exceptions and we do not adopt the Re- gional Director's conclusions and recommendations regarding the challenge to Jarvi's ballot The Regional Director's investigation revealed that an economic strike commenced at the Employer's facility on June 24, 1975 During the strike, the Employer commenced hiring permanent strike replacements, and on September 8, 1975, the Union informed the Employer that employees would be returning to work Pursuant to the Union's an- nouncement, Dwayne Jarvi, who prior to the strike had been employed as a millwright on the construc- t Insofar as the objections involve alleged misrepresentations Chairman Murphy agrees with the conclusion that the election should not be set aside inasmuch as the same result is reached under any view of the applicability or validity of Modine Manufacturing Company 203 NLRB 527 (1973) and Hollywood Ceramics Company Inc 140 NLRB 221 (1962) 3 In the absence of exceptions thereto we adopt pro forma the Regional Director's recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Jim Eng- lish and Monty Warden be overruled 4 The relevant portions of the Regional Directors Report and Recom mendations on Challenged Ballots and Objections to the Election are at- tached hereto including the Union s letter of January 2 1976 which was attached to the report as Appendix A 224 NLRB No 66 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion and maintenance crew, reported to the Employer's mill Jarvi was thereupon notified that he had been permanently replaced and that there were no openings in his former position Plant Manager Keeney suggested, however, that he bid on a posted millwrightjob involving work on the barker machine Jarvi had no knowledge of the electrical work in- volved, but Keeney stated that he would see to it that Jarvi received training Jarvi replied that he would wait and take his chances for an opening on the con- struction and maintenance crew Based on the fore- going, the Regional Director found that had Jarvi availed himself of the bidding procedure he would have been assured of a substantially equivalent posi- tion The Regional Director concluded that Jarvi's refusal to bid for the job on the barker machine was tantamount to a rejection of the Employer's offer of reinstatement We find, contrary to the Regional Di- rector, that in the circumstances herein Jarvi main- tained his interest in his former job, notwithstanding his refusal to bid on the barker machine job 5 In Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company,' the Board stated that an economic striker is presumed to con- tinue in that status and thus is eligible to vote under Section 9(c)(3) of the Act To rebut the presumption, the party challenging his vote must affirmatively show by objective evidence that the economic striker has abandoned his interest in his struck job The evi- dence here demonstrates that Jarvi, at the time he declined to bid on the barker machine, told the plant manager that he would prefer to take his chances and wait for an opening to occur on the general construc- tion and maintenance crew Furthermore, after learning that the barker machine job was filled by a millwright from the construction crew, Jarvi returned to the mill and again asked if there were any open- ings on the construction crew There is no evidence that the Employer told Jarvi that he would no longer be considered for employment In these circum- stances, we conclude that Jarvi had not abandoned 5 In view of our finding, we need not decide whether the Employer's offer to bid on the job was tantamount to a job offer Chairman Murphy disagrees She believes that in order properly to decide Jarvi s status, it is necessary to resolve the issue of whether the Employer's suggestion to Jarvi (that he bid on the barker machine job) constituted an offer of a job substantially equivalent to the one he had prior to the strike For, if he were offered such a job and refused it, then the Chairman would affirm the Regional Director, regardless of the fact that Jarvi was still inter- ested in his old job However, she concludes that the Employer s suggestion that Jarvi bid on the barker machine job must be construed literally that is simply as an invitation to bid on the Job if he so desired, and cannot validly be assigned any greater or more concrete meaning than that Unlike the Regional Director she is unwilling to convert the opportunity to bid on a job into a firm offer of employment simply because no other employees bid thereon In the Chairman's view, there was no more obligation on Jarvi to bid than on any other employee be he a striker or nonstriker In these circumstances she agrees with her colleagues that Jarvi had not abandoned his interest in his struck job and thus had not forfeited his status as an economic striker eligible to vote in the election 6 137 NLRB 1358 (1962) his interest in his struck job, and that the Employer failed to rebut the presumption of Jarvi's continued eligibility Accordingly, we hereby overrule the chal- lenge to the ballot of Jarvi, and direct that his ballot be opened and counted DIRECTION It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for Region 19, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Direction, shall open and count the ballots of John Begert, Jim English, Monty Warden, Billy Joe Jackson, and Dwayne Jarvi and thereafter prepare and cause to be served on the parties a revised tally of ballots, upon the basis of which he shall issue the appropriate certification APPENDIX The Objections In support of the objection allegations, the Em- ployer submitted a letter drafted by the Union and mailed to all of the employees eligible to vote in the election Inasmuch as there is no dispute as to the existence of the specific writing and as it is the totali- ty of the evidence proffered by the Employer in sup- port of its objections, I am affixing a copy of said letter hereto as Appendix A The undisputed evidence submitted by the Union establishes that the letters were prepared and depos- ited in the mail on Friday, January 2, 1976 The Em- ployer submitted evidence establishing that the post- mark on at least one of the envelopes containing the mailing was Monday, January 5, 1976 While there is a dispute as to whether the mailings would likely have been received by a majority of the employees one, two or three days prior to the election, the un- dersigned concludes for the reasons hereinbelow that the resolution of that issue is not essential to the dis- position of the Objections In the second paragraph of Appendix A the Union asserts that, absent a collective bargaining agree- ment, the employees have no guarantee of what their wages and benefits might be While the tenor of the letter demonstrates the Union's desire to sway em- ployee emotion in its favor, the undersigned con- cludes that this introductory passage puts the em- ployees on notice that should the Union lose the election, no one could predict with precision how wages and benefits might be altered In succeeding paragraphs the Union similarly points out that whatever changes in benefits may STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 569 have been promised or rumored, there were no guar- antees of what would actually occur In this light, the document fails to carry the strength required for a fording that threats were made to the employees to coerce them into voting for the Union Rather, the statements are mere predictions of events beyond the Union's capacity to effect The bulk of the letter, relating to pension and health and welfare benefits, like most campaign pro- paganda, paints a biased picture The statements made therein would have the employees believe that only through the Union's intervention could they re- ceive the fruits of their labor in bounteous propor- tions, while conversely, absent the Union's interven- tion, they would receive but scraps at the whim of the Employer While common sense and experience may not enable employees to precisely know the accura- cies or inaccuracies of the information in such a doc- ument, they are certainly able to identify the publica- tion for the propaganda it is and discount it If anything be gained by a publication which over- states the virtues of one party and the vices of anoth- er, it is all but lost as the reader attributes to it a diminishing degree of credibility The undersigned concludes that the complained-of letter contains no more than campaign propaganda of the type the Board has long left to the good sense of the voters to sift through and evaluate When the document is easily discerned as propaganda, as here is the case, the Board has held the exaggerations, in- accuracies and half-truths, though not condoned, will not be grounds for setting aside an election Modine Manufacturing Company, 203 NLRB 527, Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 221, Calcor Corp, 106 NLRB 539 Inasmuch as the letter mailed by the Union to the employees did not contain any remarks which could be interpreted as threats within the Union's power to carry out, and as it falls within the scope of campaign propaganda which the Board has consistently held as an insufficient basis for the setting aside of an elec- tion, the undersigned concludes that it is unnecessary to establish that the Employer has a reasonable amount of time within which to effectively reply Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc, supra In accordance with the foregoing, it is recommend- ed that the Objections be overruled in their entirety The Challenged Ballots The ballots of Dwayne Jarvi and John Begert were challenged by the Employer on the grounds that they were not employees on the date of the election The ballot of Jim English was challenged by the Union on the ground that he was no longer an em- ployee on the date of the election, the ballot of Mon- ty Warden was challenged by the Union on the ground that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act The ballots of Bally Joe Jackson, Roger Van Dyke and Kelly Evers were challenged by the Board Agent as their names did not appear on the voter eligibility list The Strike Issue The Employer takes the position that Jarvi, Jack- son and Begert participated in an economic strike which ceased prior to the election, that they had all been permanently replaced prior thereto and that be- tween the end of the strike and the election date they abandoned their interest in employment with the Employer The Union contends that the three above-named individuals were economic strikers up until Septem- ber 4, 1975, when the strike was terminated, and the individuals, having been permanently replaced, re- tamed their eligibility to vote in the election The facts with respect to the strike are not in dis- pute Following a bargaining history in excess of 30 years, the most recent collective bargaining agree- ment between the parties expired on May 31, 1975 No agreement on a new contract having been reached, the employees commenced an economic strike on June 24, 1975 The strike continued throughout June, July and August 1975 Beginning on about August 26, 1975, the Employer commenced hiring permanent strike replacements and on September 3, 1975, several of the striking em- ployees returned to work notwithstanding the contin- ued presence of the Union's picket line On approxi- mately September 3 or 4, 1975, the Union ceased picketing and attempted to finalize a collective bar- gaining agreement with the Employer While no agreement was reached on the contract, the parties did agree that the strikers who had not been replaced could report to work on September 8, 1975 The Union took the position that the strikers who had been replaced would return as well On September 8 and 9, 1975, most of the strikers including Jarvi and Jackson, reported to the Employer's mill Jarvi and Jackson, along with a few other employees, were immediately notified by the Employer that they had been permanently replaced As Begert was out of town that week, he did not report to the mill, nevertheless, he was immediately notified by the Employer by letter that he also had been permanently replaced The uncontroverted evi- dence reveals that prior to September 3, 1975, the positions previously held by those three employees were filled by permanent replacements 570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inasmuch as the parties had agreed that the strik- ers would report to work on September 8, 1975, and as the Employer informed Jarvi, Jackson and Begert that they had been permanently replaced and would be called to work as openings occurred, the Employ- er acknowledged, and the undersigned concludes, that the Union made an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of these individuals Dwayne Jarvi Prior to the strike, Jarvi was employed as a mill- wright on the Employer's general construction and maintenance crew In that position he performed work primarily for construction, but also for mainte- nance on the various machines and equipment in the mill The evidence reveals that during the week of Sep- tember 5, 1975, the millwright position on the Employer's barker machine became open as the for- mer millwright had successfully bid into another po- sition The millwright position on the barker was posted for bid in the plant and the Union was thus notified Within a day or two Jarvi returned to the plant and asked plant manager Bud Keeney if there was an opening for a millwright Keeney responded that the millwright on the barker was up for bid but that there were no openings on the construction and maintenance crew Jarvi inquired as to whether there would be a mill- wright opening on the construction crew in the near future According to Keeney, he responded that he could not state when there might be such an opening and he suggested to Jarvi that he bid on the job that was then open Jarvi testifies he was aware that the previous millwright on the barker had acquired elec- trical training and certification while on the job, and since Jarvi had no electrical experience, he asked Keeney if the job required it According to Jarvi, Keeney responded yes, but Keeney claims to have responded that it was not a requirement Following this disputed portion of the conversation Keeney did tell Jarvi that he would see to it that Jarvi received electrical schooling Jarvi responded that he would prefer to take his chances and wait for an opening to occur on the general construction and maintenance crew The millwright job on the barker was the same classification held previously by Jarvi, had the same rate of pay, and Jarvi was either totally or partially qualified to perform the job Assuming that Jarvi lacked required electrical experience, it is undisputed that the Employer offered to send him to school, and Jarvi understood he could be awarded the job under those conditions As no qualified employee bid on the job, the Employer immediately sought out one of the millwrights on the construction and maintenance crew, Steven Allen, and transferred him to the barker position Allen has no electrical experience or train- ing The Employer has chosen to leave the position vacated by Allen on the construction and mainte- nance crew unfilled until business conditions war- rant It is the Employer's position, and the undersigned concludes from the evidence submitted, that the Em- ployer, by its suggestion to Jarvi that he bid on the barker job and by its offer to send him to school while performing that work, considered Jarvi suffi- ciently qualified for the position The evidence cer- tainly indicates that Jarvi was as qualified as Allen Normally the posting of ajob for bid would not nec- essarily be the same as a direct offer of the position, however, as no other qualified employees bid on the job, the position would have been Jarvi's had he availed himself of the bidding procedure The undersigned concludes that inasmuch as the barker job was substantially equivalent to the posi- tion previously held by Jarvi and as the facts present- ed are tantamount to an offer of that position to Jar- vi, Jarvi's refusal to bid on the job was no less than a rejection of an offer of reinstatement The undersigned thus finds that Jarvi was not an eligible voter, and it is recommended that the chal- lenge to his ballot be sustained Billy Joe Jackson Prior to the strike, Jackson occupied the position of driver on the Employer's large lift truck on the day shift at a rate of $4 70 per hour As referred to above, Jackson was permanently replaced prior to Septem- ber 3, 1975, and was so notified on September 8, 1975 Subsequent to that time neither his position as driver of the large lift truck nor an equivalent posi- tion has become available No other positions have been directly offered to him by the Employer On approximately the last day of June 1975, Jack- son obtained employment at a mill in Portland, ap- proximately 30 miles from his residence in the com- munity of Forest Grove He began working in a general laborer classification as a "puller" on the "green chain" at a rate of $4 80 per hour Near the end of July 1975, he was promoted to the position of driver of a "966 Cat" log mover on the night shift at the rate of $6 41 per hour The investigation reveals that Jackson did not notify Stimson of his employ- ment with the Portland mill, and Jackson testifies that he has retained his desire to return to work at Stimson because of its proximity to his residence STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 571 Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Jackson has abandoned his interest in his employment with the Employer, and as the Board has held that the acqui- sition of substantially equivalent employment else- where is insufficient in and of itself to establish such abandonment, the undersigned concludes that Jack- son has retained his eligibility to vote in the election notwithstanding the cessation of the strike prior thereto Akron Engraving Company, Inc, 170 NLRB 232, Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company, 137 NLRB 1358, see also L E M, Inc d/b/a Southwest En- graving Co, 198 NLRB 694 Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled John Begert Prior to the strike Begert was employed by the Em- ployer in the capacity of driver of a "966 Cat " The wage rate for that position following September 1, 1975, was $6 115 per hour After having been informed by the Employer's let- ter that he was permanently replaced, Begert did not go to the plant to seek reemployment On two or three occasions following September 8, 1975, the Em- ployer notified Begert that there were openings for laborers in the plant and that if he was interested, he should so notify the Company Begert testifies that he was not interested in a laborer's job which paid only $5 04 an hour and so he did not respond to the Employer's initial letter After the second or third such letter Begert called the Employer and stated that since he had worked for the Employer for almost 22 years, he felt he was enti- tled to his old job back and he did not feel required to begin at a laborer's rate The investigation reveals that the Employer made no offers of employment to Begert following the strike except for those with the laborer rate On approximately December 18, 1975, Begert be- gan working for Forest Grove Lumber Company, lo- cated in Forest Grove He has remained employed there to date in the classification of lumber carrier driver at a rate of $5 455 per hour Begert has never informed Stimson Lumber Company of his current employment, nor has he indicated to Stimson an abandonment of his desue for reemployment Begert testifies that he has retained his desire for reemploy- ment at Stimson Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Begert has rejected an offer of substantially equivalent employ- ment with the Employer, and as the mere acceptance of employment elsewhere is insufficient to establish that he has abandoned his interest in reemployment, the undersigned concludes that Begert has retained his eligibility to vote in the election Dalton Sheet Metal Company, Inc, supra, Akron Engraving Compa- ny, Inc, supra Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge to his ballot be overruled Roger Van Dyke and Kelly Evers The Employer contends that Van Dyke and Evers are eligible to vote in that theirjob classifications are not specifically excluded from the stipulated overall unit The Union contends that the two individuals have never been employed within the appropriate collective bargaining unit and, therefore, are ineligi- ble to vote Van Dyke and Evers have been employed by the Employer for about two years each, in their re- spective positions of assistant to the log scaler and assistant to the contract logging supervisor The par- ties agree and the evidence establishes that neither Van Dyke nor Evers were ever covered by the collec- tive bargaining agreement between the parties which coincides with the description cited hereinabove They have never been members of the Union even though the contract contained a union security clause, nor have they been paid wages in accordance with the contractual wage scales Neither the Union nor the Employer had ever sought to have Van Dyke or Evers included in the contractual bargaining unit nor had either individual sought to be so included prior to the election The Employer did not place the names of Van Dyke or Evers on the voter eligibility list for the instant elec- tion Van Dyke With respect to Van Dyke's position as assistant to the log scaler, he is one of the two indi- viduals whose job it is to inspect and grade incoming logs and to set the price which the Employer will pay and seller will receive The log scaler, Robert Hayes, has similarly never been included in the bargaining unit nor covered by the collective bargaining agree- ment As between Hayes and Van Dyke, it is Hayes who has the expertise and discretion necessary to act as he does in setting a fair price for the incoming timber so as to strike a balance between protecting the Employer's interests and satisfying a necessary sup- plier In such a position Hayes acts in the interest of the Employer in matters directly affecting the Employer's financial and business relationships with suppliers, and indirectly affecting the Employer's en- tire profit structure Inasmuch as Van Dyke and Hayes are the only two individuals involved in this particular area of the Employer's business and as the evidence indicates 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the nature of their work is closely related to and integrated with managerial procurement functions rather than the production of the logging, sawmill and veneer plant operations referred to in the stipu- lated unit, the undersigned finds substantial evidence to indicate that neither individual is employed within the collective bargaining unit This conclusion is bol- stered by the uncontroverted evidence that for what- ever reason, neither the Employer nor the Union has ever contended or considered them to be within the unit until after Van Dyke voted and was challenged in the election Based upon the foregoing and the evidence as a whole, the undersigned concludes that Van Dyke was not employed within the bargaining unit on the crit- ical dates herein Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenges to his ballot be sustained Evers Kelly Evers' status as assistant to the con- tract logging supervisor is analogous to that of Van Dyke The job of Stanley Olson, contract logging su- pervisor, is to oversee the cutting of timber by non- Stimson employees on non-Stimson property in or- der to ensure that it is being cut to proper lengths and to minimize the amount of waste left on a given parcel of land Since a good deal of the timber pro- cessed by Stimson is purchased as standing timber from outside suppliers, it is essential to the profitabil- ity of the operation that the Employer exercise some control during the felling process Thus, while Olson does not supervise any Stimson employees, he exer- cises supervisory control over the contractors who are felling the timber and in so doing uses his inde- pendent judgment in the interest of the Employer Evers was hired for the express purpose of taking some of the work load off Olson Evers performs the same function as does Olson except he exercises less control The vast majority of Evers' time is spent in the field examining and inspecting the work per- formed by the non-Stimson employees in the felling of the timber referred to above If he discovers exces- sive waste, or logs cut to improper lengths, it is his function to report his findings to Olson who is to remedy the situation On occasion Evers is called upon to do some ma- chine repair work on Stimson road building equip- ment which has broken down in the general area of the woods where Evers is working Additionally, Ev- ers is occasionally called into the shop to do similar repair work if it cannot be handled in the field This repair work, representing only a minor portion of Ev- ers' work time, is the only time when he comes in contact with other Stimson employees during the course of his employment Like the nature of the scaling and grading opera- tion discussed above, the undersigned concludes that inspection and quality control of the contracted fell- ing operation involves duties and responsibilities which do not clearly fall within the instant collective bargaining unit Olson and Evers are authorized to make judgments and decisions affecting the Employer's relations to its contract log suppliers While it might even be that the functions are mana- gerial, such a determination is not necessary here As it is clear that the duties, responsibilities, and situs involved in the contract logging operation are separate and distinct from the Employer's own log- ging, sawmill and veneer plant operation, and as the parties have historically never sought to include Ol- son and Evers in the collective bargaining unit, the undersigned concludes that Evers was not employed in the appropriate collective bargaining unit during the critical period herein Accordingly, it is recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained [Regional Director's Appendix A] January 2, 1976 Dear Sir and Brother The National Labor Relations Board election sched- uled for Thursday, January 8, 1976, commencing at 3 00 p in in the plywood building, will have a dra- matic effect on you as employees of Stimson Lumber Company, and, of course, your family as well, since they are dependent on the wages and benefits you earn The issue to be decided on January 8th is really quite simple It is whether you want those wages and bene- fits guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement between the company and your union, or whether you are willing to rely on company promises made in an attempt to destroy what has been your union for 38 years This, of course, has not been the first time Stimson Lumber Company has attempted to dislodge the union One can only imagine at what a miserably low level your wages and fringes would be today if the company had been successful years ago in their at- tempt to break the union The company, through their stooges, who are known to you, as well as me, claim they would provide another union Three of the company's lackeys did, in fact, contact both the IWA and the AWPPW, who immediately advised us of the contact They, of course, would have nothing to do with it, since no respectable union would at- tempt to represent employees of a company under terms and conditions laid down by that company through their lackeys STIMSON LUMBER COMPANY 573 Now the company's message carriers reportedly claim the company has changed their mind and de- cided you don't need a union at all The company's plan of deceit is so preposterous and clumsily execu- ted that it fools no one except a handfull of quislings and misinformed individuals who would probably be the first to suffer termination if the company were to be successful We know that the company plans to write several letters to you prior to the election date They know it is illegal, under the Labor Act, for them to make implied or actual threats or offers of reward or finan- cial inducement if you vote the way they wish In- stead, they have elected to do it through their same handful of pitifully misinformed dupes As an example, these individuals have floated a level of benefit health and welfare plan through the plant, claiming the company would put it into effect if the union were voted out Who says so' And more im- portant, what contract guarantees it? With respect to pension they have shown a TO C non-union pen- sion program which the same pitifully, misinformed group claims the company would put into effect Same question-who says so, and what collective bargaining agreement guarantees it9 In the area of health and welfare and pension, be- cause of the highly legalistic language, it is not hard to fool people into believing almost anything, and the company, of course, knows this Did you know, for example, the health and welfare plan which the company's appointed messengers are circulating, re- quire that you must pay your own premium if you are sick, injured, or laid off, and will allow you to do that for only four months Your union plan pays your premium for you out of trust funds for three months if you are laid off and 27 months if you are sick or injured Did you know that under the same plan being advanced by the company stooges, if the experience is good the company gets all the rebates which go directly into their pocket Remember health and welfare premiums are actually converted wage money Under the union health and welfare plan, if the experience is good and there are rebates, those rebates go directly into the trust fund and come back to you in the form of additional health and welfare benefits The real danger to you, however, lies in the area of pension You know the pension benefits which are provided by the union-negotiated pension program because you have seen fellow employees retire under it and most of you know the benefits are well-funded through a contractually required 33 cent per hour employer contribution But what do you really know about the T 0 C non-union pension program being advanced by the company' Did you know for example, that you cannot dupli- cate past service credits under that plan, contrary to what you have been told by the company? Are you aware that if you went under the non-union plan that all the years since 1961, which are paid for at $12 00 a year under our union plan, would be paid at $5 00 a year as a past service benefit under the employer, non-union plan9 And even more important, what do you know about the funding of the non-union plan, which is controlled by Timber Operators Council board of directors? Under this type and kind of non-negotiated pension plan, many employees who had earned benefits on paper, found that there was no money available to pay the benefits because the companies were paying interest only on the unfunded liability and paying nothing in some years with more in other years, de- pending on what gave them the best tax advantage And of course, without a union or a collective bar- gaining agreement, there is no assurance the compa- ny would put in a pension plan at all In talking to the officers and committeemen of your union, we feel that most of you have decided how you intend to vote next Thursday I would only ask that before you exercise your vote, you take some time and consider some of the questions I have raised, and consider what kind of company Stimson Lumber Company has been over the years, and in light of that, consider where you would have been with respect to your wages and benefits had your union not always been there, whatever you as an in- dividual may think of it I urge all of you to vote on Thursday, and sincerely believe those of you that take time to consider the questions which have been raised, both pro and con, will vote to retain the union Fraternally yours, WESTERN COUNCIL Lumber, Production and Industrial Workers /s/ James S Bledsoe Executive Secretary