Union Carbide Corp.

UNION CARBIDE CORP. 113 Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 749. Case 8-CA-5665 December 9, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On August 5, 1970, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Union filed an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions and brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner.1 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, Fostoria, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. i Respondent urges the Board to reverse its decision in Pittsburgh Plate Glase Company, Chemical Division, 177 NLRB No 114, enforcement denied 427 F 2d 936 (C A 6, 1970), in the light of the Court's decision We respectfully disagree with the Court for the reasons enunciated in our decision and , accordingly, we reject Respondent's contention in that regard TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner : International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 749, herein respectively called the Interna- tional and the Local and collectively called the Union, on November 13, 1969,1 filed the initial charge in this matter alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) against Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, herein called the Company or Respondent. Following two amendments of the charge, the Director of Region 8, on April 1, 1970, issued his Complaint and Notice of Hearing which alleges, in addition to the normal paragraphs concerning service of the charges, jurisdiction and union status, that the Union since May 18, 1950, has been the certified bargaining representative of the employees in a production and maintenance (P and M) unit2 at Respon- dent's Fostoria, Ohio, plant and that Respondent and the Union have negotiated various pension agreements the most recent of which was concluded on July 18, 1969, effective until 1974. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union which is the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the P and M unit, including retired employees, and that Respondent, since May 13, refused to furnish certain information3 requested by the Union. The complaint further alleges that this information is needed by the Union to enable it to bargain effectively with Respondent in regard to the necessity and/or feasibility of future changes in, or modifications to, the existing pension plans, or new pension plan as it affects employees in the bargaining unit including both active and retired employ- ees, and that the information is also necessary to enable the Union to effectively police the pension agreements and administer its contracts with Respondent. In its April 14, 1970, answer, Respondent admitted the service of the charges, the jurisdictional allegations, the status of the Union, the certification, the appropriateness of the P and M unit, and the fact that the Union is the certified bargaining agent for the P and M unit employees and that the parties have negotiated and concluded certain pension agreements through the years. Respondent denied that the Union is the bargaining representative for retired employ- ees and that the requested information is needed by the Union to bargain effectively. Respondent affirmatively states that the Act does not accord a union a right to bargain for retired employees since they are not employees per se. Respondent also pleads that if there was such a duty, the Union waived any right it had and that the Union entered into a new 5-year agreement on July 18 following the date of the alleged unfair labor practice. Respondent alleges other acts as waivers and concludes by stating that the addition of retired employees to the bargaining unit would effect a change in the bargaining unit which has not been authorized. i Unless otherwise stated all dates herein occurred in 1969 2 The parties agree that the description of the certified unit is as follows All hourly paid employees including all production and maintenance employees at the Company's Fostoria, Ohio, Works, excluding all salaried employees , office and clerical employees, bricklayers, watchmen, guards, professional employees and supervisors 3 The Union orally and in writing requested Respondent to furnish it with (a) the number of employees presently retired under the pension plan, (b) the amount of benefits each retiree is receiving per payment period, (c) the years of service of each retiree prior to retirement , (d) the number, identity, and amount of payments to all persons receiving disability benefits, and (e) the extent of disability for employees receiving disability payments 187 NLRB No. 10 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The trial of this matter took place May 13, 1970, in Fostoria, Ohio, and all parties were afforded full opportuni- ty to participate in the proceeding and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. All parties have filed briefs which I have carefully considered. Respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding is disposed of by my decision. The basic question here is whether the Union is entitled to the information it seeks in order to administer the contract or prepare for negotiations on the pension and insurance (P and I) agreements. The General Counsel and the Union assert that the Union is entitled to the information since it has a duty and a right to bargain for and to administer the contract as it applies to retired employees and, in any event, that the Union is entitled to the information to enable it to bargain effectively in any negotiations concerning the P and I agreements. Respondent asserts that the Union has no right, duty, or authority to bargain for or administer the contract as it applies to retired employees, but that the Union's sole area of responsibility is to administer the contract for unit employees up until the time they do retire. Secondly, Respondent claims that the requested information is not relevant or necessary for the Union's use in bargaining about P and I agreements and, in any event, that the Union has waived any purported right. On the basis of the record in this case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Respondent is a New York corporation engaged primarily in the manufacture and sale of a variety of chemical and other industrial products produced in various plants in the United States. At its Fostoria, Ohio, plant, the facility involved herein, Respondent produces a variety of carbon products for industrial application and annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from such plant directly to points located outside the State of Ohio. Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I find that the International and the Local are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. If. THE CASE A. Background and Facts The Union, in an election held in May 1950, succeeded the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) which had been the bargaining representa- tive at this plant. The Union and Respondent have since that time entered into separate collective-bargaining contracts and P and I agreements. There have been a succession of such P and I agreements with some being negotiated at the conclusion of a 3-or 5-year term while others have been negotiated during the contract term. Over the years modifications have been made to both the pension part and the insurance part. On most occasions Respondent notified those who were retired that changes were to be made regarding their programs before any changes were negotiated with the Union for the current P and I agreement. Charles Gary was elected president of the Local in December 1968 and by virtue of that office was also chairman of the negotiating committee and a member of the grievance committee. In February 1969 he attended a union meeting of the Union Carbide Council of the International in Washington, D.C., which was held to discuss proposed pension changes which the Company was proposing and preparing to discuss with the various local unions throughout the country. Gary testified that during this meeting he met a delegate from a New York plant of the Respondent, who showed him information concerning retirees that the individual said he had received from the Company. Gary thought that similar information would be helpful to him in negotiations for a P and I agreement. On his return to work, Gary attempted to see J. C. Honeycutt, manager of industrial relations at the Fostoria plant, who was absent. Gary left a request for the information at Honeycutt's office and later in February, while in the plant, Honeycutt asked Gary why he needed the requested information. Gary said that being a new union officer, he thought the information was needed if they were going to negotiate a P and I agreement. Honeycutt said they might give that information out at other company divisions but they would not do it at the Fostoria plant then or in the future. Gary discussed his request and the Company's denial of the information with counsel for the Charging Party, Ronald Janetzke. On April 10, Gary wrote Janetzke about the matter, adding that some union members who had retired or those nearing retirement would like to know how the plan worked and that he would like the information so that he could tell his members the amount of the payments they should receive. In late April, Janetzke wrote to Honeycutt specifying that the information requested (fn. 3 above) was to enable the Local to administer the current agreement and the payments made to retired members under the current pension plan. In a subsequent letter, Honeycutt refused to supply the information with respect to those who had left the bargaining unit because of retirement or total and permanent disability. On June 24, C. E. Medford, Fostoria plant manager, wrote Gary noting that the P and I agreement was due to expire October 28, 1971, and that the Company was willing to enter into discussions concerning changes in the plan, but that by entering into such discussions neither party waived any of its rights or obligations under the current agreement. Following this letter, three meetings were held between the Company and the Local concerning proposed modifica- tions of the P and I agreement. At one of these meetings Gary renewed his information request and remarked that if the information was not provided, he could assume that the Company did not want the Union to represent retired employees and the Company would be faced with answering the questions of those seeking information rather UNION CARBIDE CORP. than the Union sharing that burden by having information available. Respondent claimed that this statement by Gary constituted a waiver by the Union of the information, but I regard it as an argument for the information and not a waiver. At the last meeting, held July 17 or 18, a new P and I agreement extending until 1974 was signed, following agreement on the Company's proposed modifications. Accordingly I must consider that the meetings were, in effect., negotiation sessions between the parties leading to a new 5-year P and I agreement. In the intenm, Attorney Janetzke again sought from Honeycutt and later from Jack Simpson, counsel for Respondent, the information which he had previously requested. Respondent continued to refuse to make the information available. In a July 17 letter to Honeycutt, Janetzke confirmed his previous request for the name of Respondent's counsel so that Janetzke might pursue the information request with him. The letter again requested the information sought for the reasons previously outlined -"and for the additional reason that your company has now requested meetings to discuss modifications of the existing pension plan. As previously indicated, we need the information requested to administer the contract and now must have this informa- tion in order to intelligently bargain concerning your proposed modifications to the existing plan." Honeycutt replied giving Jack Simpson's name to Janetzke and adding that since the new 5-year P and I agreement had been signed on July 18, he assumed the request was dormant since there was to be no further bargaining on pensions. Respondent additionally urges that by consummating the 5-year agreement without insisting on the information, the Union waived its rights to any information. In answer the Union states that Respondent offered the P and I modifications on a "take it or leave it" basis stating that the Union could either agree to the offered modifica- tions or if they declined, they could wait until the P and I agreement expired in 1971 and then would be offered the same modifications which would only result in depriving those who retired in the intenm of the proposed increased benefits. The union members accepted the new agreement over the recommendations of their negotiating committee. In subsequent correspondence Janetzke expressed to Simpson the Union's position that it was entitled to the pension plan information "that we may administer the current agreement and may secure detailed information from those on pension concerning the adequacy of the current benefits in order to be fully prepared when the next negotiations on pensions commence." Simpson reiterated that the 5-year P and I agreement had been concluded and that the plan contains all the necessary language for its administration. To a last request on August 27, Respondent replied that it would not provide the information. 4 The P and I agreements specify mandatory retirement when an employee becomes 65 years of age Some provisions are made for earlier B. The P and I Agreements 115 It appears that the pension funding and management for Respondent (and for all of Union Carbide) is handled by Prudential Insurance Company on a premium leveling basis. In essence Prudential, using its acturial tables, sets a premium for each employee based on the number of employees and the age and job (salary) of the employee and Respondent pays the premium until the individual is retired, so that funding for the individual's retirement is completed while he is an active employee which would have the effect of stabilizing and setting the benefits. No contributions are made by anyone to the retirement program once the individual retires. Although Honeycutt did not know how the Company determined what modifications it could offer in the pension program, it would appear under these circumstances that this is a matter of negotiations between Prudential and the Company as to what Prudential will provide for a certain level of premiums. Similarly where increases or modifica- tions are made to the programs of those already retired, this would appear to be a matter of negotiations between the Company and Prudential which resulted in the carrier liberalizing the program for those already retired. The P and I agreements contain an outline of the determining factors for the pension plan and the insurance program. The agreements have provided that if there is a dispute between Respondent and a bargaining unit employee under the pension plan as to ( 1) the calculation of his company service credit, his age , or his average straight time monthly earnings or (2) whether a person with sufficient time and age has become totally and permanently disabled, such disputes may be taken up under the grievance procedure in the collective-bargaining contract. The agreements also provide that if a dispute should apse between Respondent and a bargaining unit employee as to whether such employee "is, or continues to be, totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the pension plan," the dispute is to be resolved by a panel of physicians with the cost to be shared by the Company and the Union. In a similar vein the group life insurance plan, which is administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Compa- ny, provides for coverage of active employees and those who elect early retirement.4 This insurance plan contains a provision that if a factual nonmedical dispute exists , such as disagreement over earnings, group eligibility , employment status, etc., the Union and the employee might process such dispute through the grievance procedure which is contained in the regular collective-bargaining contract . Such a provision would seem to make early retirees eligible for representa- tion by the Union in this particular. Respondent states that the pension plan is susceptible to the grievance procedure during the 2-to 4-months period before the employee retires when the employee is called to the personnel office and the necessary data of his age, years of service credit, and average wage are determined and the formula computations made. The employees' monthly pension payment is figured and he is informed of it. When retirement 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he retires, the first check is sent by Prudential to the Company which verifies the amount and hands the check to the retiree. Thereafter the checks are sent to the retiree directly from Prudential Insurance Company. Respon- dent's contacts with the retiree are then limited to an invitation to an annual banquet and when and if changes are made in the retiree's pension program. Respondent has consistently resisted any attempt by the Union to bargain for retirees. In 1965 Respondent made a change regarding the hospital surgical plan for total and permanently disabled retirees. The Union filed a protest and asked that the matter be considered under the contract grievance procedure. Respondent took the position that such retirees are not on the payroll and not part of the bargaining unit for which the Union can bargain. The matter was not pursued. The pension plan provides that where an employee has 15 or more years of company service and is under 65 he may be retired if he becomes so totally and permanently disabled as a result of bodily injury or disease that he can not engage in any work or occupation for profit, and the disability is deemed by Respondent as permanent and has continued for 26 weeks. This disability retirement continues until the person becomes 65, ceases to be totally and permanently disabled, or dies. As noted earlier, if the person believes he is not permanently and totally disabled he may seek a medical determination of his status and the Union, under the P and I agreement, has the duty of sharing the medical costs with Respondent when the team of doctors makes the binding determination. In its information request, the Union has asked for the number, identity, and amount of payments to all persons receiving disability benefits and the extent of disability of those receiving disability payments. It was not made clear what knowledge the Union seeks in requesting information on the extent of disability of those receiving payments, since according to the agreement the recipients are totally and permanently disabled.5 It is possible that the Union here is seeking a better definition of what constitutes permanent and total disability by illustrations of those who have been so designated by Respondent and are now on that program. In the light of Gary's statement that he knew nothing about the disability retirees and was being questioned about this feature by employees, such informa- tion would provide some answers. Analysis The parties in this case all rely principally on Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 177 NLRB No. 114, with Respondent stressing the reversal of that decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 74 LRRM 2425. There is however one important distinction. In the Pittsburgh Plate case, the union sought to bargain on terms and conditions which applied directly to retirees. In the present case the Union seeks information about retirees for administering the agreement and for preparation for future negotiations. If, as the Board holds, and as I am bound to follow, retirees are a part of the bargaining unit in which they worked for the purposes of bargaining about their pension plans and other benefits, or changes therein, then it follows that information concerning those areas for retirees is presump- tively relevant and germane and should be given unless a company could rebut that presumption by convincing evidence .6 If however retirees are not part of the appropriate unit and a company has no obligation to bargain in regard to them, as the Sixth Circuit held in Pittsburgh Plate, there is no presumption of relevance and the General Counsel must demonstrate by convincing evidence that the requested information is relevant to the Union's needs. Before reaching those questions we will first consider Respondent's defense that the Union has waived any right it had for the information. First Respondent says it has unilaterally granted benefits to retirees on many occasions over the years without consulting or negotiating with the Union and has refused the Union's request to negotiate concerning such actions. Respondent adds that the Union did not pursue its request in the June-July negotiations but signed a new P and I agreement extending until 1974. By this course of action Respondent insists the Union has waived any rights it had to the information. If the Union is entitled to the information, then Respondent is in the position of claiming it has previously violated the Act by not giving the information to the Union and that by virtue of such violations it is entitled to continue to violate the Act and the Union is estopped from seeking redress for continued unlawful Respondent acts. Respondent also urges that Local President Gary's comments (see Sec. A. Background and Facts, above) constituted such a waiver. As stated above Gary's statement was a part of an argument being urged on Respondent to give the Union the requested information. In any event, the Board has stated many times that in order for a party to waive a right, the waiver must be plain and unmistakable. Here there is no express waiver either in the Union not going to impasse on Respondent's prior actions or by Gary's statement. With all due deference to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I am bound to follow Board precedent, and must accept as the law of this case that the Union is entitled to represent and bargain on behalf of retirees concerning retirement benefits. With that estab- lished, it follows that information about retirees and the amount of benefits they receive is presumptively relevant, and under the circumstances the relevance of its use to administer the agreement and prepare for future negotia- tions is plain and unmistakable. As an example, the Union could spot check retirees' payments, determine whether the amounts received by retirees or their widows were ample for their needs or whether they were receiving all they were entitled to receive. S Since the request deals with retirees, the possibility that the Union on its head to hold that his employer is free to deal with him unilaterally may want information concerning persons partially disabled who may be and that the union may not represent him with respect to changes in the receiving workmen's compensation or some other unmentioned type of very plan which it negotiated for him " As related to this ease, the Board compensation , will not be considered here might reach such a conclusion were the Union not to have access to the 6 As the Board said in Pittsburgh Plate, "it would virtually stand the Act information concerning that plan and how it is working UNION CARBIDE CORP. 117 Respondent did not seek to rebut the presumption except insofar as it claimed the Union waived its rights. Therefore under present Board law as established in Pittsburgh Plate, I am bound to find that the requested information is presumptively relevant and that Respondent by not furnishing the requested information has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Under the present status of the law and considering Respondent's geographical location, I deem it proper to consider a second question. For the purposes of this discussion we will assume that retirees are not members of the bargaining unit, and that the consequent presumption of relevancy is thus lost. The question then is whether the requested information is sufficiently relevant to the Union's needs that Respondent should make it available. If we consider the information request solely in the light that the information was to be used for administering the agreement as it applies to present retirees or preparing a grievance or preparing for negotiations to represent present retirees, then the information would only be used for the benefit of persons outside the unit and there would be no relevance established. But the Union also said that it wanted the information so that it could better understand how the plan worked for the retirees and wanted the information for upcoming negotiations. The Company replied that no negotiations were contemplated, since the parties to the June meetings understood that the meetings did not bind the parties to open the agreement. Respondent next says that the present agreement does not expire until 1974 and the information would not be needed this far in advance, and consequently the information is not relevant to any union need. Respondent has conveniently jumped the fact that the P and I agreement was negotiated by the parties in the June- July meetings and that a new agreement was consummated at a time when the Union's request for the information which it said it needed for negotiations was before Respondent. In a July 24, 1969, letter to employees concerning improvements in the just concluded P and I agreement Respondent stated that it was "continuously studying and carrying on research regarding benefit plans-and this involves social trends, legislative benefits and changes in the plans of other companies." The Union asserts that with the requested information, it could survey the retirees and disability retirees checking the amount of their benefits, their disability, etc., and determine whether the P and I plans have worked, whether the benefits are sufficient or proper to the needs of retirees, and whether in the experience of the retirees improvements are needed so that new plans or demands may be suggested or formulated for future negotiations. In its brief the Union points out that it does not know how the "surviving spouse option" has worked under the plan or in the experience of those electing it whether it should be increased, decreased, or eliminated and that it has no means of getting information on the subject except by obtaining such information first from the Company so that it might make such a survey. If the Union were armed with such information, it would be in a position to offer constructive plans and alternatives and not be in the position it was in 1969. Testimony indicates that the June-July negotiations were on a "take it or leave it" basis with the Union being told if it did not accept the proffered benefits then, they would be offered them in 1971 when the P and I agreement expired and would only succeed in denying those benefits to employees who retired in the interim. With the requested data the Union could determine from the retirees how the various P and I plans have worked in this current inflationary period and could determine from those who retire through 1974 , when the current plan terminates, whether the current plan is meeting the needs of employees. With such information the Union could formulate recommendations for changes in the present plan that would directly affect active unit employees as they retired hereafter. Thus, it appears that the Union 's requested information is relevant to the bargaining situation of the Union and as such should be given. The fact that the current agreement extends until 1974 is no deterrent to forthwith giving the Union the information it seeks. Experience here has demonstrated that on a number of occasions the Union and Respondent have renegotiated the P and I agreements in midterm as indeed they did on the current agreement. In Weber Veneer and Plywood Co., 161 NLRB 1054, the Board adopted Trial Examiner Bott's statement that, "The Union's right to relevant wage and fringe benefit informa- tion is not dependent upon the existence of a particular controversy or the processing of a specific grievance. As stated, the right includes all information which appears reasonably necessary to enable the Union to intelligently and effectively administer or seek to modify its agreement." In N.L.R.B. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 388 F.2d 673, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirmed and enforced a Board order requiring the company to furnish the union with various types of information concerning a group of employees who were not in the bargaining unit, for the information of the union in formulating bargaining demands or deciding whether to process grievances. There have been a number of other "information cases" where it has been held that information concerning nonunit employees was relevant and necessary for a bargaining agent and that withholding of that information by an employer violated the Act. Were there no Board decision holding that retirees are a part of the unit for bargaining purposes , which makes the information presumptively relevant here , I would in the circumstances here still find that the information requested by the Union is sufficiently relevant to warrant ordering Respondent to give it to the Union and would find that its refusal to do so violated Section 8(aX5) of the Act. Under all the circumstances present, I find and conclude that Respondent, by refusing to produce the information requested by the Union, has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, occuring in connection with Respondent's business opera- tions as set forth in section I, above, have a close , intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices as set forth above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union by refusing to give the Union information which it requested for purposes of administering a contract and enabling it to prepare itself for future negotiations, I recommend that Respondent give the Union the informa- tion which it has requested concerning retirees and disability retirees. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Divi- sion, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma- chine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 749 are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All hourly paid employees including all production and maintenance employees at the Company's Fostoria, Ohio, Works, excluding all salaried employees, office and clerical employees, bricklayers, watchmen, guards, profes- sional employees and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since May 18, 1950, the Union has been and is now the exclusive representative of the employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Respondent, by refusing to bargain with the Union by denying access of the Union to certain requested information concerning retirees and disability retirees, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER? On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case considered as a whole, it is recommended that Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, of Fostoria, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall; 1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by denying access by the Union to information which it has requested concerning retirees and disability retirees. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit and give the Union the information concerning retirees and disability retirees which it has requested. (b) Post at its Fostoria, Ohio, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith .9 I 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 9 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." t, In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps 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 After a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the Act and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL make available to the Union the informa- tion which it has requested concerning retirees and disability retirees so that the Union may have the information it needs for bargaining negotiations and policing of the contract. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, CARBON PRODUCTS DIVISION (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 UNION CARBIDE CORP. 119 from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room or covered by any other matenal. 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street, Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Cleveland, Ohio 44199 , Telephone 216-522-3715.