Sun Oil Co., of Pennsylvania

SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933. Case 4-CA-7880 September 16, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY On December 1, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief and filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's excep- tions. 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her 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, Sun Oil Compa- ny of Pennsylvania, Inc., Marcus Hook, Pennsylva- nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed on February 25, 1976,1 by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, herein called the Charging Party or the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 4 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint and notice of hearing on April 30. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that the Respondent has, since on or about February 3, failed and refused to furnish the Union with certain requested information regarding employee earnings, and thereby refused to bargain with the certified representatives of its employees in violation of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent admits some of the factual allegations of the complaint, raises certain affirma- tive defenses, and denies that its conduct was violative of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 12, 13, and 29. All the parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. At the close of the hearing the parties waived presentation of closing argument. Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs and the Respondent filed a posttrial memorandum on or about September 7, which have been fully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is engaged in the refining of various petroleum products at its facility located in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. During the past year, the Respondent, in the operation of its business, had gross revenues exceeding $500,000, and sold goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania. The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find, that the Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint alleges that the Union, on or about February 3, requested that the Respondent furnish it with, inter alia, the following information: (a) hourly rates of pay; (b) when working overtime, hourly rates paid; and (c) last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and amount thereof. The complaint also alleges that the Respondent, since on or about February 3, has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to supply such information. The Respondent in its answer raises a number of defenses, including contentions that there was substantial question whether the Union continued to request the information; that the information does not exist and is not t All dates hereinafter refer to 1976 unless otherwise indicated. 232 NLRB No. 2 7 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD available in any form; that the Respondent has no legal obligation to furnish the information as it is neither relevant nor necessary to any stated union purpose, and has not been requested in bad faith but for purposes unrelated to any legitimate collective-bargaining obliga- tions; that the materials where in existence contain information which if revealed would constitute an unwar- ranted invasion of the privacy of certain employees to whom it relates and would also compel the Respondent to breach confidences entrusted to it by supervisors and unit employees; and that the alleged failure to provide the information would constitute a grievance subject to the contractual grievance and arbitration provisions, the Respondent is ready and willing to submit the instant dispute to final and binding arbitration, and the Board should therefor defer any action as to the complaint pending such disposition. The Respondent also argued vigorously at the hearing that the issue herein was limited to the negotiations regarding a wage reopener, and objected that testimony about events occurring since the issuance of the complaint related to the negotiations on a new contract and was outside the scope of the complaint. These objections were overruled at the hearing. On the basis of its claim of surprise at the scope of the complaint, however, the Respondent's request for an adjournment during which to prepare its defense was granted over the General Counsel's objection. The Respondent restates its position in the memorandum, citing as one basis therefor that the Union's charge alleges that the Respondent refused to supply the Union "with certain information it requested in connection with wage re-opener discussions between the parties .... " The charge, however, bases the claim of an unlawful refusal to bargain on the ground that the Respondent "has failed and refused to supply the Union with relevant wage information regarding all employees within the bargaining units (Unit A and Unit B) involved. Such information including names, classifications, hourly rates of pay, overtime rates and dates of last increases (general, merit and bonuses) including the amounts thereof is required by the Union to enable it to formulate contract demands and to negotiate general salary increases, adjustments and/or ranges." The rulings made at the hearing in this matter are hereby affirmed, and the issue is found to be the Respondent's refusal to furnish the Union with certain information about employee earnings at all times since on or about February 3. The Respondent's employees had been represented in a single unit by Sun Refinery Salaried Employees' Associa- tion, referred to herein as the Association. On November 3, 1975, the Board certified the Union as the representative of the Respondent's employees in the following two units: Unit A: All janitors, grounds keepers, draftsmen, surveyors, process engineering technicians, engine lab technicians, secretaries, clerks, office machine operators, and medical technicians, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2 Finney testified that an increase in 1974 for a 7-percent ment budget, of which I percent was for bonuses, also provided an increase in the bracket Unit B: All senior instrument technicians, instrument group leaders, fire marshal assistants and special project mechanics, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Thereafter the Respondent and the Union agreed to abide by the collective-bargaining agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Association, which was effective by its terms until June 30, 1976. The General Counsel called as witnesses Mitchell Barnik, an International representative who assists the Local herein and certain other locals in various matters including contract negotiations, and Russell Finney, who has been employed by the Respondent for 28 years, since 1965, as senior instrument technician, and who, under the Association, was the representative of the instrument department, grievance committee chairman, and a member of the executive board and of the negotiating committee, and, after the Union's certification, has served as the representative of the instrument department, the chairman of the grievance and negotiating committees, and a member of the executive board. The Respondent called as its witness Lewis Charnock, who was senior zone engineer in the Respondent's maintenance department, and became the Respondent's senior labor relations representative a little more than 4 years ago. He represents the Respondent in negotiations with the Union, and previously negotiated with the Association. B. The Union's Requests for Information As described by Finney, the Respondent classifies employees by jobs, and brackets employees in a step progression rating, with minimum and maximum salary rates at each grade level. Finney, a member of Unit B, testified that it has four salary levels, with three steps in each level; that the steps move at 6-month intervals to a total of 18 months; and that when the third level is acquired, there may be a 10-percent addition to that level based on merit. Employees are evaluated annually, and are given ratings ranging from A to E. Finney's last rating was B. He received a 4-percent merit raise above step 3 of level 3. The parties stipulated that those in the same department, in the same job classification, getting the same base salary and the same performance rating, A or B, can and do get different merit increases. Individual merit increases are not publicized and the Union is not notified of them before or after they are given. Likewise bonuses are not publicized nor the Union notified of them. An employee who is at the maximum in his grade cannot receive a general or merit increase unless his bracket is increased sufficiently.2 Bonuses, however, are in disregard of brackets, and range from a minimum of $300 to a maximum of 10 percent of an employee's salary. Wage proposals of the Respondent may be for a general increase or, as Charnock testified, "various combinations" of increases at the several step levels up to the top bracket, merit increases, and bonuses. These proposals are not in maximums of 5-1/2 percent, limiting those at the top of the bracket to a 5- I/2-percent increase. 8 SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA dollar amounts, but in terms of percentages of the payroll on a base date to be allocated for merit increases and bonuses, with the continuation of the bonus plan negotiat- ed for the succeeding calendar year and wage reopeners negotiated generally for a fiscal year. The cost of the package to the Respondent is, as Charnock testified, "not necessarily discussed." Distribution of merit increases and bonuses is made, as the contract provides, at the discretion of the Respondent. The Respondent did not inform the employees' representative of the total dollar amount to be expended as a result of an increase, of the amounts earned by named individual employees, of which employees were given merit increases or bonuses, of the amounts given any particular employees, or of the dates on which they were received by employees. The Association representatives on several occasions made requests for information as to the amounts given to individual named employees. When Charnock refused on each occasion to furnish such information on the ground that the Respondent was not required to do so, the employee representatives accepted that as the fact, and negotiated and executed agreements without such informa- tion being furnished. After the Union became the bargain- ing representative, the parties agreed that the contract negotiated by the Association, effective by its terms until June 30, 1976, would continue in effect. It provides that the parties may negotiate from time to time as to matters of mutual interest and as to a wage reopener.3 Barnik testified that the negotiations on the wage reopener had been in limbo from June 1975 because of the question of represen- tative status. After the certification, the Union decided it would make a counterproposal to the Respondent with regard to the wage reopener. The Respondent and the Union agreed to hold regular meetings on the first Wednesday of each month, with regard to Unit A in the morning and Unit B in the afternoon. The Respondent's representatives included Charnock, Sidner for Unit A, and Dwyer for Unit B. At the first such meeting on December 3, 1975, Robinson, as chairman of the union negotiating committee, asked for the weekly and hourly wage rates, general and merit raises, and bonuses given to named individuals, and the dates they were given. Barnik testified that the union representatives asserted that this information was needed "to formulate a proposal, a counter-proposal, to the company's wage proposal . . . to formulate an equitable wage package." The Union offered to put the request, made at both the Unit A and Unit B meetings, in writing. This was done in letters of December 8, 1975, from Robinson to Sidner and Dwyer. These letters, introduced into evidence by the Respondent, request, in order to deal properly with the wage reopener negotiations, "the wages (either expressed by hourly, weekly or monthly rates) ... who received a bonus and the amount. This request is for monies given in 1975." Robinson discussed the matter with the Respondent. They agreed to hold a joint meeting for both groups on December 18, 1975, to clarify the Union's request. At that meeting the Respondent asked about the I The contract provides that each party may "initiate negotiations for the sole purpose of considering a general salary adjustment and/or an adjustment in the salary ranges. ... " need for the information. The Union claimed it needed to know individual salaries to formulate proposals on over- time rates, merit increases, and bonuses. The Respondent stated it would check with counsel and advise the Union if any such information was to be provided. Finney made the same request for information at a monthly meeting on January 7. C. The Respondent's Refiusals To Furnish Information 1. Testimony presented by the General Counsel Sidner and Dwyer notified the Union in letters dated January 13 of "the weighted average weekly salary" of the employees in each group. Barnik, in a letter dated February 3, informed Charnock that the information furnished did not assist the Union in formulating "a realistic wage proposal," that the Respondent was required by the Act to furnish the information requested and the Union would submit the matter to the Board if the information was not received within 7 days from receipt of its letter, and that the information was: (1) names of all employees in the bargaining unit both A and B groups; (2) their classifications; (3) hourly rates of pay; (4) when working overtime, hourly rates paid; and (5) last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and amount of same. Sidner and Dwyer responded, in letters dated February 9, that the wage reopener negotiations, as agreed to before the Union's certification, concerned "only an increase in the salary ranges and/or general salary adjustments" and not "individual wage rates"; and that their letters of January 26 to Robinson, which Barnik might not yet have received, contained "all the relevant information" the Union needed. 4 The letters of January 26 referred to a request for information in Robinson's letter of December 8, 1975, that was discussed at the meeting of December 18, 1975, and attached materials that "contain all the informa- tion" needed by the Union "during the current 'wage re- opener' negotiations." These materials included total weekly salaries; gave, in percentages and total dollar figures, the increases due to reclassification to the level-step salary progression structure, projected merit, and projected increase due to reference; set forth the dollar amount of "Projected 'total weekly salary after reference adjust- ments"; and attached tables showing salary increase guidelines and the level-step salary progression structure for certain categories. There was no information as to salaries, overtime rates, merit increases, or bonuses re- ceived by named individuals. The Union filed its charge on February 25. Barnik testified that, at the regular meeting on May 5, he asked if the Respondent had any response to the Union's request for wage information, and was told the Respondent had nothing more than was already provided. There were meetings on May 4 and 24 and June 4 to set the ground rules for contract negotiations and to discuss matters of mutual interest. On June 4, Finney again asked Dwyer for 4 Barnik learned of the January 26 letters sent to Robinson some time after February 9. 9 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the wage information and, on June 9, hand delivered a letter to Dwyer referring to the June 4 request for information as to salaries, merit increases, and bonuses the committee needed "to intelligently draw up a wage proposal for your consideration." Dwyer's reply of June 21, hand delivered at the bargaining table, stated in regard to the request for "The salary of each employee in Unit 'B' either by the week or hour," that a list was enclosed showing the salary of each employee "grouped with those of other employees located on jobs in the same Job Level." As to the request for the employees "To whom a merit increase and/or a bonus was given in the past year and the amount given," the letter stated: Supplying the data requested in the above item "B" would destroy the long-standing confidentiality of individual employee merit pay increases and perfor- mance bonus awards. The Union must fully understand that such a loss of confidentiality would make any conceivable merit pay and/or bonus award plan totally unworkable and, therefore, unacceptable. We fully expect the confidentiality of our merit pay and/or bonus plan to remain. However, if ever the plan's confidential aspects were lost, the Company would be left with little or no choice but to seek a "single rate" system under which all single rates would be located at Step III of existing salary levels. Having made very clear our objections to furnishing data in the form requested in item "B", we invite your Committee to further discuss with us its needs in this regard, thereby seeking with us a mutually satisfactory solution. Negotiations for a new contract began on or about June 16. The parties met at times daily, with a total of about 15 meetings up to June 30. In some of these sessions the parties discussed both contract terms and the wage reopener. During these sessions, the Union requested the wage information as to named employees repeatedly. Barnik testified that the Respondent, on or about June 25, gave the Union the salaries of groups of employees and, on June 29, the salaries related to names of employees, from which the Union could figure out the overtime rates, but that the Respondent did not furnish the information as to the last general wage increase, merit increases, or bonuses of individual employees, which the Union at the time of the hearing was still seeking to obtain. He asserted that the information in question is necessary for the Union, as the certified representative, to represent the employees; that it cannot formulate a wage proposal not knowing who received merit increases or in what amount; that it cannot decide if a bonus should be part of a general wage increase not knowing which employees can get a bonus but cannot get a merit increase because they are at the top of their wage bracket; that it cannot determine the Respondent's total outlay on wages without knowing about merit increases; and that it cannot administer a collective- bargaining agreement without knowing which employees received such increments and in what amounts in view of the Respondent's total discretion under the contract in the allocation of merit increases and bonuses. Barnik main- tained on cross-examination that there was a continuing request for the information with respect to both the wage reopener and the contract negotiations. He admitted the Union made a contract wage proposal. 2. Testimony presented by the Respondent Charnock, the Respondent's only witness, testified that he was present at seven wage negotiations with the Association which covered merit increases and bonuses; that the Association asked repeatedly for the amount each individual would get as a merit increase or bonus; that "we would always say, 'No.'-that part of the offer of the merit was the confidentiality of the individual's amount of merit-that was confidential between he and his supervisor or the company and the employee. And the union always acquiesced to that.... We will tell you how much the total bargaining unit package is going to be as a total lump sum and we will come back at the end of the period and tell you what our performance is, whether or not we gave out all that we projected, as a total number-but we will not tell you on an individual basis...." Charnock could not recall what was said, if anything, but testified he under- stood each time that the employee representatives ac- quiesced. Charnock testified that, at the meetings with the Union as to both units on December 3, 1975, one of the items discussed dealt with "overtime retroactivity due to the implemented wage increase that had occurred during the period of certification"; that the Union said the salaries were adjusted but not the overtime as scheduled; that management said they would look into the matter; that Barnik "then requested that we supply the exact ... amounts of retroactive payments due"; that he told the Union he could not furnish that because it was known how many hours of overtime each man had worked so the Union could determine from the amount of the retroactive increase what the base salaries were, "and this is something which is confidential between the company and the employee"; that Barnik asked if that meant the Union did not know what each man was earning, and he replied, "That's correct, unless they've asked the employee, himself. They haven't gotten it from the company"; and that Barnik commented, "Well now you know what one of our demands are going to be." Charnock also testified that all the Association requests had sought information on what individual employees would receive under a new proposal, and that the Union, at the meetings on December 18, 1975, sought past wage information for the first time when it requested the complete wage history of each employee from January 1, 1975, to date, showing each increase, the reason, and the date. Charnock testified that the Union also requested wage information he had indicated was confidential; that in the letters of January 26 to Unit A and Unit B, the Respondent furnished "a wealth of information" in response to the Union's demand, indicating "the percent- age compliance of that anticipated projection" as to merit and bonus payments; and that, at a meeting on or about February 2, Barnik gave him a letter repeating the need for the information but making no reference to the January 26 10 SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA letters. Asked then if there was any later request from the Union for this information, Charnock answered, "Well if you consider, on February the 27th, we received a copy of the charge." Charnock testified further that the requests for informa- tion related to the wage reopener but that, when contract negotiations began in May, the "union asked for the same information that they had requested under the wage reopener .... We said we'd take it under advisement and pointed out that there was currently a charge against us"; and that on June 2 and 4, Unit A and Unit B respectively "requested generally the same information that had been requested under the wage reopener but made it perfectly clear that this was a new and separate request under the terms of the renewing of the contract .... As compared to the request for the information under the wage reopener * . . saying they needed it to negotiate the new contract." Charnock testified that the Union was still seeking the information the Respondent considered confidential; that on or about June 21, the Respondent gave the Union a list of salaries for both units "anonymously" and the grade classification each salary represented, and this was the first time the Respondent had given, "even anonymously," a list of salaries; and that on or about June 28 the Respondent gave the Union "that same list, identifying the names." Charnock testified that the Union could not determine from this list what bonus an employee had received, but could figure out the amount of merit increase. He also testified that the Union, on January 30, made wage proposals for both units, that the Respondent made a proposal, that they had been negotiating "under the auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service," but that the mediator adjourned the negotiations until the hearing herein was completed. Charnock testified that the Respondent's offer for Unit A contained two options; that "option I was a merit increase, plus a continuation of the bonus plan plus an increase in the salary ranges, conditioned by an expressed waiver of confidentiality of information"; that this differed from past proposals only in that "there's more explicit wording concerning the confidentiality"; that option 2 was a "transfer from a merit system to a fixed-rate system which would involve general increases" and would have no confidentiality attached; that the Respondent's contract proposal for Unit B contained two options; that option I was an "increase in the level-step salary progression and a merit budget . . . again conditioned by an expressed waiver of confidentiality," and a continuation of the bonus program, with confidentiality; that option 2 was "a fixed- rate system with a general increase" and no confidentiality; that the Union's proposal for Unit A was "Retroactive general increase, a substantial-extremely substantial increase in the salary ranges, retroactively; a new general increase and new increase in brackets"; and that the Union's proposal for Unit B was "for the retroactive increase, the same as they had asked for in A-did not ask for an increase in salary ranges because they are on a level step and it doesn't apply, and then asked for a new general increase to unit B." Charnock testified that he did not 5 Emeryville Research Center, Shell Development Company, a division of Shell Oil Co. v. N.LR.B., 441 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A. 9, 1971); N LR.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). know why the Union would need specific past merit increase or bonus information to understand or to implement any of the wage proposals presented by the Respondent or the Union. The contract provides that the Respondent has sole discretion in implementing the merit and bonus provisions, and that the exercise of this discretion is not subject to the grievance procedure. Charnock testified, on cross-examina- tion, that the parties understood granting the Respondent such discretion was a rejection of the requests for information, that excluding this matter from the grievance procedure implied it was confidential even if there is no reference to such confidentiality, and that the language in the Respondent's proposals as to waiver of confidentiality was merely a clarification of the existing language. Charnock also testified that the employee representatives always asked for the merit increase and bonus information, and that it was the Respondent's policy "forever and a day" to refuse to give it and to maintain it was confidential, although he admitted he did not know how this confiden- tiality position was established, and did not know that any employees ever requested that their earnings not be divulged to the Union. Charnock also testified that the Union has continued to ask for the merit increase and bonus information, and has continued, to date, to claim that the information was needed to make an intelligent wage proposal. Concluding Findings As noted above, the issue raised by the complaint is that the Respondent failed and refused, since on or about February 3, to furnish the Union, which was the certified bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees, with information as to employee wage rates, merit increases, and bonuses. The evidence, which is in large part undisputed, shows, and I find, that the Union requested the information repeatedly, and informed the Respondent that such information was necessary to enable the Union to formulate wage proposals and to serve the unit employees as the certified representative. The Respondent admits that it refused to furnish the information during negotiations on a contract wage reopener. The record is clear, and I find, that it continued to fail and refuse to furnish much of this information also during negotiations for a new contract. It is a long-established principle of Board law that "refusal to supply information relevant to the proper performance of a Union's collective bargaining role will support a Board finding of refusal to bargain in good faith under Section 8(aX5) of the Act," and that the sole criterion in determining whether information must be produced is its relevance or reasonable necessity for the union's proper performance of its representative role.5 Information directly related to wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of unit employees is "presumptively relevant" to the union's representative duties, and, therefore, such information is prima facie required to be produced. While the Respondent argues in its brief that the Union failed to discuss its need for the II DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD information, it is the Respondent that bears the burden of showing a lack of relevance or other justification for failure to produce employee wage data.6 As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held: 7 The case law allows no equivocation regarding the obligation to supply data. A company which fails to produce relevant information violates its duty to bargain. [Citations.J The only requirements are that the union must request the data and it must be relevant to a legitimate interest of the union. .... requested data must be supplied unless it is plainly irrelevant. .... In addition, an employer fails to bargain in good faith when he unreasonably delays production of requested, relevant data. I am satisfied, and find, from the record as a whole, that the Respondent has not shown justification for withholding from the Union the information in question, which related directly to wages and was requested repeatedly by the Union as necessary in negotiating both a wage reopener and a new contract. The information was in the possession of the Respondent, and there is no showing that it would have been unduly burdensome to collate the information and furnish it to the Union.8 The Respondent does not meet its obligation to furnish the information by telling the union representatives they may question each employee as to his earnings. Moreover, this was inconsistent with the Respondent's repeated expressions of concern about maintaining the confidentiality and anonymity of the earnings of its employees. 9 In addition, I find no merit in the Respondent's contention that the issues should be deferred to the contractual arbitration procedures as the Respondent's distribution of merit increases and bonuses was not grievable under the contract.' 0 The Respondent argues in its memorandum that the Union, with respect to negotiations on both the wage reopener and the contract, "has clearly and unequivocally waived its rights to receive such information," and such waiver, shown originally by the Association's signing of the contract, was effective "forever." There is no evidence, however, showing such a "clear and unmistakable" waiver by the Union of its right to be furnished such informa- tion." It is not set forth in the contract. There is no showing either the Association or the Union expressed such a waiver. And the fact that the Union submitted wage proposals and accepted proposed contract terms does not establish such a waiver. 2 Accordingly, I find, on the basis of the evidence in its entirety, that the Respondent has, since on or about February 3, failed and refused to furnish the Union with information as to (a) hourly rates of pay, (b) hourly rates 6 N. L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard Corporation, 410 F.2d 953, 957 (C.A. 6, 1969). N.L.R.B. v. J. P. Stevens&d Co., Inc., Guliston Div., 538 F.2d 1152, 1164 (C.A. 5, 1976). 8 N.L.R.B. v. J. P. Stevens & Co., supra; The Kroger Company, 226 NLRB 512 (1976); Local No. 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL- CIO (Michigan Chapter, Associated General Contractors ofAmerica, Inc.), 226 NLRB 587 (1976). 9 Local No. 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, supra; The Kroger Company, supra. I0 The Anaconda Company, 224 NLRB 1041 (1976); The Kroger Company, supra. paid for overtime work, and (c) the last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and the amounts thereof, and has thereby refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.13 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section 11I, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed 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 in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from in any like or related manner infringing upon its employees' Section 7 rights, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent violated the Act by its refusal to furnish the Union with information regarding employee earnings, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to furnish this information to the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Respondent, Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By failing and refusing since on or about February 3, 1976, to furnish the above-named Union with information as to (a) hourly rates of pay, (b) hourly rates paid for overtime work, and (c) the last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and the amounts thereof, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the certified representative of its employees, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 11 The Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. N.LR.B., 325 F.2d 746 (C.A. 6, 1963); N.LR.B. v. Perkins Machine Company, 326 F.2d 488 (C.A. 1, 1964). 12 N.LR.B. v. Fitzgergald Mills Corporation, 313 F.2d 260, 265 (C.A. 2, 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 384 (1963); San Isabel Electric Services, Inc., 225 NLRB 1073 (1976). 13 N.LR.B. v. Ohio Power Co., 531 F.2d. 1381 (C.A. 6, 1976); Hotel Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Royal Inn of South Bend 224 NLRB 810 (1976); Ellsworth Sheet Metal, Inc., 224 NLRB 1506 (1976); Western Electric, Inc., 225 NLRB 1378 (1976). 12 SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 14 The Respondent, Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania, Inc., Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the certified units by failing and refusing to furnish that union with information as to (a) hourly rates of pay, (b) hourly rates paid for overtime work, and (c) the last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and the amounts thereof. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Furnish forthwith to Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, information as to (a) hourly rates of pay, (b) hourly rates paid for overtime work, and (c) the last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and the amounts thereof. (b) Post at its premises at Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 14 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, 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. 15 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 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 NOT refuse to bargain collectively, with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 8-933, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the certified units, by failing and refusing to furnish to it, upon request, information regarding employee earnings. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL furnish forthwith to the above-named labor organization information as to (a) hourly rates of pay, (b) hourly rates paid for overtime work, and (c) the last time each employee received a general wage increase, merit increase, or bonus, and the amounts thereof. SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. 13