Pic Walsh Freight Co.

PIC WALSH FREIGHT COMPANY Pic Walsh Freight Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 14-CA-7844 February 18, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On October 24, 1974, Administrative Law Judge John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Pic Walsh Freight Company, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed on March 11, 1974, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued a complaint on July 31, 1974, against Pic Walsh Freight Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, in that it refused to furnish the Union with certain relevant information. The Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on September 9, 1974. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on October 2, 1974, and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: I Without further identification, Blumhoff merely testified that the 216 NLRB No. 121 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 627 Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the interstate transportation of freight and other commodities. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1973, Respondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in and for various enterprises located in States other than the State of Missouri. The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The facts in this case are not in dispute. Pursuant to the Union's winning, by one vote, a non-Board conducted election, the Respondent in 1972 recognized it as the collective-bargaining agent for a unit of office and clerical employees at its St. Louis, Missouri, facility. On September 29, 1972, the parties executed a collective-bargaining agreement, the relevant portion of which provided for the continuation of Respondent's existing pension and profit sharing plans until June 30, 1973, at which time Respond- ent would, insofar as these subjects are concerned, "commence participation in the normal Contract provi- sions." Upon expiration of this agreement, Respondent became party to a master agreement designated as Saint Louis Office Employees Rider to the Central States Area Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement, which by its terms is effective from July 1, 1973, through March 31, 1976. Article 55 of the above contract provides for and sets forth the terms of a pension plan for the employees covered by this agreement. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent and the Union submitted a joint application for coverage of Respondent's employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit. In the early part of January 1974, Ira Levy, the business representative of Local 688, was advised, apparently by an administrative official of the Union, that further informa- tion would be needed in order to process the application and make the plan effective.' The information requested consisted of the names of the employees in the aforenoted unit and the amount that each such employee received under Respondent's profit-sharing plan which, pursuant to the initial contract, was to terminate on June 30, 1973. It is undisputed that the Union, on several occasions in January and February 1974, requested Respondent to provide it with the aforesaid information. It is further undisputed that request for this information came in a letter he received from Central States 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD although Respondent did provide the Union with the names of the employees, it refused and still refuses to submit the lump sums which each employee received as his share under the profit-sharing plan upon the termination thereof which occurred on or about June 30, 1973 2 When queried as to the reason for refusing to furnish this information, Julius Blumhoff, Respondent's president, testified as follows: Well, my reason for refusal to supply, I just believe this was employer-employee relationship, it was something inaugurated by the company for the benefit of the employees for doing a job and doing a better job and helping the company make money. I just honestly don't believe that the Central States should have any access to this fund, this was money that these people actually earned before they were propositioned to go into the union, and I believe that this information had been submitted to the employees that their profit-sharing funds were going to go in there, or I don't think they would have ever got it. They only won by one vote. Blumhoff further testified that on an occasion in February when Levy came to his office to request the information, he told the business representative, "You have your steward here and yourself and you have my permission to go out into the office, take your time and ask each and every employee to give you that information if they so desire." The record reflects that there are about 26 to 30 employees in the unit. Although the record does not reflect Levy's response to this offer, Levy did say that the steward attempted but failed to obtain this information from the employees. Conclusions I do not deem it necessary to cite case authority governing the controlling principle herein, for in its brief Respondent recognizes the well established rule of law that an employer has an obligation to furnish the collective- bargaining agent with information which is relevant to the proper performance of its duties, including information relevant to the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement. Respondent's sole defense in this case is that the information sought by the Union (i.e., the amounts paid to the employees upon termination of the Company's profit-sharing plan) is not relevant. In finding no merit to this defense, as I do, some further facts are here in order. Thus, article 55 of the 1973 collective-bargaining agree- ment provides as follows: By the execution of this Agreement, the Employer authorizes the Employer's Associations which are parties hereto to enter into appropriate trust agree- ments necessary for the administration of such Fund, and to designate the Employer Trustees under such agreement, hereby waiving all notice thereof and 2 Respondent's profit-sharing plan was instituted in 1966 . The parties stipulated that under the plan the unit employees received a lump sum upon termination of their coverage. Although the record reflects that Respondent also had a pension plan, it appears that the Union did not request similar ratifying all actions already taken or to be taken by such Trustees within the scope of their authority. Herman Lucking, Jr., is an employer trustee of the Central States Pension Plan. Lucking testified that on May 5, 1970, the Board of Trustees of the Central States Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Plan passed the following resolution: Where a cash payment is made to a member under a company pension plan, or under a profit sharing plan, it will be the Central States Policy to deduct from the Central States benefit 20% per month of that amount until the cash amount has been absorbed. [Emphasis supplied.] Lucking further testified, "At the time a new group applies for coverage, we request the local union to have the company provide us with a certified copy of the cash paid to the account of each person." He said an application for coverage would not be accepted unless this information were provided. As set forth in the provision cited above, Respondent, as party to the contract, has agreed to ratify all actions taken by the trustees. There is no contention that by adopting the resolution of May 5, 1970, the trustees acted beyond the scope of their authority. From all the foregoing, therefore, it is crystal clear that under the terms of the contract, including the action taken by the trustees pursuant thereto, Respondent was bound to furnish the Union with the profit-sharing data requested by it in January and February 1974.3 There can be, accordingly, no question but that the information sought is relevant to the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement. By refusing to furnish this information to the Union, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. data relative to this plan. The record is silent as to why it did not. 3 There is, of course, no question before me as to the merits of the Union's pension plan, including that aspect of the plan covered by the May 5 resolution as adopted by the trustees PIC WALSH FREIGHT COMPANY 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with information relevant and necessary to the performance by it of its obligations as bargaining representative of the office-clerical employees of the Respondent, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: ORDER4 Respondent, Pic Walsh Freight Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing or refusing to supply Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, with information relevant and necessary to the performance of its obligations as the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the appropri- ate unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights through the above-named Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, furnish to the above-named Union information concerning the amount of vested interest paid by Respondent to each employee in the office-clerical unit who had previously participated in Respondent's profit- sharing plan. (b) Post at its facility in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said 629 notices on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102 .46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, 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. 3 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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."" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, upon request by Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, provide it with information concerning the amount of vested interest paid by us to each employee in the office-clerical unit who has previously participat- ed in our profit-sharing plan. PIC WALSH FREIGHT COMPANY