Rockwell-Standard Corp.

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge Division and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), "AFL--CIO. Case 7-CA-5558 June 28, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On March 28, 1967, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, the Union filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision 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 powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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, and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.I ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and orders that the Respondent, Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge Division, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: Reletter present paragraph 2 as paragraph 3, and add the following as paragraph 2 to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order: "2. Post at its Clark Avenue facility in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's represents LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material." i Unlike the case cited by the Trial Examiner, where no exceptions were filed to a Trial Examiner's failure to recommend the posting of a notice, we here find meet in the General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's departure from our cutsomary practice of ordering the posting of a notice as part of the remedy for the commission of unfair labor prac- tices. '- 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 "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En- forcing an Order." APPENDIX 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, as amended, you are notified that: WE WILL, upon request, furnish Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 174, with the names, classifications, wage rates, and job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical and office employees and of service contract office and clerical employees working in the Bagley Building, Detroit, Michigan. ROCKWELL STANDARD CORPORATION TRANS- MISSION AND AXLE DIVI- SION, FORGE DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting 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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Bou- levard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone 226-3200. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM F. SCHARNIKOW, Trial Examiner: The com- plaint in the present case alleges, but the Respondent in its answer denies, that the Respondent has refused to 166 NLRB No. 23 ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. furnish the Union with information necessary and rele- vant to the Union's performance of its role as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of an appropriate bargain- ing unit of the Respondent's employees and has thereby committed an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et. seq., herein called the Act. The Union's charge to this effect was filed and served by re- gistered mail upon the Respondent on April 10, 1966. The complaint was issued and served upon the Respon- dent on September 13, 1966. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on December 1 and 2, 1966. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issue. Since the hearing, I have received and considered briefs from the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Rockwell-Standard Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile and motor vehicle parts and other products, in various States of the United States, including the State of Michigan. Its Transmission and Axle Division and its Forge Division, both of which are located at 100-400 Clark Street, Detroit, Michigan (herein called the Clark Street buildings or place of business), and the Automotive Divi- sion Headquarters which is located at 415 Clifford, Detroit, Michigan (herein called the Bagley Building), are the only facilities involved in this proceeding. During the representative year ending on December 31, 1965, Respondent purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to it at its Clark Street place of business, ferrous metals, parts and assemblies, and other goods and materi- als of a value exceeding $50,000, which were transported and delivered to it in Detroit, Michigan, directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. During the same year, the Respondent manufactured, sold, and dis- tributed at and from its Clark Street place of business, products of a value exceeding $50,000, which were shipped directly to points located outside the State of Michigan. I find and conclude that the Respondent is now and has been at all material times an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to entertain jurisdiction in this case. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 174 (herein collec- tively referred to as the Union) are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 125 A. General Findings and the Issue Since certification by the Board in Case 7-RC-1223 in 1952, the Union (i.e., the International and its Local 174) has been the contractually recognized exclusive bargain- ing representative of an office and clerical unit of em- ployees of the Respondent and its predecessors' who have worked in three buildings comprising the Respond- ent's Clark Street, Detroit office and production facili- ties. Originally, two of these three buildings housed only the Respondent's Transmission and Axle Division and the third, its Forge Division; and the employees in the of- fice and clerical unit served only these two divisions. In 1958 or 1959, however, the Respondent moved its Au- tomotive Sales Division into the Clark Street buildings and, in the second quarter of 1964, it organized and located in one of the same buildings, an Automotive Divi- sion Headquarters through which it has since ad- ministered all 35 of its domestic and foreign operations in the automotive field. With these changes, the employees in the Clark Street office and clerical unit have served not only the Transmission and Axle and Forge Divisions, but also the Respondent's Automotive Division as well. On March 25, 1965, the Union and the Respondent ex- ecuted their present contract which will expire on December 1, 1967. The contract covers and describes the existing Clark Street office and clerical unit, incor- porating by general reference the inclusions specifically set forth in the Board's 1951-52 finding of appropriate unit, but specifically enumerating the exclusions agreed upon by the parties in the contract. Accordingly, the parties have agreed in the present proceeding, and I find upon consolidating the language of the two unit descriptions, that the Union (i.e., the Interna- tional and its Local 174) is, and has been at all times material in the present case, the exclusive bargaining agent of the following appropriate bargaining unit of the Respondent's employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act: All office and clerical employees of the Respondent at the Clark Street place of business, including the employees of the following departments: Cost de- partment, mail, file, stationery, telephone, teletype, and receptionist department, stenographic and ex- ecutive secretary department, accounts payable de- partment, burner department, material record depart- ment, receiving inspection department, purchasing follow-up department, planning department, tool design department, general factory department, plant layout department, time-study department, time and tabulating department, tool stores, inspection quality control department, traffic department, service de- partment, and forge office; and switchboard opera- tors; follow-men in the plant engineering and sales departments; and blueprint operators; but excluding all detailers; all layout men; all checkers; all junior engineers; all mathematicians; all product designers; all nurses; all laboratory technicians; all officers of the Company, all division heads; all plant managers; all superintendents; all office managers and their assistants; all department heads-and assistant depart I Originally, Timken Detroit Axle Company, and then, in succession, first the Standard Steel Spring Company, and then (upon a change in name) the present Respondent. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment heads; all secretaries to officers of the Com- pany; all secretaries to division heads; all secretaries to superintendent; all secretaries to office manager; all secretaries to department heads; all executive assistants in the accounting and sales departments; all employees of the Company's personnel and labor relations departments; all time study men; all tool progress engineers; all cost research analysts; all plant protection employees; all sales account execu- tives; all sales engineers; all employees included in the production bargaining unit represented by Local 174, or another bargaining unit for which another labor organization has been certified; and also all guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. The parties have thus generally included in the unit all the Respondent's office and clerical employees in the various departments at its Clark Street place of business and have excluded only specifically enumerated catego- ries. In performing their work, included and excluded em- ployees in the same department have shared space and in- termingled, and there has therefore been no such physical separation as might have indicated the parties' un- derstanding as to which were in the unit and which were outside. Furthermore, demarcation of the unit and the work to be properly allocated to and performed by the employees represented by the Union in the unit has de- pended both upon the construction given by the parties to the terms used to describe the excluded categories and upon continuing agreement as to the work customarily performed by these employees and therefore outside the unit. In this situation, the very description of the unit was likely to raise questions as to what work was in the unit and, as the parties stipulated, grievances filed by the Union over the years show that this was a continuing problem. Since World War II, there has been a substantial decrease in the overall number of the Respondent's Clark Street employees. The production force dropped from a wartime high of approximately 4,000 to about 1,000, mostly because of reduced peacetime production require- ments but apparently also because of shifts of some production operations to other plants and facilities of the Respondent both in the Detroit area and in Ohio. A roughly proportionate reduction in the number of em- ployees whom the parties have recognized as being in the Clark Street office and clerical unit also occurred from a 1954 Korean War high of 410 to a fluctuating number between 89 and 93 in the 3 or 4 years preceding and in- cluding 1965. All this is undisputed background essential to an un- derstanding of the issue in the present case. The instant controversy between the Union and the Respondent is the result of the Respondent's moving its Automotive Division Headquarters on November 8, 1965, from the Clark Street buildings to the Bagley Building, a new office building in downtown Detroit. The Respondent had discussed this possibility with the Union during their con- tract negotiations early in 1965 and on September 2 of that year, had notified the Union it intended to make the move in November. During the contract negotiations and in subsequent meetings and letters to the Respondent (the last of which was written on April 20, 1966), the Union expressed its concern about the transfer of any office or clerical work or workers to the new building with a consequent further reduction or "erosion" of the Clark Street unit it represented. It also asked the Respondent for information as to the names, classifications, rates of pay, and job descriptions of the Bagley Street office clerical em- ployees, which it asserted was essential to the intelligent performance of its function as bargaining representative and protector of the interests of the Respondent's Clark Street office and clerical employees. And it filed a grievance protesting the Respondent's continued "tempo- rary" employment of certain new office and clerical em- ployees in the Bagley Street Building. The Respondent refused to supply the requested information and rejected the grievance. The evidence as to all this, including the substance of the exchanges between the parties and the circumstances in which they occurred, is relevant to the issue in the present case and must therefore be considered. But the precise, limited issue presented by the complaint and the Respondent's answer is whether the Respondent com- mitted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) of the Act by its ultimate refusal on May 2, 1966, to give the information requested by the Union in a letter dated April 20, 1966. B. The 1965 Contract Negotiations The 1965 contract negotiations began in December 1964 and continued until the new contract was executed on March 25, 1965. In the course of these negotiations, the Union submitted to the Respondent three successive sets of detailed written proposals for changes in, or addi- tions to, the provisions of their expiring contract. These proposals and orally framed alternatives and additions were discussed before they were either rejected or ac- cepted by the Respondent. As executed on March 25, 1965, the contract (like the preceding contract) contained a "Waiver" provision, according to which the Respond- ent and the Union each "voluntarily and unqualifiedly waive [d] the right ... to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter referred to, or covered in this Agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement, even though such subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time that they negotiated or signed this Agreement." Early in the 1965 negotiations, the Union had heard that the Respondent was considering moving the Au- tomotive Division Headquarters to a downtown office building. In anticipation of the possible effect of such a move on the bargaining unit it represented, the Union made a number of proposals which either would have ex- tended the scope of the existing Clark Street unit to office and clerical employees at the new location, or would have recognized an existing "jurisdictional" basis for the Union's negotiating with the Respondent concerning any contemplated transfer to the new building of Clark Street employees or the work which they were then doing for the Automotive Division. The Union's various proposals suggesting what would have amounted to an agreed extension of the Clark Street bargaining unit were submitted in writing. In the first two sets of these proposals it asked that the Respondent recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of "all office and clerical employees of the Detroit City area offices" of the Respondent, instead of merely as the ex- clusive bargaining agent of "all office and clerical em- ployees of the Company at its offices at 100-400 Clark ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 127 Street," as provided by the preceding contracts. And in its third set of written proposals, the Union made an alter- native suggestion that two other changes be made in the language of the previous contract, the first by an amend- ment of the language used to identify the Respondent as party to the contract, and the second by the incorporation of an entirely new clause with respect to the existing separately defined "Jurisdictional Districts" within the unit, in each of which "Districts" specially designated union committeemen or stewards represented employees in the handling of grievances.2 The first of these two proposals was that the Respondent be identified in the new contract as "the General Offices of the Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Detroit, Michigan" rather than, as theretofore, as "the Transmission and Axle Division and Forge Division, Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Detroit, Michigan." The companion change requested by the Union was the addition of a new clause providing that, "If any of the existing offices are moved to a different location, the Union reserves the right to rearrange the jurisdictional districts as set forth in the Ap- pendix to this Agreement." The Respondent rejected these proposals. Harold Berg, the Respondent's director of industrial re atlons, told the Union in substance that the contract was limited to Clark Street employees, that the Union's proposals would extend the bargaining unit to include not only such office and clerical employees who might thereafter work at any new Detroit location but also office and clerical employees in several of the Respondent's other long-established plants and offices in surburban Detroit, and that in any event the Respondent would not agree to expand the bargaining unit beyond the employees in the Clark Street buildings. This was the substance of the testimony of both Berg and Richard Hug, the Union's unit chairman and one of its negotiators, who were the only witnesses at the hearing. Hug testified that during the negotiations the Union also orally requested some provision in the contract covering and permitting "the orderly transfer" of Clark Street office and clerical employees should any of them be moved to a new office downtown, but that Berg re- jected this request, stating in substance that the proposal was premature since there might be no move and that, if there were, none of the Clark Street employees would be moved. I credit Hug's testimony to this effect despite Berg's denial in his testimony that there had been any such union proposal during the negotiations. Having thus rejected each of the Union's foregoing proposals, the Respondent did accept a request by the Union for an inversion of phrases in the preamble to the contract, so that, as a result, the preamble to the current 1965 contract now refers to the Respondent as "The Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division and Forge Division, Detroit, Michigan," rather than (as in the previous contracts) as "the Transmission and Axle Division and Forge Division, Rockwell-Stan- dard Corporation, Detroit, Michigan." Berg did not testify as to why the Respondent agreed to this change and certainly, on the face of it, its sig- nificance is obscure. But Hug testified that he told Berg the Union wanted the change in order "to maintain ju- risdi;.ticn" over the "corporate" element of the unit's work (i.e., the office and clerical work then being per- formed at Clark Street for the Automotive Division), as well as the unit's work for the Transmission and Axle Division and the Forge Division. In the light of subsequent events, however, it is of rela- tively little importance to the exact issue presented to the Board in the instant case, whether in the 1965 contract negotiations the Respondent recognized the Union's "ju- risdiction" over the work then being performed in the unit for the Automotive Division at Clark Street or even whether (as I have found) the Union then sought a provi- sion in the contract relating to the possible future transfer of some of the bargaining unit employees. For the Union's position on these matters which furnished the foundation and springboard for its later requests of the Respondent for relevant bargaining information, was in any event shortly thereafter fully stated in a letter written by the Union's International Representative Edwin Reno to Industrial Relations Director Berg on May 17, 1965. In this letter, the Union asserted its jurisdiction over any office and clerical work which might be "trans- ferred elsewhere in the Metropolitan Detroit vicinity," claimed that it had already proposed that there be some contractual provision governing the transfer of unit per- sonnel with all their existing benefits under the contract, and, on these bases, made the following request: We are therefore requesting that if any or part of the work, now being performed by bargaining unit em- ployees, is transferred to some other location within the vicinity of Metropolitan Detroit, we immediately sit down and negotiate some orderly procedure covering this problem. C. The Respondent's Notice of its Intended Transfer of the Automotive Division and the Union's Original Request for Information on November 4, 1965 On September 2, 1965, Industrial Relations Director Berg called together Unit Chairman Hug and the rest of the Union's bargaining committee whom he then told that the Respondent would move the various departments comprising the Automotive Division Headquarters from the Clark Street building to the Bagley Building in November. In answer to Hug's questions, Berg said that the Respondent recognized the Union's jurisdiction only at Clark Street; that none of the bargaining unit em- ployees would be transferred or released but all would be retained in their current assignments at Clark Street; that the work which had been performed by them for the Au- tomotive Division at Clark Street would be brought to them by station wagon from the Bagley Building, a distance of about 3-1/2 miles, and would still be per- formed by them at Clark Street, except that the Respon- dent would have to hire some "temporary" employees (such as telephone operators, mailroom clerks, and tele- type operators) for service jobs which by their nature had to be performed with the Automotive Division in the Bagley Building.3 Hug asked Berg for another meeting so that the Union's International representative and his at- torney might be present, and Berg agreed. The meeting thus requested was held on November 4, 1965, 4 days before the Respondent moved into the 2 The Union made no request for a change in the language of the basic testimony given by Berg and Hug. Only Hug testified concerning Berg's provisions of the expiring 1961-64 contract as "Jurisdictional Districts." statement about the Respondent's intention to hire "temporary" service 3 With one exception, these findings are made upon consistent employees at the Bagley Building I credit his testimony. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bagley Building.4 The Union's Attorney, Michael Fried- man, expressed the Union's concern about the reduction of the Clark Street bargaining unit, which he described as an "erosion" of the unit, and stated that the Union be- lieved the movement of employees "would have an ad- verse effect on bargaining unit work." He asked Industri- al Relations Director Berg to give the Union the names, job descriptions, and titles of the employees who would be working in the Clark Street building and also answers to other questions which the Union would submit.5 He said that this information was needed by the Union to handle "past and future grievances" on behalf of "bar- gaining unit personnel," and that the law required the Respondent to give the Union this information. Finally, Attorney Friedman asked Berg to permit the Union to ex- amine the new Bagley Building facilities. Berg agreed to the Union's making a tour of the Bagley Building "once the office was settled there. 116 He said that if the Union still wanted the information Friedman had requested, Berg would give the request further attention but "indicated" (according to Hug's testimony which I credit) that "if the Respondent were to give it . . . [the Union] would have to wait a period of time before [it] got it."7 At this meeting on November 4, Berg did not promise to give the Union any of the information it had then requested or which it might thereafter request.8 D. The Respondent's Transfer of the Automotive Divi- sion on November 8, 1965 As noted, the Respondent moved its Automotive Divi- sion Headquarters from the Clark Street buildings into the Bagley Building on November 8, 1965. No, Clark Street unit employees have been moved, and up to the time of the hearing in the present case on December 1, and 2, 1966, none were released. The number of the em- ployees in the unit has not changed and all of them have continued to perform essentially the same work at Clark Street which they had previously performed there. As Berg had told Hug and the Unit Committee, the Respon- dent has in fact used a station wagon to bring back work from the Bagley Building so that it could be performed by the unit employees at Clark Street. Thus, for example, dictation recorded in the Bagley Building has been trans- cribed by the Clark Street operators, and tracings 4 As noted , only Berg and Hug testified at the hearing. Their testimony as to the November 4 and another later meeting between the Respond- ent's and the Union's representatives on December 10 was to a great ex- tent consistent. There were a few square conflicts, but the differences for the most part were differences in emphasis, coloration, omissions by one of details as to which the other testified, and the order of their narration of the elements of the November 4 conversation. It seems clear that both men were attempting to give a truthful version in each case of what hap- pened. Accordingly, except as noted in the margin , the following findings as to the November 4 and another later meeting between the Respond- ent's and the Union's representatives on December 10 was to a great ex- of them on a point which was not expressly nor by reasonable implication denied by the other Where there were differences in the testimony, they are resolved by the findings in the text and the relevant differences, which I have considered, are set forth in the footnotes. 5 Both Hug and Berg agreed in their testimony that Attorney Friedman asked for job descriptions and titles. But only Berg testified that Friedman said he would also submit further detailed questions I credit Berg on this. 8 The quotation is from Berg's testimony but both Hug and Berg agreed that Berg had acquiesced to the Union 's request at the November 4 meet- ing. , This finding is made upon the substance of, and the quotation is taken from, a portion of Hug's testimony on direct examination which I credit At an earlier point in his direct testimony, Hug had stated that when asked prepared by the professional employees in the Bagley, Building have been blueprinted by unit employees on the Clark Street blueprinting machine. According to Berg, the Respondent transferred to the agre-yBuilding only those owe and clerical services (such as reception, switchboard desk, teletype, stationery stock, filing and mail services) which by their nature could not be performed for the Automotive Division anywhere other than in the Bagley Building. And (still ac- cording to Berg) these services (with the exception of some filing done by secretaries) have since been per- formed in the Bagley Building, not by employees of the Respondent, but by employees of office-service contrac- tors, upon whom the Respondent has relied for these par- ticular services at the Bagley Building. Moreover, as Berg stressed in his testimony, the unit employees who had rendered this type of service for the Automotive Division have been kept at their same or similar jobs in con- tinuance of such service at Clark Street for the Axle and Transmission Division and the Forge Division.9 The Union, however, still suspects that some of the Clark Street unit work for the Automotive Division (in addition to the "direct services" referred to by Berg) was also transferred to the Bagley Building where it has been performed by new employees or by continuing nonunit employees (such as secretaries, for example) who were transferred to the Bagley Building with the executives, and the managerial, supervisory, and professional person- nel. Indeed, this suspicion is the justification which the Union and the General Counsel advance for the Union's request for information. The Respondent denies that there was any such transfer of unit work to the Bagley Building, and for this reason Industrial Relations Director Berg testified, and was cross-examined at some length, on the subject. But the issue in the present case is not whether the Respondent actually did or did not transfer unit work to the Bagley Building but whether, in 1965 and early 1966, the Union requested the Respondent to furnish informa- tion relevant to a suspected transfer of unit work and, if so, whether the Respondent's replies to the request were sufficient to satisfy its bargaining obligation under the Act. And it is, therefore, in this light that Berg's testimony must be considered. at the November 4 meeting for a summary of the Bagley Building "job du- ties, classifications or titles," Berg had said "it could be arranged, but that it would be a while before he could get this information because of the multitudeness of this." Despite this implication of a promise by Berg to provide the requested information , I find upon the remainder of Hug's testimony from which the quotations in the text have been taken that Berg promised merely to give the request further attention if he were asked to do so after the Union had made its tour of the Bagley Building. 8 Berg's testimony is credited on this point. See also the preceding foot- note as to the related testimony of Hug. 8 Berg admitted only one other exception , which he in effect minimized as a negligible, necessary adjustment of no substantial effect on the unit work or the unit employees involved. Before the move to the Bagley Building, Clerk Helen Beske had performed a number of duties including checking invoices on certain scientific periodicals purchased by the Respondent for the Automotive Division. According to Berg, despite a somewhat ambiguous statement made by him in a pretrial statement given to the General Counsel, this work did not amount to 80 percent of her work but was in fact a relatively small part of it. Since the move to the Bagley Building, the checking of these invoices has been done by one of the secretaries, and Beske, in accordance with her classification as a general clerk, has, to this extent, been assigned substitute work in addition to the other work she has always performed at Clark Street ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. On its face, Berg's testimony at the hearing in December 1966 that there was no such transfer of unit work as would actually have presented a bargainable issue appears credible. But it was cursory and general, and the Board is not called upon to decide this question upon the present record, nor therefore to reach a conclu- sion in the present case which might be regarded as bind- ing upon the parties should the matter again come up in the course of future bargaining negotiations between the Union and the Respondent. Instead, the Board's proper inquiry with respect to this portion of Berg's testimony is whether its substance was disclosed by the Respondent's replies to the Union in substantial and reasonable satisfaction of the Union's request for information as to relevant, underlying detail in 1965 and early 1966. E. The Union's Further Requests For Information and the Respondent's Replies A week or so after the Automotive Division Headquar- ters had been moved into the Bagley Building in November 1965, Industrial Relations Director Berg and another personnel man took Unit Chairman Hug and several other union committeemen on the promised tour of all eight floors of the new quarters. The tour took less than an hour. Although the members of the union com- mittee were shown and walked through the areas in which employees were working in the different departments and were not prevented from talking to employees or from seeing whatever they wanted to see, it is evident that the tour was too brief and the opportunity too limited for them to determine whether there had been a transfer of any of the details of the office and clerical work formerly done in the bargaining unit at Clark Street, other than that of the receptionist and switchboard operators. During the tour, however, the union committee was told that the Bagley Building receptionist, telephone operators, tele- type operator, and mail service and stores attendant were not employees of the Respondent but were employees of a service contract agency. Thereafter, in a letter to Industrial Relations Director Berg dated November 23, 1965, the Union repeated At torney Friedman's oral request of November 4 that the Respondent "furnish the Union with a list of names, clas- sifications, and a summary of job duties of all employees at the new [Bagley Building] location" but limited the request to "non-confidential employees." In addition, on December 9, 1965, the Union filed a "policy grievance," purportedly based upon article XIV of the contract which limits the Respondent's hire of "temporary employees ... through a service organiza- tion" to a period not exceeding 30 calendar days. The Union took this action apparently in the belief that at least the Respondent's use of the "service" employees in the Bagley Building for more than 30 days constituted a breach of article XIV and therefore furnished the basis of such a "complaint arising under the terms of this Agree- ment" as to be "considered a grievance," settlement of which should be attempted by resort to the 4-step "Grievance Procedure" and ultimate arbitration under io Section A, article VI, of the contract provides that: Any complaint arising under the terms of this Agreement when presented by a steward or other duly accredited Union representative on behalf of an employee covered by this agreement to the em- 129 article VI of its contract with the Respondent.10 The full text of the Union's grievance was the following: Violation of Article 14, Section B. Temporary employees working on the switchboard, teletype machines, reception desk, stationery stock, traffic reservations, and mail services at the new of- fice location on Bagley Avenue have worked on these jobs in excess of thirty (30) calendar days. Request full time bargaining unit employees be hired and placed on these jobs immediately. On the next day, December 10, Industrial Relations Director Berg delivered to the Union the Respondent's written rejection of this grievance, thus complying with the provision of article VI of the contract relating to the third step of the four steps preceding mandatory arbitra- tion. The Respondent's rejection was in the following lan- guage: Labor Relations Reply: Grievance dated 12/9/65 (Office Unit). The subject matter of this complaint is not a grievance within the meaning of Article VI, Section A, of the Labor Agreement. Further, the terms and conditions of the Labor Agreement are applicable only to the Transmission and Axle and Forge Divi- sion located at 100-400 Clark Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, and does not extend to the new Automo- tive Division Headquarters building in downtown Detroit. Lastly, none of the personnel performing the work in question are employed by Rockwell-Standard Cor- poration. On December 10, 1965, the same day the Respondent rejected the Union's grievance, Berg also met with Hug, International Representative Edwin Reno, and the Union's committee and told them that the Union was not entitled to the information requested in the Union's letter of November 23 with respect to the names, classifica- tions, and duties of nonconfidential employees in the Bagley Building since, in Berg's opinion, the Union was the bargaining agent only for employees at Clark Street and not for any of the employees in the Bagley Building. When reminded by International Representative Reno of Union Attorney Friedman's expression of concern about "erosion" of the Clark Street unit, Berg replied that the Union had not as yet submitted "specific questions" relating to this matter. On December 15, 1965, the Union informed the Respondent in writing of its appeal of the Respondent's rejection of the December 9 grievance "to the 4th step of the grievance procedure." And, in a letter written by Unit Chairman Hug to Industrial Relations Director Berg on December 22, 1965, the Union repeated its general ployee's supervisor shall be considered a grievance and an earnest ef- fort shall be made to settle same by the following methods of procedure:.... 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD request for information consisting of the "names, classifi- cations, and a summary of job duties of all noncon- fidential employees who are employed at the new office location on Bagley Avenue," and further stated: We cannot process the grievances that have accumu- lated at the Fifth Step of the Grievance Procedure to arbitration since we are unable to bargain intel- ligently on these as well as other past and future grievances until the information requested is furnished. On December 27, 1965, Berg answered this letter as follows: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 22, 1965. Please be advised that our position regarding your request for a list of names, classifications, and a sum- mary of job duties is as stated to you during our meeting of December 10, 1965. On February 1, 1966, the Union filed an earlier charge against the Respondent in Case 7-CA-5449, alleging that the Respondent's refusal to supply the information requested by the Union constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. On March 7, 1966, while this earlier unfair labor prac- tice charge was pending, the Respondent, either over- looking or ignoring the Union's December 15, 1965, notice of grievance appeal, informed the Union in writing: Please be advised that based on the Union's failure to appeal grievance 65-35 to the fourth step of the Grievance Procedure in accordance with the provi- sions of Article VI of the existing Labor Agreement, the Company considers this particular grievance as settled on the basis of the Company answer sub- mitted to you on December 9, 1965. In reply to this letter, Unit Chairman Hug informed Berg by letter dated March 16, 1966, that the Union's grievance of December 9, 1965, was one of the grievances to which the Union had referred in its letter of December 22, 1965, and that: We are holding this and other pertinent grievances in abeyance until our right to the requested information is affirmed and therefore is not to be considered as a withdrawal of these grievances. Once again I wish to state that we are unable to bar- gain intelligently on these and other past or future grievances until such time as the requested informa- tion is submitted. On April 8 , 1966, the Union withdrew its charge in Case 7-CA-5449, and, in a telephone call on April 11, 1966, Union Attorney Friedman notified Industrial Rela- tions Director Berg of the withdrawal of the charge because it was "too broad." Friedman asked Berg whether in his opinion the Respondent would furnish the Union with the names , pay rates, classifications, and job descriptions of the nonconfidential employees who were working in the Bagley Building. Berg asked Friedman to put his request in writing. Accordingly, on April 20, 1966, Attorney Friedman wrote Berg the following letter: Since the opening of your new office building on Bagley Avenue the UAW has been confronted with a serious problem of preserving the integrity of its of- fice unit at your Clark Street location. Although no office employees represented by the UAW have been transferred to the Bagley Avenue building, we suspect that much of our bargaining unit work is being performed at the new building. As you know, prior to the move to Bagley the UAW office unit performed various clerical services for employees at Clark Street who were not represented by the Union. Many of those un- represented employees were transferred to the Bagley office. The Union-represented employees remained at Clark Street and have continued to do some of the clerical work for the personnel at Bagley. However, we are apprehensive that much of this work, traditionally performed by UAW-represented employees, is now being performed by newly hired office clericals at the Bagley location. We are also concerned that new classifications may have been established for office clericals at Bagley, and that employees in those classifications may be performing work which is within the jurisdic- tion of Clark Street bargaining unit employees. Also, we are concerned with the possibility that other cleri- cal work, which Clark Street employees have per- formed in the past, has been shifted to the Bagley Avenue clerical employees. In addition, it appears that Rockwell-Standard has entered into contracts with employment agencies for the furnishing of office clerical employees at the Bagley office. Our problem is that we are not aware of the scope or content of all of the office operations being per- formed at the new Bagley Avenue building. For this reason the Union has been unable to determine whether or not to process grievances over work as- signments and related problems arising out of the relocation. We cannot properly evaluate what course of action to follow unless we receive certain relevant data relating to the Bagley office clericals. We must possess this information before we will be able to determine whether to file grievances, undertake further Labor Board proceedings, seek amendments to the collective bargaining contract, or take other appropriate action. Therefore, to facilitate the effec- tive policing of the collective bargaining agreement, we request the following information: names, clas- sifications, rates of pay, and job descriptions of all of- fice clerical employees at the Bagley Avenue build- ing. This information should also include all office clericals who have been supplied pursuant to con- tracts with employment agencies such as Manpower, Kelley Girls, etc. This request, of course, does not cover any confidential or managerial employees as defined by the National Labor Relations Act. We wish to make it clear that we are not, in this matter, seeking recognition as bargaining agent for all the employees in the Bagley building. Our only con- cern is to find out whether or not work from our ex- isting clerical unit is being performed at the new loca- tion. Your prompt compliance with this request will be appreciated. In reply to this, Berg wrote Friedman the following letter on May 2, 1966: This will acknowledge your letter of April 20, 1966. As you are well aware, we do not agree with many of the assertions contained in your letter. ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 131 Since the present request for information is essen- tially the same as your previous requests made in November and December of last year, our position remains the same. F. Summary-Analysis of the Facts From the foregoing facts, it appears that since early 1965, when the Union first learned that the Respondent was considering moving its Automotive Division Headquarters from the Clark Street Buildings, the Union has repeatedly expressed concern to the Respondent that such a move would continue the previous, substantial "erosion" of the Clark Street unit of office and clerical employees it represents, and has attempted to find a way to enable it to preserve for these employees the work which they had been doing at Clark Street for the Au- tomotive Division. There have been two distinct, succes- sive phases in this attempt. At first. in the 1965 contract negotiations, the Union submitted proposals which either would have extended the scope of the existing Clark Street unit to office and clerical employees at the new location, or would have recognized an existing "jurisdictional" basis for the Union's negotiating with the Respondent concerning any contemplated transfer to the new building of Clark Street employees or the work which they were then doing for the Automotive Division. But the Respondent rejected these proposals. It said that it would not agree to an ex- pansion of the Clark unit described in the preceding con- tract, particularly since the language suggested by the Union would have included office and clerical employees not only in the new Detroit Building but also in other established Detroit plants or offices of the Respondent. And it rejected the Union's anticipation of future negotia- tions concerning the possible transfer of Clark Street of- fice and clerical employees as being premature, since, it said, there had as yet been no decision to move the Au- tomotive Division, and, in any event, none of the Clark Street unit employees would be moved. Furthermore, as has been noted, the only contract change conceded to the Union by the Respondent was an inversion of phrases in the preamble to the contract- a change which can at most be regarded as recognition of the fact that em- ployees in the unit had been performing work at Clark Street for the Automotive Division as well as for the two production divisions. After the Respondent notified the Union on September 2, 1965. that the Automotive Division Headquarters would be moved to the Bagley Building in November, the Union's objective was still the preservation of unit work for the employees in the Clark Street unit. But, in the light of intervening developments its approach to the problem changed. It no longer sought the expansion of the Clark Street unit, which the Respondent had rejected in the contract negotiations and made this clear to the Respon- dent in its letter dated April 20, 1966. Nor did it seek to protect unit employees in possible transfers to the Bagley Building, since the Respondent had notified it that no unit employees would be transferred and, in fact, none were transferred. Instead, it concentrated its attention upon two other matters which, although they have not thus far resulted in a reduction of the number of employees in the Clark Street unit, may eventually have this effect. The first of these matters was the admitted fact that some of the work performed by unit employees at Clark Street was transferred to the Bagley Building and is being done there by employees of a contract service agency. And the second matter was the possibility that additional unit work may have been transferred and is being performed by other transferred or new nonunit employees in the Bagley Building. To deal with these matters, the Union not only filed its grievance of December 9, 1965, relating to the Respond- ent's use of "temporary employees," but also repeatedly requested information from the Respondent as to the names, classifications, rates of pay, and job descriptions of all the Respondent's nonconfidential office and clerical employees in the Bagley Building. This request for infor- mation was made by the Union, it will be recalled, at its meeting with the Respondent on November 4, 1965, and in its letters of November 23 and December 22, 1965„ and of March 16 and April 20, 1966. On all of these occasions, until its letter of April 20, 1966. the Union referred simply to the necessity of hav- ing the information so that it could handle and bargain in- telligently on the "grievance" of December 9, 1965, and other similar "grievances," and made no specific reference to any broader purpose nor to its need for infor- mation as to employees of office service contractors working in the Bagley Building even though they might not (strictly speaking) be "employees" of the Respon- dent. In rejecting the "grievance" and refusing to supply the requested information on and after December 10. 1965, the Respondent treated the "grievance" and the request as being inseparable. It explained its action to the Union on the grounds that the "temporary employees" to which the "grievance" referred were not its employees, and that, in any event, there was no "grievance" under the contract (and therefore no related right to the informa- tion sought) because the contract covered only Clark Street and not Bagley Building personnel. These were also the reasons which the Respondent again gave to the Union when, on May 2. 1966, it refused to supply the information requested by the Union in the latter's letter of April 20, 1966. But, regardless of whether the Respondent's position was justified before April 20. 1966, the Union's letter of that date more clearly spelled out both the scope and the broad basis for its request for the information sought by it. Thus, in this letter, the Union asked for the names, classifications. wage rates, and job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical and office employees of the Respondent and ser- vice contract employees who were working in the Bagley Building as an aid in determining, first, whether and to what extent any of the office or clerical work previously done by unit employees in the Clark Street buildings had been transferred to, and was being performed in. the Bagley Building and, secondly, upon the basis of this in- formation, what course it should take in the performance of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the Clark Street unit employees under the contract to preserve "the integrity" of the unit, i.e., whether it should "file grievances, undertake further Labor Board proceedings, seek amendments to the collective bargain- ing contract, or take other appropriate action." G. Conclusions In an attempt to perform its duty as the representative of the Clark Street unit employees, the Union thus sought information from the Respondent preliminary to a deter- mination by it of whether it should process grievances or request the Respondent to bargain concerning the "ero- sive" effect upon the Clark Street unit of the Respond- 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent's transfer of the Automotive Division to the Bagley Building. Although the Respondent does not press the point, it intimates in its brief (at pages 32-33) that the Union had waived the right to bargain on this matter by accepting the broad "Waiver" provision in its current 1965 contract with the Respondent. (See section III, B, above.) But such an argument has no merit in the present case. For, to be effective, a contractual waiver by a union of the right to bargain about a particular matter must be "clear and unmistakable." 11 Even when a "waiver" is ex- pressed in a contract in such broad, sweeping terms as is the "Waiver" in the present case, it must appear "from an evaluation of the ... negotiations that the [particular] matter was `fully discussed' or `consciously explored' and the union `consciously yielded' or clearly and unmistakably waived its interest in the matter." 12 In the present case, it is clear that the Union and the Respond- ent did not "fully discuss" the effect of the possible, fu- ture transfer of the Automotive Division upon the Clark Street barganing unit. Nor can 1t be said to have "con- sciously yielded" or waived its interest in the effect of the transfer when, and if, it should take place. Indeed, as I have found, the Respondent refused to discuss the matter in detail during the 1965 negotiations on the ground that such a discussion would be premature since it had not yet been decided whether or not the Automotive Division would be transferred. Accordingly, I find that the Union did not waive its right to bargain about the effect of the transfer on the Clark Street bargaining unit. The principles governing decision of the main questions in the present case are well settled: The preser- vation or diversion of work usually performed in a bar- gaining unit represented by a duly constituted exclusive bargaining agent is the subject matter of mandatory bar- gaining under the Act. 13 Not only must the employer generally bargain about such a matter, but his bargaining obligation requires him "to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties ... [even] beyond the period of contract negotiation ... [and] during the term of an agreement." (N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432; and see also N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 341 U.S. 149.) Moreover, the test of the bargaining representa- tive's "need" for such information is satisfied by showing in a case before the Board of "probability that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsi- bilities." (Acme, supra, 385 U.S. 432 at 437, 64 LRRM at 2071). [Emphasis supplied.] For, whether the union's request for information be made in its attempt to evaluate a possible grievance under a contract (as in the Acme case) 14 or in an attempt to formulate and evaluate a possible general bargaining position extra the terms of an existing contract,15 "this discovery-type standard decide[s] nothing about the merits of the union's .. . claims," since eventual orderly and proper resolution of 11 The Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. N L.R.B., 325 F 2d 746, 751 (C A. 6), cert denied 376 U.S. 971; N L.R.B. v Perkins Machine Com- pany, 326 F.2d 488 (C A. 1), N.L.R.B. v. The Item Company, 220 F.2d 956, 958-959 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S 836 12 The Press Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 976; General Motors Corp., 149 NLRB 396, 399-400; Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co., 147 NLRB 156, The New York Mirror, 151 NLRB 834,837,839-840; 1 U.E. v. General Elec- tric Co , 332 F.2d 485, 489 (C.A. 2) 13 Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v N.L.R.B., 379 U.S 203; Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council (Cardinal Industries), 136 NLRB 977, 985-986; Service and Maintenance Employees' Union, etc. (Supert- such claims against the union (whether by arbitrator's decision or in the general bargaining process) "would clearly not be precluded by the Board's threshold deter- mination concerning the potential relevance of the requested information." (Acme, supra, 385 U.S. 432 at 438, 64 LRRM at 2071). [Emphasis supplied.] Finally, it is also clear under the decisions that, subject to this stan- dard of "probable" or "potential" relevance, the em- ployer is not relieved of his obligation to supply informa- tion to the exclusive bargaining agent, even though it re- lates to nonunit employees. 16 In the light of these principles, it is clear that the Respondent in the present case was obligated under the Act not only to bargain with the Union concerning its transfer of any work out of the Clark Street office and clerical unit to nonunit personnel in the Bagley Building, but to furnish any information which the Union requested and needed for grievance or general bargaining purposes, provided the information had a "probable" or "potential" relevance to the possibility that such a transfer had been made. For the following reasons, I have concluded that, under the circumstances shown by the evidence, the stated purposes and scope of the Union's request of April 20, 1966, met this requirement of "need" and "proba- ble" or "potential" relevance. Certainly, it was not unreasonable for the Union to suspect that more work may have been transferred to the Bagley Building than the Respondent admitted, and the Union had the right to know if, and to what extent, its suspicion might have some foundation. On September 2, 1965, it was told by the Respondent that some "tempora- ry" employees would be hired for the Bagley Building anc\l, by December 10, 1965, it learned that these "tempo- rary" employees were actually the employees of a service contractor upon whom the Respondent was relying for certain service jobs in the Bagley Building which had ad- mittedly been performed by unit employees in the Clark Street buildings. Moreover, in view of the previous min- gling of the unit and nonunit employees in the Clark Buildings and the parties' difficulties as to_what was, and was not unit work when both groups had been performing work there for the Automotive Division, it was not at all clear after November 8, 1965, whether some of the work previously done by unit employees at Clark Street was being done in the Bagley Building as part of the jobs of transferred nonunit employees or new employees. At least in one instance , although perhaps in itself incon- sequential , Industrial Relations Director Berg did testify at the hearing that a secretary was in fact doing some work in the Bagley Building which had previously been performed by Clerk Beske , a unit employee at Clark Street. 17 Nor did the Respondent ever reassure the Union that, except for the service jobs, no office or clerical work theretofore performed in the Clark Street unit had been transferred to the Bagley Building, even though it was ap- or Souvenir Book Company), 148 NLRB 1033. 14 See also Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B, 347 F 2d 61, 71-72 (C.A. 3), enfg 145 NLRB 152, N L.R.B v Otis Elevator Co., 208 F.2d 176, 180 (C.A. 2). is Timken Roller Bearing Co . v. N.L.R.B., 325 F 2d 746, 750-754 (C.A. 6), enfg. 138 NLRB 15, cert. denied 376 U S. 971. 16 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L R. B, supra, Goodyear Aerospace Cor- poration, 157 NLRB 496; International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 159 NLRB 1757. 17 See fn. 9, supra. ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 133 parent that the Union's concern was the loss of Clark Street unit work as a result of the move of the Automo- tive Division to the Bagley Building. It is true that, as In- dustrial Relations Director Berg had promised the Union on September 2, 1965, the Respondent has used a station wagon to bring dictation and tracings from the Bagley Building for completion by unit employees in the Clark Street Building, but neither from the statements made by the Respondent to the Union at the time nor even from the general testimony given at the hearing, does it appear clear that all the previous clerical and office unit work was thus preserved for the Clark Street employees. Under the circumstances, the Union reasonably sought a basis for making its own determination. But the Union's tour of the new office building in November certainly was inadequate for the purpose. And so the Union, naturally and sensibly interested in the basic work details rather than such generalities as were eventually given by Indus- trial Relations Director Berg at the hearing in the present case, asked the Respondent who the Bagley Building non- confidential, office and clerical employees were, and what their job descriptions, classifications, and wage rates were, all of which have given the Union some idea of whether any of them were doing unit work and would have enabled the Union to discuss the matter intelligently with the Respondent-i.e., to bargain with the Respond- ent on unit work either within the framework of the grievance procedures or of general, contractual bargain- ing. This is what the Union obviously attempted to do, as it explained clearly and in detail in its final letter to the Respondent on April 20, 1966. Upon this view of the evidence, I conclude (1) that the information requested by the Union in its letter of April 20, 1966, was needed by it in order to enable it to bargain intelligently with the Respondent for the purpose of pro- tecting the work of the bargaining unit it represented; (2) that the information requested was "probably" or "poten- tially" relevant to this matter; and (3) that, by refusing to supply the information, Respondent committed an unfair labor practice 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 business operations of the Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its refusal to furnish relevant infor- mation to the Union for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from its continuance of the unfair labor practice and furnish the information upon the Union's request. No recommendation is made under the circum- stances of this case for the Respondent's posting any notice of its compliance with this recommendation (Curtisss-Wright Corp., 145 NLRB 152. 157-158, enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 376 U.S. 971). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO and its Local No. 174 (herein collectively referred to as the Union) are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. Under the provisions of Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act, the Union has been at all material times, and is now, the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in the ap- propriate bargaining unit of the Respondent's Clark Street, Detroit, office and clerical employees, which has been described at length in section III, A, above. 3. The Respondent has committed and is committing an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by its refusal on and since May 2, 1966, to furnish the Union, as the exclusive bargaining agent aforesaid, with the names, classifications, wage rates, and job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical and office employees of the Respondent and of service contract office and clerical employees then working in the Bagley Building, Detroit, Michigan. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Rockwell-Stan- dard Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge Division, a Delaware corporation , its agents, suc- cessors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing to furnish , and shall upon request furnish , International Union, United Au- tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultrral Implement Work- ers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 174, with the names, classifications , wage rates , and job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical and office em- ployees of the Respondent , and of service contract office and clerical employees working in the Bagley Building, Detroit, Michigan. 2. Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. is 11 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 Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith." 308-926 0-70-10