Weber Veneer & Plywood Co.

1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Robert J. Weber and Richard K. Weber d/b/a Weber Veneer & Plywood Company and Local IV-322, International Woodwork- ers of America, Region 4, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-373. Novem- ber 15, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On August 26, 1966, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent 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 attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner' s Recommended Order.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed by Local IV-322, International Woodworkers of America, Region 4, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on April 4, 1966, against Robert J. Weber and Richard K. Weber• d/b/a Weber Veneer & Plywood Company, herein called Respondent or Company,, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated April 29, 1965, alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Respond- ent's answer admitted most of the allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any • unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before Trial Examiner George J. Bott at Shawano, Wisconsin, on June 21, 1966, at which all parties were represented: Subsequent to the hearing, Respondent and General Counsel filed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FAcr 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a partnership, maintains its principal office and plants at Shawano, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the manufacture of plywood and veneer products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint which was a representa- tive period, Respondent purchased and received, in interstate commerce, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to it directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin. Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 161 NLRB No. 97. WEBER VENEER & PLYWOOD CO. 1055 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union's request and the Company's refusal to furnish wage data 1. The facts Since March 19, 1964, the Union has been the certified bargaining agent of Respondent's production and maintenance employees. The Respondent and the Union have been parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from August 31, 1965, to August 31, 1966, and covers the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the approxi- mately 100 employees in the certified appropriate unit. On February 22, 1966, an official of the Local Union wrote Respondent and asked it to furnish the Union the following information: 1. The names and job classifications of unit employees. 2. The current rate of pay and total earnings for 1965 for each employee listed. 3. The amount of overtime pay received by each unit employee in 1965. 4. The amount of vacation pay received by each unit employee in 1965. On March 3, 1966, Respondent replied to the Union's request and supplied it with the names and job titles of the employees in the unit as the Union had asked, but it refused to supply the other information, stating, "We are not in a position to comply with the other requests in your February 22nd letter." The Union wrote to Respondent again on March 14, 1966, renewing its request for the information which Respondent had not supplied, but on March 21, 1966, Respondent's attorney acknowledged the request and stated that: "I do not believe there is anything in this letter, in view of the fact that the contract is still in exist- ence, which would lead me to change my mind as to the furnishing of the infor- mation you requested in that letter. You have already been furnished with what I think is appropriate under the circumstances." There have been no additional communications between the parties since March 21, 1966. When asked by counsel during the hearing why he did not furnish the Union with the information it requested, Robert Weber, managing partner of Respondent, replied: Well, I have always been of the opinion that what a man makes in cents per hour and his total earnings is a personal and private matter. We get requests from the credit bureaus and collection agencies and people like that for this type of information, but we always tried to delay the broadcast- ing of this type of information and I also feel that it is readily available, easily available, upon inquiry by the interested parties. Weber also testified, and there is no dispute about this, that there have been no grievances filed under the present contract related to data asked by and refused the Union, and that the Union signed the existing contract after it was denied sim- ilar wage data during the 1965 negotiations. The labor agreement presently in effect contains a wage clause providing for an across-the-board increase of 6 cents per hour. to all "employees in each job classification . . . which shall be over and above the wage rates in effect on Au- gust 31, 1965." The contract also provides for "job postings," and there is a vaca- tion clause which states that ". . . Vacation pay shall be paid on the same basis as it was paid for the year preceding the execution of this contract." An official of the Local Union and Gerald Blashka, secretary-treasurer of Mid- western States Regional Council of the International Union who helps administer and negotiate contracts, both tesified that they needed the facts sought by the Union to assist them in administration of the agreement, and, in addition, Blashka testified that he needed the information to help him prepare for forthcoming con- tract negotiations with this Respondent and other companies in the industry. I credit them both. 2. Analysis, additional findings, and conclusions Respondent concedes that the Board has established a rule, with court approval, that an employer is required to furnish the union representing its employees wage 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and other related data in order to make collective-bargaining effective.' It is also agreed that it has been established that requests for wage data or fringe benefits information are presumptively lawful requests and the union need not show the precise relevancy of the requested information to particular bargaining issues under consideration unless effective employer rebuttal comes forth.2 In Boston Herald- Traveler Corporation,3 the Board reiterated that information relating to wages or fringe benefits "is obviously related to the bargaining process" and that it is "virtually impossible" to forecast whether the information sought will be relevant "except in those infrequent instances in which the inquiry is patently outside the bargaining issues." In the Curtis-Wright case,4 the court of appeals, in affirming the Board said: Wage and related information pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant, for, as such data concerns the core of the employer- employee relationship, a union is not required to show the precise relevance of it, unless effective employer rebuttal comes forth. Although Respondent recognizes these rules or guidelines, it argues that the Board has some discretion and should not exercise its power where the request is a "shotgun" request "without any further proof or relevancy." But the informa- tion here sought is not so broad as Respondent indicates. The Union wants wage rates and related information; specifically it requested rates of pay, total yearly earnings, overtime pay, and vacation pay, all of which are "money items," in the collective-bargaining vernacular, and at "the core of the employer-employee relationship." The Respondent also contends that the information need not be produced because it is "readily and easily available to any member of the unit and/or the Union," but this also is no excuse for Respondent's failure to supply it .5 It may be that each employee could obtain his part of the total information sought and supply it to the Union, but Respondent's contention overlooks the fact that the Union is the statutory representative of all employees in the unit and is entitled to act for them. The argument that the information is "private" or "personal" and confidential, as suggested by Respondent, has also been decided. In the Boston-Herald case, the Board said: The argument that some employees may prefer financial anonymity rests on but a speculative basis and, in any event, such individual desires must yield to the interests of the great majority of workers represented in the suit. As found above, the record shows that no actual grievances have been presented under the terms of the contract concerning the subjects which are the basis for the Union's request for information, and it seems to be Respondent's final con- tention that this makes the Union's request defective. This contention has also been ruled on adversely to Respondent. The Union's right to relevant wage and fringe benefit information is not dependent upon the existence of a particular controversy or the processing of a specific grievance. As stated, the right includes all information which appears reasonably necessary to enable the Union to intel- ligently and effectively administer or seek to modify its agreement.6 Finally, in addition to bringing forth nothing to effectively rebut the presump- tive relevance of the wage and fringe benefit data, the evidence shows that the Union in good faith feels that it needs the information for good contract admin- istration and that this belief is not unwarranted on the facts. The labor agreement in effect at the time of the Union's request for data contains provisions concerning IWhitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537, enfd. 217 F.2d 593 (C.A. 4) ; The Item Com- pany, 108 NLRB 1634. $ Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation, 110 NLRB 2097, enfd. 223 F.2d 55 (C.A. 1) ; Curtis8-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152, enfd. 347 F 2d 61 (C.A. 3). $ Supra, footnote 2, at 2098. * Supra, footnote 2, at 69. 5 Aluminum Ore Company, 39 NLRB 1286; Kenai Salmon Packing Company d/b/a Kenai Packers, 144 NLRB 1122. e Whitin Machine Works, Supra, footnote 1 ; N.L.R.B. v. Item Company, 220 F 2d 956 (C.A. 5) ;, J. I. Case Company (Rock Island, Illinois), 118 NLRB 520, enfd. 253 F.2d 149 (C.A. 7). WEBER VENEER & PLYWOOD CO. 1057- wage increases for employees "in each job classification" and vacation pay to be- paid "on the same basis as it was paid for the year preceding the execution" of- the contract. Nevertheless, despite these provisions, the contract does not list the rates of pay for the many job classifications which exist at Respondent nor contain any explanation of what was the basis for computing vacation pay in the year preceding the execution of the agreement. Similarly, the contract contains a clause, permitting job bidding, and the rate allocated a classification, as well as the total yearly earnings and overtime pay, which accrued to such classification, are rele- vant factors in bidding for a particular job or classification. It seems clear, there- fore, that this information, like the rate for each classification and the amount of vacation pay paid each unit employee in 1965, is the kind of wage and relatedt information reasonably necessary to enable the Union to administer its contract and perform its representative function intelligently.? Moreover, the labor agree- ment will soon expire and the parties will be in negotiations for a new contract. The information sought may also assist in an effective and intelligent preparation, and presentation of contract proposals during negotiations. On the basis of the above considerations, I find and conclude that Respondent,. by failing to supply the Union with the wage and related data requested by it,. violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section III, above,. occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce 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 refused to bargain with the Union in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union the wage and related data requested by it for the year 1965, it will be recommended that Respondent supply such information to the Union. Since the delay inherent. in litigation may cause the withheld information to become stale, it will also be recommended that Respondent , upon request, supply the Union like or related, information for a more current period. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent , excluding- office clerical employees , professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super- visors 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. At all times material herein, the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing at all times since February 22, 1966, to furnish the Union: the current rate of pay and the total earnings for the calendar year 1965, of each employee in the unit ; the amount of overtime received by each unit employee in the same period ; and the amount of vacation pay received by said, employees during said period, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I N.L R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co, 351 U S. 149; N L R B. v. F. W. Woolworth Co , 352 U.S. 938. 264-188-67-vol 161-68 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Robert J. Weber and Richard K. Weber d/b/a Weber Veneer & Plywood Com- pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive represent- ative of the employees in the appropriate unit by refusing to furnish the Union information showing: the current rate of pay and the total earnings for the calen- dar year 1965, for each employee in the bargaining unit; the amount of overtime pay received by each employee in the unit in the calendar year 1965; the amount of vacation pay received by each such employee in the calendar year 1965. (b) In any other like or related manner, by refusing to furnish, upon request, like or related information, refusing to bargain collectively with the Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Furnish the Union the following information: the current rate of pay and the total earnings for the calendar year 1965, for each employee in the bargain- ing unit; the amount of overtime pay received by each employee in the unit in the calendar year 1965; the amount of vacation pay received by each such employee during the same period. (b) Post in its plant in Shawano, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the recommendations herein made.9 6In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL furnish Local IV-322 International Woodworkers of America, Region 4, AFL-CIO, the following information regarding each employee in the bargaining unit: (a) The current rate of pay and the total earnings for the calendar year 1965; (b) The amount of overtime pay received during the calendar year 1965; (c) The amount of vacation pay received during the calendar year 1965. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees of the Company, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. ROBERT J. WEBER AND RICHARD K. WEBER D/B/A WEBER VENEER & PLYWOOD COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 1059 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sec- ond Floor Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 272-8600, Extension 3879. Continental Oil Company and Frank Edward Bruso. Case 27- CA-1906. November 15, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On August 16, 1966, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision together with a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.' [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and dismissed the complaint.] 3 The Trial Examiner found, in effect, that even though Bruso may have engaged in pro- tected concerted activities , the Respondent was unaware of this and had discharged Bruso for cause. Whether or not Respondent had such knowledge, the record clearly estab- lishes that Bruso was indeed discharged solely for cause and for reasons unrelated to Section 7 of the Act. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett at Denver, Colorado, on April 7, 28, and 29, 1966. The complaint' alleges that Respondent, I Issued January 7, 1966, and based upon a charge filed September 21, 1965, by Frank Edward Bruso, an individual. After the close of the hearing, the parties jointly moved for the correction of certain errors in the transcript of testimony. The motion is hereby granted and the pleading received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit 1. 161 NLRB No. 95.