Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.

BOSTON HERALD TRAVELER CORPORATION 627 3. All employees at the Respondent's Portsmouth, Ohio, branch, excluding office and clerical employees, salesmen, professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. Lodge #349, international Association of Machinists , AFL, was on June 6, 1951, and at all times since, has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By failing to answer the Union's letter of June 6, 1951, requesting recogni- tion and bargaining conferences on and after June 21, 1951, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 6. By disregarding, thus in effect denying, the right of employees to be repre- sented in matter of collective bargaining, and by threatening the employees with loss of their jobs if they persisted in their union and/or concerted activities, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced them in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The Respondent did not discriminatorily discharge Emery Sparks and George E . Penny. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF BOSTON, LOCAL 32, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. I. O. Case No. 1-CA-1095. January 27,1953 Decision and Order On August 15, 1952, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated Its powers In connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 102 NLRB No. 74. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifi- cations.2 1. As found by the Trial Examiner, the Union during negotiations withdrew its request for the dates of employment of the Respondent's employees. Subsequently, on January 22, 1952, the Union filed an amended charge alleging that the Respondent had refused to furnish it with the dates of employment of its employees. A month later the parties signed a contract. There is no other evidence of any renewal of the Union's original demand for this data. The Trial Examiner, nevertheless, found that the Respondent was sufficiently apprised by the filing of the amended charge that the Union had reversed its posi- tion and was then seeking information as to dates of employment. The Respondent excepts to this finding and we find merit in this exception. We do not regard the recital in the charge of a failure to furnish the information as equivalent to a demand upon the Re- spondent for such information ; nor do we regard the mere failure of the Respondent, after the filing of the amended charge, to furnish the dates of employment, absent a clear and unequivocal request there- for, as tantamount to a refusal to disclose that data. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that there was no refusal by the Respondent to furnish the dates of employment of its employees. 2. Although finding that the Union's request for names of employees was complied with by the Respondent to the Union's satisfaction, the Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent refused to furnish such names. The Respondent excepts to this conclusion as inconsistent with the prior finding. We agree. In view of the Union's acceptance of the data furnished as adequate for its purpose, we do not find that the Respondent refused to furnish names of employees. Order Upon the entire record in the case, pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Boston Herald-Traveler Corpora- tion, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit by refusing to furnish to the Union information as 2 The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's initial refusal to furnish the informa- tion requested by the Union occurred on December 10, 1951. The record shows, however, that on that date the Respondent did not refuse to furnish the information but asked for more time in which to answer the request The record shows, and we find, that the Initial refusal, in fact , occurred on January 2, 1952. The date of filing of the amended charge in footnote 6 of the Intermediate Report is corrected to read January 22, 1952. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION 629 to work classifications and salaries of all employees in the following unit : All employees in the editorial, commercial, advertising, and building maintenance departments in the Mason Street plant, exclusive of officers of the corporation; general manager; 2 assistants to the pub- lisher; advertising director; chief accountant; purchasing agent; personnel manager; head of the national display advertising depart- ment; head of the local display advertising department; head of the classified advertising department; head of the production department; head of the circulation department; building superintendent; editor of the Herald; editor of the Traveler; managing editor of the Herald; managing editor of the Traveler; assistant managing editors; 1 col- umnist; and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which we find will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Upon request, furnish to the Union wage data concerning work classifications and salaries of all employees in said unit. (b) Post at its plant at Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond- ent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." Appendix A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify employees that : WE WILL, upon request, furnish to the NEWSPAPER GUILD of BOSTON, LocAL 32, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. 1. 0., data concerning the work classifications and salaries of all employees in the appropriate unit. The bargaining unit is : 250983-vol. 102-53-41 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All employees in the editorial, commercial, advertising, and building maintenance departments in the Mason Street plant, exclusive of officers of the corporation; general man- ager ; 2 assistants to the publisher; advertising director; chief accountant; purchasing agent; personnel manager; head of the national display advertising department; head of the local display advertising department; head of the classified advertising department; head of the production department; head of the circulation department; building superintendent; editor of the Herald; editor of the Traveler; managing editor of the Herald; managing editor of the Traveler; assistant managing editors; 1 columnist; and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION, Employer. By --------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT of THE CASE Upon a charge and an amended charge duly filed by Newspaper Guild of Boston, Local 32, American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for the First Region ( Boston, Massachusetts ), issued the complaint herein dated March 18, 1952, against the Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation, herein called the Re- spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5 ) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Act. Copies of the complaint , the charge and amended charge, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent, on and after December 11, 1951, refused to furnish the Union with certain wage information requested by the Union for its use and assistance in connection with collective-bargaining negotiations . In its answer, the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Boston , Massachusetts, on April 14, 1952. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union partici- pated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of the hearing, motions by the General Counsel and the Respondent to conform the pleadings to the proof for the purpose of correcting names, dates, BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION 631 and other matters not involving the issues of the case, were granted without objection. At the conclusion of the evidence, the General Counsel participated in oral argument. The Respondent waived oral argument and filed a brief. No brief was filed by the General Counsel. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation is a corporation organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal office and place of business located at its Mason Street plant in Boston, Massachusetts, where at all times material hereto, it has been and is engaged in printing, publication, sale, and distribution of three newspapers, which are primarily circulated in the New England States.' The Respondent uses news- print, mats, and ink valued in excess of $500,000 annually, substantial portions of which are received from sources outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Newspaper Guild of Boston, Local 32, American Newspaper Guild, C. I. 0., is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that all employees of the Respondent employed in the editorial, commercial, advertising, and building maintenance departments at its said Mason Street plant, exclusive of officers of the corporation ; general manager ; 2 assistants to the publisher ; advertising director ; chief accountant ; purchasing agent ; personnel manager ; head of the national display advertising department ; head of the local display advertising department ; head of the classified advertising department ; head of the produc- tion department ; head of the circulation department ; building superintendent ; editor of the Herald ; editor of the Traveler ; mangaging editor of the Herald ; managing editor of the Traveler ; assistant managing editors ; 1 columnist ; and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. B. The majority and representation by the Union of employees in the unit The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that in or about the year 1938, a majority of the employees of the Respondent in the unit aforesaid designated or selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent; and that at all times since the 1 The Boston Herald, published daily except Sunday, having an average daily circulation of approximately 130,000 copies ; the Boston Sunday Herald, published each Sunday, with an average circulation of approximately 250,000 copies ; and the Boston Traveler, pub- lished daily except Sunday, with an average circulation of approximately 210,000 copies. The Respondent utilizes the Associated Press and the United Press News Services, the Dow- zones Financial Service, and several syndicated columns, comic strips, and special features. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union has been the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the employees in said unit and by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act has been and is now the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. C. Introduction and background The aforesaid unit has approximately 520 employees spread through a wide range of approximately 77 classifications whose salaries vary from the minimums set in the contract to $15,000 per year. The record does not disclose how many employees in the unit belong to the Union. About 70 percent of the employees in the unit is paid at the minimum salaries and the balance of 30 percent is paid above the minimum. During the year 1951, the Respondent and the Union had in effect a collective-bargaining agreement expiring on December 31, 1951. Therein it was provided for minimum starting pay for the various classifications with yearly step-increases for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years. No step-increases were provided beyond the fifth year. The contract also pro- vided that nothing in the agreement shall prevent employees from bargaining individually for pay increases in excess of the established weekly minimum. Bargaining sessions were held on December 10, 1951, January 2, 1952, and thereafter, until a new contract for 1952 was executed on February 21, 1952. D. The refusal to bargain The complaint alleges that the Respondent by its refusal to furnish informa- tion requested by the Union as to the names, work classifications , dates of em- ployment, and salaries of all employees in the unit for the use and assistance of the Union in connection with collective -bargaining negotiations with the Re- spondent in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, or other condi- tions of employment thereby violated Section 8 ( a) (5) and (1) of the Act. The answer pleads that the Respondent is and has been willing to furnish the names, classifications , and dates of employment' The answer asserts that its refusal to furnish all the information did not impede the process of bargain- ing nor interfere with the function of the Union as statutory representative ; that the positions taken by the Union during the negotiations made the requested salary information irrelevant ; and that the salary information, whether or not relevant to the bargaining negotiations , is confidential as to competing newspapers. In a letter dated November 23, 1951, the Union enclosed its proposals for a new contract, and requested information from the Respondent , for use at the bar- gaining table, as to the names, classifications , dates of birth , dates of employ- ment, sex, and weekly salaries of the employees in the unit.3 It appears from the letter that the Union proposed new top minimum salaries and that each yearly step-rate increase shall bear the same relation to the proposed new top mini- 2 The record shows that the Respondent Is now willing to furnish all the information requested in the Union's letter of November 23, 1951, referred to infra, except salary infor- mation. During negotiations , however, the Respondent had refused to furnish any of the requested information , except some of the names of the employees in the unit. 3 The pertinent parts of the letter read : I enclose three copies of the Guild proposals for a new contract .. . At the instructions of the international and by unanimous vote of the unit member- ship and the local executive committee, the Guild is asking for complete payroll information so that we will know what are our rights under wage Stabilization and so that we will be able to bargain intelligently on wages and pensions. Such Informa- tion would include names, classification, date of birth, date of employment , sex and weekly salary. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION 633 mum as it bears to the top minimum in the present contract, unless otherwise provided. At the first bargaining session held on December 10, 1951, the Respondent asked for and received from the Union further time in which to consider whether it would furnish the requested information. At the next meeting held on January 2, 1952, the Respondent refused to supply the information requested. After the refusal of the Respondent to furnish the information, it did supply to the Union the names of those regular employees in the unit whose dues were not being deducted. Since the Union had a list of the employees whose dues were being deducted monthly by the Respondent, the Union was satisfied with the information obtained as to its request for names.' John C. Cort, executive secretary of the Union, testified that the Respondent had agreed with certain craft unions to have a pension survey made and when the Respondent offered to make the results of such survey available to the Union, he then withdrew the request for information as to age, sex, and date of em- ployment, leaving classifications and weekly salaries as the only information which the Union then desired but did not receive. He testified the Union believed such an offer by the Respondent was a reasonable compromise on the question of data peculiarly necessary for bargaining on pensions, and so withdrew age, sex, date of employment, and then filed charges of unfair labor practices s Cort further testified that, at that time, the Union had withdrawn its request for information as to the dates of employment, but it occurred to the Union later that information as to dates of employment was necessary in order to bargain intelligently on wages and the Union therefore filed an amended charge which included dates of employment in the information which the Respondent refused to furnish At the January 2, 1952, meeting, the Union inquired if the Respondent would be willing to consider supplying salary information in coded form so as not to disclose the identity of the person receiving the salary (e. g. Reporter A, ; Reporter B, $-, etc.). The Respondent refused to consider the suggestion.' During the bargaining negotiations the Union made the claim that a compet- ing newspaper was paying higher wages than the Respondent and requested the Respondent to disclose the average wages for employees in the unit. The Respondent did not reveal it, and the Union was thereby impeded in its attempt to show that the Respondent was paying less than another newspaper in the area. Footnote 3-Continued We would appreciate getting this information at your earliest convenience so that we will be able to use it at the bargaining table. P. S. Correction in Proposals : add sentence to 1a : "The step-rates shall be revised so that in each classification each step-rate will bear the same relation to the proposed new top minimum as it bears to the top minimum in the present contract , unless otherwise provided in this section or lb." The Respondent did not supply the names of part-time workers or students who worked 10-week intervals. The charge alleged the Respondent failed to supply names, classifications, and weekly salaries. 6 The amended charge filed on January 22, 1950, was sufficient to apprise the Respondent that the Union was asking for "dates of employment" for negotiations continued until February 21, 1952, when the new contract was executed. T At the hearing, Cort testified that the Union is now unwilling to receive the salary information in coded form. O'Connell, testifying for the Respondent, testified that since some classifications have 1 employee, others have 2, 4, or 5, while another classification may have 50, coding the information could not prevent identification of some employees. He stated if coding could accomplish that salary be not identified with particular individuals, he would be willing to consider it. This apparently has little value because it is clear from his testimony that he considers it to be impossible to code the information effectively. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lawrence J. O'Connell, assistant to the publisher of the Respondent who con- ducted bargaining negotiations for the Respondent, testified without contradiction that the relations between the Union and the Respondent have been "very good" throughout the years; that there have been collective-bargaining agreements between them since 1936, and that from 1936 bargaining negotiations have always been for minimum rates with step-increases for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years of service ; and that for several years past, employees have been given the right to bargain individually for merit increases." He further testified that employees of the Respondent with employees of other competing newspapers are members of the Union's executive committee ; that the union executive secre- tary of the Union is chairman ; that in the bargaining session in the fall of 1951, employees of the Respondent and employees of other newspapers attended the negotiation meetings. O'Connell further testified that among the Union's pro- posals in 1951 were demands to raise the minimum rates and the new contract for the year 1952 provided for increased minimum rates. He continued to testify that no statement was made by the Union that it was hampered by the War Stabilization Board's requirement because of lack of information from the Respondent, nor did the union bargaining committee ever claim it was ham- pered or inconvenienced for lack of information during the bargaining confer- ences which culminated in the new contract. He testified that some reporters and advertising salesmen who are members of the Union have special abilities requiring the Respondent to deal with them individually and they are unwilling to have their coworkers know their salaries ; that members of the Union have ob- jected to him disclosing their salaries ; that such salary information would be harmful to the Respondent if it became known to other newspapers. On cross- examination, O'Connell admitted that the Respondent has not given salary infor- mation to the Union ; that he understood the Union wanted wage information, hourly or otherwise, and that he would not give such information while the case was pending before the Board. He conceded at the hearing that the Re- spondent is now willing to give the Union information as to names and classifi- cations of all employees in the unit ; but the Respondent objects to furnishing information as to salaries because of the objection of many employees and because it would be harmful to the Respondent if such information were known by competitors. O'Connell testified also that during negotiations he offered to give the Union the average hourly rate for the whole classification but when Cort telephoned and asked if he was willing to give it, he refused when Cort told him the charges of unfair labor practices would be pressed. Concluding Findings When the Union requested the information, it was at a time when negotia- tions were about to be scheduled for a new contract for the year 1952 to replace the 1951 contract which would expire on December 31. It is well established that salary information concerning employees in the unit is relevant to minimum rates and merit increases,' and is certainly necessary for the negotiation of e The provision in the 1951 and 1952 contracts is similar : Nothing in this contract shall prevent employees from bargaining individually for pay increases in excess of the weekly minimum established herein The record further shows that the Union has bargained with the Respondent on merit increases during contract negotiations and also during the course of the contract year. While sometimes merit increases were refused, the Union's right so to bargain has never been challenged. 9Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 881 , enfd. 187 F. 2d 947 (C. A. 2), where the Board held that the going rate is a factor to be considered by a union in deter- mining whether or not to press or eliminate its demand for a general wage increase ; that current salaries are directly related to the demand for a minimum , and without such in- formation there is no basis for determining to what extent, if any, the minimum wage would affect any employees in the unit. BOSTON HERALD-TRAVELER CORPORATION 635 future contracts." The Union's request for information concerning the names, work classifications, dates of employment, and salaries of all employees in the unit is clearly relevant under Board and court decision u 1 am unable to accept the Respondent's argument that because no bargaining on merit increases occurred and because the Union had waived its right to be consulted concerning merit increases, it follows that salary information was not relevant nor necessary for intelligent bargaining regarding merit increases. The record shows that the Union did bargain on merit increases, both at ne- gotiations and during the contract year. The Union did not waive its right to bargain for increases above the minimum either at the negotiations or during the contract year. The provision in question whereby employees were permitted individually to bargain for increases only gave employees, if they chose, the right to bargain individually ; the provision did not foreclose the Union from bargaining for merit increases on behalf of those who did not choose to bargain individually. Nor do I find persuasive the Respondent's argument that the salary information was not relevant nor necessary for intelligent bargaining concerning minimum rates because the spread of wages throughout the unit is so great and varies so widely that the individual salaries of the top employees have insignificant bearing on what the minimum should be, since those top salaries are based on individual factors of experience and ability. How sig- nificant the bearing would be is a matter for discussion on the basis of dis- closure at the bargaining table. Since the salary information does not plainly appear to be irrelevant it must be disclosed." Nor do I find merit in the Re- spondent's refusal to supply the salary information because the information is claimed to be confidential as to employees in the unit, for that contention has been rejected in numerous decisions." Nor was the Respondent justified in refusing to disclose the salary information because this case was pending before the Board, for the filing of unfair labor practice charges does not relieve an employer of the continuing duty to bargain 14 Neither did the execution of the new contract for 1952 render moot the desired salary information." Contrary to the Respondent's contention, the Respondent was not legally justified in re- fusing to supply the requested data on the ground that this entailed disclosure of privileged and confidential matter, such as the salaries of its editorial, ad- vertising, and other highly paid personnel, which might be harmful if the in- formation came to the knowledge of competing newspapers. In order to ac- complish the intent of the Act that collective bargaining be facilitated, the Re- spondent's desire to keep its salary information secret must in some respects be 70 D. W. Scripps Company, 94 NLRB 227. n The Hughes Tool Company, 100 NLRB 208 ; N. L. R. B. v. Yawman cf Erbe Manu- facturtng Company, supra; N. L. it. B. V. Union Manufacturing Company, 179 F. 2d 511 (C. A. 5) ; Aluminum Ore Co. v. N. L. it. B., 131 F. 2d 485 (C. A. 7) ; Leland-Gtford Com- pany , 95 NLRB 1306 ; General Controls Co., 88 NLRB 1341. N. L. R. B . v. Yawman ct Erbe Manufacturing Company, supra, where the court also said "... Indeed we find it difficult to conceive a case in which current or immediately past wage rates would not be relevant during negotiations for a minimum wage scale or increased wages ( cases cited)." 13 See particularly the discussion of the point in The Electric Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1192, 1198-9, and Aluminum Ore Company v. N. L. R. B., supra, at p. 487 , quoted infra. 14 Atlanta Broadcasting Co., 90 NLRB 808; Old Town Shoe Co , 91 NLRB 240. 75 See N. L. R. B. v. Yawman t Erbe Manufacturing Company, supra , where the court said at page 949: "Nor is our determination that the information was relevant affected by the subsequent execution of a contract without disclosure. The most that can be inferred from the union's action is that the advantages of a contract in band outweigh those which the union might later obtain when all relevant information would be avilable to it." Also, E. W. Scripps Company, 94 NLRB 227. 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD subordinated to the public interest in disclosure of relevant information (cf. N. L. R. B. v. Yawman, & Erbe, supra), just as its exclusive control over its business affairs is subordinate to the requirements of the Act 1° In Aluminum. Ore Company v. N. L. R. B., supra, the court declared (at p. 487) : ... we do not believe that it was the intent of Congress in this legislation that, in the collective bargaining prescribed, the Union as representative of the employees should be deprived of the pertinent facts constituting the wage history of its members. We can conceive of no justification for the claim that such information is confidential.... And if there be any rea- sonable basis for the contention that this may have been confidential data of the employer before the passage of the Act, it seems to us it cannot be so held in the face of the expressed social and economic purposes of the statute. Again, contrary to the Respondent's contention, the record shows that the refusal of the Respondent to furnish relevant wage information did impede the process of collective bargaining and did interfere with the function of the Union as statutory representative of all the employees in the unit. I find that the names, work classifications, dates of employment, and salaries of the employees in the unit were needed by the Union to enable it intelligently to represent the employees during the negotiations. Upon consideration of the entire record, I conclude and find that the Re- spondent by refusing on and after December 10, 1951, to furnish information requested by the Union concerning names, work classifications, dates of em- ployment, and salaries of all employees in the unit has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT 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 engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the limited scope of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, and because of the amicable relations of the parties since 1936, and also because of the absence of any indication that danger of other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past, I shall not recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from the commission of other unfair labor practices. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 16 N. L. R. B. v. Jones d Laughlin Steel Corp ., 301 U. S. 1, 43-45. THE HEARST CORPORATION 637 2. All the meployees of the Respondent employed in the editorial, commercial, advertising, and building maintenance departments at its said Mason Street plant, exclusive of officers of the corporation ; general manager ; 2 assistants to the publisher ; advertising director ; chief accountant ; purchasing agent; per- sonnel manager ; head of the national display advertising department ; head of the local display advertising department ; head of the classified advertising department ; building superintendent ; editor of the Herald ; editor of the Traveler ; managing editor of the Herald ; managing editor of the Traveler ; assistant managing editor ; 1 columnist ; and all supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. Since on or about the year 1938, the Union has been and now is the exclu- sive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By failing and refusing at all times since December 10, 1951, to furnish the Union with information as to the names , work classifications , dates of employment , and salaries of all employees in the said unit, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] THE HEARST CORPORATION ( BOSTON RECORD-AMERICAN-ADVERTISER DIVISION) and NEWSPAPER GUILD OF BOSTON, LOCAL 32, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, C. I. O. Case No. 1-CA-1094. January 27, 1953 Decision and Order On August 25, 1952, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The request of the Respondent for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, including the brief and the exceptions, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 102 NLRB No. 76.