Y M. MADDEN, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-R APRIL 22, 1937. United Bro. of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2573, Labor Temple, Marshfield, Ore. EAR MR. MADDEN: Received your letter and also arbitration agreement; letters of complaint. Please advise at once the name of the union involved address. am writing today to the employer informing him that I would like to have version of the matter. As stated in my previous letter, I am not certain my rd will permit me to arbitrate, but I have wired them today stating I would object to acting individually. he agreement indicates that the strike is being called off pending my decision. ise advise if I am correct in this assumption. ARLES W HOPE, NLRB 19th Regn Seattle. Re Port Orford Cedar Company Board thinks you are too busy to be able to e time to arbitrate suggest you designate arbitrator. NATIONAL LABOR REL BD., N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-T [Telegram] APRIL 24 1937 HAS. HOPE, NLRB Fed. Off. Bd., Seattle. Re letter the twenty second instant I notified the company April the sixteenth > forward you their version they informed me they would stop strike called off fter company signed statement copy of which I enclosed in my letter Sawmill nd Timber Workers Local 2573 Marshfield involved stop address Roy Price ecy Labor Temple. P Madden Marshfield wires re letter the twenty second instant. I notified the company April sixteenth to forward you their version they informed me they would stop strike called off after company signed statement copy of which I enclosed in my letter Sawmill and Timber Workers Local Twenty five Seventy three Marshfield involved stop address Roy Price Secy Labor Temple unquote (balance not relevant this case). LOVEJOY. NATL. LBR. REL. BD. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-V 19th Regn., Fed. Off. Bg., Seattle, Wn. (Att: Mr. Chas. W. Hope, Director.) PORT ORFORD CEDAR CO., Marshfield Oregon, April 29, 1937. GENTLEMEN: Yours of the 22nd was received during my absence from the office, hence the delay in replying. This strike or walk-out arose from the discharge of a fireman from this plant. by the name of John A. Prentice. This man's duties included the washing of one boiler during each week end. Our mill closes at 5 o'clock on Friday night and the boiler does not have to be back on the line until Monday morning. One other boiler is always in operation, which takes care of the kilns and steam for the pump. An inspection of the boiler after it had warped and bulged revealed from 1 to 6 inches of sediment in the bottom of the boiler, which caused this damage. This boiler was supposed to have been washed by Mr. Prentice some 8 or 10 days prior to the date we had the trouble but it was apparent that the sediment found in the boiler had been accumulating over a considerable period of time. Some time prior to this the other boiler was discovered by us to be in somewhat the same condition; but this discovery was made in time to prevent any serious damage. Mr. Prentice had also washed this boiler, as he has been doing for the past two or two and one-half years. It was not the intention in the agreement made with our negotiating committee, with reference to this matter, that the question be left to an individual but rather to the Labor Board. We feel that there is no question as to the negligence of Mr. Prentice, not only from the facts and evidence presented by the superintendent and other employees and Mr. Prentice's own statement, but also from the statements made to myself by the boiler inspector for the insurance company as well as statements made to the negotiating committee by the general inspector of the Oregon Bureau of Labor. We would have no objection to submitting this dispute to you as an individua! but there was a contention that the grievance committee called our employees out on account of "discriminating against a union man." I have been advised that all of our employees are union men and have been for some time. I would, therefore, prefer that if this is the claim of the local union or the employees of our plant, that it be determined whether this is correct and officially passed on by the Board. On the other hand, if it is found that this man neglected his duties, we believe we are within our rights in discharging him and we also believe that the Labor Board should also officially render their decision accordingly. The writer will be in San Francisco next week but will return about May 10th. The hearing could be held at any time thereafter or as soon as we can secure one or two witnesses that are out of town. Mr. Chas. H. McCulloch of Carey, Hart, Spencer & McCulloch, with offices in the Yeon Bldg., Portland, Oregon, will represent us, if this matter comes to a hearing and if there should be a definite date set for the hearing, we would appreciate your advising Mr. McCulloch accordingly. Personally we believe that our employees are satisfied that they were hasty in their walkout and they are satisfied that there was no discrimination against Mr. Prentice or any other union man, and that he was negligent in his duties, as they immediately returned to work and seem to be perfectly satisfied. However, we want to be absolutely fair to Mr Prentice and if he was not negligent and the sediment accumulated in this boiler through no fault of his own, then we are as anxious to know it as anyone and will reinstate Mr. Prentice as agreed with the negotiating committee. Yours very truly, EH/AT PORT ORFORD CEDAR Co. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-W MAY 3, 1937. Mr. E. HARRINGTON, Port Orford Cedar Co., Marshfield, Oregon. DEAR MR. HARRINGTON: I do not quite understand your letter, inasmuch as you agreed to submit the matter to me for decision. All I can do is to inform the union of your wishes and advise them that they have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to file a charge alleging a violation. If my investigation discloses that there is a sound basis for a hearing, then one will be held after the government issues its complaint against the company. On May 3rd I will advise the union of the substance of your letter and will be guided by their decision. t is my understanding, however, that the strike was called off on the condition t the matter would be arbitrated. If I am wrong in this contention, Please ise me, Very truly yours, CWH/H CHARLES W. HOPE, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-X MAY 3, 1937. r. PERCY M. MADDEN, Labor Temple, Marshfield, Oregon. DEAR MR. MADDEN: Received today a letter from Mr. Harrington, copy of ich is attached hereto. I am enclosing charge blanks which you may use if you feel inclined to file same. In filling out the charge, give dates and names, and have the form notarized. Very truly yours, CWH/H CHARLES W. HOPE, Director. Enclosure N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 430-Y PORT ORFORD CEDAR COMPANY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Seattle, Wash. (Attention Mr. Chas. W. Hope, Director.) GENTLEMEN: I have yours of May 3rd, which was received during my absence rom the office. As stated in my letter of April 29th, the men were called out over the dismissal of Mr. Prentice and demanded that Mr. Prentice be reinstated as fireman, but not on the shift on which he had been working for the past two or two and one-half years, but on the shift he held prior and that he be paid for all lost time. It was claimed that we had discriminated against the union and the proposal to submit the whole matter to the Regional Labor Board for hearing and decision was our own proposal. As stated previously, we have no objection whatsoever to your hearing and deciding this dispute as Director of the Labor Board. However, we want a decision from you as Director of the Board, that we are to follow in the matter of any dispute of this nature in the future. If we have been guilty of discriminating against the union er a union employee, we want to know it and we will abide by the agreement we made with the committee and your decision. On the other hand, if this man was negligent and we were within our rights in discharging him, we want the union to have official advice to this effect, so that such disputes may not arise in the future. We probably could have agreed with the union on an arbitrating committee but we do not think that the right to discharge an employee that has been negligent or inefficient is a matter to be arbitrated, but a matter for your Board to decide along with the claim of discrimination. As to the strike being called off on the condition that it be arbitrated, I am enclosing a copy of the agreement made with the negotiating committee and I think that the intent of this agreement is plain that the question of discriminating or negligence was to be decided by the Labor Board and both the company and the employees were to be bound by the decision. Yours very truly, PORT ORFORD CEDAR Co. /s/ E. HARRINGTON. EH/AT N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-Z NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PORT ORFORD CEDAR COMPANY, Seattle, Wash. (Attention Mr. Charles W. Hope, Director) GENTLEMEN: With reference to the dispute regarding the dischargal of John Prentice by this company, I have had a conference with a committee from the Union and it now appears that through ignorance both on the part of the men and ourselves, as to the nature of dispute that can be passed on by the Labor Board, and the procedure, that the Union does not have a claim of discrimination that can be substantiated before the Board and on the other hand the matter of the company's right to dismiss an employee for negligence is not a disputable question. It was therefore agreed that no claim of discriminating against the Union or a Union member, could or would be presented by the Union and that we would submit our claim of negligence for a declsion by the Director of the Labor Board, rather than to the Labor Board, for formal action and ruling. We are therefore advising our attorney, Mr. Charles E. McCulloch, of Portland, to take the matter up with the Director of the Board and any arrangements he works out with you will be satisfactory to us. Yours very truly, EH KH PORT ORFORD CEDAR COMPANY. By E. HARRINGTON. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-AA MAY 17, 1937. Mr. PERCY M. MADDEN, Labor Temple, Marshfield, Oregon. DEAR MR. MADDEN: Received a letter from the Port Orford Cedar Company, setting forth their version and desire in this matter, copy of which is herewith enclosed. The charge blanks sent you on May 3, 1937 have not been received in this office. In filling these out, please be sure that the address of the person signing the charge is given, and that notary's seal is affixed. Very truly yours, CWH/H CHARLES W. HOPE, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-AB MARSHFIELD, OREGON, May 17, 1937. Mr. CHAS. HOPE, Federal Blg., Seattle, Wash. DEAR SIR: A committee of the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local 2573 contacted Mr. Harrington superintendent of the Port Orford Cedar Co. in regard to the settlement of the Prentice case. Mr. Harrington informed them he would agree to a representation of the board acting in regard to a settlement, but he had turned it over to the company's lawyer in Portland to handle. I would like to know if the company has advised you in regard to this action. Yours truly, P. M. MADDEN. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-AC MAY 24, 1937. Re: Port Orford Cedar Co. Labor Temple, Marshfield, Oregon. DEAR MR. MADDEN: I have received no word from Mr. McCullough in regard to this matter. If you feel there has been a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, please fill out the inclosed charge blanks and return to us. In my brief talk The with you at the hotel, I assumed you would be able to settle the matter. employer himself has indicated that he figures the matter would be placed officially before our Board. Please advise me as to your wishes in the matter. ewh.1 enc. CHARLES W. HOPE, Regional Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 430-AD MAY 24, 1937. Mr. PERCY MADDEN, Local No. 2573, Labor Temple, Marshfield, Oregon DEAR MR. MADDEN: The Port Orford Cedar Company is now willing to permit the Director of this Board to settle the controversy with your union. I wrote to Mr. Harrington today that I would be glad to designate an arbiter. If you agree, I would suggest that you contact him so that we may bring this matter to a head. I believe in order to give us jurisdiction that your previous statement that you would file charges should be carried out. Very truly yours, CHARLES W. HOPE, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-AE [Wire-Postal Telegraph] MARSHFIELD, Oregon, CHARLES HOPE, Federal Bldg., Seattle Working on settlement re Prentice via Portorford Cedar Co. case. know as soon as I find out results. Will let you P. MADDEN. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 430-AF JUNE 2, 1937. Mr. PERCY MADDEN, DEAR MR. MADDEN: Your wire received today. Last week I talked to Attorney McCulloch, and he indicated that he was sure he and I could come to some sort of a settlement. I must impress upon you, however, Mr. Madden, that we do not have jurisdiction in any case unless a charge is filed. I have authority to designate an arbiter but cannot act myself because of the great volume of work we have now. Unless a charge is filed in this case, I must consider the matter closed as far as this office is concerned. DEAR FRIEND: We have the Prentice & P. O. Cedar case settled, he received two hundred dollars in back wages an honorable discharge as he has engaged in business for himself. In regard to Frank C. Albro will take the matter up with the Bandon Local. Yours truly, P. MADDEN. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2 -90 |