Boeing Co.

VERTOL DIV., BOEING COMPANY 421 Vertol Division , Boeing Company and Local 1069 , Interna- tional Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 4-CA-4975 May 14, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On January 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommend- ing 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 sup- porting brief. The General Counsel and Charging Party filed reply briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner made at the hearing and finds 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner. We agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner that by its refusal to furnish the Charging Party with information concerning maintenance work being per- formed by subcontractors on Respondent's premises, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Union sought the information in aid of certain grievances which it had filed, and "in order to fully investigate the strength of the Union's [grievance] posi- tion and in order to reach a final decision as to whether or not to proceed to arbitration.. . ." The Trial Examin- er found that the information sought was relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union's responsibility for administering the collective-bargaining agreement, or to represent unit employees; and in the affirmative part of his Recommended Order directed the Respondent to furnish information concerning the subcontracting of maintenance work "relevant and reasonably neces- sary" to the Union's responsibility. The Respondent argues that the Recommended Order is so broad and devoid of guidelines as to be unsupporta- ble; and that it sets out no specifics as to what is "necessary and relevant." It is apparent, however, that in directing the Respondent to furnish information "rele- vant and reasonably necessary," the Trial Examiner was merely characterizing the information which had been requested and which he had in fact already found was "relevant and reasonably(necessary," as indicated in the use of that term in the "cease and desist" part of -his Recommended Order. The ' obligation imposed on the Respondent, as we understand the Trial Examin- er's Recommended Order, is simply to furnish the Union with the details of the arrangements Respondent had with the subcontractors performing maintenance work in accordance with the Union's request and not to impose on the Respondent the responsibility for deciding what is relevant and reasonably necessary. We conclude therefore that the Respondent's exception is without merit. As for the Respondent's objection that the working of the Trial Examiner's proposed "Notice to Employ- ees," is even more improper in that it does not even limit the Union to "relevant and reasonably necessary" information, we can see no basis for the objection. It is apparent that the Respondent's obligation is deter- mined by the terms of the Trial Examiner's Recommend- ed Order, ' which we adopt, and is neither enlarged nor limited by the language of the Notice. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby ' orders that Vertol Division , Boeing Company , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban at Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, on October 22, 1969, upon allega- tions in the complaint issued August 29, 1969, based upon charges filed by the Charging Party (herein called the Union) on July 17, 1969 (all dates hereinafter in 1969, unless otherwise noted) The complaint alleges that since on or about June 26, the Union, a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent covering an appropriate unit, has requested and Respond- ent has refused certain information relating to subcon- tracting necessary and relevant to the processing of grievances by the Union and the policing and administra- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The answer admits allegations of the complaint sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction under current standards of the Board and to support a finding that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in this case, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, 182 NLRB No. 62 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union, and the Respondent, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Facts A. Description of the Unit Involved For several years the Union has been recognized by Respondent as the bargaining representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees located at three so-called centers in the vicinity of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.' At the time of the hearing in this matter, there were about 6,300-6,500 employees in the appropriate unit among a total employment of approximately 12,000 employees employed at the three centers, which are somewhat separated one from the other. Center # 1, at Morton, Pennsylvania, is approxi- mately 6 miles from Center # 2, at Eddystone, Pennsyl- vania, which, in turn, is approximately 4 miles from Center # 3, near the Philadelphia airport. Of the three centers, Eddystone appears to be the largest, involving approximately 60 buildings on approximately 800-1,000 acres of ground on both sides of a major highway. There are about 25 buildings at Center # 1, and between 15 and 20 buildings at Center # 3. Approximately 100 stewards service the employees in the unit represented by the Union. In the unit involved, the Respondent employs several hundred maintenance employees, the group which the Union claims were primarily affected by the matters herein in-issue. Most of these maintenance employees work throughout Respondent's operations, where need- ed, rather than being strictly confined to a certain place. A number of stewards, as well as shop committeemen, are available to handle their complaints and grievances. B. The Contractual Limitation on Subcontracting The Union and the Respondent are parties,to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement covering the unit described above, to which is attached a supplement, originally executed October 12, 1968, relating to subcontracting, which is the principal contract provision involved herein, providing in pertinent part as follows: The Company will not subcontract any maintenance work now performed by members of the bargaining unit if such action would result in the layoff of any maintenance employees who are qualified to do such work or if such action would prevent the recall from layoff of any maintenance employees who are qualified to do such work, unless the Company does not have the equipment to perform ' It is admitted that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit within the meaning of the Act All production and maintenance employees [of the Respondent herein] excluding guards, professional employees , office clerical employees , salaried clerical employees , all technical and office payroll employees and all supervisory employees as defined in the Act such work or unless conditions require its immediate performance. Any claim by the Union that the Company has violated . . . this paragraph shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration provi- sions . . . of the Agreement. Other provisions of the bargaining agreement will be referred to hereinafter as becomes necessary. C., The Grievances The principle grievance with which we are here con- cerned, No. 2-159, was filed by the Union in written form (at step 3 of the contract grievance procedure) on April 21, 1969. However, prior to that date, on March 12, the Union had also filed a somewhat related greivance, numbered 2-138, also involving the contractu- al limitation on subcontracting which , in its early stages, as hereinafter noted, became somewhat intertwined with the treatment of grievance 2-159. In the earlier grievance, No. 2-138, the Union complained that the Respondent had subcontracted janitorial and maintenance services in building 3-28 to "Gooser Company," "with Maint. people on Layoff or could cause a layoff of maint. emp's in violation of Letter of Agreement [limiting sub- contracting] signed October 1968. As noted above, the second grievance involving alleged subcontracting of maintenance work was filed on April 21. Prior to that time the Union had received, in accordance with normal practice, a document from Respondent entitled "Employee Surplus Final Distribu- tion Report," showing the names, classifications, shifts, plant location, etc. of employees' whose status had changed effective April 18, because they were no longer needed in their original positions '(and therefore were "surplus"). A significant number of these were mainte- nance employees.2 At that time other maintenance employees were already on layoff. According to John Taylor, president of the Union, the only witness at the hearing, this condition has continued to the time of the hearing in this matter. According to Taylor, various employees and shop stewards had reported to the union office that various named contractors had been seen on Respondent's property doing work, and the Union was being requested to advise the members what these contractors were doing on the property, "and so forth." On the basis of thisl information, the Union filed grievance No. 2=159, asserting, "The surplus effective Friday, April 18, 1969 whereas Maintenance type employees are being surplused is in violation of sub-contract letter of understanding ," and requesting that "Company recall work that is now subcontracted out from the maintenance type work, and pay all money lost to maintenance employees now on layoff and in the future." 2 Although Respondent in its brief states that this action of the Respondent resulted in the layoff of about 13 maintenance employees, the Trial Examiner's analysis of G C Exh 4 indicates that about 24 maintenance employees suffered displacement of one sort of another at that time as a result of being declared surplus VERTOL DIV, BOEING COMPANY D The Requests for Information On April 22 the day after the date of written grievance No 2-159, representatives of the Union and the Respondent met on this subject According to Taylor, the Union "pointed out to [Respondent] that we had information which led us to believe that there were subcontractors in the plant," and asked for information concerning them Taylor stated that the Union advised the Respondent of the names of `several firms which we knew were operating on the premises, but we did not know what they were doing, and we had asked for information at that time " It appears that the Union asked "what they were doing and what reason they were there," as well as, possibly, 'how many subcontractors there were," and ' what was the dollar volume of the business " Taylor stated that the Union asked for the latter, "because we felt that it was impor- tant that we knew the size of the contract, how many people were required, and so forth, due to the fact that we had a lot of people laid off " As an example of the discussion, Taylor stated that "on the final disposition reported dated 4/18, you'll notice one construction equipment operator At the meet- ing held on April 22, 1969, I specifically asked for information pertaining to a construction firm called Elsier and Diviney, which had construction equipment on the premises at the time " Respondent adamently refused to give the Union any information, although it appears that Respondent's Manager of Industrial Relations, Bun- nell, also stated that he would consult with Respondent's attorney on the matter From this point on communication between the Respondent and the Union on this subject was written The first of these communications was a letter dated April 30, from Taylor to Bunnell, stating, in pertinent part As you are aware, there are presently pending grievances numbered 2-138 and 2-159, [which] relate to the subcontracting of maintenance work and allege that the Company has violated the agree- ment concerning subcontracting In order to determine the propriety of these grievances, in order to fully investigate the strength of the Union's position, and in order for the Union to reach a final decision as to whether or not to proceed to arbitration, we request that the Com pany supply to the Union immediately the following information and material [The first four numbered requests were for the name and address of the contractor doing the work covered by grievance No 2-138, a copy of any agreement which the Respondent had covering such work, or the arrangement of the contractor perform- ing such work if not by agreement with Respondent, and for a list of the number of nonunit employees and hours worked by such employees on such work since February 1 ] 5 A list of all subcontracts presently in effect covering maintenance work to which the Company is a party together with a statement containing 423 the date of entry of such subcontracts and the specific work covered thereby 6 A statement of the man hours worked by non-bargaining unit employees under the subcon- tracts listed in the previous question since January 1, 1969, and a description of the work performed by such individuals The Union believes that there have been certain violations of the subcontracting agreement by the Company and we desire to conduct a full, thorough and complete investigation of all subcontracting of maintenance work in order to determine the nature and extent of such violations of the agree ment The Union obviously intends to pursue its legal remedies if it is determined that the Company has acted in a fashion contrary to the collective- bargaining agreement It appears that the Respondent did not reply to the Union ' s letter until May 28 (which reply was withdrawn because of a typographical error and a new letter dated June 4 substituted for it), but before that time, on May 5, Respondent made a written response to grievance No 2-159 at step 3 of the grievance procedure, as follows The grievance is improperly submitted for the fol- lowing reasons I Article V-A, Sec 1, Step 3 specified (sic) that the written grievance " shall set forth" "the facts involved " 2 There are roughly 30 maintenance type clas sifications , there is no specific "type", noted in the grievance 3 The company extended time to the Union to rewrite the grievance providing the neces- sary information needed The Union has ref- used The Company has no alternative but to answer the general charge with the general answer that the Company is not aware of what the specific complaint is The grievance is improper 3 Respondent 's letter of June 4, in response to the requests contained in the Union 's letter of April 30, advised, as to the first four inquiries made , that the work involved in grievance No 2-138 was being per- formed by "The Albert J Grosser Company" under arrangements with the owner of the building, only a part of which was leased to Respondent , that the Union had a written description of the services being performed, that Respondent did not have a list of the persons employed , or hours worked in connection with these services , and that Respondent would make available 9 The Union thereafter although admittedly without the evidence to support its claim submitted grievance No 2-159 to arbitration because under the contract such submission must be made within 10 days after the Respondents response at step 3 or the right to do so is waived Respondent is contesting the arbitrability of the grievance on the ground that the grievance allegedly does not as the contract requires set forth a statement of the issue and the facts involved the remedy requested and the violation of the Agreement which is claimed The grievance apparently has not been heard by an irbitrator 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the Union the lease agreements under which Respond- ent occupied the building iii question. The letter conclud- ed as follows: As for the requests numbered 5 and 6, neither your letter nor Grievance #2-159 establishes any legitimate basis for .honoring them. You have not indicated the specific maintenance work or the location of its performance heretofore performed by members of the Bargaining Unit which is now being performed by Non-Bargaining Unit employ- ees, the maintenance employees qualified to do such work who have been laid off or prevented from recall by such work, nor have you established, in any way, the necessity and relevance of this information to the Onion's responsibilities as a Bargaining Agent. On June 5, apparently before it received Respondent's letter of June 4', the Union addressed another communi- cation to the Respondent on this subject. In this letter, the Union stated that it had been advised that Respondent had subcontracted work to the Mitchell Comapny of Jersey City, New Jersey, which firm appeared to be engaged in machine building, but was not "advised of what work," or "exactly when" such work had been subcontracted. The letter requested (1) a copy of any agreement between Respondent and the Mitchell Company for performance of work, for the Respondent, and (2) a statement of the work covered and the date of any'such subcontract. It was stated that the informa- tion was "necessary in order for the Union to pursue and process Grievance No. 2-159." In reply to these requests,. Respondent, ' on June 26, wrote the Union, in pertinent part: until we have been informed [by the Union] as to . . . the specific-maintenance work or the location of its performance heretofore performed by members of the bargaining unit which is now being performed by non-bargaining unit employees, the maintenance employees qualified to, do such work who have been laid, off • or prevented from recall, by such work, and the necessity and the relevance of this information to the Union's respon- sibilities as bargaining agent, we are not in a position to supply you with generalized information about sub-contracting by the Boeing Company's Vertol Division. The letter then concluded with the statement that if the Union was making the work done by the Mitchell Company the 'sole basis of Grievance No. 2-159, and would inform Respondent "to this effect, in writing," Respondent would then "be happy to make available for your examination a copy of the agreement between [Respondent] and the Mitchell Company, and to inform you when this agreement was made and what work is covered by it." At the time the Respondent sent this last-letter (dated June 26), it was in possession of'an intervening letter from the Union, dated June 19, on this same subject, in which the Union,,with respect to grievance No. 2-138 asked for certain information, and with respect to grievance No. 2-159, in pertinent part, stated: . . In your communication . . . of June 4, 1969, you state that [the Union has] not indicated the specific maintenance work being performed by non-bargaining unit employees or provided you with other information concerning such subcontracts. Obviously this information is not within our posses- sion and this is exactly why it is being requested of the Company. The Union is aware, however, that the Company has subcontracted with a number of concerns. Our information, although limited, indicates that among these concerns are the following: [The Union here listed the names of 15 companies including Mitchell Company, Eliser & Diviney and Grossner, previously mentioned ] In regard to the above concerns, the Union insists that you supply to us the following information: 1. Whether the Company has subcontracted any work to- such concerns 2. The date of such subcontract. 3. The specific work covered by such' subcon- tract. ' 4. The man hours worked by nonbargaining unit employees under each such subcontract, and advise as to whether such work was performed on or off the Company's premises. 5 A statement as to whether the work covered by the subcontract is continuous, sporadic or, was simply a single act. The Union further requested that it be advised of any other subcontracts concerning maintenance which the Respondent might have, unknown to the Union, with information concerning such subcontractors similar to that previously requested It was stated that the information was, desired to permit an investigation of subcontracting or maintenance work, which it was assert- ed at another place in the letter` was believed 'to be in violation of the agreement, and it was further indicated that the information was essential to the processing of grievance No 2-159 By a long letter dated July 9, Respondent replied to the Union's letter of June 1§. It set forth at. length certain information concerning grievance No. 2-138, which had been requested, and, at some length, criticized 'the Union for its failure to "particularize"• grievance No. 2-159, and, in effect, denied that the Respondent's failure to supply the information requested had "prevent- ed [the Union] from telling us what Grievance No. 2-159 is all about." Respondent also stated in this letter that, though the Union had listed certain alleged subcontractors to Respondent, "there is nothing in your letter which in any way indicates that any of these subcontracts, if they exist at all, have any bearing upon the commitments that the company has undertaken in the subcontracting agreement." In particular, Respondent stated, "You have still not given us any indication of the specific maintenance work or the location of its performance heretofore performed by members of the bargaining unit which is now being performed by non-bargaining VERTOL DIV, BOEING COMPANY unit employees or the maintenance employees qualified to do such work who have been laid off or prevented from recall by such work " Respondent stated that if more fully informed about grievance No 2-159, it would do its "best to reply within the extent of our legal obligations ' So far as this record shows, the Union addressed one additional letter to Respondent on the subject, on July 23, referring to Respondent's letters of June 26 and July 9 The Union stated its satisfaction with the information submitted with respect to grievance No 2-138 However, as to grievance No 2-159, the Union again stated that it believed that the Respondent had subcontracts with the firms named in its previous letter which it believed "may well be in violation" of the subcontracting agreement, that the Union needed the information requested to determine whether the agree- ment had been violated, "and in order to determine whether or not to pursue our remedies through the grievance procedure and arbitration", that the Union could not advise Respondent of the "specific mainte- nance work" which was the basis for grievance No 2-159, as requested by Respondent, until Respondent supplied the information sought by the Union, and that `the work being done by the Mitchell Company is not the sole basis of Grievance No 2-159 " The Union renewed its request for information previously detailed On August 12, Respondent replied, confirming its position previously set forth Analysis and Conclusions It is now well established that a labor organization obligated to represent employees in a bargaining unit with respect to the terms and conditions of their employ ment is entitled, upon appropriate request, to such infor mation from the employer as may be relevant and reason- ably necessary to the proper execution of that obligation And the right to such information exists as well for the purposes of administering a collective-bargaining agreement after it has been negotiated as for the purposes of negotiating the agreement in the first instance As the Board has stated, The employer's duty, in either instance, is predicated upon the need of the union for such information in order to provide intelligent represen tation of the employees " See F W Woolworth Compa- ny, 109 NLRB' 196, 197, enfd 352 U S 938 While the limits of this right to information and the correlative duty to supply it have not been fully defined as yet, all of the cases considering this issue, either in their facts or their rationale indicate, as the Board stated in Woolworth, that the right to the information arises out of a ' need' for it shown by the circumstances of the particular situation See N L R B v Acme Indus- trial Co , 385 U S 432 The American Oil Company 164 NLRB 29 The Respondent argues, however, that while a union need not make a special showing of relevance or necessity to obtain information about employment of employees within the bargaining unit "where the request is for information concerning matters outside 425 the bargaining unit [which Respondent indicates in the case here], the union must demonstrate more precisely the relevance of the data it requests by reference to the circumstances of the case " (Br , p 7 )4 In particular, Respondent argues that in the circumstances of this case it had no obligation to inform the Union of "mainte- nance subcontracts which might involve bargaining unit work" where the Union had not established "a particular need for such documents in respect to a particular dispute " (Br , p 11 ) A similar point was considered by the Board in Interna tional Telephone and Telegraph (ITT Federal Laborator- ies), supra, where the Union involved had requested from the employer the seniority dates of out-of-unit employees who might have the right to displace unit employees under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement there applicable In rejecting the employer's contention that it had no obligation to supply the informa- tion pertaining to nonunit employees, the Board stated (154 NLRB at 1759, footpotes omitted) The Union's right to such data, however, turns not on whether the employees to whom the data refers are in a unit, but rather on whether the data itself is necessary and relevant to the Union's role as bargaining representative Where, as here, the requested information relates to the possibility of unit job displacement by nonunit employees, we do not see how the Union could properly detect infractions of the contract or institute grievances in order to protect the rights of unit employees improperly or adversely affected by such transfers unless it were given the requested information Upon review of this decision the Court held that though there was no obligation to provide such informa- tion in the circumstances there presented, where harm to unit employees was merely speculative, when employ- er action made displacement of unit employees imminent, rather than theoretical, the union was entitled to such information about non-unit employees "in order that it may detect possible contract infractions and, if appropriate, institute grievance procedures " I T & T Corp v NLRB 382 F 2d 366 372 In N L R B v Acme Industrial Co , supra, the appli cable collective-bargaining agreement provided (1) that it was the employer's policy not to subcontract work which would cause a layoff of employees or prevent their recall, and (2) that employees subject to displace ment might transfer to a new location to which the employer moved machinery out of the plant covered by the contract When the union representatives there asked for information about machinery which was being moved out of the plant,) the employer refused, both ' Citing Curtiss Wright Corp v N L R B 347 F 2d 61 International Telephone & Telegraph Corp (ITT Federal Laboratories) 159 NLRB 1757 American Oil Contpans supra Southitevern Bell Telephone Co 173 NLRB No 29 The information sought rel sled to the dates of the number of and the reason for the removals of machinery as well as the place to which it had been removed whether such facility w is operated or controlled by the employer and whether the machinery was being used for production elsewhere See Acme supra 567 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD before and after grievances were filed, on the ground that it had not been shown that a violation of the agreement had occurred. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with the Board's order that the information should be given to the union, noted that the "Board found the information was `necessary in order to enable the Union to evaluate intelligently the grievances filed' " (385 U.S. at 435), and stated that in ordering the employer to furnish the requested information, the Board "was only acting upon the probability that the ordered informa- tion was relevant and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibili- ties " (385 U S. at 437.)' The Court further held that requiring the employer to provide such information would assist the process of arbitration by enabling the union to "sift out unmeritorious claims" and prevent overburdening the aribtral system. As the Court stated, "The expense of arbitration might be placed upon the union only for it to learn that the machines had been relegated to the junk heap." (385 U S. at 438-439.) These principles are controlling here. Whatever might be the case under different circumstances, in the present matter-where Respondent had obligated itself not to subcontract maintenance work which would have the effect of displacing maintenance employees, and where the Union had cause to believe that Respondent had subcontracted such work at a time when such employees were displaced from their jobs by Respondent as surplus labor- the information sought was clearly relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union's responsibility to administer the collective-bargaining agreement, detect infractions of its terms, and intelligently counsel the employees whom it represents See International Tele- phone and Telegraph Corp., supra. Nor is it required, as Respondent argues, that a specific dispute under contract grievance procedures be present- ed before the Union's right to information obtains. Indeed, it is clear that a right to such information may arise even in the absence of a pending formal grievance. What is significant, in the words of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is the "potential value of [the information sought] as pertinent data with which the Union should be supplied in order to assist it in its task of deciding whether to institute grievance pro- ceedings or use other policing tools under the existing bargaining agreement and to guide the Union in contract negotiations." See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 70. Moreover, in the present case, where there were grounds for belief that Respondent was subcon- tracting maintenance work while maintenance employees were displaced from their jobs as surplus labor, the issues involved were certainly specific enough to justify In Soutltnestern Bell Telephone Company , supra , the Board adverted to this same standard of relevance in holding that the union there was not entitled to information relating to the cost of subcontracting, where the employer had supplied other information requested and was not relying upon cost factors in subcontracting out work The Board held that , in the circumstances of that case, it saw no probability of relevance " to the union 's functions and responsibilities in the informa- tion sought See also Uniiersal Atlas Cement Dnnoon of United Steel Corp 178 NLRB No 75, fn I the Union's request for information in order to determine whether it should file grievances, and thereafter, as the Court stated in Acme, to permit the Union "to evaluate intelligently the grievances filed" and to "sift out unmeritorious claims" prior to arbitration. To require a greater specificity would permit the Respondent, which possesses the information needed; to control, in many instances, the practical ability, of the Union to test Respondent's compliance with the agreement, and thus seriously undermine the Union's ability to represent the employees in the unit. Respondent also asserts that what the Union is really attempting here is "to make a complete investigation of the Company's maintenance subcontracting." (Br., p. 11.) It is not necessary, however, to determine here the extent to which the Union may be justified in pursuing an examination of Respondent's apparent subcontracting activities, but only to note that its requests for informa- tion, particularly as set forth in written communications to Respondent, were justified in the circumstances. It may be noted, however, as the Supreme Court has indicated, that, the Union's right to know in these situa- tions rests upon a "discovery-type standard." See N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., supra, 437; see also American Oil Company, supra, fn. 14 and cases there cited. The Union should not be required "to grope blindly through the grievance procedure" for want of relevant information within the possession of the Respondent. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 70; Fafnir Bearing Companyv. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 716, 721.' Therefore, upon the entire record in this matter, it is found that Respondent, by refusing the Union's requests for information with respect to subcontracting of maintenance work, 'engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.' 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 mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act, which, at all times material, has been and continues to be the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit set forth in footnote 1, hereinabove, for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act. The cases relied upon by Respondent are readily distinguishable In the case apparently most relied upon, American Oil Company, supra. where the employer was held justified in refusing to supply information concerning subcontracting , the, union's request , made at a time when there was no showing that the employer was subcontracting or intended to subcontract work or that any employees were or might be harmed by such subcontracting, was for copies of subcontracts which the employer might take indefinitely in the future, a vastly different situation from that involved here ' In coming to this conclusion I do not pals upon the relevance of the Union's early oral request for the value of the subcontracts, which request was not thereafter confirmed in writing and appears to have been dropped VERTOL DIV , BOEING COMPANY 427 3 By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respond- ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in this case , it is recommended that Respondent Vertol Division, Boeing Company , its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1069, International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ- ees in the appropriate unit set forth hereinabove by refusing to furnish the Union or its agents information concerning the subcontracting of maintenance work rele- vant and reasonably necessary to the Union 's responsibil- ity to administer collective-bargaining agreements between the Union and the Respondent , or to represent the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the purposes of the Act (a) Upon request , furnish to the Union or its agents information concerning the subcontracting of mainte- nance work relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union 's responsibility to administer collective -bargaining agreements between the Union and the Respondent, or to represent the employees in the appropriate bargain- ing unit (b) Post at its premises copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "s Copies of said notice to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for Region 4 , shall, H In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes after being duly signed by the Respondent , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and 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 by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith "' a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " In the event this Recommended order is adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional Director for Region 4 in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, upon request , furnish to Local 1069, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), information with respect to subcontracting of maintenance work so that the Union can deter- mine whether these matters are in compliance with the collective-bargaining agreement between the Company and the Union, and properly represent and advise the employees with respect to these matters VERTOL DIVISION, BOEING COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office 1700 Bankers Securities Building Walnut & Juni per Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7601