General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY General Electric Company and International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 10-CA-7668 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On October 16, 1969, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision Thereafter, the General Counsel and Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision and briefs in support thereof; the Respondent filed an answering 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent con- sistent herewith. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by denying the request of the Union that the Respon- dent supply it with correlated wage information which the Respondent had obtained as a result of an area wage survey it conducted in 1968. The Trial Examiner found, and the record reveals, that the Union, Local 191 and its affiliate International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, has rep- resented the Respondent's production and main- tenance employees at the Rome plant since 1954. The Union and the Respondent are parties to a col- lective-bargaiing agreement which provides that ' Under art X11 (Grievance Procedure) of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union may file grievances for individuals or groups and when the grievances are exhausted the employees have the right to strike ' We find no merit in the Respondent's contention that it had no obliga- tion to bargain over wages because the grievances had been exhausted Even assuming, arguendo, that exhaustion of the grievance procedure created an impasse, the Respondent's participation in further meetings with the Union and its offer to conduct a wage survey "to bring the strikes 407 wage rates for individuals or groups are subject to local negotiations. The Union filed grievances' requesting wage rate increases which were denied by the Respondent. Thereafter the Union proceeded to conduct a series of strikes beginning in January and ending in May 1968 over these grievances. In mid-May, the Respondent offered to take a wage survey in order to bring an end to the strikes. In the past the Respondent had made area wage surveys and adjusted rates at the plant as a result of these surveys. After an exchange of letters and several meetings, the Respondent advised the Union that a survey would be conducted in ac- cordance with its usual practice and that it would not divulge information given to it in confidence; the Union agreed to halt the strikes temporarily. The Respondent, on November 22, 1968, presented the Union with the survey results in the form of a list of the companies surveyed; a graph on which were listed 20 job classifications with the highest and lowest rate paid for each classification by the companies surveyed, the community average for each classification, and the Respondent's pay rate for each classification. The Respondent also ad- vised the Union that the survey revealed that the employees were properly paid. The Union chal- lenged the accuracy of the figures at this meeting and, at this time and subsequently, requested the Respondent to correlate this information by tying each job classification and rate to a specific com- pany surveyed The Respondent refused on the ground that the information had been given by the companies surveyed in confidence. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the correlated information requested was relevant and necessary to the Union in order that it might bar- gain intelligently concerning wages, as the Respon- dent has relied on such surveys in the past in adjust- ing its wage rates, and relied on this one in refusing to do so,2 the Union needed the information to check the accuracy of the survey, and never clearly and unequivocally waived its right thereto; and it is well established that a request for relevant and necessary information cannot be denied on the ground that it is confidential. However, we do not agree with the Trial Ex- aminer's ultimate conclusion that the information requested in this case need not be produced.' Such information is not exempted merely because it was to an end" effectively broke the impasse and reimposed upon the Respon- dent the duty of fulfilling its obligation to bargain about wages Cf Kohler Co , 128 NLRB 1062, 1078, enfd in pertinent part 300 F 2d 699 (C A D C ), cert denied 370 U S 91 1, Langlade Veneer Producers Corpora- tion, 118 NLRB 985,988 ' It should be noted that the Trial Examiner also concluded that if in the future the Union asks for correlated data, the Respondent may not conceal the information on the basis of confidentiality 184 NLRB No. 45 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD obtained from other employers in confidence. On the contrary, the Board has recently adopted, with apparent court approval, a Trial Examiner's state- ment in a prior case involving another plant of this same employer, to the effect that, Should such correlated [area wage survey] in- formation be necessary for the intelligent processing of grievances by the Union, the Company would not be warranted in withhold- ing it from the Union because it may have been given such information on the understanding that it would not be disclosed.' The additional, correlated information was not shown to be necessary in the prior case. In the in- stant case, however, the requested additional infor- mation was shown to be necessary in order to check the accuracy of the graph, as the Trial Ex- aminer found, as well as to evaluate its representa- tive nature and its statistical significance. Thus, the Union alleged discrepancies in the graph because the Union had surveyed several of the job classifi- cations at several of the plants listed and had found that rates higher than those given in the graph. In addition, the lowest rate given on the graph for Class A (highest rated) Machinist-Maintenance was lower than the lowest rate given for Class B (lower rated) Machinist-Maintenance. Moreover, it was impossible for the Union to determine from the in- formation provided whether the rates for each clas- sification listed on the graph were based on figures obtained from all I], or only some, of the plants surveyed; or whether the figures represented straight averages of all the high and low rates ob- tained, or were weighed according to number of employees in the classification or in some other manner. In these circumstances, we see no legal relevance to the Trial Examiner's statement imply- ing that production of the requested information might prejudice rights of the employers surveyed. Nor do we agree that the issue is moot because the data may be out of date. To so hold would be to permit the Respondent to benefit from the length of time it took to litigate its own unfair labor prac- tices, contrary to N L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Com- pany, Inc.,5 and cases cited therein. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus- ing to furnish the area wage survey information requested by the Union showing the specific wage rates and job classifications correlated with the specific company surveyed, and we shall order the Respondent to furnish that information. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By refusing the Union's request for correlated information concerning its area wage survey, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent, General Elec- tric Company, has engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action necessary to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respon- dent, General Electric Company, Rome, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Interna- tional Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Work- ers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 191, as the statutory bargaining representative of the produc- tion and maintenance employees at its plant at Rome, Georgia, by refusing to furnish the Union with correlated information concerning the Respondent's area wage surveys. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it on behalf of the production and main- tenance employees at the Rome, Georgia, plant. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessa- ry to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request furnish to the Union corre- lated information concerning the Respondent's area wage surveys and other information necessary to enable the Union to bargain intelligently on rates of pay at the Rome, Georgia, plant. (b) Post at its office and plant at Rome, Georgia, copies'of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 10, after being duly ' General Electric Company (Hickory, N C ), 173 NLRB 164, 170, fn 14, enfd 414 F 2d 918 (C A 4) '395US 575 " In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of 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 " GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY signed by Respondent 's authorized representative , TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a Trial in which both sides had the oppor- tunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we in- tend to carry out the Order of the Board , and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 191, by refusing to furnish the Union with correlated information concerning our wage surveys. GENERAL ELECTRIC 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 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Peachtree Building, 730 Peachtree Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 409 GEORGE J. BOTT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed by International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, on February 20, 1969, against General Electric Com- pany, herein called Company or Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on July 22, 1969, in which he alleged that Respondent had engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices and a hearing was held before me in Atlanta, Georgia, on August 19, at which all parties were represented. Subsequent to the hearing, all parties filed briefs which I have carefully con- sidered. Upon the basis of the whole record and my ob- servation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Respondent is a New York corporation maintain- ing a plant and place of business at Rome, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of medium transformers and related electrical products . During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint, Respondent sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant at Rome, Georgia, directly to customers located outside the State of Georgia. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Basic Facts The only issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the Act when it refused to supply the Union with correlated wage information it had ob- tained as a result of an area wage survey it con- ducted in 1968.1 ' The complaint as issued also contained an allegation that Respondent refused to supply the Union with average earning rates of each incentive- paid employee in the unit, but this issue was adjusted before the hearing and the allegation withdrawn at the hearing The complaint as it now stands alleges the unfair labor practice to be Respondent's refusal to supply the collective -bargaining agent the " results of an area wage survey con- ducted by Respondent with the names of all companies surveyed and with each wage rate and job classification identified with the particular com- pany from which the information was obtained " 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's employees at the Rome plant are represented by Local 191 of the Union and have been since 1954.2 The Union and Respondent are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement cover- ing many plants, including the Rome plant. The latest contract was negotiated in 1966 and expires in October 1969. What is particularly significant about the agreement for the purposes of this case is that it leaves open for local negotiations the wage rates for individuals or groups.' Respondent uses area or community wage sur- veys to assist it in determining what wage rates it should pay to preserve its competitive position with other employers. Alvin Worthington, president of Local 191, testified without contradiction, based on his conversations with Respondent's representatives during negotiation for local rates, that when Respondent moves into an area it establishes wage rates based in part at least on the results of an area survey. Thereafter, as time goes by, Respondent makes frequent surveys and adjusts its own rates depending upon the results of the surveys. Respon- dent's policy was explained to Worthington as neither paying the highest nor lowest rate in the community, but as attempting to maintain a level which will preserve its position in competition with other employers for employees. In addition to Worthington's testimony, the Company in this case told the Union that the results of the 1968 survey involved here did not support the Union's claim that a wage increase was in order, and it also ad- vised the Union in a letter of January 15, 1969, that if it revealed to the Union what other companies were paying their employees it might make it "im- possible to obtain the best measurements of the wages of our employees against the Rome commu- nity and then to make appropriate pay changes." Moreover, John Koetzle, Respondent's manager of union relations at the Rome plant, conceded that Respondent had raised wages at the Rome plant in the past as a result of a survey of community rates.4 In the summer of 1968 the Company conducted an area wage survey in an effort to eliminate cer- tain work stoppages that were being repeated every weekend. The strikes, which lasted I day, began in January 1968 and continued into the end of May. They apparently had their roots in wage dissatisfac- tion and wage grievances filed by the local Union.5 Since part of Respondent's defense for its ad- mitted refusal to provide the Union with the names of the companies surveyed tied to the particular job and rate examined is that the survey was conducted pursuant to a specific agreement between the parties which excuses its limited production, it is necessary to set forth at some length the circum- stances surrounding the alleged agreement. Koetzle testified that in order to stop the recurrent strikes the Respondent made the Union "an offer to take a wage survey among other things, to try to bring the strikes to an end." A letter dated May 28, 1968, was dispatched to the Union containing an offer to conduct a survey. In referring to the survey the letter stated that the Respondent would have no ob- jection to conducting an additioanal survey in the near future "in accordance with our usual prac- tice." Koetzle explained what the Company's usual practice had been in the past. It appears that management decides what jobs it wants to survey and selects companies in the Rome area with which it is in competition for employees for examination. A wage analyst visits the competitor's plant and discusses jobs with the person in the plant in charge of the matter. If in their opinion the particular jobs analyzed match in job content, the rate paid by the competitor is used in making a comparison of rates. According to Koetzle, Respondent in the past never discussed the results of area wage surveys with the Union in as much detail as it did the one in question here. Previously it had been the practice to give the Union percentages and averages rather than details, and Respondent never revealed the names of companies surveyed It was Koetzle's opinion that, by June 19, 1968, the Union had agreed to call off its strikes temporarily so that Respondent could make its wage survey According to him, although during certain grievance meetings described below the Union asked him what jobs would be surveyed, there was no agreement on what jobs were to be surveyed or what companies would be included. The only understanding that he had, he said, was that the survey would be con- ducted in accordance with the Company's usual practice, which it was. Koetzle's opinion about an understanding which laid the ground rules for the survey was based on the strikes, the Company's letter to the Union of May 28 suggesting a survey, the cessation of the weekly strikes, and certain statements and occur- rences at grievance meetings during June and July. He testified that he called a meeting with the Union on June 4 to discuss the most recent strikes and the Company's offer to conduct a survey to help end stoppages. During this meeting he also told the Union that Respondent was going to have to cancel its usual vacation shutdown in July because the strikes had caused "urgent customer problems." At the end of the meeting, the Union advised him that it would consider the Respondent's proposal. I According to Respondent 's brief the plant has been in operation since 1953 ' Art VI Sec 1 provides that Any question which affects hourly rates, piecework rates , or salary rates of individuals or groups shall be subject to negotiation between the Local and local management ' In General Electrical Company, 173 NLRB 164, the Trial Examiner found that the company uses information gathered in these surveys in part to set its hourly rates S These grievances are described by the parties as "exhausted," that is, they have gone through the third step of the grievance procedure in the labor agreement and the company had no obligation under the contract to discuss them further GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Koetzle met with the Union again on June 11. At this meeting the cancellation of the vacation shut- down was again discussed. A survey was also men- tioned and Koetzel urged the Union to agree to have the Company take one. He said that during the discussion Worthington asked if Respondent in- tended to include Lockheed, General Motors, and Republic in its canvass, but he replied that Respon- dent was not in competition with those employers for employees. Koetzle also advised Worthington that if the survey were made he would discuss the result of it "in detail," but he would not be able to "divulge the information given ... in confidence by the other companies included in the survey .... by He said Worthington made no response to this ob- servation. At a meeting on June 13, a survey was mentioned again, but the meeting of June 17 was more signifi- cant. At the latter meeting, Worthington told Koet- zle that the Union's executive board had recom- mended to the membership a temporary halt to strikes so that the Company could conduct a wage survey, and this recommendation had been ac- cepted. Koetzle said, however, that the Company wanted more assurances from the Union that there would be an uninterrupted period of production be- fore it reinstated the normal vacation shutdown which the Union was interested in securing. The Union and the Company met again on June 18. Koetzle said the parties discussed the vacation shutdown grievance again and he tried to get a better guarantee from the Union than it had given up to that time that the strikes were over, but he said the "meeting wound up with no additional as- surances from the union." It was at the June 19 meeting that Koetzle thought an agreement was reached. He testified that "it was at this particular meeting that I felt we had an agreement on the bringing the strikes to a close temporarily. We did not get any further as- surances from the union, but we were willing at this point to go ahead and reinstate the vacation shut- down and proceed with the wage survey." Respon- dent did, as it had agreed, reinstitute the vacation shutdown which the Union was grieving about. Koetzle conceded that before June 15 there was no agreement about ending the strikes which had been occurring regularly, although they appeared to have stopped, and he agreed there never was any as- surance given by the Union that the strikes had ended permanently. The Union told him, he said, that the executive board could call a strike at any time. He wanted the Union to agree that there would be a membership vote on a strike before it was called, but he said that he did not get this as- surance on June 19. Respondent proceeded to conduct an area wage survey as it had in the past and there was occa- "NLRB v Truitt Mfg Co, 351 U S 149, N L R B v Whitin Machine Works , 217 F 2d 593 (C A 4), N L R B v F W Woolworth Co , 352 U S 938, N L R B v Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co, 187 F 2d 947 (C A 411 sional reference to it by the parties before the results were revealed in November 1968. On July 23, for example, Worthington asked Koetzle if the Union could have the names of the companies in- cluded in the survey. Koetzle told him he would look into the question. On November 22, 1968, Respondent presented the Union with information it had obtained in its survey. The data was in written form and one docu- ment contained an employee residence analysis. The more important information, however, related to the names of the companies surveyed and rates paid. In this area Respondent gave the Union a list of the companies surveyed and a chart showing the jobs surveyed with the highest and lowest rates found in each classification examined. The chart also showed the community average rate in each classification and Respondent's average. The charts did not link or tie the rate and job classification to a particular company. When the information was presented, Koetzle stated that the survey showed that Union represented "employees were properly compensated for their efforts." Koetzle said a variety of questions were asked about the survey during the November 22 meeting, and he conceded that at one point Worthington in- dicated that the survey did not appear accurate because it did not agree with certain information the Union had. Koetzle insisted that the survey was thorough and complete. Near the end of the meet- ing, Worthington asked that the charts be broken down to show the name of the particular company surveyed tied to the job and the rate, but Respon- dent took the position that since the companies in- volved had asked that their replies remain con- fidential such information was not available. In a letter of December 9, 1968, the Union asked that the Company correlate the information ob- tained in the survey by listing each job and rate with plan identification and supply it to the Union. The Respondent replied in a letter of January 15, 1969, refusing to give the requested information because it had been given to it "in confidence by the participating area employers." B. Analysis, Additional Findings, and Conclusions That a variety of wage data or other economic or financial information relating to wages must be furished by an employer to a union representing its employees in order to make collective bargaining effective is well established'' It is also clear that a request for wage data is a presumptively lawful request and the Union need not show the precise relevancy of the requested information to particular 2), N L R B v Northwestern Publishing Company, 343 F 2d 521 (C A 7), N L R B v Western Wirebound Box Co , 356 F 2d 88 (C A 9) 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining issues under consideration unless effec- tive employer rebuttal comes forth' There also can be no question, as both General Counsel and the Union contend, that the argument that the informa- tion is "private" or "personal" and "confidential" cannot serve as a shield to protect the Employer from the consequences of its refusal to divulge this relevant data." But it is not as clear as the Union and the General Counsel say it is that these well- known principles apply without qualification to wage or other information not generated by the Employer's own operations but which he has ob- tained from other employers on the pledge that it will be held in strict confidence. The Timken Rolling Bearing Company case,9 for example, in- volved rates of the employer's own employees. In- galls Shipbuilding Corporation, 10 in which the Board stated that "confidentiality is not a defense to an obligation to furnish relevant wage data," also in- volved rate standards and other data which originated in the employer's own operations, and in Curtiss-Wright," where the court required the production of nonunit data, the information nevertheless had originated with the particular em- ployer and had not been obtained from others. It is true that in two fairly recent cases Board decisions requiring the production of data obtained from area wage surveys have been sustained in the courts 12 If this case involved only a bare refusal to supply similar data in correlated form with no claimed justification and arose in a context like those cases, then those cases might control the result here, but because of certain differences in the cited cases and because of the somewhat unique circumstances in which Respondent's failure to supply the Union with all it asked for arose, I find, without reference to any survey Respondent has taken since 1968 or will take hereafter, that it need not identify the specific rate paid by any identifiable company. The area wage survey issue in General Electric, Battery Products Capacitor, arose in a context of ex- tensive unfair labor practices, and the subject of the survey itself was tightly interwoven with the com- pany's general refusal to bargain in good faith on wages. Unlike this case, the employer gave the union no information obtained as a result of the survey, although it heavily relied on it and disparaged the results of the union's survey in ad- dition, no claim of "confidentiality" was made in that case at all. In General Electric (Hickory, N.C.), the company again refused to give the union any of the data obtained in an earlier survey, but promised to give the union information obtained from a new survey. It also appears that at one point during the discussion of the union's grievances and requests for information, the company offered to show the union the names of the companies surveyed and the jobs reviewed, but not to identify the company with the job. The union apparently indicated that it might accept such offer without identification if it gave the union the information it needed, but ap- parently this concession became moot when the company took the position that it would make a new survey and give the union information from that. How detailed the company proposed to make the information it would give the union in the new survey is not absolutely clear, but apparently "con- fidentiality" was raised as a defense in the case because the Trial Examiner stated in a footnote that the company would not be warranted in not correlating a job to a particular company and withholding it from the union became the company got such information on the understanding that it would not be disclosed.13 The Trial Examiner did not, however, recommend that the company corre- late a job to a particular company because he thought that the record did not contain enough in- formation to make a determination whether supply- ing only the names of the companies and the job classification surveyed would satisfy the company's statutory obligation. He added, however, that if such correlated information became necessary for intelligent processing of grievances, the company would have to produce it. The Board adopted this part of the Trial Examiner's findings without addi- tional comment. When General Electric Company (Hickory, N.C.), was enforced in the court of appeals, the court stated that General Electric had to disclose proof of the accuracy of the position it had taken in bargain- ing with the union and "that proof was not dis- closed when General Electric declined to disclose the identity of the employer in regard to each job considered" in the survey. This, of course, was not what the Board had ordered the company to do, and, on August 28, 1969, on request for clarifica- tion, the court amended that portion of its decision to read, "that proof was not disclosed when General Electric declined to furnish the union with the names and jobs of area companies it had sur- veyed." In a footnote, the court added that the Board did not require correlation in the case and that the court did not intend to go beyond the in- ' Boston Herald- Traveler Corporation , 110 NLRB 2097, enfd 223 F 2d 58 (C A I ), Curtiss-Wright Corporation , Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152, enfd 347 F 2d 61 (C A 3) " Boston- Herald Traveler Corporation , Curtiss- Wright Corporation, supra at 69 v 138 NLRB 15 , enfd 325 F 2d 746 (C A 6) 10143 NLRB 712, 717 " Supra, fn 7 N L R B v Frontier Homes Corp , 371 F 2d 947 (C A 8), cited by the Union , involved the employer's own price lists " General Electric Company, Battery Products Capacitor Department, 163 NLRB 198, enfd 400 F 2d 713 (C A 5), General Electric Company (Hickory, N C ), 173 NLRB 164 , enfd 414 F 2d 918 (C A 4) In McCul- loch Corporation, 132 NLRB 201, 207, however, the Board also adopted without discussion the Trial Examiner 's finding that the employer 's refusal to identify the companies who paid identified wages and participated in an area survey was not a refusal to bargain because the Examiner credited the employer 's statement that such identification "would have involved a breach of confidence " ii 173 NLRB 164, 170, in 14 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 413 formation required to be furnished by the Trial Ex- aminer and the Board in granting enforcement." What I have observed about the cases just discussed on which General Counsel and the Union rely makes me wary of disposing of this case on the basis of the easy assumption that "confidentiality" is never a consideration to be weighed in balancing a union's need to be informed so that it can bargain intelligently against an employer's need to keep his sources of information open and accurate. Con- ceivably there might be overriding considerations in a particular case which could tip the evaluation of an employer's good faith in the direction of protect- ing his position if the risk or hurt to the Union is slight. Although I disagree with Respondent's sug- gestions that the information sought here is not even relevant and in any event not needed,15 I think this is-a case where the whole context supports the conclusion that the Union has been given all that it is equitably entitled to and all that it needs from a practical point of view in the circumstances of this case. Respondent has conducted area wage surveys since 1954 and the Union has never asked for nor has Respondent supplied correlated wage informa- tion or as much information as it gave the Union in November 1968. In Respondent's letter to the Union, sent in an effort to bring the series of 1-day work stoppages to an end, the Respondent, after noting that it had been its practice to periodically survey other manufacturers to determine communi- ty wage patterns and that the last survey had been conducted in the previous year, offered to conduct an additional survey "in accordance with our usual practice." In meetings with the Union during May and June, the Respondent again suggested the wage survey as a solution for the strikes and the wage problem, and during at least one meeting the Union said it would consider the Company's proposal. The strikes ceased, and while it is true that they stopped before the Company felt it had an agreement that they would temporarily stop while the wage survey would be conducted and that the restoration of the vacation shutdown may have been related to the disappearance of the stoppages, the president of the Local told Respondent that the executive board of Local 191 had recommended to the membership that there be 'a temporary halt to the strikes while the Company conducted a survey. Worthington also testified that the Union "indicated" to the Company that the strikes would stop temporarily to give the Company an opportunity to take the sur- vey, and he said he understood that it would be per- formed according to the Company's usual practice. During other meetings with the Union during June and July the subject of the survey was raised. Although the Union asked questions about what companies would be included in the survey, it never put a condition on the Company's proposal by in- sisting that certain companies or jobs be checked, and the Union made no response to Koetzle's state- ment that although he would discuss the results of the survey with the Union in detail, he would not be able to divulge information given in confidence by companies surveyed. At one meeting in July, Worthington asked if the Union could have the names of the companies to be included in the wage analysis, and when Koetzle said he would look into it and let him know, Worthington did not press the matter. The Union raised the question of correlated in- formation for the first time at the November 22 meeting when Respondent presented its charts and the names of the companies included in the survey. Respondent claimed that the requested information was confidential, but the Union did not then claim that it understood that it was to be given anything more than it got. On December 9, 1968, the Union wrote the Company and made certain complaints about the nature and content of the survey and Respondent's delay in completing it, but it raised no issue about Respondent denying it anything in violation of any understanding it had about how the results of the survey were to be presented to it. Based on the context in which the survey was suggested and taken, Respondent argues that there was a firm agreement to take a survey in a particu- lar manner. In effect, Respondent is arguing that the Union waived whatever statutory rights it had to the information requested. I find it unnecessary to decide whether there was a "waiver" or a "strike settlement" with a "quid pro quo." Waivers of statu- tory rights must be in clear and unmistakable lan- guage and there was no clear and unequivocable agreement that the strikes would end if manage- ment would take a survey and announce the results in any specific form But this does not prevent the Board in reviewing a labor relations matter from tailoring its remedy to the situation in the light of fairness, equity, and the basic rights of all parties, including third party employers who have not been heard. My view of the whole situation out of which this issue arose is that the Union was aware that Respondent historically made surveys which af- " Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, 96 NLRB 407, is a fourth case in which the production of the results of area wage surveys was considered It appeared that there the union asked for substantiation of the company's claim that the area wage survey indicated that its rates were higher than competitors At that point , the Board noted, "the Respondent had completed its survey and had prepared mimeographed copies of a chart tabulating the results of this survey without identifying any of the employers involved Such a chart could have been shown to the Union without dis- closing confidential data " (Emphasis supplied ) The Board found a violation in refusing to show the Union that chart " Regarding relevancy , as found in more detail in the body , Respondent has raised rates at this plant as a result of a survey and the results of surveys are considered generally in fixing rates As far as need is concerned, it is generally unnecessary to show a specific need for wage information , and, in any case, Worthington testified without contradiction that the information was needed to check the accuracy of the Company's charts 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fected the Respondent 's position at the bargaining table on the extremely important subject of wages and disclosed the results of the surveys in a restricted form which , prior to November 1968, did not even reveal the names of the employers in- volved in the studies The Union made no protests of any kind about the Company's method , which it knew it would again utilize , and placed no condi- tions on it, although it had many opportunities to do so before the study was completed and an- nounced almost 6 months after the Union was ad- vised how the Company was going to proceed. Moreover , the proposed survey was definitely con- nected or related to the serious labor problem which appeared to exist , and if there was no legal agreement to take a survey as a consideration for stopping the strikes, even the inexperienced ob- server of the labor-management scene would have been justified in assuming that the two were closely related. By the time the survey was completed Respon- dent had assured the participants in it that the in- formation obtained from them would remain con- fidential , and so the rights of those third parties were now involved . In my opinion , the equitable thing is not to risk jeopardizing the rights of others, or to ignore Respondent's commitments to its com- petitors, or the Union 's silence and apparent acquiescence, but to permit, in respect to this par- ticular survey only, that Respondent not be required to tie the names of the employers involved to the rate and classification observed. In doing this, I see no great injury, hardship , or even sub- stantial inconvenience to the Union . First, the Union has the names of the companies surveyed and there are only 1 1 of them , and so it would seem that with this information , a list of all the jobs sur- veyed and all the rates discovered , and the Union's own ingenuity , it will not be greatly handicapped in bargaining . Second , the ruling here is not that this information is confidential as such , but that it need not be produced in the circumstances of this case. The data obtained in the survey is now over a year old and it is dated If management wishes to con- tinue making wage surveys , and if in the future the Union asks for correlation , Respondent cannot complain that it did not know that the results of its surveys, which it uses in part at least to fix rates and which it frequently uses to support its bargaining position , cannot be concealed on the basis of con- fidentiality. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to supply the Union with correlated wage information in the circumstances of this case. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.