International Harvester Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Harvester Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- ture Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 25 CA 9357 March 29, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS PENELLO ANt) TRUESD)AI.E On December 26, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief: and the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, International Harvester Company, Ft. Wayne, Indiana. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the at- tached notice is substituted for that of the Adminis- trative Law Judge. APPENDIX NoTI(F. To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIrONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Union. United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive representa- tive of our employees in the certified unit of of- fice, clerical, and technical employees at our Fort Wayne Works, by failing and refusing upon re- quest to furnish to it information pertaining to employees' jobs and wage rates in the Central Truck Distribution Center. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees in the ap- propriate unit. WE W'ILL furnish International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), information as to the job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of all employees in the Central Truck Distribution Center, Fort Wayne Works. WE WILl allow union officials to make a rea- sonable study of jobs performed in the Central Truck Distribution Center. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on February 24, 1978. The charge was filed by the Union on October 17, 1977., and the complaint was issued on December 29, alleg- ing that Respondent Company refused to furnish the Union, upon request, the job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of certain persons working in Respondent's Truck Design Center, Fort Wayne, Indiana, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Company, and the Union, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Company, an Illinois corporation, with its principal office in Chicago, and facilities in various states, is engaged in the manufacture of trucks and related products at its facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. During the past year, the Company purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to its Fort Wayne facility directly from States other than Indiana, and also shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to States other than the State of Indiana. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues Two issues arise herein from the facts of the instant case: (I) Is the Union entitled to receive from the Company the I All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise stated. 241 NLRB No. 94 600 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTOR COMPANY job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of manage- rial employees in the Central Truck Distribution Center, and (2) should the Union's request for this information he deterred under the Co/v1er doctrine.2 The Union contends that it is entitled to this information, as a matter of law, in order that it may properly evaluate eight grievances, and also to determine if the grievances should in fact be taken to arbitration. Respondent asserts that the Union is not so entitled because (1) the relevancy of the requested informa- tion should be deferred to arbitration under the Coller doctrine allowing the arbitrator to decide the relevancy of the requested inlfrmation. and (2) the inlfrmation is confi- dential and its disclosure would have potential harm. B. The Facts 1. The collective-bargaining relationship between the parties Since its Board certification in June 1950. the Union has served as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unil of office, clerical, and technical employees employed at Re- spondent's Fort Wayne Works.4 The Union and Respon- dent since 1950 have had a series of collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was entered into on November 30, 1976, and runs until October 1, 1979. Gen- eral Counsel Exhibit 2.' Collver Insulated Wire, 4 Gulf and Western Sisierns C(o. 192 NI.RB 837 (1971). ' The essential facts are not in dispute. A11 wvitnesses were sincere. credible witnesses. 4The actual unit description as found appropriate bh the Board, and set forth in the parties' collectise-bargaining agreement is: All office. clerical, and technical employees at the International Har- vester Fort Wayne Works Plant. Fort Wayne. Indiana. but excluding all employees in the Industrial relations department (except chauffeur), the public relations department, the engineering department, the budget and statistical department. the salary administration department, photo- stat operator (position No. 20), cost analyst. factors ledger accountants (position No. 42)., service parts ledger clerk I, shop ledger accounts (position No. 41). service parts ledger accountant, cashier, assistant cashier, cashier's clerks, salary pay roll clerks (position No. 551}. princi- pal accounting clerk, principal payroll clerk, telephone switch-board operators (position No. 225). ime-stud 5 engineers (positions Nos. 526, 527), time-stud) trainee (position No. 605). methods and rates statistical clerk, wage allowance analyst (position No. 190). process engineers (po- sitions Nos 158. 159. 214). production research investigator (positions Nos. 193, 194)., quality control analyst. emplo)es assigned to student executive course. employes assigned to preparatory foremen's course or any special students, veterans' counselor. traffic analyst (position No 590),1. secretaries to: works manager. assistant works manager, general superintendent, plant engineers. chief of methods and rates department. mechanical engineer, works auditor and assistant works auditors. direc- tor of training, works buyer. chief inspector. mnianager of materials con- trol, supersisor of O. & D. machines. manager and assistant manager of service parts department. production research engineer, chief draftsman. plant metallurgist, manufacturing planning and production research en- gineer. and parts merchandising supervisor; and also excluding doctors, foremen. assistant foremen. women supervisors. staff men. chief clerks, assistant chief clerks, and special auditor clerks, engineer (product) and assistant, supervising draftsmen, field engineer (product) resident engi- neer (product). special engineer, office manager. and assistant office managers, professional employes, guards and supervisors its defined in the Act. as certified by the National Labor Relations Board on August 23. 1950. in Case 13-RC 1024. 'The agreement sets forth that the International Union and its UAW Local 305 at the Fort Wayne Works are referred to collectively as the Union, and that is the context in which the Union is referred to herein. 2. The departments involved Prior to 1972. a portion of the bargaining unit's clerical and technical employees worked in Respondent's Special Equipment Department and the Scheduling and Distribu- tion Department. processing customer's orders for trucks to be built at the Fort Wayne Works. Customers made their first contact with the Company, in regional offices of Re- spondent throughout the United States, from which orders were then mailed b\ the regional office to Fort Wayne, and received by the Special Equipment and Scheduling and Distribution Departments. The unit employees of these de- partments would screen and analyze these orders to deter- mine if there were any detectable problems: check the ma- terial supply to ensure that the necessary parts and material were available to build the truck, assist in "slotting" the order, which was determining the month and the week that the order was to be built: and finally, produce a mat. The mat was the final document prepared by these unit emploN- ees, containing the codes that set forth the materials neces- sary to build the ordered truck, and was sent to the produc- tion department to be used in the plant, to assemble the truck ordered b the customer. During this time, the cleri- cal work performed by these employees on the orders was done b hand. In January 1972, the Compan> inaugurated the "Titan" program which caused some changes in the procedures used to process truck orders. One change was that orders were no longer mailed to Fort Wayne bh the regions. but were put into Respondent's computer at the regional offices. and so transmitted by computer to Fort Wayne. At the same time, the Special Equipment and Scheduling and Dis- tribution Departments were combined and became the Or- der Processing Department. An undetermined number of unit employees of the two former departments now became employees in the newly formed department, and continued to be represented by the Union.6 Robert E. Mills. who was the manager of employee relations at Fort Wayne during this period. candidly admitted that some of their duties were taken away by the institution of the Titan program. In late 1974, Respondent commenced a regional product management process under which the order slotting, which had been performed by the employees in the Order Process- ing Department. was transferred to the regional offices. In early 1976. the Company established a new depart- ment, the Central Truck Distribution Center,7 and placed it in the Truck Design Center. a building across town from the Material Management Center building in which the Or- der Processing Department was centered.8 The purpose of the new department was to expedite orders, eliminate prob- ' The record does not disclose the number of unit emplosees that were in anx of the departments mentioned herein 'This new department sas referred to b) \ arious witnesses as the Central (or Centralized) Truck Distribution Center (or Department), Central Truck Distribution area, and Centralized Truck Distribution organization. Respon- dent in its brief refers to Central truck Distribution organization. Since the ke) letter of the Union (G C. Exh 12) referred to it as Central Truck Distribution Center I refer to it hereafter b that title, or simply CTD. the initials used several times by management witnesses when testifying. s The buildings occupied by Respondent in Fort Wayne were not located on one industrial site, but ere located in arious widespread areas of the cit. 601 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lems, and centralize proceedings. The Union does not rep- resent employees in the Central Truck Distribution Center. The new department then took over the former duties of the Order Processing Department that had previously been transferred to the regional offices. At the same time, the Order Processing Department also lost certain functions in the processing of Ord 2 orders (orders in which the cus- tomer is incapable of assigning a code), Ruan orders (a large customer), exports, and Canadian orders. Mills fairly admitted that again, the Order Processing Department lost some work that they had done in the past. Since the open- ing of the Central Truck Distribution Center to the time of the hearing, the only duties of the bargaining unit employ- ees in the Order Processing Department are to analyze the orders received from the computer, and prepare the mat to be sent to the production department. 3. The filing of grievances Between the Christmas plant shutdown in 1975 and Feb- ruary 19, 1976, the Union notified the Company of eight grievances alleging the performance of bargaining unit work by nonunit employees, that was properly assignable to the unit clerical and technical employees in the Order Pro- cessing Department. Five of these grievances alleged that the disputed work had been performed by Central Truck Distribution Center employees. These grievances are sum- marized as follows: Grievance no. and alleged violation 128-76--Swap list prepared by supervisors. 129-76 Swap sheets prepared by supervisors. 130-76-Swap sheets prepared by supervisors. 131-76-Design Center employees doing stenos work. 132-76-Canadian and Ruan orders going to De- sign Center employees. 133 76-C.T.D. employees providing information on status of orders. 134 76 C.T.D. employees expediting trucks through production lines. 135-76--C.T.D. employees doing slotting work. The Union proceeded to go through steps I and 2 of the agreement's grievance procedure, contending that the bar- gaining unit was being eroded by nonunit employees per- forming their work. The Company, in all eight grievances, denied that there was any merit to the Union's claims, jus- tifying the performance of the work by citing various clauses of the contract. By letter dated September 20, 1976, Arthur S. Shy, an international union representative, wrote to Respondent's labor relations manager reminding him that there had been a series of meetings in Fort Wayne "concerning grievances alleging erosion of the UAW bargaining unit."9 Shy then requested a list of all excluded nonmanagerial employees, their classifications, job descriptions, salary grade, and rate ranges. He also requested a list of all managerial employees ' Respondent in its brief states that ajoint investigation of these grievances was held in July 1976. and their department or area number. There was no reply to this letter. On April 5, another meeting, referred to as a step 2-1/2 meeting,' was held between the parties to review these grievances. When there was no resolution, union represen- tatives requested that the Company (I) permit the Union to make an in-depth investigation of the Central Truck Distri- bution area: (2) supply it a list of job classifications, job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay for all Central Truck Distribution department employees; and (3) allow the Union to run a Canadian or Ruan order through the department's system. The Company's response to the Union's requests was to permit Union President William Murphy and committeeman Richard Grable to tour that department, but it produced no written information. On April 15. Murphy and Grable met with company of- ficials Mills and Begy and were escorted through the de- partment, after being informed that if they had any ques- tions, they were to be directed solely to Mills or Begy. During the 45- to 50-minute tour Grable and Murphy were first shown the area in which orders were received. They also were walked through other areas. Both were particu- larly struck by the area in which inventory machines were kept. Grable testified that there were 20 to 22 such ma- chines present, which had the ability to scan the Company's inventory throughout the United States. Murphy counted 23 to 25 employees who had "cathorade" tubes" before them, with 12 keys attached thereto. One of the keys would obtain data on what parts were available in a 5-mile radius, one key on what was available in a 100-mile radius and another, what was available in a 300-mile radius. Grable, who had worked in the processing of orders for 12 years and had been in the Order Processing Department since its inception in 1972, testified that from his observa- tion there was work being done in CTD that formerly had been done in the Order Processing Department, such as the receiving, logging, and recording orders, the initial analyz- ing of the orders, and entering the orders into the computer. In Murphy's opinion, much of the work performed in that department had formerly been performed by bargaining unit employees. By letter dated June 27, the Union by Shy, forwarded a second letter to Respondent concerning the eight grievances involving the erosion of the bargaining unit. Attached thereto was a two page document captioned "Distribution Operations Personnel-Truck Center, Ft. Wayne-Decem- ber, 1976."I2 This list contained 59 names, of which 50 had job titles which contained either the word manager or su- pervisor. The letter requested that the Company supply a listing of job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay for the employees of the Central Truck Distribution Center. On July 28 the Company replied by letter, stating that all but 10 of the names contained on the list forwarded by the 1' While the bargaining agreement formally provides for a three-step griev- ance procedure. with the third being the actual arbitration hearing, the par- ties over a period of years have developed an informal step 2-1 /2 in which an international union official and a company official try to work out a settle- ment prior to the third and final step. " Described by Murphy as looking like a television screen. 2 The origin of this document was not disclosed. but apparently it was a bona fide company listing, as Respondent did not challenge its contents or question how the Union secured it. 602 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTOR COMPANY Union were management or supervisory employees, and that it was not forwarding the information requested for them because position descriptions and salary rates of man- agement people were confidential matters. The Company did supply the information requested for the nine nonsuper- visory employees listed thereon. A final step 2-1/2 meeting was held on September 13. and the Union again requested job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay for the CTD management person- nel. The request was denied. C. Position of the Parties The next and last step available to the Union under the grievance procedure is arbitration. The Union contends that its receipt of job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of the managerial employees in the CTD is necessary in order for it to evaluate these grievances and to determine if they should in fact be taken to arbitration. The Company contends that this information is not necessary for the pro- cessing of these grievances, pointing out through the testi- mony of committeeman Grable, that in past arbitration cases in which the Union had grieved that management personnel were doing bargaining unit work, the manage- ment employees involved had appeared at the hearing and had been interrogated by the Union. The Company further contends that the relevancy of the requested information to the processing of grievances should be left to the determina- tion of an arbitrator. The Company also asserts the confi- dentiality of the requested business information and the po- tential harm to Respondent from its disclosure. D. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The Collver issue In its brief Respondent relies heavily on Board decision Roy Robinson. Inc. d/b/a Roy Robinson Chevrolet. 228 NLRB 828 (1977) as justification for its argument that the grievances, and the relevancy of the requested information, should be deferred to arbitration. In its brief the Charging Party cites the Board's decision, St. Joseph's Hospital (Our Lady of Providence Unit), 233 NLRB 1116 (1977), as the controlling case for not deferring to arbitration, and as re- quiring Respondent to furnish the information requested. I find that the decision of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Nasdor in St. Joseph Hospital, affirmed by the Board. not to defer under Collyer, to be the controlling case under the facts of the instant case. The facts in St. Joseph Hospital were much like the facts herein. The union, representing a unit of nurses, and the hospital were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement. Upon the hospital granting a wage increase to nonunit em- ployees, the union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the nurses' agreement, and subsequently requested arbitra- tion. Shortly thereafter, the union requested that the em- ployer furnish it with information about the wage scales and fringe benefits of all employees outside of the bargain- ing unit, stating that this information was necessary for the preparation of the upcoming arbitration case. The Board ordered the hospital to furnish the information requested by the union for the nonunit employees. Just as in St. Joseph, the UAW requested of the Company information about the wages of nonunit employees for the purpose of preparing for a possible arbitration case. In Roy Robinson Chevrolet, the issue did not concern fur- nishing information requested by the union, but was whether the discontinuance of the company's body shop was violative of Section 8(a)(5) because the company failed to bargain with the union before closing its body shop. Thus, the case cited by Respondent involved a factual issue requiring an interpretation of a contractual clause, not the furnishing of information. Respondent also contends that the contract here involved contains provisions which expressly pertain to the supply- ing of information relevant to the processing of grievances. and points to Section 6 of article VII: The Arbitrator may, upon the request of either party or his own motion, adjourn the hearing for a sufficient time to enable either party to furnish additional evi- dence, oral or documentary, which in the opinion of the Arbitrator, is relevant to the issue or issues in- volved. A close examination of this clause does not disclose that the arbitrator would be required to furnish the information that the Union requested. The clause states that the arbitra- tor "may" adjourn the hearing to "enable" either party to furnish evidence which "in the opinion of the Arbitrator" is relevant. There is no possible way that the Union can be assured prior to the hearing that the arbitrator will interpret the permissive "may" as the mandatory "shall." or that the arbitrator will consider the information requested as rel- evant. Moreover, even granting arguendo, that the arbitrator would have the broadest power to compel either party to produce information that the other required, and, also granting that he would be so inclined, this does not over- come the Union's position that it wants the information to help it determine the very question of whether it should take the final step of having the arbitration hearing at all. It is possible that if the Company supplied the wage data of the CTD employees to the Union that their wages could be so much higher than unit employees, that the Union would concede that the 50 employees of that department were in fact high level management employees, and withdraw the grievances, saving the Union the expense of the arbitration case. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Divi- sion, 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). Since the Company is withholding requested information which is potentially relevant in assisting the Union to intel- ligently evaluate and process these eight grievances, I there- fore do not find that this case should be deferred under the Collyer decision to arbitration, but that it should and must be determined by the Board, United-Carr Tennessee, a Divi- sion of TR W. Inc.. 202 NLRB 729 (1973); N.L. R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). 2. Relevance of the requested information The law basic to this issue of the case is succinctly set forth by the Board in Temple-Eastex, Incorporated, 228 603 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NLRB 203 (1977). "It is well established that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act imposes upon an employer the duty to furnish a union, upon request. information relevant and necessary to enable the union to intelligently carry out its statutory obligations as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative. And. under the standard of relevancy as ap- plied by the Board and the Courts, it is sufficient that the Union's claim for information be supported by a showing of'probable' or 'potential' relevance. Furthermore, the fact that the information requested by a union may, as here, in part relate to employees outside the scope of the unit it represents does not necessarily justify an employer's refusal to provide such information." (Cases cited.) Accordingly. we then turn to the question of whether the information sought by the Union was probably or poten- tially relevant to the performance of the Union's statutory obligations. For many years prior to 1972, clerical and tech- nical employees represented by the Union had worked in the Special Equipment and Scheduling and Distribution Departments receiving orders for trucks in the mail and then processed these orders in many ways by hand. Then in 1972 these two departments were merged into the Order Processing Department. Some of the employees' clerical work was computerized and some of the work was trans- ferred to regional offices. In 1974 there was a further trans- ferral of work formerly done by unit employees when order slotting was transferred to regional offices. In early 1976 the employees were faced with a much larger and more formi- dable competitor for their former work, the newly inaugu- rated Central Truck Distribution Center. This totally new department took over various segments of the order work formerly done by unit employees, such as handling Ord 2. Ruan, export, and Canadian orders. While the record is not clear as to exactly what work the unit employees did lose to CTD there is no question but that some work was lost, as Mills, then manager of employee relations, forthrightly so admitted. Thus, in February 1976, the unit employees faced an un- doubted erosion of their work. There is nothing in the rec- ord to show that they had protested the loss of work in 1972 or 1974, but here in 1976 they were telling the Company to halt, that you cannot take our work away from us by using the only legal means available to us under the contract, and that is by filing grievances. Steps I and 2 had proved fruit- less to resolve this conflict, with the Company formally re- jecting the grievances on April 26, 1976. Five months after this rejection, the Union, by letter, asked for a list of all nonunit employees at the entire Fort Wayne works, con- taining each such employee's classification, job description, salary grade, and rate range. No answer was received. Nine months after the first letter, the Union, by letter, tried to move the grievances off dead center, narrowed its request for information, and asked for job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of the exempt employees in only the Central Truck Distribution Center. In seeking this in- formation. the Union was complying with its statutory obli- gation to represent its employees, so as to preserve the work that they regarded as their own. This concept of preserving work that employees regard as their own has been exhibited in our industrial society since the origin of the industrial revolution, when cottage workers broke up factory ma- chines in protest of losing work, down to the complex con- tractual and jurisdictional disputes of today. Board cases involving a union's efforts to preserve work for its repre- sented employees are legion, and clearly in the instant case, the Union was trying to preserve work it thought belonged to the Order Processing Department unit employees, and to prevent any further erosion. Respondent argues in its brief that the Union failed to show the specific relevance of each of the three items of information requested. This is a much higher burden than need be met by the Union's request. With the Union's letter of June 27. it had attached a printed form whose caption stated it to be a list of Distribution Operations Personnel. Truck Design ('enter. This list contained 59 names and their job titles. A cursory examination of the list showed that 21 employees had the word manager in their job titles and 30 had the word supervisor, while only 9 employees had conventional office clerical or technical titles. As a bar- gaining agent for the Union for 26 years, the UAW drew on its past experiences in labor relations, and puts its finger on the apparent imbalance of management-supervisor employ- ees to rank-and-file and asked for their job descriptions.' 3 Twenty of' the fifty-one employees had the same title "Truck Status and Inventory Supervisor." Certainly this same title for 20 employees would trigger the mind of any experienced bargainer as to whether these employees were truly supervisors or were merely employees doing the same inventory work that unit employees had been doing for many years. Respondent's argument that job descriptions of manage- ment employees do not reflect job duties because they are written in terms of accountability and end results does not mean that the Union is not entitled to these job descrip- tions, whatever their orientation. This Union is not some newly arrived bargaining agent who had no experience in the industry. As a veteran, long-experienced bargainer with Respondent. the Union is entitled to examine these job de- scriptions and weigh them to see if they do indicate that work which the Union considers to be bargaining unit work is being performed by CTD employees. It is true, as Respondent contends in its brief, that no evidence was introduced as to the relevancy of salary grades and rates of pay. I believe that to experienced nego- tiators. the relevancy speaks for itself If all of the CTD employees were receiving wages, three, fbur, ten times as great as those of unit employees, that would certainly be indicative in the ordinary course of industrial life that such employees were in fact managers and supervisors. However, if only a few of the 51 employees were receiving wages much greater than unit employees, and most of the employ- ees were receiving wages comparable to unit employees, it would also be to some extent indicative that the bulk of these employees were in fact not managerial employees. This information was plainly potentially relevant to the Union's determination as to whether to go to arbitration or not. Respondent also contends that the release of CTD em- 1' This was clearly a marked disproportion in the ratio of managers-super- visors to employees. that would stimulate a challenge by an experienced International Union representative such as Shy. Fifty-one managers-supervi- sors and nine other employees would provide a ratio of managers-supervisors to employees of five to one, or a ratio of supervisors to employees of three to one. 604 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTOR COMPANY ployees' salary grades and rates of pay would be a breach of confidentiality. This contention is without merit as held in N. L. R. B. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Association 400 F.2d 565 (8th Cir. 1968), enfg. 165 NLRB 577 (1967). which also involved a union's request for wages and related matters, to which the court stated: "Alleged confidentiality of relevant economic data needed for informed bargaining is no defense." Courts and the Board have regularly disal- lowed employer's claims of confidentiality as to wage sur- veys and wages. General Electric Compan v N. L. R. B., 466 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir. 1972), enfg. 192 NLRB 68 (1971): Globe-Union, Inc., 233 NLRB 1458 (1977): Cowles Cormnu- nicaions, Inc.. 172 N.RB 1909 (1968). AccordinglN, I find, on the basis of the evidence in its entirety, that Respondent. since its receipt of the Union's letter dated June 27, 1977. has failed and refused to furnish the Union with information as to job descriptions, salard grades, and rates of pay of those employees of the Central Truck Distribution Department who are classified as man- agers or supervisors, and has thereby refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CoNc'lusloss o- LAW I. By refusing to furnish to the Union information as to job descriptions, salary grades. and rates of pay of its em- ployees in the Central Truck Distribution Center who are classified as managers or supervisors, information relevant and necessary to the performance of its duty as statutory representative of a unit of Respondent's employees. Re- spondent has refused to bargain with the certified represent- ative of its employees and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. 2. The unfair labor practices set forth in I, above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) as set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist from such conduct and from any like or related con- duct. Affirmatively, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that Respondent be required to furnish the Union with the following information: Job descriptions, salary grades, and rates of pay of its employees in the Cen- tral Truck Distribution Center who are classified as manag- ers or supervisors. I also recommend that Respondent be required to post an appropriate notice to employees. The Charging Party seeks an additional remedial mea- sure, that is, that the Union be allowed to study first hand the jobs in the Central Truck Distribution Center. Although this request was not set forth in the complaint, nor was it requested by the General Counsel in his brief, there was extensive testimony on the short tour of this department that union officials were permitted to take. The courts and the Board have long upheld the right of a union to make its own observation of department or plant jobs when the du- ties of specific employees are at stake. The Gerstenslager Company, 202 NLRB 218 (1973). enfd. 487 F.2d 1332 (6th Cir. 1973), cert denied 416 U.S. 986 (1974). Kendall Com- pany. 196 NLRB 588 (1972), enfd. 83 LRRM 3068. 71 LC ¶ 13, 844 (4th Cir. 1973). Inasmuch as the Board "has broad discretion to adopt its remedies to the needs of par- ticular situations" in order to effectuate the policies of the Act." I find that allowing the Union to study first-hand the jobs in the CTD will effectuate the policies of the Act by allowing the Union to have practical knowledge of facts within the control of the Company. which will permit the Union to more intelligently process its grievances with Re- spondent. In April 1977. the Company itself saw merit in the Union's request to tour the Central Truck Division Cen- ter, and did allow a brief walk through. The Union is enti- tled to more than this cursory observation. and will be al- lowed to make a reasonable study of the jobs involved. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Sections 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: 5 ORDER The Respondent, International Harvester Company. Fort Wayne, Indiana. its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 304, by refusing to furnish the said labor organization with the information it requested in its June 27. 1977, letter. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the employees in the appropriate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 304, as exclu- sive representative of all employees in the unit found appro- priate in Case 13-RC- 1024, and furnish the following infor- mation requested by the Union in its letter of June 27. 1977: Job descriptions. salary grades, and rates of pay of its employees in the Central Truck Distribution Center who are classified as managers or supervisors. (b) Allow the Union cited in (a) above to enter the CTD and make a reasonable study of the jobs performed therein. (c) Post at its plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' " Copies of said no- 14 Ical 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners o/. America. A.FL CIO v. . L R B. 365 U.S. 651. 655 (1961) t In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National l.abor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as pros ided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed waived for all purposes. 16 In the event that this Order s enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted bN Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order ,of the Na- tional L.absor Relations Board." 605 I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tice. on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 25. after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representatives, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter. in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25. in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 606