Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

In the Matter Of WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY, LONGVIEW BRANCH and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS of AiIEitiCA LOCAL UNION No. 36, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Case No. C-1703.- , April 03, 1941 Jurisdiction : lumber industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: employer's refusal to admit union rep- resentatives, upon request of employees, to its camps in which the- employees must live most of the time in itself constitutes a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act ; without regard to the above, employer's exclusion of union rep- resentatives from its camps based upon its hostility to self-organization and collective bargaining by employees through representatives and their activities constitutes a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Discrimination: discharge, charges of, dismissed. Testifying Under the Act: alleged discharge for, dismissed Remedial Orders : employer ordered upon request by one or- more of its em- ployees who live at one or more of its camps, and under lawful and reason- able conditions not more onerous than those imposed on other persons, to admit to such camp or camps representatives of labor organizations. Mr. William A. Babcock, for the Board. Mr. W. E.• Heidinger of Tacoma, Wash., for the respondent. Stevenson cQ Gershon, by Mr. Perry R. Gershon, of Seattle, Wash., and Mr. R. D. Williams of Kelso, Wash., for the Union. Mr. Norman M. Neel, of counsel to the Boars t. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 36, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 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 May 6, 1940, against Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Tacoma, Washington, herein called the respondent, alleg- 31 N. L. R. B. No. 40. 258 r WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 259 ing 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 Rela- tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, amended charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union. The camplaint, as amended at the hearing, alleged in substance that (1) the respondent, on or about November 29, 1939, ejected R. D. Williams, a representative and member of the Union, from its logging camp No. 5, and thereafter refused to' permit him or any other representative of the Union to enter said camp or any of its logging camps for the purpose of giving the respondent's employees assistance, aid, advice, and information in connection with their right to self-organization and to engage'in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining; (2) the respondent, on or about February 12, 1940, discharged Ernest Granstrom, Andy Anderson, Sam Mustoe, and Loren Jennings, and thereafter refused to reinstate them for the reason that they assisted the Union and engaged in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (3) the respondent, on or about November 29, 1939, kept under surveillance at its camp No. 5, a meeting called by the Union; (4) the respondent, on or about May 12, 1940, dis- criminated against the said Granstrom, Anderson, Mustoe and Jen- nings because they filed charges and gave testimony under the Act; and (5) by the afore-mentioned and other acts, the respondent inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in .Section 7 of the Act. On May 13, 1940, the respondent filed its answer, admitting, in substance, the allegations of the complaint 'as to the nature of its business, but denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and making certain affirmative allegations. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Kelso, Washington, on May 23-25, 27, and 29, 1940, and at Longview, Washing on on May 28, 1940, before Thomas H. Kennedy, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to conform to the proof with respect to appearances, names, dates, and- minor formal matters. This motion was granted. Also at this, time, the respondent renewed a motion made during the course of the hearing that the complaint be dismissed. The Trial 441843-42-vol 31-18 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Examiner reserved ruling on this motion and in his Intermediate Re- port, recommended that the motion be denied. . During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Briefs by the respondent and the Union and a reply brief by the respondent were received and considered by the Trial Examiner. On October 5, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on each of the parties to the hear- ing. He found that the respondent had' engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (4) 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 also a brief with the Board. Oral argument before the Board was not requested by any of the parties. The Board has con- sidered the briefs filed- with the Trial Examiner, the exceptions, and the brief filed with it, 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Weyerhaeuser Timber Company is a Washington corporation hav- ing its principal office and place of business in Tacoma, Washington. It operates a lumber manufacturing plant and conducts logging operations at and in the vicinity of Longview, Washington, and in the vicinity of Klamath Falls, Oregon. It operates a sawmill in Everett, Washington, and conducts logging operations at Vail and Melbourne, Washington. The respondent's sawmill and logging operations at and in the vicinity of Longview, Washington, constitute what is known as the respondent's "Longview Branch." Approximately 96 per cent of the logs used by the respondent in its manufacturing operations at its Longview Branch are secured from its logging operations at that branch, and approximately 4 per cent of the logs used in such operations are purchased from other parties in the States of Washington and Oregon.- During the year WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 261 1939, the respondent purchased 16,600,000 feet of logs valued at $234,700, of which 49 per cent were purchased within the State of Oregon and shipped to the respondent's plant in Longview, Washing- ton. During the year 1939, the respondent purchased and used in its Longview Branch materials, supplies, and equipment other than logs, approximating in value $880,000. Approximately 66 per cent of such materials, supplies, and equipment were purchased outside the State of Washington. During the -year 1939, the respondent produced and sold approxi- mately 324,600,000 feet of lumber of the approximate value of $7,600,000, and also produced and sold other products approximating in value $1,060,000. Approximately 87 per cent of said lumber and other products were shipped to points outside the State of Washing- ton. All the lumber produced by the respondent is sold through the agency of Weyerhaeuser Sales Company, a Washington corporation which has offices in Tacoma, Washington, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Newark, New Jersey. The lumber and other products produced by the respondent and sold outside the State of Washington are shipped to points throughout the United States and a small portion to foreign countries. On May 15, 1940, the respondent employed in its Longview Branch approximately 2,721 employees, as follows : sawmill em- ployees, 1,583; shingle mill employees, 89; logging employees, 1,049. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 36, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi- zations. It admits to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Exclusion of union representatives from the logging camps The logging operations of the respondent's Longview Branch are normally conducted at four logging camps supplemented by a head- quarters camp, two construction camps, and a topography camp. The respondent's headquarters camp is the only camp accessible by public highway, the others, with the exceptions of logging camp No. 5 and construction camp No. 102, being accessible only by the respondent's private logging railroads. Camps No. 5 and No. 102 are accessible by automobile over a fire trail and private road on the respondent's property. All the camps with the exception of No. 102, are accessi- ble by the respondent's railroad, and a train runs daily between Long- view and these camps for the purpose of hauling supplies and for 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD miscellaneous purposes. The train usually leaves Longview at about 8 o'clock in the morning, arriving back there between 3 and 9 p. in. The respondent admits in its answer that it is impracticable for its employees to live elsewhere than in the camps while at work. They reside over rather wide areas in the States of Oregon and Washing- ton and are transported on the respondent's trains to Longview, Washington, on Friday evenings where they disperse to their various abodes, and on Sunday evenings, from Longview back to the camps where they board and lodge for the 5-day work week (at the rate of 15 cents per night lodging and 40 cents per meal for board). To be conveyed to the `camps, the men board the train at Longview, West Kelso, headquarters, and at the junction of the Green and North Toutle Rivers. • Before the fall of 1939, the Union had conducted meetings each Friday night in Kelso, Washington. As a consequence, however, of the anxiety of the men, most of whom are married, to reach their homes, the meetings were ill-attended 1 and it was decided, at the instance of the men themselves, to hold sublocal meetings at each of the camps during the week. For the purpose of securing the attendance at these meetings of outside union representatives repeated requests and petitions to the management for passes have been made by such representatives and by the respondent's employees. The functions of such representatives, who keep all the records of the local unions, are to coordinate the activities of the various sublocals, organize, and lend the benefit of experience in bargaining to the individual grievance committees in the conduct of collective bargain- ing with employers. In most of the lumber camps in the northwest there is mutual understanding between management and the em- ployees with respect to access by union representatives for the per- formance of these functions. On or before December 1, 1928, the respondent promulgated a rule with respect to entry upon its premises to the effect that no person not an employee of the respondent would be permitted upon its prop- erty unless in possession of a pass issued by the logging superintendent or other managerial officer and accompanied by the superintendent or by someone designated by him. The rule had its foundation in the existence of a fire hazard in the respondent's woods, and in the existence of danger to the unaware stranger resulting from the logging operations. Although as a consequence of this rule general access to 111 D. Williams, financial secretary and business agent of the Union, testified that out of a membership of some 450 , an average of only 20 members attended the meetings in Kelso as a result of the- general incentive of the men to go home Ted Dokter, president of Grays-Willapa Harbor District Council No. 3 of the International woodworkers of Amer- ica, corroborating this, testified that some of the men traveled by special bus to Portland to their homes and others traveled by automobile to their various homes WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY \ 263 the respondent's woods or camps has been somewhat restricted, the respondent issues passes to many persons. Buyers and sellers of equipment, friends and relatives-of the respondent's officials, public officials, teachers and students on educational tours, retail dealers and customers from all over the United States, and entertainers /for the men, are the usual recipients of passes. Upon the admission of F. C. Baker, logging superintendent, the visits with passes have been numerous and, apparently, they do not occasion an unwillingness on the part of the respondent to provide escort. It is apparent, also, that prior to November 1937, the respondent was not averse to the issuance of passes to union representatives. Baker testified- that rep- resentatives of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., visited the camps on four different occasions in 1935 and twice in November 1937. He testified as follows concerning the reason for cancelling one of the passes issued : Our general manager issued the pass for this man to go to camp. . . . He was supposed to collect dues and conduct meet- ings and get the boys straightened out in their union affairs, but his. first stunt was that he wanted us to change one of the toilets to be a little more convenient for the girls up in the camp. I decided that one man running that outfit up there was enough and that would be me, so we cancelled his pass. In or after November 1937, the respondent initiated a policy of excluding. from. its premises representatives of both the A. F. of L. and the Union, departing from that policy on only one occasion, in April 1939, when it allowed two of the Union's representatives to visit Camp No. on condition that they would not request permission again. In reply to petitions of the men that representatives of the Union be allowed to visit the camps, Baker replied in May 1939, that the results of previous experiences were "far from satisfactory." Baker referred to the request for improved conditions above noted. Sometime before November 29, 1939, several members of the Union requested R. D. Williams, the Union's financial secretary and busi- ness agent, to visit the sublocal of the Union at respondent's Camp No. 5. Pursuant to the request of the union members, Williams drove to a point -approximately a half-mile from the camp and'walked the remaining , distance, arriving at the camp shortly after the conclu- sion of the evening meal. Thereafter he was met by O. M. Aldrich, camp foreman, who inquired whether he was in possession of a pass. Upon receiving a negative reply, Aldrich told Williams he would have to leave, and Williams refused. Aldrich then telephoned Clyde Corman, the respondent's assistant superintendent, at headquarters. 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Corman instructed Aldrich that, if he could not get Williams to leave, he was to remain with him. Aldrich then rejoined Williams and remained in his close proximity at all times that evening until Williams left the camp. After Aldrich had rejoined Williams, the latter proceeded to the recreation hall of the camp where there was being conducted a meet- ing of the sublocal. Aldrich entered the hall and remained in it during the entire meeting. Williams remained in the recreation hall after the business of the meeting had been completed, signing up a new member and arranging for the transfer of another member from another local of the Inter- national Woodworkers of America. Within a few minutes after the meeting had concluded, Clyde Corman, the assistant superintendent, entered the room and demanded of Williams "What are you doing up here, you (obscene word)? Get the hell out of camp you (obscene words)" Williams turned and went to the table and in doing sor bumped Corman with his shoulder. It does not appear, nor is it con- tended, that Williams' contact with'Corman was anything other than accidental. Corman "pushed him around" and took a dues book from his hand and gave it to Art Skirvin, a union member, who-requested it. About fifteen minutes after his entry, Corman, with Aldrich and some other men, offered to escort Williams out of camp. Williams stated he would prefer to go by himself. because he did not trust them. They persisted in accompanying him, however, and after he had induced some of the loggers to go with him and they all had walked five or six hundred yards, they permitted him to continue without escort. The respondent admits the facts relating to this incident sub- stantially as recounted above.2 B. Concluding f ndings with respect to interference, restraint, and coercion By Section 7 of the Act, "employees shall have 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 purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection." Employer interference, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of these rights is-proscribed by Section 8 (1) of the Act. The rights thus guaranteed to employees against impairment by the employer include full freedom to receive aid, advice, and information from others, concerning these rights and 2 The respondent also admits other instances of eviction of union representatives con- tending that it found justification for its conduct in the failure of such representatives to produce passes. WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 265 their enjoyment." Thus, an employer who refused to meet with a committee of employees because it was accompanied by a non-employee thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, (1).4 The issue presented is whether the respondent, under the , circumstances of this case, interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of their right to obtain the aid of union representatives, thereby 'engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1). We are of the opinion that the re- spondent did engage in such unfair labor practices. We note at the outset that the respondent's loggers must live at the camps 5 days in each week, that most of them are married and maintain homes in Widely scattered parts of the States of Wash- ington and Oregon, and that the respondent's exclusion 'of union agents from the camps, in substance, prevents employees from obtain- ing access to these representatives.5 Under these circumstances, the respondent's exclusion of the outside representatives constitutes a serious interference with, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The United States Commission on Industrial Relations found long ago that the most extreme form of domination and control exists in what are known as closed camps, where the employer owns all the land upon which such camps are located and, because of this private ownership, not only exercises control over the local government Cong Rec, May 16, 1935, V. 79, No. 102, pp 7948-7960 , 7967-7970; H. R. Report No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess , 1 p. 16. +N L. R B. v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation . 306 U. S . 240, rev'g in part 98 F. (2d) 375 (C. C. A. 7) and enf 'g as mod. Matter of Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Local 66. 5 N. L. R. B. 930 , cf. the numerous cases in which it has been held an unfair labor prac- tice for an employer to denounce "outside" unions . Authorities in the field of labor rela- tions and economics agree that in our complex industrial society employees must have the right of access to outside counsel, information , and other aid in order to participate effec- tively in the processes of self-organization and collective bargaining . See, for example. Carroll R. Daugherty , Labor Problems in American Industry ( 1938 ), pp. 421-422 ; testi- mony of Paul H. Douglas at Hearinks before the Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. Senate, on S. 2926 , To Create a National Labor Board (74th Cong., 1st Sess ), Part 1, p 208. 6 The respondent contends that the employees have 2 full days on week ends in which they could attend meetings outside the camps with union representatives and it points to meet- ings of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen which are held in Longview on Sundays in support of this contention . It urges that poor attendance at meetings of the Union is merely indicative of a lack of interest therein. These contentions fall in the light of the difference between the living conditions of the loggers and those of the trainmen and the interest in the Union already exhibited by the employees . The majority of the trainmen live in and around Longview and West Kelso . On the other hand , loggers, with less stable conditions of employment , maintain their homes in various places throughout Washington and Oregon Thus, the trainmen , unlike the loggers, are not confronted with the necessity of forbearing their normal home living and ordinary recreational pursuits in order to par- ticipate in the affairs of their union. The interest of the respondent 's employees in the Union and other organizations is well demonstrated by the memberships already obtained under the existing adverse conditions and by the employee petitions that union representa- tives be permitted to visit the camps. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the employees have normal access to union representatives outside the camps or that the em- ployees are not interested in obtaining access to such representatives at the camps. 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but dictates arbitrarily who shall be permitted to come into or pass through such communities.6 The respondent in this case by not permitting union representatives to enter the camps at the request of employees is exercising "domina- tion and control" over the efforts of its employees to engage in 'collective organization and activity, thereby infringing Section 8 (1).7 To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to exempt the respond- ent from the prohibitions of the Act merely because the respondent - . operates a "closed camp." But Congress did not exclude the re- spondent or employers similarly situated from the operation of the Act, by implication or otherwise. Congress- has declared that "the policy of the United States" shall be to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce "by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of repre- sentatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection." If the policy of the Act is to be applied effectively to the respondent, we must, as we do, find that the respondent, by re- fusing to permit outside representatives to enter its camps at the request of employees, has engaged and is engaging in unfair -labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) 8 Moreover, without regard to whether a refusal to admit union representatives, upon request of employees, to the-respondent's camps in which the employees must live most of the time in, itself estab- lishes a violation of the Act, we are satisfied that such refusal by the ° The Report of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations , 1915, "Industrial Conditions in Isolated Communities," pp 78, 79. ' The respondent seeks to justify this interference with its employees ' self-organization upon the ground of its right to control its property, but it is now well established that such rights are subject to the paramount authority of the Act See, for example , N. L. R. B. V. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp , 301 U. S . 1, where the Supreme Court of the United States held as follows : Respondent asserts its right to conduct its business in an orderly manner without being subject to arbitrary restraints. What we have said points to the fallacy of this argument. Employees have their correlative right to organize for the purpose of se- curing the redress of grievances and to promote agreements with employers relating to rates of pay and conditions of work. Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, supra [281 U. S. 548 ] ; Virginian Railway Co . v. System Federation, No. 40 [300 U . S. 515]. Restraint for the purpose of preventing an unjust interference with ' that right cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious. Compare Art Metal Construction , Co. v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 148 ( C. C. A. 2 ), where the Second Circuit, per Learned Hand , J, said : if, the argument runs, he [the employer] is forced to make it a term of any oral agreement that it shall be put into writing, he loses that absolute freedom in negotiation which he had at common law , and which Congress meant to preserve to him. . . . But be is no longer wholly free anyway ; before the act he was not obliged to bargain with his employees collectively-; he was at liberty to refuse to negotiate with them at all, or otherwise than severally . The act impaired that freedom ; it meant to give to the employees whatever advantage they would get from collective pressure upon their employer ; and the question here is what are the fair implications of that grant. They should include whatever is reasonably appropriate to protect it. . . . ° Of course , the grant of passes to union representatives may be subject to reasonable regulations . See infra,--p. 9 WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 267 respondent in this case constitutes unfair labor practices inasmuch as it is based on hostility to the right of employee to organize and act collectively with the assistance of union representatives. Thus, al- though the respondent grants permits to a wide variety of persons who are not engaged in assisting union activity, it withholds them from union agents. The only reasonable explanation for this dis- crimination is that the respondent is seeking to isolate the employees from contact with outside representatives. The manner in which the respondent ejected Williams also reveals its hostility to union rep- resentatives and constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. Finally, the record establishes affirmatively the respondent's unlawful motive in excluding union representatives from its camps. It will be recalled that the respondent formerly permitted union representa- tives to enter the camps and that it discontinued this practice because a representative presented a grievance in behalf of the employees. Under these circumstances, we find that the respondent excluded union representatives from its camps because of its hostility to them and their activity. We find that the respondent discontinued its practice of issuing passes to union representatives and excluded them from its camps in order to impede the processes of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of the employees' own choosing. We find further that the respondent, by refusing to grant passes to representatives of labor organizations in order that such representa- tives might perform the essential functions of aiding the employees in their self-organization and other activities, and by the manner in which, it evicted Williams, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. C. The discharges The complaint alleged and the answer denied that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Samuel Mustoe, Lorenzo Jennings, Ernest Granstrom, and Andrew Peter Anderson. The Trial Examiner found that it had so dis- criminated and the respondent takes exception thereto. Mustoe, Jennings, Granstrom, and Anderson were discharged` on February 11, 1940, the stated reason being "for refusal to go to work" on February 9, 1940. The discharge slips contained recommenda- tion for reinstatement in another camp after 90 days and they have since been reinstated. The record discloses that during times of high wind the iEspond- ent considered it too dangerous to Work; that it allowed its employees a reduction in the price of their meals in the camps on such days; 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that it had become concerned about the frequency with which the men remained in camp on their own initiative and took advantage of this reduction ; and that several days prior to February 9, it had denied the reduction to those who did not go out to the scene of operations to ascertain the actual condition of the weather there. Although several other employees remained in camp on the morning of February 9, and were not discharged, the record shows, as the respondent contends, that the four men in question were aware of a foremen's express instruction that they were expected to work. The respondent asserts that it discharged them as a disciplinary measure because it believed their conduct to be deliberate disobedience. It does not appear that the four men were more active in union affairs than other employees who were not discharged. They have since been reinstated in accordance with the recommendations in their discharge slips. Under these circumstances, we find that the record does i of sup- port the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discrimi- nated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Samuel Mustoe, Lorenzo Jennings, Ernest Granstrom, and Andrew Peter Anderson, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization. The complaint also alleges that respondent refused to reemploy these men because they filed charges and gave testimony under the Act. The only evidence in support of this allegation was an asser- tion of H. E. Morgan, manager of the Longview Branch of the respondent, while on the stand, that the respondent would not con- sider the reemployment of the four men "while the complaint is undisposed of . . . until we are either found guilty or cleared of the charge of unfair practice." The respondent, however, did, in fact reemploy them at the. conclusion of the hearing and before the disposition of the complaint. Upon the entire record, we find" that the respondent did not discriminate against them within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECr 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) of the Act, we must order the respondent, pursuant to the mandate of WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 269 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- organization 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 commis- sion in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the past.9 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make effective 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 must 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 has unlawfully excluded union representatives from its camps. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent, upon request of one or more of its employees who stay at one or more of such camps, and under lawful and reasonable conditions not more onerous than those imposed on other persons, to'admit to such camp or camps repre- sentatives of labor organizations.'0 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: CoNCLusIONS of LAW 1. International Woodworkers of America, Local Union No. 36, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the 9 See N L R B v Empress Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 10 Matter of Waterman Steamship Corporation and National Maritime Union of America, Engine Division, Mobile Branch, Mobile, Alabama, 7 N. L R. B 237, enf'd Waterman 'Steamship Corporation V. National Labor Relations Board , 309 U S 206, rev'g 103 F (2d) 157 (C. C. A 5) ; Matter of South Atlantic Steamship Company of Delaware and National Maritime Union of America, 12 N. L. R B. 1367 ; Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District No. 23, 10 N. L R. B. 88, enf'd as mod., N. L. R. B v. West Kentucky Coal Co., 116 F. ( 2d) 816 (C C. A. 6) ; Matter of American- West African Lines, Inc, and Maritime Engineers' Beneficial Association , 21 N •L R B. 691; Matter of Harlan Fuel Company and United Mine Workers of America, District 19, 8 N L R B. 25; Matter of Seas Shipping Company, Inc. and National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, 4 N. L R'B. 757 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent has engaged in and is•engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor • practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. • 4. The respondent did not discharge or refuse to reinstate Samuel Mustoe, Lorenzo Jennings, Ernest Granstrom, or Andrew Peter Anderson in violation of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above 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 re- spondent,' Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, Tacoma Washington, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of their 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 purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request by one or more of its employees who live at one or more of the respondent's camps, and under lawful and reason- able conditions not more onerous than those imposed on other per- sons, to admit to such camp or camps representatives of labor organizations ; (b) Post immediately in conspicuous places on its property and in its camps 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 inthe conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative 'action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order; (c) 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that _the complaint, as amended, in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (4) of the Act, be and it hereby is dismissed.