Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Building Construction Employers Association of Lin- coln, Nebraska and M . W. Anderson Construction Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL- CIO Building Construction Employers Association of Lin- coln, Nebraska and George Cook Construction Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO. Cases 17-CA-4051 and 17-CA-4052 August 21, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS MCCULLOCH AND BROWN On April 15, 1970, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed timely exceptions, and a brief in support thereof, to 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 connection with these cases 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 here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the "Trial Examiner's Decision", the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations,' as modified herein. While, as indicated, we agree with the Trial Examin- er's finding and conclusion that Respondents violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by their failure to bargain in good faith with the Union regarding the request for presumptively relevant wage data, ' We adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondents violated Sec 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act When faced with the Union' s request for presumptively relevant wage data, Respondents replied that the Union could obtain the information directly from the particular employees ks found by the Trial Examiner, and in accordance with the cases cited by him, a union's right to wage information from an employer is not affected by the fact that it might obtain such information elsewhere Respondents' response was indicative of a bad-faith approach to its bargaining obligation. and we so find we are of the opinion that the Trial Examiner's remedy and, by incorporation, the Recommended Order, is unduly broad, to the extent that it would require Respondents to furnish all data previously requested without regard to its need or relevancy. The unfair labor practices found will be adequately remedied by an order directing Respondent Associa- tion, on behalf of Respondent Anderson and Respond- ent Cook, to furnish wage and related data to the Union relevant to alleged improper overtime payments to employees of Respondents Anderson and Cook represented by the Union and relevant to alleged performance of carpenter work by laborer employees of Respondents Anderson and Cook. Accordingly, section V of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy" is so modified. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondents, Building Construction Employers Asso- ciation of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W. Anderson Con- struction Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, and George Cook Construction Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified above.' ' The first indented paragraph of the notice is conformed to the modified Order to read as follows THE UNDERSIGNED ASSOCIA- TION WILL, on behalf of Anderson and Cook, upon request, furnish United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No 1055, AFL-CIO, the information requested by the Union on July 1, 1969, relevant to alleged improper overtime payments to employees of Anderson and Cook represented by the Union and relevant to alleged performance of carpenter work by laborer employees of Anderson and Cook TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner . These matters were heard at Lincoln, Nebraska, on February 10, 1970, pursuant to separate charges filed in the respective cases on September 3, 1969, by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055 , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union . On December 12, 1969 , the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 17 issued an order consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing alleging that Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Respondent Association or the Association ; M. W. Anderson Construction Co.; and George Cook Construction Co., which entities in combina- tion with the Association are referred to herein as Respond- 185 NLRB No. 8 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB ents, have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act The parties timely filed briefs with me. Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and upon the record in this case, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS At all times material herein M. W Anderson Construction Co., and George Cook Construction Co. have been engaged in the construction business and have been members of Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, a multiemployer association which exists in part for the purpose of representing its members in labor rela- tions During pertinent times Respondents Anderson and Cook have been represented by the Association for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the conduct of their businesses, the members of the Association annually perform services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State in which the respective principal places of business are located and annually purchase materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers outside the State in which said members' respective principal places of business are located Upon these admitted facts I find that Building Construc- tion Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W. Anderson Construction Co., and George Cook Construction Co., are individually, and have been at all times material herein, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, is admitted to be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The sole issue in this is whether the Respondents violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by declining, as requested by the Union, to furnish information concerning the "amount of wages" paid certain named employees during a specified period of time spanning approximately 27 months. It is the contention of the Respondents that the wage information requested by the Union was not related to the Union's collective-bargaining duties because, at the time of the request, there was no collective-bargaining agreement being negotiated and no collective-bargaining negotiations were pending; and because the Union would not have been assisted in the fulfillment of any proper collective- bargaining obligation by receipt of data revealing gross annual wages of the designated employees which, Respond- ent contends, was the information sought by the Union. B. Pertinent Facts 1. The negotiations and status of the Union 35 At all times since April 1, 1966, the Union has been recognized by members of the Association, including Respondents Cook and Anderson, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of all individuals employed by them as carpenters and apprentices. During the period from January 1969 through May 1969, the Union and the Association engaged in negotiations for a new collective- bargaining agreement covering individuals employed by members of the Association, including Respondents Cook and Anderson, in the carpenter and apprentice classification. On September 27, 1969, the Union and the Association executed a collective-bargaining agreement to remain in effect until March 31, 1972. Oral agreement on new terms had been achieved by the parties on May 19, 1969. Included in the agreement is a provision requiring the employers to make certain health and welfare and pension contributions during the term of the agreement. 2. Wage data requested and declined Over the signature of R. D. Dittenber, the Union, by letter dated February 24, addressed to George Cook Con- struction Co., made the following request: In order to properly and efficiently represent the employees in the bargaining unit covered by the collec- tive-bargaining agreement, the Union requests that you furnish to it the amount of wages paid by your company to the undersigned employees on the attached list under our agreement which commenced on April 1, 1966. Attached to the letter was a list of 54 names. Subsequently, on March 20, Dittenber dispatched a letter to M. W. Anderson Construction Co., wherein an indentical request was made. Attached to the March 20 letter was a list of 25 names. Thereafter, by letter dated March 25, the president of M. W. Anderson Construction Co. responded as follows: This will acknowledge your letter of 3-20-69 in which you request us to furnish the amount of wages paid by our company to certain listed employees covered by our contract commencing April 1, 1966. If you will have each of the employees listed submit a written request to us asking for the above information we will be glad to supply it to them individually. By letter dated May 12, a representative of George Cook Construction Co. responded as follows- In response to your letter requesting that we furnish you the amount of wages paid by us to certain designat- ed employees, please be advised that we have paid these employees the wages provided in the collective- bargaining agreement between your union and our company. 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The alleged departure from contract terms R. D. Dittenber testified credibly that as business repre- sentative for the Union it was his duty to police collective- bargaining agreements which the Union has with the Associ- ation. In the fulfillment of his duties it is his practice to go from job to job and check the wages being paid employees on the job and handle grievances that may arise. In addition, Dittenber dispatches employees to employ- ers requesting men and assists in negotiating collective- bargaining agreements. Dittenber credibly testified that in December 1968 or January 1969 he observed one Robert O'Brien working on a Cook Construction Co. job. Further, Dittenber testified that on a date he could not fix with certainty he observed Gene Wright working on an Anderson Construction Co job. He testified that both individuals were classified as laborers and that he observed them doing carpenters' work. Additionally, Dittenber credibly testified that he received complaints from carpenter employees that they had not received "proper overtime wages."' 4. The list of carpenters compiled Dittenber credibly testified that as a consequence of his personal observation of laborers performing carpenters' work and the complaints he had received concerning discre- pancies in overtime compensation he studied health and welfare remittance forms submitted by individual employers to the trust office maintained by the Union and other labor organizations in connection with their respective health and welfare and pension fund agreements with the Associa- tion. These remittance forms, submitted by the individual contractors, contain the name of the individual employee on behalf of whom a contribution is remitted, the total number of hours for which contribution is being made, and the total contribution. This total is the product of the number of hours worked multiplied by the appropriate hourly sum contractually required to be contributed to the specific fund.' The craft of each individual employee listed on the remittance form is specified by a code number which is entered on the form next to the employee's name. The code number for carpenters is the numeral "2." Dittenber testified that from his personal study of the remittance forms maintained at the trust office he compiled the separate lists which were attached to his letters of February 24 and March 20, sent to Respondents Cook and Anderson, respectively. He testified further that with two exceptions each of the names contained on the respective lists attached to the aforesaid letters was a name designated on the trust fund remittance form as a carpenter Dittenber testified that to the Cook list he added the name of Robert O'Brien and to the Anderson list he added the name of Gene Wright, laborers whom, as found, he had previously ' The collective-bargaining agreement provides that "all overtime work shall be compensated at double time rates " ' The hourly contribution to the health and welfare is 12 1/2 cents per hour and that to the pension fund is 10 cents per hour observed working on the job performing carpenter work. Dittenber credibly testified that, upon observing O'Brien and Wright working in the manner described, he inquired of the superintendent of the two jobs if O'Brien and Wright, respectively, were being paid carpenters' wages. From one superintendent he received a noncommittal answer. The other superintendent told him that it was none of his business. Dittenber did not go directly to either George Cook or M. W. Anderson to learn if O'Brien and Wright, respectively, were being compensated at carpenter scale Neither did Dittenber approach O'Brien or Wright personal- ly. 5. The alleged need for the wage data Dittenber testified that he needed information pertaining to the hourly wage and weekly wage of individual employees in order for him to determine whether Cook and Anderson were complying with their collective-bargaining agreement. In this connection, he credibly testified that the remittance forms maintained in the trust office contained no breakdown of hourly compensation for any of the individual employees listed thereon. He further testified, in substance, that the Union retains no records from which such a determination can be made. Dittenber testified further that the employees for whom he sought data lived in localities and towns in the general area and vicinity of Lincoln, Nebraska. 6 The data again requested a. Original unfair labor practice charges dismissed The record establishes that on March 28 the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against M W. Anderson Construction Co. in Case 17-CA-3852 . Similarly, on April 15, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges in Case 17-CA-3865 against George Cook Construction Co. In each instance it was alleged that Section 8(a) (5) of the Act had been violated by reason of the refusal of the respective companies to comply with the Union's separate requests for information concerning wage rates. These charges were dismissed by the then Regional Director of Region 17 on June 9. The reason for the dismissal action was stated , in pertinent part, as follows: Since the Union directed its request for collective- bargaining information to individual members of a multi-employer bargaining unit instead of to their bar- gaining representative, it does not appear that the request was properly made, and the Companies' refusal and failure to respond did not constitute a violation of the Act. b. The July 1 requests On July 1, R. D. Dittenber dispatched to the Association a letter containing the following: The undersigned labor organization is the recognized collective bargaining agent for certain employees affili- ated with your Association working as journeymen BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB carpenters and carpenter apprentices and performing carpenter work. The collective bargaining agreement between your association and the union is binding upon present and future members of your association during the life of the agreement. As bargaining repre- sentative of M W. Anderson Construction Company, a member of your association represented in collective bargaining with the undersigned labor organization, and in order to properly and effectively represent employees of this company in the bargaining unit covered by such collective bargaining agreement, the union requests that you furnish to it the amount of wages paid the M. W. Anderson Construction Company to the designated employees on the attached list under our agreement which commenced on April 1, 1966. Similarly, on July 1, R. D. Dittenber dispatched to the Association a letter identical in pertinent respects requesting "the amount of wages paid" by Cook Construc- tion Co. Attached to the letter referring to the M W. Anderson Construction Co., was a list of 24 names. The lists were identical to those that had earlier accompanied the separate demands made upon the employers individually c The July 14 responses By letter dated July 14, the Association through its secretary, Dean G. Kratz, responded in separate letters directed to Dittenber. In each of the letters it acknowledged receipt of the Union's July 1 request' that the Union be furnished with "the total amount of wages paid" by the respective companies to designated employees from April 1, 1966, to date and further stated the following: These figures are not available in this office. Most of the information that you request would be available in the W-2 forms of the designated employee. We suggest that it would be easier for you to get this information directly from the employees, who are mem- bers of your union. Counsel for Respondent stated on the record at the hearing that the Respondent was not basing its defense to the refusal to supply wage information to the Union on any lack of authority in the Association to furnish information of the general variety requested by the Union, or the unavailability to the Association of wage information or any general inability of the Association to compile it. Except for the correspondence between the parties above set out there was no other contact between representatives of the Respondents, on the one hand, and representatives of the Union pertaining to the wage information requested. CONCLUSIONS The evidence of record establishes a tacit refusal on the part of Respondents to furnish to the Union, upon request, wage information relating to the earnings of 54 named employees of Cook Construction and 25 named employees of Anderson Construction. ' The letter specified July 9 as the date of receipt of the Union's requests 37 An employer is under a statutory duty to bargain collec- tively with representatives of its employees with respect to wages, and a union's right to wage information during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, to enable and permit it to police the administration of the agreement, is well established.' "Wage and related information pertain- ing to employees in the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant, for, as such data concerns the core of the employer- employee relationship, a union is not required to show the precise relevance of it, unless effective employer rebuttal comes forth "5 Absent special circumstances, a collective- bargaining representative is entitled to obtain relevant wage information from the employer of unit employees," and a union's right to relevant wage information is not defeated merely because it is obtainable through individual members of the unit.' "It is immaterial that the Union might have gathered the bulk of this needed material through a series of interviews with members and employees: It was entitled to that complete, accurate, and authoritative statement of facts which only the employer was in position to make."8 The evidence establishes, and I find, that the Union has been since April 1, 1966, the exclusive bargaining representative of carpenter and apprentice employees employed by members of the Association, including Cook and Anderson. The collective-bargaining agreement in effect until March 31, 1969, between the Union and the Associa- tion, which was binding on Cook and Anderson, contained wage and overtime scales for journeymen carpenters and apprentices and a maintenance-of-standard provision relat- ing specifically to wages, overtime differentials, and "general working conditions." In fulfillment of his duties as business representative of the Union, Dittenber received information which led him reasonably to believe that the wage standards of that agreement had not been fully observed by Cook and Anderson, and he personally observed on-the-job condi- tions indicating that carpenter tasks were being performed by laborers. The potentially erosive effect of these purported practices and conditions on wage and working condition standards established by contract is immediately discernible. The relevance of information which would shed light on employer adherence or deviation from contractual standards is equally patent. The value of wage data properly linked to specific unit employees as an aid to the Union in fulfilling the task of contract administration relating to enforcing compliance with contractual wage standards can not be doubted.' Indeed, the precedents requiring the production of relevant wage data are not seriously challenged by Respondent. Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v NL R B., 347 F 2d 61 (C A 3), NL R B v Northwestern Publishing Company, 343 F 2d 521 (CA 7), The Timken Roller Bearing Company v. NL.R B, 325 F 2d 746 (C A 6) Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v NL R B., supra; see also Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation v NL.R B, 223 F2d58(CA 1) Sign & Pictorial Union Local 1175 (Webster Outdoor Advertising Co.)v N.L.RB,419F2d726,734(CAD.C) ' See Weber Veneer & Plywood Company, 161 NLRB 1054, 1056 ' S. H Kress & Company, 108 NLRB 1615. The value of this information as an aid to determining sporadic or ad hoc use of laborers as carpenters is not discernible and is not explicated by the General Counsel or Charging Party 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rather, in the Respondent's view of the case, as I interpret it, the issue is whether the Union made an efficacious request for wage information relevant to the fulfillment of the Union's statutory duty to administer the collective- bargaining agreement. The Respondent contends that the request which the Union made was for total wages paid the named employees over a 3-year penod and that such information was not relevant to any duty of contract administration devolving on the Union Additionally, contends Respondent, the Union sought data for a penod covered by the expired agreement which could have no bearing on administration of the existing agreement.10 Moreover, contends Respondent, in the circumstances of this case, the Union was put on prior notice that the Company interpreted the Union's request as one for total wages. Despite this, asserts Respond- ent, the Union did not modify or clarify its request, but merely repeated it. Finally, Respondent contends that the Union's request was for the purpose of harassment and was burdensome, as evidenced by the fact that the Union sought data concerning earnings of individuals known to the Union to be supervisors. On the other hand, the General Counsel contends that the information sought by the Union was relevant, and that, in characterizing the Union's request as one calling for "total wages," the Respondent is engaging in semantics and is applying "the most niggardly interpretation of the words wages paid." Moreover, the General Counsel contends that the reason advanced by Respondent in its letter respon- ses to the Union's requests, when measured against the defenses of Respondent advanced at the hearing reveals dilatory and evasive tactics indicative of bad faith. Further, the General Counsel contends that Respondent's bad faith is further demonstrated by its failure to inquire into the nature of the information the Union was seeking. It is not essential, upon the record in this case, to determine whether as an abstract principle an employer faced with a demand for wage data which is susceptible of more than a single interpretation has the affirmative duty of seeking clarification of the request from the labor organization proffering it." Decisive of the issue posed in this case is the evidence revealing Respondent's bad faith in responding to the serves of letter demands which reveals declination not on the ground of relevancy, but on grounds which the Board and courts have held to be specious, when measured against the purposes and requirements of statute.12 The initial response of Respondent Cook was, in effect, a flat rejection of the Union's request. The response of Respondent Anderson was similar, except that the latter 10 As found, the previous agreement expired on March 31, 1969, oral agreement on a new contract was achieved on May 19, and the new agreement was executed on September 27 Meantime, from January to May the parties engaged in collective bargaining " Cf Keller Industries, Inc, d/b/a American Carpet Mills, Inc, 170 NLRB 1715, 1723, Cranston Print Works Company, 115 NLRB 537, 557-558 " The declination of Respondents Anderson and Cook, individually, shed light on and give dimension to the July 14 declination on their behalf by the Association, which is the conduct attacked as constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act employer, in substance, placed the burden on the Union of marshalling the information from individual members. The Union thereafter renewed its requests, directing them to the Association. At the time of these last requests, oral agreement had been achieved on new collective-bargain- ing terms but the agreement had not yet been executed. While the Respondent is quite accurate in the assertion that, in the then prevailing state of the bargaining relation- ship, the wage data had no value for contract negotiation purposes, it did, I find, have value to the Union for contract administration purposes. This is so because a substantiation of past deviations from contract terms and standards could well point the way for more strenuous policing by the Union of the new, current agreement. On the other hand, if the suspicions of failure to conform were revealed to be unfounded, efforts at closer supervision could be obviated with savings to the Union in money and manpower that would otherwise be devoted to the policing effort. Addition- ally, as the General Counsel contends, failure to abide by past contract terms might give rise to efforts on the part of the Union to recover wages improperly denied. It is in this context of relevance that the Association's July 14 responses must be evaluated. By its responses of July 14, the Respondent Association, like Respondent Anderson, sought to transfer to the Union the obligation of gathering the desired data from constituents of the unit. While it specifically characterized the Union's request as one for "total amount of wages paid" designated employees, no issue of relevancy was raised directly by the Association. Rather, the Association salted its refusal with the evasion that the information was not available "in [its] office." While literally true, the information was, in fact, available to the Association as collective-bargaining agent of Cook and Anderson; a fact not disputed at the hearing. The Act places on an employer the obligation to treat in good faith with the chosen collective-bargaining representative of its employees. If the Respondent in good faith had believed that the Union was requesting only total wages and not linked data, they were under duty to comply or to declare the data irrelevant and thus outside its obligation to furnish. The Respondents, through the Association, made no pretense at furnishing data. Neither did they label the requested data irrelevant. Either a bona fide effort at compliance with the Union's request as assert- edly interpreted, or a declination on the grounds of relevancy would have created circumstance compatible to the opera- tion of the machinery of free collective-bargaining. Apprised, the Union could then have reassessed its position, modified its demands, or opened a dialogue of peaceful persuasion consistent with Section 8(d) of the Act. The Respondents followed a course quite different. The result was a frustration of the machinery of collective-bargaining. I specifically find that in the circumstances of this case as detailed above, having failed to raise the issue of relevancy in their July 14 declinations, and by relying instead on invalid grounds as warrant for withholding wage data from the Union, the Respondents revealed bad faith which is a departure from the requirement and mandate of Section 8(d) of the Act. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB I further find that the separate requests for wage data pertaining to 25 and 54 employees, respectively, and covering pay periods for a term of 3 years were not unduly burden- some when construed in light of the Union's collective- bargaining rights under the Act so as to constitute a defense to the Union's request." Nor do I find evidence sufficient to substantiate the Respondents' contention that the Union was motivated in its request by a desire to harass the respective companies to which the requests were directed.14 Rather, I find that the requests were made in good faith and were predicated on reasonable indicia of noncompliance with contractual terms by Respondents Cook and Anderson. In sum, I find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by declining for the reasons advanced and in the circumstances prevailing to honor the Union's July 1 request for wage data. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondents described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that the Respondent Association, as the designated collective-bargaining representative for Respond- ents Cook and Anderson has in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act failed to furnish wage information requested by the Union and relevant to the Union's duty to administer the collective-bargaining agreement between it and the Respondents. I shall accordingly recommend that the Respondent Association, acting on behalf of Respondents Anderson and Cook, furnish to the Union wage information pertaining to the nonsupervisory carpenters and apprentices employed by Respondents Cook and Anderson who are named in the pertinent lists attached to the Union's July 1 requests. The wage information so furnished shall be broken down with respect to each of said carpenter or apprentice employees on the basis of the payroll period- weekly, biweekly or monthly-utilized by the respective " An employee may be absolved from furnishing wage information if the task is unduly burdensome upon the resources of the Company See e g, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 129 NLRB 850, 866, Fruit & Vegetable Packers Local 760 v N.L.R.B., 316 F 2d 389, 390 (C A D C) " That the Union sought wage data relating to six supervisors in the employ of Cook and five in the employ of Anderson is not sufficient to support Respondents' contention Data on other individuals whom the parties stipulated performed at intervals as supervisors does not, with respect to the construction industry, render all wage data relating to them outside the purview of the Act 39 Respondents in compensating their employees for their services. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. On July 1 , 1969, and at all times relevant in this proceeding, the Union was, and has been , the recognized collective-bargaining representative of all individuals employed as carpenters and apprentices by members of the Respondent Association, including Respondents Ander- son and Cook. 4. On or about May 19, 1969, the Union and the Respond- ent Association orally agreed on terms of the collective- bargaining agreement covering employees employed as car- penters and apprentices by employer-members of the Associ- ation, including Respondents Cook and Anderson. On or about September 27, 1969, the parties executed a written collective-bargaining agreement. 5. On July 1, 1969, the Union requested the Respondents to furnish it with relevant wage information pertaining to carpenter and apprentice employees employed by Respondents Anderson and Cook. 6. On or about July 14, 1969, Respondents refused to furnish the Union with wage information. 7. By such refusal the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 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 this case, I recommend that Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W. Anderson Con- struction Co., and George Cook Construction Co., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of carpenters and their apprentices employed by Respondents Cook and Anderson by failing and refusing to furnish the wage information pertaining to carpenters and appren- tices represented by said Union and employed by Respond- ents Anderson or Cook requested by the Union on July 1, 1969. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, and in the manner specified in the portion of this decision entitled "The Remedy," furnish the wage information requested by the Union on July 1, 1969. (b) Post at their respective offices and places of business in Lincoln, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed, shall be posted by each Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days of the receipt of this Decision what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16 " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 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 Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes in the event that the Board's 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 " 16 in the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director, in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, upon request, furnish United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, the information concerning nonsupervisory employees specified by the Union in its July 1, 1969, request. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of carpenters and their appren- tices, by refusing, upon proper request, to furnish to the Union wage information relevant to the Union's duty to administer the collective-bargaining agreement between it and the members of the Association. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Dated By BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Dated By Dated By M. W. ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) GEORGE COOK CONSTRUCTION CO. (Employer) (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, 610 Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.