culties within the union itself seriously undermined the Wisconsin organization and at the present time, only the lumberjacks of two or three large companies are organized. The Union has no collective bargaining contracts in Wisconsin and it has bera too weak to consider state-wide bargaining. One of the major difficulties that has confronted the Union in its bargaining has been the consistent objection of various large companies to the requirements of higher wages and better working conditions imposed by the Union contracts These companies have contended that they could not long maintain these wages while certain other powerful companies in the Upper Peninsula were not under union contract. They have insisted that proper collective bargaining would cover all the large competing lumber companies in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Another serious problem frequently has been raised in demands by the companies that the Union majority be proven each time there is a request to bargain The reason for this demand is that there is a very rapid turnover of labor in the camps. The lumberjack remains in one camp, on the average, for a period of thirty (30) days and then will move on to some other camp usually in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. However, when there is a greater demand for lumberjacks either in Minnesota or Wisconsin, a considerable number of lumberjacks move from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to those areas, and vice versa. In recent years, there has been a large seasonal movement of Wisconsin farmETS and agricultural laborers to Michigan lumber camps during the winter. During the 1937 strike in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, quite a few lumberjacks were brought in to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from Minnesota and Wisconsin.) Thus, the question of majority at the time of request for bargaining is constantly raised by the management and there is a serious legal question with respect to the time limit of informal Board certification of majority. The large number of units in the lumber industry which are eligible to particpate in collective bargaining have imposed an almost insurmountable obstacle in the path of the Union in its effort to obtain stability and uniformity in its contracts. There can be little doubt that if the bargaining with respect to all major points, such as wages, hours, and standard camp conditions, could be carried on between the Union and a commmittee representing all the lumber e mpanies and empowered by these lumber companies to arrive at an agreement, this would be to the advantage of the lumberjacks as well as to the advantage of those lumber companies who are presently under union contract. For this reason, it is the opinion of the Union officials that many of the large companies would support their contention with respect to a state unit. For the same reason, they believe that most of the large companies, not now under contract, would oppose bargaining on a state-wide basis. There has been in existence for many years an organization known as the Northern Hardwood and Hemlock Manufacturing Association. Most of the companies listed in the petition are members of this Association. The Association keeps statistics on lumber production, wage rates, standardization of methods of lumber manufacture, etc. However, this Association has never been authorized to bargain for any of its members with any labor union. On March 2, 1939, a conference was held in Minneapolis between Mr. Mett, Mr. Kamaroff, Mr. Shields, and Mr. Loevinger, for the Board, and Mr. Tomberg and Mr. Van Nordstrand, for the Union. This conference was for the purpose of discussing both the Minnesota petition, XVIII-R-170, and the Michigan petition, XII-R-187. The consensus of opinion at this conference was that it would be very difficult to establish a state-wide unit on the basis of the facts available. Tomberg and Van Nordstrand further explained that, should an investigation be made and hearing held which would result in a dismissal of the petitions, it would do untold damage to the Union, for during the investigation. many companies would undoubtedly refuse to bargain, pointing to the Unions contention that the appropriate unit was a state-wide unit. They, therefore, asked us not to interview the various companies and associations concerned in these petitions unless there was a strong possibility that the Board would find the state-wide unit as an appropriate unit. It was agreed that memoranda would be sent to you, describing, in a preliminary fashion, both the Minnesota and Michigan situations for the purpose of obtaining an opinion from you on the question of the appropriate unit. Unless there is a very strong likelihood that the Board will find that the unit alleged by the Union is the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Union will request permission to withdraw its petition. I would appreciate your personal consideration of this matter. IK: VM JOHN G. SHOTT. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 350-D To: John G. Shott, Robert Wiener. APRIL 5, 1939. Subject: The Northern Hardwood and Hemlock Mfg. Ass'n. et al., XVIII-R-170, XII-R-187. Mr. Shott's memorandum of April 1 on XII-R-187 has received our consideration. There is no precedent in a Board decision for any unit wider than the employer unit except in the case of circumstances such as are outlined in the Board's decisions in the Matter of Mobile Steamship Association, 8 N. L. R. B. No. 160 and Matter of Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast, et al., 7 N. L. R. B., No. 1002. In other words, there must be a history of collective bargaining by an association or by a group of employers wider than an employer unit and the union in question, together with other factors which you will find set forth clearly in the Board's decision in those cases. Under these circumstances, I suggest you have the union withdraw the petitions in these cases and file individually. The question of labor turnover is a difficult one and I sympathize with the union's position. The Board's decision in the Matter of F. E. Booth & Company, et al., 10 N. L. R. B., No. 137, would seem to be the governing formula in this matter, although, of course the Board would have to make decisions on petitions on individual companies according to the facts developed at hearing. is B. M.S. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 350-E INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APRIL 12, 1939. To: Mr. Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Robert J. Wiener, Director, 18th Region. Subject: Timber Industry of Minnesota, Case No. XVIII-R-170. We have received from the union a request to withdraw their petition in the above matter, without prejudice. A copy is enclosed. In line with your memorandum of recent date, and the memorandum received from Mrs. Stern, it is recommended that this request be granted. Sincerely, RJW:lb ene. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 350-F APRIL 19, 1939. Re: The Northern Hardwood and Hemlock Manufacturers Association, et al. Mr. JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director, Milwaukee, Wisconsin DEAR SIR: This is to request the widthdrawal of the petition in the above matter without prejudice, subject to the approval of the National Labor Relations Board. Yours truly, /s/ MATT SAVOLA, President, Local No. 15, I. Ŵ. A. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 350-G NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 12TH REGION Week ending April 29, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-R-187. Name of company: The Northern Hardwood & Hemlock Manufacturing Assn., et al. Date petition received: Feb. 23, 1939. Date case closed: April 24, 1939. Name of union: International Woodworkers of America, Local #15 CIO Affiliation: CIO. Strike: no. Sections of act involved: 9 (c). Number of workers involved 8,000. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results: Union requested withdrawal of the petition which was granted by the Board of April 24, 1939. Copy of Board's Order Permitting Withdrawal of Petition was served upon the Union. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 351 MILWAUKEE PUBLISHING (Decision and Direction of Election In the Matter of Milwaukee Publishing Ca. and Milwaukee Newspaper Guild, (C. I. O.), Case No. R-953, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 351-A," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 351-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Twelfth Region JANUARY 13, 1939. From: Frederick P. Mett, Acting Regional Director, 12th Region. Our investigation of the Objections of the Milwaukee Newspaper Guild to the conduct of the ballot among the commercial department employees of the Milwaukee Publishing Company held on December 21 and 22, 1938, here at Milwaukee, has just been completed. The investigation conducted by Mr. Wm. R. Consedine, one of the attorneys, reveals no merit to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Objec tions of the Guild. It reveals little, if any, merit to the allegations of paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Objections. Our investigation of the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Objections of the Guild reveals the following: The Charles Fink mentioned in paragraph 2 has been employed by the company for approximately fifteen years. In October, 1958, he was promoted to the position of credit manager, an admittedly executive position. As credit marage, Fink has under his supervision a stenographer, as well as three assistants who make house to house collections for the credit depart ment. Fink was interested in the A. F. of L. Office Workers Union in July, 1938, and at that time actively solicited membership and support for that organization On December 15th, or early on the 16th, Joe Schultz, president of the Preser men's Union (Local No. 22) asked Fink to distribute notices of the Office Workers Union meeting scheduled for the evening of December 16th. Fink advised Schultz at the time that his position prohibited him from engaging in such activity Thereupon, Schultz asked Fink to give the notices to one of the employees of the business and accounting offices. Fink took the notices from Schultz and gave them to one Lynn Ducklow and advised Ducklow that Schultz wanted the not.ces distributed. (All of the business and accounting employees, including the indviduals under Fink, are in one open central office in the building. Ducklow does not work under Fink, but recognizes and has recognized Fink as a supervisort employee of the company.) Ducklow distributed the notice received from Fink on the desks of each of the employees in the business and accounting office during the lunch per od on December 15th or 16th. Furthermore Fink attended the AFL Office Workers' Union meeting held on December 16, 1938. Our investigation of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the objections of the Guild reveals the following: W. M. Thomson is the Business Manager of the Milwaukee Publishing Company working directly under the publisher. He is a high ranking executive of the company. In his report to me, Mr. Consedine states the following: "With respect to the Guild's allegations concerning Thomson, I found no evidence that Thomson informed any employees of the company's desires with respect to the election." That Thomson did refrain from telling any of the company's employees of his desires, I doubt very much. On numerous occasions, Thomson told me that as far as the company was concerned, it did not want any labor organization and that it preferred neither to win on the Commercial Division ballot; that if a labor organization was to be designated as bargaining representative in the Commercial Division, it was his desire that the AFL be designated. I am certain that the employees of the Commercial Division knew Mr. Thomson's and the company's wishes in the matter. Quite true, as Mr. Consedine reports, our investigation reveals no tangible evidence of any publication by Thomson to the employees of his wishes. Thomson admitted talking with individuals who allegedly voluntarily solicited his advice as to their status as eligible voters in the election. Thomson stated that at no time did he attempt to influence the individuals with respect to their choice, but admitted that he did tell certain individuals who advised him that they desired no Union, and who asked whether it was necessary for them to vote, that they should vote and that they should indicate their desire in a place which was provided for on the ballot, namely the "neither" square. Thomson admitted the immediately foregoing to both Consedine and me. When Thomson talked to me about the matter, he stated that there were a great number of employees to whom he gave the advice referred to above. When talking to Consedine, he stated that there were only two cases which definitely came to his mind, but that there might be others. That the company has interfered with the election in the Commercial Division is clear from all of the above. In order that the Board might have a complete picture of our entire investigation of the objections of the Guild to the ballot, I am enclosing herewith carbon copies of all relevant materials in the matter from our files. I recommend that the Board authorize me to issue a Notice of Hearing on the objections of the Guild to the ballot. I feel certain that a hearing will develop more information than is embodied in our rather hasty informal investigation. I believe that the Guild is entitled to a formal and open hearing in the matter. It was the first organization among the company's Commercial Division employees. Today it has some 58 members among such employees. The Office Workers' Union, on the other hand, has only a handful of members, all of whom were obtained very recently. It is my belief that the Officer Workers' Union represented no employees of the company at all, at the time of the hearing, and before, and that they pulled a "squeeze play" in getting on the ballot. I am convinced, although our investigation to date reveals only the above outlined tangible proof of the same, that the company was directly responsible for bringing out the bulk of the 61 votes obtained by the Office Workers' Union in the election. That seems to me to be a just suspicion in view of the negligible membership in the Office Workers' Union, and especially in view of Thomson's philosophy in the matter expressed to me as outlined above. During the latter part of last week, several conferences were held between representatives of the Office Workers' Union and the representatives of the Guild for the purpose of arriving at some agreement for a joint petition to the Board. asking that the Board direct an election with both the Office Workers' Union and the Guild on the ballot, but with "neither" off the ballot, since it was allegedly eliminated by the low vote in its favor, in the election. Present indications are that no agreement for a joint petition will be arrived at. I have fully investigated the possibilities of getting a stipulation for the exclusion of the paper handlers (press room porters) from the Editorial Unit. The company is only too willing to enter into such a stipulation and will do so as soon as the Guild is ready. The Guild has definitely promised me that it will enter into such a stipulation, but stated that it would not do so until the Board acted on its motion for a run-off election between the Office Workers Union and the Guild on the ballot, but with "neither" off the ballot, or in any event if no ruling is had on that motion, until the Board authorizes a hearing on its objections. Guild. This is in no manner meant to imply that there was intent of this nature on the part of the board. However, the facts speak for themselves, and have led to a result that does not represent the free choice of these employes of a union Instead, through a series of maneuvers, a union without a member but having the blessing of the Hearst management has apparently displaced the union which wa the free choice of the employes. Again, let me make it very clear that we are Lot criticizing or analyzing motives. We are, however, pointing to what we must insist were serious mistakes in judgment and highly unfair acts of the Board Yours sincerely, /s/ G. MICKELSEN, Gunnar Mickelsen, Secretary-Treasurer. P. S.-We naturally expect that there will be no certification of the AFL under these circumstances and that a new and properly conducted election will be heat. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 351-G Re: Milwaukee Publishing Co., R-953. MARCH 28, 1939. Secretary-Treasurer, Wisconsin State Industrial Union Council, Room 3114, Plankinton Arcade, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIR: Chairman Madden has asked me to acknowledge your letter of March 17, 1939. Very truly yours, NW; jcb NATHAN WITT, Secretary. (N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 351-H is a duplicate of N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO 351-E.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 351-I APRIL 12, 1939. Mr. GUNNAR MICKELSEN, Secretary-Treasurer, Wisconsin State Industrial Union Council, Room 3114, Plankinton Arcade, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIR: Chairman Madden has asked me to acknowledge your further lette? of April 1, 1939, with reference to the above matter. As to the numbered matters set forth in your letter of March 17, addressed to Chairman Madden, the Board's second supplemental decision and certification of representatives, issued on April 3, 1939, covers several of them. As to the others. the Board is looking into them and you will be further advised. Very truly yours, NATHAN WITT, Secretary. NW/eb N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 351-J APRIL 14, 1939. To: John G. Shott, Director, Twelfth Region. Subject: Milwaukee Publishing Co., Case No. R-953. Attached you will find a letter from Mr. Mickelsen, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State Industrial Union Council. I have already written to Mickele and pointed out that the Board's Second Supplemental Decision and Certificat of Representatives answers some of the matters referred to in his letter. I have also promised that the Board would look into the other matters. I should like you particularly to investiagte the incident referred to in paragraph 3 of Mickelson's letter, in which Hoebreckx is alleged to have suggested to the A. F. of L. business agent that he circulate a petition. I would appreciate other material you may have which would be of assistance in answering Micke sen's letter. ALK:LH |