Leonard B. Herbert Jr.

LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 881 Leonard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.;1 Landis Con- and its disparaging remarks during negotiations struction, Inc.; Company Inc.; Pratt Farns- concerning the Union's requests, and that during worth,; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; negotiations the Union informed Respondent's ne- American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert gotiating committee chairman that it "was waiting & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construction Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construc- for an answer" to its request for said information. tion Co., Inc.; Gervais Favrot Company, Inc. ORDER and Carpenters District Council of New Or- leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846. Case Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 15-CA-7622 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- December 30, 1981 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and DECISION AND ORDER hereby orders that the Respondent, Leonard B. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Com- ZIMMERMAN pany, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Con- struction Co., Inc.; American Gulf Enterprises, On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construc- Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in tion Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Re- nings Construction Co., Inc.; and Gervais Favrot spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their offi- and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the the Administrative Law Judge. actions set forth in the said recommended Order, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the ec t th thed notice is substied for National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- t tth he attached notice is substituted for tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find insufficient evi- dence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit tached Decision in light of the exceptions and The notice is modified by identifying the Union's individual letter re- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- quests for information from Respondents as having been dated "between ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Jnu r y 18 and Februar y 12, 1980. Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3 APPENDIX The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the infor- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE mation requested by the Union concerning their al- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leged "double breasted" nonunion companies. In An Agency of the United States Government doing so, he stated that the Union never contended that the information sought was essential for bar- WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively gaining. Regardless of whether the Union did or with Carpenters District Council of New Or- did not so contend, it is clear from the record that leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by the Union needed and sought the said information failing and refusing to furnish the said labor to police the existing agreement and to prepare for organization with the information requested in bargaining negotiations. We further find that the the Union's letters to us of January 18, or Feb- Union bargained as best it could in light of Re- ruary 19, 1980. spondent's prior refusal to furnish the information WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent mis- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed pelling of the name of Respondent, Leondard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc., them in Section 7 of the Act in his Decision. s Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the WE WILL, upon request, furnish Carpenters Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- and Local Union 1846 th h r bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-ormation re- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Product, quested in the Union's letter to us at various Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 126 LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 881 Leonard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.;I Landis Con- and its disparaging remarks during negotiations struction, Inc.; Company Inc.; Pratt Farns- concerning the Union's requests, and that during worth,; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; negotiations the Union informed Respondent's ne- American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler.Herbert gotiating committee chairman that it "was waiting & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construction Company, f i ru f s inrm . Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construc- fo r a n a n sw e r t o lts "*l"^ fo r sal d information. tion Co., Inc.; Gervais Favrot Company, Inc. ORDER and Carpenters District Council of New Or- leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846. Case Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 15-CA-7622 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- December 30, 1981 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and DECISION AND ORDER hereby orders that the Respondent, Leonard B. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND H e b e rt , J r ., & Co., I n c .; L a n d i s Construction Com- ZIMMERMAN pany, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Con- struction Co., Inc.; American Gulf Enterprises, On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construc- Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in tion Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Re- nings Construction Co., Inc.; and Gervais Favrot spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their offi- and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the the Administrative Law Judge. actions set forth in the said recommended Order, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the e p t th ac n i substituted for National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- thpa that the attAched notice is substituted for tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- Cor"'arytohe Administrative L aw Judge, we find wwr"*icint evi- dence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit tached Decision in light Of the exceptions and ' The notice is modified by identifying the Union's individual letter re- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- quests for information from Respondents as having been dated "between ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Ja" ry 18 and Februar y 12, 1980." Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3'APPENDIX The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the infor- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE mation requested by the Union concerning their al- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leged "double breasted" nonunion companies. In A n Agency of the United States Government doing so, he stated that the Union never contended that the information sought was essential for bar- W E WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively gaining. Regardless of whether the Union did or w ith Carpenters District Council of New Or- did not so contend, it is clear from the record that lea n s & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by the Union needed and sought the said information failing and refusing to furnish the said labor to police the existing agreement and to prepare for organization with the information requested in bargaining negotiations. We further find that the the Union's letters to us of January 18, or Feb- Union bargained as best it could in light of Re- ruary 19, 1980. spondent's prior refusal to furnish the information WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- 'We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent mis- ees in the exercise Of the rights guaranteed pelling of the name of Respondent, Leondard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc., them in Section 7 of the Act. in his Decision. ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the WE WILL, upon request, furnish Carpenters Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- T Local TT-;^ IOA£ *i in *r * bility unless the clear preponderance of aol of the relevant evidence con- a n d L o c a l Un io n 1846 With the information re- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prmducts, quested in the Union's letter to us at Various Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1910), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no bask for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 126 LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 881 Leonard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.;I Landis Con- and its disparaging remarks during negotiations struction, Inc.; Company Inc.; Pratt Farns- concerning the Union's requests, and that during worth,; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; negotiations the Union informed Respondent's ne- American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler.Herbert gotiating committee chairman that it "was waiting & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construction Company, f i ru f s inrm . Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construc- fo r a n a n sw e r t o lts "*l"^ fo r sal d information. tion Co., Inc.; Gervais Favrot Company, Inc. ORDER and Carpenters District Council of New Or- leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846. Case Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 15-CA-7622 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- December 30, 1981 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and DECISION AND ORDER hereby orders that the Respondent, Leonard B. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND H e b e rt , J r ., & Co., I n c .; L a n d i s Construction Com- ZIMMERMAN pany, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Con- struction Co., Inc.; American Gulf Enterprises, On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construc- Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in tion Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Re- nings Construction Co., Inc.; and Gervais Favrot spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their offi- and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the the Administrative Law Judge. actions set forth in the said recommended Order, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the e p t th ac n i substituted for National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- thpa that the attAched notice is substituted for tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- Cor"'arytohe Administrative L aw Judge, we find wwr"*icint evi- dence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit tached Decision in light Of the exceptions and ' The notice is modified by identifying the Union's individual letter re- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- quests for information from Respondents as having been dated "between ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Ja" ry 18 and Februar y 12, 1980." Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3'APPENDIX The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the infor- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE mation requested by the Union concerning their al- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leged "double breasted" nonunion companies. In A n Agency of the United States Government doing so, he stated that the Union never contended that the information sought was essential for bar- WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively gaining. Regardless of whether the Union did or w ith Carpenters District Council of New Or- did not so contend, it is clear from the record that lea n s & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by the Union needed and sought the said information failing and refusing to furnish the said labor to police the existing agreement and to prepare for organization with the information requested in bargaining negotiations. We further find that the the Union's letters to us of January 18, or Feb- Union bargained as best it could in light of Re- ruary 19, 1980. spondent's prior refusal to furnish the information WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- 'We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent mis- ees in the exercise Of the rights guaranteed pelling of the name of Respondent, Leondard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc., them in Section 7 of the Act. in his Decision. ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the WE WILL, upon request, furnish Carpenters Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- T Local TT-;^ IOA£ *i in *r * bility unless the clear preponderance of aol of the relevant evidence con- a n d L o c a l Un io n 1846 With the information re- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prmducts, quested in the Union's letter to us at Various Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1910), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no bask for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 126 LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 881 Leonard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.;I Landis Con- and its disparaging remarks during negotiations struction, Inc.; Company Inc.; Pratt Farns- concerning the Union's requests, and that during worth,; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; negotiations the Union informed Respondent's ne- American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler.Herbert gotiating committee chairman that it "was waiting & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construction Company, f a to i r for s rm . Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construc- fo r a n a n sw e r t o lts "*l"^ fo r sal d information. tion Co., Inc.; Gervais Favrot Company, Inc. ORDER and Carpenters District Council of New Or- leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846. Case Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 15-CA-7622 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- December 30, 1981 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and DECISION AND ORDER hereby orders that the Respondent, Leonard B. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND H e b e rt , J r ., & Co., I n c .; L a n d i s Construction Com- ZIMMERMAN pany, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Con- struction Co., Inc.; American Gulf Enterprises, On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construc- Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in tion Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Re- nings Construction Co., Inc.; and Gervais Favrot spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their offi- and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the the Administrative Law Judge. actions set forth in the said recommended Order, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the e p t th ac n i substituted for National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- thpa that the attAched notice is substituted for tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- Cor"'arytohe Administrative L aw Judge, we find wwr"*icint evi- dence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit tached Decision in light Of the exceptions and ' The notice is modified by identifying the Union's individual letter re- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- quests for information from Respondents as having been dated "between ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Ja" ry 18 and Februar y 12, 1980." Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3'APPENDIX The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the infor- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE mation requested by the Union concerning their al- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leged "double breasted" nonunion companies. In A n Agency of the United States Government doing so, he stated that the Union never contended that the information sought was essential for bar- WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively gaining. Regardless of whether the Union did or w ith Carpenters District Council of New Or- did not so contend, it is clear from the record that lea n s & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by the Union needed and sought the said information failing and refusing to furnish the said labor to police the existing agreement and to prepare for organization with the information requested in bargaining negotiations. We further find that the the Union's letters to us of January 18, or Feb- Union bargained as best it could in light of Re- ruary 19, 1980. spondent's prior refusal to furnish the information WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- 'We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent mis- ees in the exercise Of the rights guaranteed pelling of the name of Respondent, Leondard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc., them in Section 7 of the Act. in his Decision. ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the WE WILL, upon request, furnish Carpenters Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- T Local TT-;^ IOA£ *i in *r * bility unless the clear preponderance of aol of the relevant evidence con- an d L o c a l Unio n 1846 With the information re- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, quested in the Union's letter to us at Various Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1910), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no bask for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 126 LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 881 Leonard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc.;I Landis Con- and its disparaging remarks during negotiations struction, Inc.; Company Inc.; Pratt Farns- concerning the Union's requests, and that during worth,; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; negotiations the Union informed Respondent's ne- American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler.Herbert gotiating committee chairman that it "was waiting & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construction Company, f a to i r for s rm . Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construc- fo r a n a n sw e r t o lts "*l"^ fo r sal d information. tion Co., Inc.; Gervais Favrot Company, Inc. ORDER and Carpenters District Council of New Or- leans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846. Case Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor 15-CA-7622 Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- December 30, 1981 lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and DECISION AND ORDER hereby orders that the Respondent, Leonard B. BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND H e b e rt , J r ., & Co., I n c .; L a n d i s Construction Com- ZIMMERMAN pany, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Con- struction Co., Inc.; American Gulf Enterprises, On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman Construc- Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in tion Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Re- nings Construction Co., Inc.; and Gervais Favrot spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Company, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their offi- and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the the Administrative Law Judge. actions set forth in the said recommended Order, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the e p t th ac n i substituted for National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- thpa that the attAched notice is substituted for tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- Cor"'arytohe Administrative L aw Judge, we find wwr"*icint evi- dence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit tached Decision in light Of the exceptions and ' The notice is modified by identifying the Union's individual letter re- briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- quests for information from Respondents as having been dated "between ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Ja" ry 18 and Februar y 12, 1980." Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3'APPENDIX The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) NOTICE To EMPLOYEES and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the infor- POSTED BY ORDER OF THE mation requested by the Union concerning their al- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leged "double breasted" nonunion companies. In A n Agency of the United States Government doing so, he stated that the Union never contended that the information sought was essential for bar- WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively gaining. Regardless of whether the Union did or w ith Carpenters District Council of New Or- did not so contend, it is clear from the record that lea n s & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by the Union needed and sought the said information failing and refusing to furnish the said labor to police the existing agreement and to prepare for organization with the information requested in bargaining negotiations. We further find that the the Union's letters to us of January 18, or Feb- Union bargained as best it could in light of Re- ruary 19, 1980. spondent's prior refusal to furnish the information WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- 'We hereby correct the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent mis- ees in the exercise Of the rights guaranteed pelling of the name of Respondent, Leondard B. Hebert, Jr., & Co., Inc., them in Section 7 of the Act. in his Decision. ' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the WE WILL, upon request, furnish Carpenters Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- T Local TT-;^ IOA£ *i in *r * bility unless the clear preponderance of aol of the relevant evidence con- a n d L o c a l Un io n 1846 With the information re- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, quested in the Union's letter to us at Various Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1910), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no bask for reversing his findings. 259 NLRB No. 126 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dates between January 18 and February 12, terial herein, employers engaged in commerce within the 1980. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR., & CO., II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INC.; LANDIS CONSTRUCTION COMPA- The complaint alleges that since at least May 1, 1977, NY, INC.; PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC.; and at all times thereafter, and continuing to date, the BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; Union has been, and is now, the representative for the AMERICAN GULF ENTERPRISES, INC.; purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the GUTLER-HERBERT & Co., INC.; PITT- employees in an appropriate unit and, by virtue of Sec- MAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; tion 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive BARTLEY INCORPORATED; BINNINGS representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; GERVAIS poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of FAVROT COMPANY, INC. pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and that the unit appropriate DECISION for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE All carpenters employed by Respondents, indi- THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: This vidually and collectively, on their construction case was heard on February 24, 1981, at New Orleans, projects located within the geographical jurisdiction Louisiana, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Region- of the Union, excluding all other employees. al Director for Region 15 on August 6, 1980, which al- leges that the above-captioned Employers, herein re- The Respondents admitted the foregoing allegations ferred to individually and collectively as the Respond- but amended the answer at the hearing to admit that the ents, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Union is the designated bargaining agent for employees Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bargain in individual bargaining units but that the Respondents in good faith with the above-captioned labor organiza- deny the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit. tion, herein referred to as the Union, in that they refused The record reveals that the Respondents and the to furnish the Union with certain information. The Re- Union have, since at least 1961, maintained a collective- spondents filed an answer denying the commission of any bargaining relationship and have entered into successive unfair labor practices. collective-bargaining agreements which embody rates of Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and and consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the conditions of employment. The last two contracts in that following: series of contracts were in effect during the periods of May 1, 1977, to April 30, 1980, and May 1, 1980, to FINDINGS OF FACT April 30, 1982, and reveal that the Respondents are sig- natory thereto and parties thereby as members of the 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS New Orleans District, Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc. (herein called AGC). Those contracts With the exception of Pittman Construction Company, further indicate that the AGC "and such other Employ- Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, the following ers for whom the AGC has bargained" are parties named Respondents are Louisiana corporations which, in thereto and referred to therein as "contractors" or "Em- addition to Pittman Construction Company, Inc., main- ploers The recognition clause therein states: tain offices and facilities in the New Orleans, Louisiana, metropolitan area where they are engaged in the building The Contractors, during the life of this agreement, and construction business: Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt representatives for all of their employees coming Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; under the respective jurisdiction of the Unions for American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construction Co., rates of pay, fringes, hours of employment and Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Company, Inc. other conditions of employment. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of all times material There is uncontradicted record testimony to the effect herein, the foregoing named Respondents, each individ- that a committee of the AGC engaged in joint bargain- ually, in the course and conduct of their business, pur- ing with the Union on behalf of the Respondents. Ac- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess cordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has sus- of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped di- tained its burden of proof with respect to the aforesaid rectly to their respective operations located in the metro- allegations concerning the individual and collective politan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, from points lo- nature of the bargaining unit. In any event, it is clear cated outside the State of Louisiana. that the Respondents had an obligation to bargain with It is admitted and I find that the Respondents are, indi- the Union concerning wages, hours, and conditions of vidually and collectively, and have been at all times ma- employment of carpenters located within the geographi- 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dates between January 18 and February 12, terial herein, employers engaged in commerce within the 1980. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR., & CO., II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INC.; LANDIS CONSTRUCTION COMPA- The complaint alleges that since at least May 1, 1977, NY, INC.; PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC.; and at all times thereafter, and continuing to date, the BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; Union has been, and is now, the representative for the AMERICAN GULF ENTERPRISES, INC.; purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the GUTLER-HERBERT & Co., INC.; PiTT-employees in an appropriate unit and, by virtue of Sec- MAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; tion 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive BARTLEY INCORPORATED; BINNINGS representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; GERVAIS poses o f c ollec t iv e bargaining with respect to rates of FAVROT COMPANY, INC. p a y, wages, h o u rs o f employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and that the unit appropriate DECISION fo r collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE.. All carpenters employed by Respondents, indi- THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: This vidually and collectively, on their construction case was heard on February 24, 1981, at New Orleans, projects located within the geographical jurisdiction Louisiana, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Region- of the Union, excluding all other employees. al Director for Region 15 on August 6, 1980, which al- leges that the above-captioned Employers, herein re- The Respondents admitted the foregoing allegations ferred to individually and collectively as the Respond- but amended the answer at the hearing to admit that the ents, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Union is the designated bargaining agent for employees Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bargain in individual bargaining units but that the Respondents in good faith with the above-captioned labor organiza- deny the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit. tion, herein referred to as the Union, in that they refused The record reveals that the Respondents and the to furnish the Union with certain information. The Re- Union have, since at least 1961, maintained a collective- spondents filed an answer denying the commission of any bargaining relationship and have entered into successive unfair labor practices. collective-bargaining agreements which embody rates of Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and and consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the conditions of employment. The last two contracts in that following: series of contracts were in effect during the periods of May 1, 1977, to April 30, 1980, and May 1, 1980, to FINDINGS OF FACT April 30, 1982, and reveal that the Respondents are sig- natory thereto and parties thereby as members of the 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS New Orleans District, Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc. (herein called AGC). Those contracts With the exception of Pittman Construction Company, further indicate that the AGC "and such other Employ- Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, the following ^ ^^ ^ ^^ bargained" are parties named Respondents are Louisiana corporations which, in erf d woerred to therein as "contractors" or "Em- addition to Pittman Construction Company, Inc., main- p Th recognition clause therein states: tain offices and facilities in the New Orleans, Louisiana, metropolitan area where they are engaged in the building The Contractors, during the life of this agreement, and construction business: Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt representatives for all of their employees coming Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; under the respective jurisdiction of the Unions for American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construction Co., rates of pay, fringes, hours of employment and Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Company, Inc. other conditions of employment. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of all times material There is uncontradicted record testimony to the effect herein, the foregoing named Respondents, each individ- that a committee of the AGC engaged in joint bargain- ually, in the course and conduct of their business, pur- ing with the Union on behalf of the Respondents. Ac- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess cordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has sus- of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped di- tained its burden of proof with respect to the aforesaid rectly to their respective operations located in the metro- allegations concerning the individual and collective politan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, from points lo- nature of the bargaining unit. In any event, it is clear cated outside the State of Louisiana. that the Respondents had an obligation to bargain with It is admitted and I find that the Respondents are, indi- the Union concerning wages, hours, and conditions of vidually and collectively, and have been at all times ma- employment of carpenters located within the geographi- 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dates between January 18 and February 12, terial herein, employers engaged in commerce within the 1980. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR., & CO., II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INC.; LANDIS CONSTRUCTION COMPA- The complaint alleges that since at least May 1, 1977, NY, INC.; PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC.; and at all times thereafter, and continuing to date, the BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; Union has been, and is now, the representative for the AMERICAN GULF ENTERPRISES, INC.; purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the GUTLER-HERBERT & Co., INC.; PiTT-employees in an appropriate unit and, by virtue of Sec- MAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; tion 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive BARTLEY INCORPORATED; BINNINGS representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; GERVAIS poses o f c ollec t iv e bargaining with respect to rates of FAVROT COMPANY, INC. p a y, wages, h o u rs o f employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and that the unit appropriate DECISION fo r collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE.. All carpenters employed by Respondents, indi- THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: This vidually and collectively, on their construction case was heard on February 24, 1981, at New Orleans, projects located within the geographical jurisdiction Louisiana, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Region- of the Union, excluding all other employees. al Director for Region 15 on August 6, 1980, which al- leges that the above-captioned Employers, herein re- The Respondents admitted the foregoing allegations ferred to individually and collectively as the Respond- but amended the answer at the hearing to admit that the ents, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Union is the designated bargaining agent for employees Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bargain in individual bargaining units but that the Respondents in good faith with the above-captioned labor organiza- deny the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit. tion, herein referred to as the Union, in that they refused The record reveals that the Respondents and the to furnish the Union with certain information. The Re- Union have, since at least 1961, maintained a collective- spondents filed an answer denying the commission of any bargaining relationship and have entered into successive unfair labor practices. collective-bargaining agreements which embody rates of Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and and consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the conditions of employment. The last two contracts in that following: series of contracts were in effect during the periods of May 1, 1977, to April 30, 1980, and May 1, 1980, to FINDINGS OF FACT April 30, 1982, and reveal that the Respondents are sig- natory thereto and parties thereby as members of the 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS New Orleans District, Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc. (herein called AGC). Those contracts With the exception of Pittman Construction Company, further indicate that the AGC "and such other Employ- Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, the following ^ ^^ ^ ^^ bargained" are parties named Respondents are Louisiana corporations which, in ers d referred to therein as "contractors" or "Em- addition to Pittman Construction Company, Inc., main- p Th recognition clause therein states: tain offices and facilities in the New Orleans, Louisiana, metropolitan area where they are engaged in the building The Contractors, during the life of this agreement, and construction business: Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt representatives for all of their employees coming Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; under the respective jurisdiction of the Unions for American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construction Co., rates of pay, fringes, hours of employment and Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Company, Inc. other conditions of employment. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of all times material There is uncontradicted record testimony to the effect herein, the foregoing named Respondents, each individ- that a committee of the AGC engaged in joint bargain- ually, in the course and conduct of their business, pur- ing with the Union on behalf of the Respondents. Ac- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess cordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has sus- of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped di- tained its burden of proof with respect to the aforesaid rectly to their respective operations located in the metro- allegations concerning the individual and collective politan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, from points lo- nature of the bargaining unit. In any event, it is clear cated outside the State of Louisiana. that the Respondents had an obligation to bargain with It is admitted and I find that the Respondents are, indi- the Union concerning wages, hours, and conditions of vidually and collectively, and have been at all times ma- employment of carpenters located within the geographi- 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dates between January 18 and February 12, terial herein, employers engaged in commerce within the 1980. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR., & CO., II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INC.; LANDIS CONSTRUCTION COMPA- The complaint alleges that since at least May 1, 1977, NY, INC.; PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC.; and at all times thereafter, and continuing to date, the BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; Union has been, and is now, the representative for the AMERICAN GULF ENTERPRISES, INC.; purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the GUTLER-HERBERT & Co., INC.; PiTT-employees in an appropriate unit and, by virtue of Sec- MAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; tion 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive BARTLEY INCORPORATED; BINNINGS representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; GERVAIS poses o f c ollec t iv e bargaining with respect to rates of FAVROT COMPANY, INC. p a y, wages, h o u rs o f employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and that the unit appropriate DECISION fo r collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE.. All carpenters employed by Respondents, indi- THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: This vidually and collectively, on their construction case was heard on February 24, 1981, at New Orleans, projects located within the geographical jurisdiction Louisiana, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Region- of the Union, excluding all other employees. al Director for Region 15 on August 6, 1980, which al- leges that the above-captioned Employers, herein re- The Respondents admitted the foregoing allegations ferred to individually and collectively as the Respond- but amended the answer at the hearing to admit that the ents, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Union is the designated bargaining agent for employees Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bargain in individual bargaining units but that the Respondents in good faith with the above-captioned labor organiza- deny the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit. tion, herein referred to as the Union, in that they refused The record reveals that the Respondents and the to furnish the Union with certain information. The Re- Union have, since at least 1961, maintained a collective- spondents filed an answer denying the commission of any bargaining relationship and have entered into successive unfair labor practices. collective-bargaining agreements which embody rates of Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and and consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the conditions of employment. The last two contracts in that following: series of contracts were in effect during the periods of May 1, 1977, to April 30, 1980, and May 1, 1980, to FINDINGS OF FACT April 30, 1982, and reveal that the Respondents are sig- natory thereto and parties thereby as members of the 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS New Orleans District, Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc. (herein called AGC). Those contracts With the exception of Pittman Construction Company, further indicate that the AGC "and such other Employ- Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, the following ^ ^^ ^ GC] ^ bargained" are parties named Respondents are Louisiana corporations which, in ero whmerred to therein as "contractors" or "Em- addition to Pittman Construction Company, Inc., main- p Th recognition clause therein states: tain offices and facilities in the New Orleans, Louisiana, metropolitan area where they are engaged in the building The Contractors, during the life of this agreement, and construction business: Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt representatives for all of their employees coming Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; under the respective jurisdiction of the Unions for American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construction Co., rates of pay, fringes, hours of employment and Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Company, Inc. other conditions of employment. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of all times material There is uncontradicted record testimony to the effect herein, the foregoing named Respondents, each individ- that a committee of the AGC engaged in joint bargain- ually, in the course and conduct of their business, pur- ing with the Union on behalf of the Respondents. Ac- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess cordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has sus- of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped di- tained its burden of proof with respect to the aforesaid rectly to their respective operations located in the metro- allegations concerning the individual and collective politan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, from points lo- nature of the bargaining unit. In any event, it is clear cated outside the State of Louisiana. that the Respondents had an obligation to bargain with It is admitted and I find that the Respondents are, indi- the Union concerning wages, hours, and conditions of vidually and collectively, and have been at all times ma- employment of carpenters located within the geographi- 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dates between January 18 and February 12, terial herein, employers engaged in commerce within the 1980. meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR., & CO., II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INC.; LANDIS CONSTRUCTION COMPA- The complaint alleges that since at least May 1, 1977, NY, INC.; PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC.; and at all times thereafter, and continuing to date, the BOH BROS. CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; Union has been, and is now, the representative for the AMERICAN GULF ENTERPRISES, INC.; purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of the GUTLER-HERBERT & Co., INC.; PiTT-employees in an appropriate unit and, by virtue of Sec- MAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; tion 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive BARTLEY INCORPORATED; BINNINGS representative of all employees in said unit for the pur- CONSTRUCTION Co., INC.; GERVAIS poses o f c ollec t iv e bargaining with respect to rates of FAVROT COMPANY, INC. p a y, wages, h o u rs o f employment, and other terms and conditions of employment; and that the unit appropriate DECISION fo r collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CASE.. All carpenters employed by Respondents, indi- THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: This vidually and collectively, on their construction case was heard on February 24, 1981, at New Orleans, projects located within the geographical jurisdiction Louisiana, pursuant to a complaint issued by the Region- of the Union, excluding all other employees. al Director for Region 15 on August 6, 1980, which al- leges that the above-captioned Employers, herein re- The Respondents admitted the foregoing allegations ferred to individually and collectively as the Respond- but amended the answer at the hearing to admit that the ents, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Union is the designated bargaining agent for employees Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to bargain in individual bargaining units but that the Respondents in good faith with the above-captioned labor organiza- deny the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit. tion, herein referred to as the Union, in that they refused The record reveals that the Respondents and the to furnish the Union with certain information. The Re- Union have, since at least 1961, maintained a collective- spondents filed an answer denying the commission of any bargaining relationship and have entered into successive unfair labor practices. collective-bargaining agreements which embody rates of Upon the entire record, my observation of witnesses, pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and and consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the conditions of employment. The last two contracts in that following: series of contracts were in effect during the periods of May 1, 1977, to April 30, 1980, and May 1, 1980, to FINDINGS OF FACT April 30, 1982, and reveal that the Respondents are sig- natory thereto and parties thereby as members of the 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS New Orleans District, Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc. (herein called AGC). Those contracts With the exception of Pittman Construction Company, further indicate that the AGC "and such other Employ- Inc., which is a Delaware corporation, the following ^ ^^ ^ ^^ bargained" are parties named Respondents are Louisiana corporations which, in ero whmerred to therein as "contractors" or "Em- addition to Pittman Construction Company, Inc., main- p Th recognition clause therein states: tain offices and facilities in the New Orleans, Louisiana, metropolitan area where they are engaged in the building The Contractors, during the life of this agreement, and construction business: Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & recognize the Unions as the exclusive bargaining Co., Inc.; Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt representatives for all of their employees coming Farnsworth, Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; under the respective jurisdiction of the Unions for American Gulf Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Binnings Construction Co., rates of pay, fringes, hours of employment and Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Company, Inc. other conditions of employment. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a period representative of all times material There is uncontradicted record testimony to the effect herein, the foregoing named Respondents, each individ- that a committee of the AGC engaged in joint bargain- ually, in the course and conduct of their business, pur- ing with the Union on behalf of the Respondents. Ac- chased and received goods and materials valued in excess cordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has sus- of $50,000, which goods and materials were shipped di- tained its burden of proof with respect to the aforesaid rectly to their respective operations located in the metro- allegations concerning the individual and collective politan area of New Orleans, Louisiana, from points lo- nature of the bargaining unit. In any event, it is clear cated outside the State of Louisiana. that the Respondents had an obligation to bargain with It is admitted and I find that the Respondents are, indi- the Union concerning wages, hours, and conditions of vidually and collectively, and have been at all times ma- employment of carpenters located within the geographi- LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 883 cal jurisdiction of the Union, whether individually or contradicted testimony as to the substance of the conver- collectively. sation and to the fact that it occurred on the date of the Davy P. Laborde, Sr., the business representative of election at Claiborne. the Union, testified that he has participated in negotia- Paulino in his uncontradicted testimony added that, tions with the Respondents since 1961. In response to during this conversation when Lemoine asked why the cross-examination, Laborde testified that for several Union was seeking an election at Claiborne, he, Paulino, years he had received reports from agents of the Union responded: ". . . that we were going to try to organize and other persons engaged in the construction business all the non-union companies that we felt were offsprings to the effect that some of the Respondents had formed from union companies." "double breasted" companies to perform unit work with Laborde testified that thereafter he determined that it nonunion employees. Laborde testified in further cross- was necessary to obtain information from the Respond- examination that on one occasion he had made a fruitless ents concerning the existence of any double-breasted en- investigation of citings of certain machinery owned by a terprises in order to discover whether the Respondents respondent at a jobsite of a construction company whose had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by fail- employees were unrepresented by the Union and where ing to extend the terms and conditions of the collective- unit work was performed. Employees of one of the Re- bargaining agreement to the employees of such compa- spondents had also informed Laborde on another occa- nies. Additionally, he determined that such information sion that they requested the withdrawal of their union would assist him in contract negotiations with the Re- cards upon commencement of employment at a reputed spondents with regard to two areas; e.g., whether he "double breasted" company. would revive his request for the 25 subsidiary clause, and In past negotiations with the Respondents on at least what positions the Union should take with respect to two occasions Laborde proposed the incorporation into economic issues. With respect to possible economic posi- the collective-bargaining agreement of a so-called subi- tions he explained that such could have been affected by diary clause, for the purpose of automatically extending knowledge of what the Respondents were affording non- the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement to union employees of affiliated companies. That is to say, additional enterprises formed by the Respondents. These for example, he might modify his 30 economic demands attempts failed. Laborde testified, without contradiction, if a risk existed of losing unit work to the nonunion affili- that he ceased such efforts in that the Respondents had ated companies. continually refused to answer his inquiries as to other re- Between January and February 12, 1980, prior to lated companies and adamantly insisted that they main- the April 30 1980 expiration date of the collective-bar- tained no double-breasted operations. On December 15, 1978, pursuant to a representation gaining agreement, the Union, by individual letters, re- On December 15, 1978, pursuant to a representation q - t petition filed by the Union, and a hearing conducted on quested of the Reslent ans wers to 13 questions November27, 1978, th Acting Re l Dir r fr which the Union in its letter explained were necessary November 27, 1978, the Acting Regional Director for Region 152, 197in Case Acting Regional Direction in because of information it had obtained to the effect that Region 15, in Case 15-RC-6380, directed an election in a the individual respondent had by the operation of a spe- carpenters' unit at Claiborne Builders, Inc., in or near the individual respondent had by the operation of a spe- carpenters' unit at Claiborne Builders, Inc., in or near cifically named enterprise performed work which other- New Orleans, Louisiana. An election was conducted on cfic named enterprise performed work which other- January 12, 1979. Laborde testified that he engaged in a wise would have been performed by the Respondents conversation on the day of that election at the Claiborne and by such conduct the Respondents might be in viola- place of business with Joe Lemoine who identified him- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement provisions; self as the treasurer of Claiborne as well as the treasurer i.e. "wages, scope of agreement, referral clause, fringe of Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., which benefit provisions and recognition and possibly other ar- Laborde discovered then to have occupied a common ticles." The questions are set forth as follows with the premises with Claiborne.' Laborde testified, without con- exception that the name of each alleged double-breasted tradiction and with substantial corroboration by Union company is replaced herein by the designation "other Agent James Paulino, Jr., who was present, that Le- company. moine explained to him that Perrilliet-Rickey had formed. What positions in other Company are held by a secondary company, i.e., Claiborne, for the purpose of each officer shareholder director or other manage- competing against other "double-breasted" companies sareoer irector o that were formed by other parties to collective-bargain- ment representative of your company? ing agreement; i.e., the Respondents. Although Laborde 2. State the name of each person who has a unc- had initially fixed the date of this conversation in No- tion related to labor relations for your Company vember 1979, he retracted his testimony to place it in and for [other Company]? January, the date of the election, having explained his 3. What customers of [other Company] are now confusion as to the month of the hearing and month of or were formerly customers for your Company? the election. Despite his initial confusion, I credit his un- 4. State the difference, if any, in the type of busi- ness engaged in by your Company and [other Com- ' Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., was a member of the pany]. AOC and a party to the contract which expired on April 30. 1980. It was 5. What services, including clerical, administra- named in the instant unfair labor practice charge as was the AGC but, tive bookkeeping, managerial, engineering, estimat- like the AOC, was not named in the complaint. The General Counsel slated in its brief that Perrilliet-Rickey timely withdrew from the AGC ing, or other services are performed for [other and accordingly was not named in the complaint. Company] by or at your Company? LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 883 cal jurisdiction of the Union, whether individually or contradicted testimony as to the substance of the conver- collectively. sation and to the fact that it occurred on the date of the Davy P. Laborde, Sr., the business representative of election at Claiborne. the Union, testified that he has participated in negotia- Paulino in his uncontradicted testimony added that, tions with the Respondents since 1961. In response to during this conversation when Lemoine asked why the cross-examination, Laborde testified that for several Union was seeking an election at Claiborne, he, Paulino, years he had received reports from agents of the Union responded: ". . . that we were going to try to organize and other persons engaged in the construction business all the non-union companies that we felt were offsprings to the effect that some of the Respondents had formed from union companies." "double breasted" companies to perform unit work with Laborde testified that thereafter he determined that it nonunion employees. Laborde testified in further cross- was necessary to obtain information from the Respond- examination that on one occasion he had made a fruitless ents concerning the existence of any double-breasted en- investigation of citings of certain machinery owned by a terprises in order to discover whether the Respondents respondent at a jobsite of a construction company whose had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by fail- employees were unrepresented by the Union and where ing to extend the terms and conditions of the collective- unit work was performed. Employees of one of the Re- bargaining agreement to the employees of such compa- spondents had also informed Laborde on another occa- nies. Additionally, he determined that such information sion that they requested the withdrawal of their union would assist him in contract negotiations with the Re- cards upon commencement of employment at a reputed spondents with regard to two areas; e.g., whether he "double breasted" company. would revive his request for the 25 subsidiary clause, and In past negotiations with the Respondents on at least what positions the Union should take with respect to two occasions Laborde proposed the incorporation into economic issues. With respect to possible economic posi- the collective-bargaining agreement of a so-called subi- tions he explained that such could have been affected by diary clause, for the purpose of automatically extending knowledge of what the Respondents were affording non- the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement to union employees of affiliated companies. That is to say, additional enterprises formed by the Respondents. These for example, he might modify his 30 economic demands attempts failed. Laborde testified, without contradiction, if a risk existed of losing unit work to the nonunion affili- that he ceased such efforts in that the Respondents had ated companies. continually refused to answer his inquiries as to other re- B n y Februar 1211 pri lated companies and adamantly insisted that they main- tAi09 e de of the priort tained no double-breasted operations. t h ~ l 3 - l P" 0 a e . f h olciebr On December 1, 1978, pursuant to a representation gaining ag r eem e n t , t he Uni o n , by in d ivid ua l letters, re- On Dcemer 5, 978,puruan toa reresntaion quested of the Respondents answers to 13 questions, petition filed by the Union, and a hearing conducted on qwih t e U i letter aned wo necessary M^,,».k« TIitnati,^A~t-«, »;^oi V,^.- r which the Union in its letter explained were necessary November 27, 1978, the Acting Regional Director for because of information it had obtained to the effect that Region 15, in Case 15-RC-6380, directed an election in a th einivduorespondet had by the erain t at carpenters' unit at Claiborne Builders, Inc., in or near th e individual respondent had by the operation of a spe- New Orleans, Louisiana. An election was conducted on cwf i cs na m ed enterprise performed work which other- January 12, 1979. Laborde testified that he engaged in awise would have been performed by the Respondents conversation on the day of that election at the Claiborne an d by such c o n d u c t t h e Respondents might be in viola- place of business with Joe Lemoine who identified him- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement provisions; self as the treasurer of Claiborne as well as the treasurer i.e. "wages, scope of agreement, referral clause, fringe of Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., which ben efit provisions and recognition and possibly other ar- Laborde discovered then to have occupied a common tic l es." T h e questions are set forth as follows with the premises with Claiborne.' Laborde testified, without con- exception that the name of each alleged double-breasted tradiction and with substantial corroboration by Union company is replaced herein by the designation "other Agent James Paulino, Jr., who was present, that Le- company." moine explained to him that Perrilliet-Rickey had formed 1. W p i ( C ar held by a secondary company, i.e., Claiborne, for the purpose ofe , sro , director or o t h e r mpnage- competing against other "double-breasted" companies e ac h o mn c e r shareholder, director or other manage- that were formed by other parties to collective-bargain- ment representative of your company? ing agreement; i.e., the Respondents. Although Laborde 2t S ta t e t h e n am ebo ach person who has a C unc- had initially fixed the date of this conversation in No-tion related to labor relations for your Company vember 1979, he retracted his testimony to place it in and for [other Company]? January, the date of the election, having explained his 3. What customers of [other Company] are now confusion as to the month of the hearing and month of or were formerly customers for your Company? the election. Despite his initial confusion, I credit his un- 4. State the difference, if any, in the type of busi- ness engaged in by your Company and [other Com- ' Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., was a member of the pany]. AGC and a party to the contract which expired on April 30. 1980. It was 5. What services, including clerical, administra- named in the instant unfair labor practice charge as was the AGC but, tive, bookkeeping, managerial, engineering, estimat- like the AGC, was not named in the complaint. The General Counsel slated in its brief that Perrilliet-Rickey timely withdrew from the AGC ing, or Other services are performed for [Other and accordingly was not named in the complaint. Company] by or at your Company? LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 883 cal jurisdiction of the Union, whether individually or contradicted testimony as to the substance of the conver- collectively. sation and to the fact that it occurred on the date of the Davy P. Laborde, Sr., the business representative of election at Claiborne. the Union, testified that he has participated in negotia- Paulino in his uncontradicted testimony added that, tions with the Respondents since 1961. In response to during this conversation when Lemoine asked why the cross-examination, Laborde testified that for several Union was seeking an election at Claiborne, he, Paulino, years he had received reports from agents of the Union responded: ". . . that we were going to try to organize and other persons engaged in the construction business all the non-union companies that we felt were offsprings to the effect that some of the Respondents had formed from union companies." "double breasted" companies to perform unit work with Laborde testified that thereafter he determined that it nonunion employees. Laborde testified in further cross- was necessary to obtain information from the Respond- examination that on one occasion he had made a fruitless ents concerning the existence of any double-breasted en- investigation of citings of certain machinery owned by a terprises in order to discover whether the Respondents respondent at a jobsite of a construction company whose had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by fail- employees were unrepresented by the Union and where ing to extend the terms and conditions of the collective- unit work was performed. Employees of one of the Re- bargaining agreement to the employees of such compa- spondents had also informed Laborde on another occa- nies. Additionally, he determined that such information sion that they requested the withdrawal of their union would assist him in contract negotiations with the Re- cards upon commencement of employment at a reputed spondents with regard to two areas; e.g., whether he "double breasted" company. would revive his request for the 25 subsidiary clause, and In past negotiations with the Respondents on at least what positions the Union should take with respect to two occasions Laborde proposed the incorporation into economic issues. With respect to possible economic posi- the collective-bargaining agreement of a so-called subi- tions he explained that such could have been affected by diary clause, for the purpose of automatically extending knowledge of what the Respondents were affording non- the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement to union employees of affiliated companies. That is to say, additional enterprises formed by the Respondents. These for example, he might modify his 30 economic demands attempts failed. Laborde testified, without contradiction, if a risk existed of losing unit work to the nonunion affili- that he ceased such efforts in that the Respondents had ated companies. continually refused to answer his inquiries as to other re- B n y Februar 1211 pri lated companies and adamantly insisted that they main- tep 319 e Fe of the priort tained no double-breasted operations. t h ~ l 3 - l P" 0 a e . f h olciebr On December 15, 1978, pursuant to a representation ga ining ag r eem e n t , t h e U nion, by individual letters, re- On Dcemer 5, 978,puruan toa reresntaion quested of the Respondents answers to 13 questions, petition filed by the Union, and a hearing conducted on qwih t e U i letter aned wo necessary M^,,».k« TIitnati,^A~t-«, »;^oi V,^.- r which the Union in its letter explained were necessary November 27, 1978, the Acting Regional Director for because of information it had obtained to the effect that Region 15, in Case 15-RC-6380, directed an election in a th einivduorespondet had by the erain t at carpenters' unit at Claiborne Builders, Inc., in or near th e individual respondent had by the operation of a spe- New Orleans, Louisiana. An election was conducted on cwf i cs na m ed enterprise performed work which other- January 12, 1979. Laborde testified that he engaged in awise would have been performed by the Respondents conversation on the day of that election at the Claiborne an d b y s u c h c o n d u c t t h e Respondents might be in viola- place of business with Joe Lemoine who identified him- tion o f the collective-bargaining agreement provisions; self as the treasurer of Claiborne as well as the treasurer i.e. "wages, scope of agreement, referral clause, fringe of Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., which ben efit provisions and recognition and possibly other ar- Laborde discovered then to have occupied a common tic l es." The questions are set forth as follows with the premises with Claiborne.' Laborde testified, without con- exception that the name of each alleged double-breasted tradiction and with substantial corroboration by Union company is replaced herein by the designation "other Agent James Paulino, Jr., who was present, that Le- company." moine explained to him that Perrilliet-Rickey had formed 1. W p i ( C ar held by a secondary company, i.e., Claiborne, for the purpose ofe , sro , director or o t h e r mpnage- competing against other "double-breasted" companies e ac h o mn c e r shareholder, director or other manage- that were formed by other parties to collective-bargain- ment representative of your company? ing agreement; i.e., the Respondents. Although Laborde 2 t S te t e t h e n am ebo ach person who has a C unc- had initially fixed the date of this conversation in No-tion related to labor relations for your Company vember 1979, he retracted his testimony to place it in and for [other Company]? January, the date of the election, having explained his 3. What customers of [other Company] are now confusion as to the month of the hearing and month of or were formerly customers for your Company? the election. Despite his initial confusion, I credit his un- 4. State the difference, if any, in the type of busi- ness engaged in by your Company and [other Com- ' Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., was a member of the pany]. AGC and a party to the contract which expired on April 30. 1980. It was 5. What services, including clerical, administra- named in the instant unfair labor practice charge as was the AGC but, tive, bookkeeping, managerial, engineering, estimat- like the AGC, was not named in the complaint. The General Counsel slated in its brief that Perrilliet-Rickey timely withdrew from the AGC ing, or Other services are performed for [Other and accordingly was not named in the complaint. Company] by or at your Company? LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 883 cal jurisdiction of the Union, whether individually or contradicted testimony as to the substance of the conver- collectively. sation and to the fact that it occurred on the date of the Davy P. Laborde, Sr., the business representative of election at Claiborne. the Union, testified that he has participated in negotia- Paulino in his uncontradicted testimony added that, tions with the Respondents since 1961. In response to during this conversation when Lemoine asked why the cross-examination, Laborde testified that for several Union was seeking an election at Claiborne, he, Paulino, years he had received reports from agents of the Union responded: ". . . that we were going to try to organize and other persons engaged in the construction business all the non-union companies that we felt were offsprings to the effect that some of the Respondents had formed from union companies." "double breasted" companies to perform unit work with Laborde testified that thereafter he determined that it nonunion employees. Laborde testified in further cross- was necessary to obtain information from the Respond- examination that on one occasion he had made a fruitless ents concerning the existence of any double-breasted en- investigation of citings of certain machinery owned by a terprises in order to discover whether the Respondents respondent at a jobsite of a construction company whose had violated the collective-bargaining agreement by fail- employees were unrepresented by the Union and where ing to extend the terms and conditions of the collective- unit work was performed. Employees of one of the Re- bargaining agreement to the employees of such compa- spondents had also informed Laborde on another occa- nies. Additionally, he determined that such information sion that they requested the withdrawal of their union would assist him in contract negotiations with the Re- cards upon commencement of employment at a reputed spondents with regard to two areas; e.g., whether he "double breasted" company. would revive his request for the 25 subsidiary clause, and In past negotiations with the Respondents on at least what positions the Union should take with respect to two occasions Laborde proposed the incorporation into economic issues. With respect to possible economic posi- the collective-bargaining agreement of a so-called subi- tions he explained that such could have been affected by diary clause, for the purpose of automatically extending knowledge of what the Respondents were affording non- the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement to union employees of affiliated companies. That is to say, additional enterprises formed by the Respondents. These for example, he might modify his 30 economic demands attempts failed. Laborde testified, without contradiction, if a risk existed of losing unit work to the nonunion affili- that he ceased such efforts in that the Respondents had ated companies. continually refused to answer his inquiries as to other re- B n y Februar 1211 pri lated companies and adamantly insisted that they main- tep 319 e Fe of the priort tained no double-breasted operations. t h ~ l 3 - l P" 0 a e . f h olciebr On December 1, 1978, pursuant to a representation gaining ag r eem e n t , t he Uni o n , by individual letters, re- On Dcemer 5, 978,puruan toa reresntaion quested of the Respondents answers to 13 questions, petition filed by the Union, and a hearing conducted on qwih t e U i letter aned wo necessary M^,,».k« TIitnati,^A~t-«, »;^oi V,^.- r which the Union in its letter explained were necessary November 27, 1978, the Acting Regional Director for because of information it had obtained to the effect that Region 15, in Case 15-RC-6380, directed an election in a th einivduorespondet had by the erain t at carpenters' unit at Claiborne Builders, Inc., in or near th e individual respondent had by the operation of a spe- New Orleans, Louisiana. An election was conducted on cwf i cs na m ed enterprise performed work which other- January 12, 1979. Laborde testified that he engaged in awise would have been performed by the Respondents conversation on the day of that election at the Claiborne an d by such c o n d u c t the Respondents might be in viola- place of business with Joe Lemoine who identified him- tion o f the collective-bargaining agreement provisions; self as the treasurer of Claiborne as well as the treasurer i.e. "wages, scope of agreement, referral clause, fringe of Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., which ben efit provisions and recognition and possibly other ar- Laborde discovered then to have occupied a common tic l es." The questions are set forth as follows with the premises with Claiborne.' Laborde testified, without con- exception that the name of each alleged double-breasted tradiction and with substantial corroboration by Union company is replaced herein by the designation "other Agent James Paulino, Jr., who was present, that Le- company." moine explained to him that Perrilliet-Rickey had formed 1. W p i ( C ar held by a secondary company, i.e., Claiborne, for the purpose ofe , sro , director or o t h e r mpnage- competing against other "double-breasted" companies e ac h o mn c e r shareholder, director or other manage- that were formed by other parties to collective-bargain- ment representative of your company? ing agreement; i.e., the Respondents. Although Laborde 2t S te t e t h e n am e rth Person who has a C unc- had initially fixed the date of this conversation in No-tion related to labor relations for your Company vember 1979, he retracted his testimony to place it in and for [other Company]? January, the date of the election, having explained his 3. What customers of [other Company] are now confusion as to the month of the hearing and month of or were formerly customers for your Company? the election. Despite his initial confusion, I credit his un- 4. State the difference, if any, in the type of busi- ness engaged in by your Company and [other Com- ' Perrilliet-Rickey Construction Company, Inc., was a member of the pany]. AGC and a party to the contract which expired on April 30. 1980. It was 5. What services, including clerical, administra- named in the instant unfair labor practice charge as was the AGC but, tive, bookkeeping, managerial, engineering, estimat- like the AGC, was not named in the complaint. The General Counsel slated in its brief that Perrilliet-Rickey timely withdrew from the AGC ing, or Other services are performed for [Other and accordingly was not named in the complaint. Company] by or at your Company? 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. What supervisory functions are performed by that he consulted with an attorney as to the most effica- employees of your Company over employees of cious manner in which to proceed. [other Company]? 7. What insurance or other benefits are shared in Conclusion common by employees of your Company and the The General Counsel contends that the Respondents employees of [other Company]? violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to 8. What skills do the employees of [other Compa- provide to the Union requested information concerning ny] possess that employees of your Company pos- alleged double-breasted operations to which the Union sess? was entitled in order properly to represent bargaining 9. Please list all former employees of your Com- unit employees. pany that are now employed by [other Company] The Respondents take the position that the Union has and their titles. failed to demonstrate a relevant need for the information 10. State whether [other Company] is a member requested, and that the actual purpose for which the in- of the Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, formation was sought-organizing-is irrelevant thereby Inc. excusing the Respondents of any obligation to provide 11. Does [other Company] have separate contrac- same. tor license, bank account, books, insurance policies, The Respondents argue that the information is not tax returns than your Company? necessary for the administration of the contract because, 12. Was there any leasing of equipment between despite a long history of contractual relations, such infor- the two companies during the last year and was it mation was never previously requested. It argues that the done by written agreement? information was not necessary to further the Union's 13. Was there any interchange of employees in duty of fair representation because the Union failed to the field during the last year between the two corn- prove that it needed the information for fair representa- panies? tion of employees and that there is no actual evidence adduced herein that the Union represents any employees The Respondents all declined to provide the requested of the alleged double-breasted companies. information. Thereafter, negotiations for the most recent With respect to negotiations, the Respondents assert collective-bargaining agreement transpired and resulted that, in view of the Union's lack of persistence for the in a new agreement prior to the expiration date of the information during the bargaining process, it truly did old contract. The instant unfair labor practice charge not need that information; and that in any event it did had been filed on March 14, 1980. not ask for other information that would have been nec- I credit Laborde's more certain testimony that during essary to support its economic position in bargaining. the recent contract negotiations Robert Boh, president of The Respondents conclude, correctly, that the primary Respondent Boh Bros. Construction Co., president of the purpose advanced by the Union for the information was AGC, and chairman of the contractors negotiation corn- to discover whether any of the Respondents were acting mittee, referred disparagingly to the aforedescribed infor- as a single integrated employer with any other compa- mation request letters and to the instant unfair labor nies. The Respondents dismiss this objective because it practice charge. However, Boh testified without contra- concludes that the Union "already knew" that Perrilliet- diction that the Union sought no contractual modifica- Rickey and Claiborne, who are not respondents herein, tion concerning alleged double-breasted companies, nor were operating as separate employers having had "an of- did it state that it could not bargain effectively without ficial decision" of the Acting Regional Director in the the aforesaid requested information. Moreover, Laborde representation case, and because the Union filed the law- conceded that he said nothing more concerning the re- suit in June 1980 against another individual Respondent. quested information other than, "Well, you received my The Respondents argue that the Union could have filed a letter, but that's it, I'm waiting for an answer." I credit unit clarification petition with the Regional Director to his testimony. obtain the same information if it indeed really desired the Laborde testified that, although the collective-bargain- information for the stated purpose. The Respondents fur- ing agreement provides for a grievance procedure, the ther argue that if the Union believed that the contract Union chose rather to file the instant unfair labor prac- was violated it could have filed a grievance. The Re- tice charge in order to obtain the information necessary spondents conclude that the true reason for the Union's to support a grievance. Some testimony was adduced by information request was a desire to engage in organiza- the Respondents in cross- examination of Laborde to the tional activity, and that the Respondents are under no effect that in June 1980 the Union filed a certain lawsuit obligation to assist such effort. Finally, the Respondents against one of the Respondents, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., contend that certain questions are unrelated to any prof- and an alleged double-breasted company, wherein the fered reason; i.e., identity of customers and membership Union alleged that the two companies constituted a in the AGC. single integrated employer. Laborde explained that at the An employer is obliged by the Act to bargain in good time of the lawsuit he did have some information as to faith with the employees' designated bargaining agent that individual respondent to support the suit, but that and a failure to furnish to the union requested informa- "as we go along we pick up information," and that he is tion which is relevant to the negotiation of and adminis- continually "picking up information." Laborde testified tration of a collective-bargaining agreement may consti- empoyes f ou Copay veremloeesof cius anerin hih o poced 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. What supervisory functions are performed by that he consulted with an attorney as to the most effica- employees of your Company over employees of cious manner in which to proceed. [other Company)? 7. What insurance or other benefits are shared in Conclusion common by employees of your Company and the The General Counsel contends that the Respondents employees of [other Company)? violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to 8. What skills do the employees of [other Compa- provide to the Union requested information concerning ny) possess that employees of your Company pos- alleged double-breasted operations to which the Union se s s ? was entitled in order properly to represent bargaining 9. Please list all former employees of your Com- unit employees. pany that are now employed by [other Company] The Respondents take the position that the Union has and their titles. failed to demonstrate a relevant need for the information 10. State whether [other Company] is a member requested, and that the actual purpose for which the in- of the Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, formation was sought-organizing-is irrelevant thereby In c . excusing the Respondents of any obligation to provide 11. Does [other Company] have separate contrac- same. tor license, bank account, books, insurance policies, The Respondents argue that the information is not tax returns than your Company? necessary for the administration of the contract because, 12. Was there any leasing of equipment between despite a long history of contractual relations, such infor- the two companies during the last year and was it mation was never previously requested. It argues that the done by written agreement? information was not necessary to further the Union's 13. Was there any interchange of employees in duty of fair representation because the Union failed to the field during the last year between the two com- prove that it needed the information for fair representa- panies? tion of employees and that there is no actual evidence adduced herein that the Union represents any employees The Respondents all declined to provide the requested of the alleged double-breasted companies. information. Thereafter, negotiations for the most recent With respect to negotiations, the Respondents assert collective-bargaining agreement transpired and resulted that, in view of the Union's lack of persistence for the in a new agreement prior to the expiration date of the information during the bargaining process, it truly did old contract. The instant unfair labor practice charge not need that information; and that in any event it did had been filed on March 14, 1980. not ask for other information that would have been nec- I credit Laborde's more certain testimony that during essary to support its economic position in bargaining. the recent contract negotiations Robert Boh, president of The Respondents conclude, correctly, that the primary Respondent Boh Bros. Construction Co., president of the purpose advanced by the Union for the information was AGC, and chairman of the contractors negotiation com- to discover whether any of the Respondents were acting mittee, referred disparagingly to the aforedescribed infor- as a single integrated employer with any other compa- mation request letters and to the instant unfair labor nies. The Respondents dismiss this objective because it practice charge. However, Boh testified without contra- concludes that the Union "already knew" that Perrilliet- diction that the Union sought no contractual modifica- Rickey and Claiborne, who are not respondents herein, tion concerning alleged double-breasted companies, nor were operating as separate employers having had "an of- did it state that it could not bargain effectively without ficial decision" of the Acting Regional Director in the the aforesaid requested information. Moreover, Laborde representation case, and because the Union filed the law- conceded that he said nothing more concerning the re- suit in June 1980 against another individual Respondent. quested information other than, "Well, you received my The Respondents argue that the Union could have filed a letter, but that's it, I'm waiting for an answer." I credit unit clarification petition with the Regional Director to his testimony. obtain the same information if it indeed really desired the Laborde testified that, although the collective-bargain- information for the stated purpose. The Respondents fur- ing agreement provides for a grievance procedure, the ther argue that if the Union believed that the contract Union chose rather to file the instant unfair labor prac- was violated it could have filed a grievance. The Re- tice charge in order to obtain the information necessary spondents conclude that the true reason for the Union's to support a grievance. Some testimony was adduced by information request was a desire to engage in organiza- the Respondents in cross- examination of Laborde to the tional activity, and that the Respondents are under no effect that in June 1980 the Union filed a certain lawsuit obligation to assist such effort. Finally, the Respondents against one of the Respondents, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., contend that certain questions are unrelated to any prof- and an alleged double-breasted company, wherein the fered reason; i.e., identity of customers and membership Union alleged that the two companies constituted a in the AGC. single integrated employer. Laborde explained that at the An employer is obliged by the Act to bargain in good time of the lawsuit he did have some information as to faith with the employees' designated bargaining agent that individual respondent to support the suit, but that and a failure to furnish to the union requested informa- "as we go along we pick up information," and that he is tion which is relevant to the negotiation of and adminis- continually "picking up information." Laborde testified tration of a collective-bargaining agreement may consti- 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. What supervisory functions are performed by that he consulted with an attorney as to the most effica- employees of your Company over employees of cious manner in which to proceed. [other Company)? 7. What insurance or other benefits are shared in Conclusion common by employees of your Company and the The General Counsel contends that the Respondents employees of [other Company)? violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to 8. What skills do the employees of [other Compa- provide to the Union requested information concerning ny) possess that employees of your Company pos- alleged double-breasted operations to which the Union se s s ? was entitled in order properly to represent bargaining 9. Please list all former employees of your Com- unit employees. pany that are now employed by [other Company] The Respondents take the position that the Union has and their titles. failed to demonstrate a relevant need for the information 10. State whether [other Company] is a member requested, and that the actual purpose for which the in- of the Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, formation was sought-organizing-is irrelevant thereby In c . excusing the Respondents of any obligation to provide 11. Does [other Company] have separate contrac- same. tor license, bank account, books, insurance policies, The Respondents argue that the information is not tax returns than your Company? necessary for the administration of the contract because, 12. Was there any leasing of equipment between despite a long history of contractual relations, such infor- the two companies during the last year and was it mation was never previously requested. It argues that the done by written agreement? information was not necessary to further the Union's 13. Was there any interchange of employees in duty of fair representation because the Union failed to the field during the last year between the two com- prove that it needed the information for fair representa- panies? tion of employees and that there is no actual evidence adduced herein that the Union represents any employees The Respondents all declined to provide the requested of the alleged double-breasted companies. information. Thereafter, negotiations for the most recent With respect to negotiations, the Respondents assert collective-bargaining agreement transpired and resulted that, in view of the Union's lack of persistence for the in a new agreement prior to the expiration date of the information during the bargaining process, it truly did old contract. The instant unfair labor practice charge not need that information; and that in any event it did had been filed on March 14, 1980. not ask for other information that would have been nec- I credit Laborde's more certain testimony that during essary to support its economic position in bargaining. the recent contract negotiations Robert Boh, president of The Respondents conclude, correctly, that the primary Respondent Boh Bros. Construction Co., president of the purpose advanced by the Union for the information was AGC, and chairman of the contractors negotiation com- to discover whether any of the Respondents were acting mittee, referred disparagingly to the aforedescribed infor- as a single integrated employer with any other compa- mation request letters and to the instant unfair labor nies. The Respondents dismiss this objective because it practice charge. However, Boh testified without contra- concludes that the Union "already knew" that Perrilliet- diction that the Union sought no contractual modifica- Rickey and Claiborne, who are not respondents herein, tion concerning alleged double-breasted companies, nor were operating as separate employers having had "an of- did it state that it could not bargain effectively without ficial decision" of the Acting Regional Director in the the aforesaid requested information. Moreover, Laborde representation case, and because the Union filed the law- conceded that he said nothing more concerning the re- suit in June 1980 against another individual Respondent. quested information other than, "Well, you received my The Respondents argue that the Union could have filed a letter, but that's it, I'm waiting for an answer." I credit unit clarification petition with the Regional Director to his testimony. obtain the same information if it indeed really desired the Laborde testified that, although the collective-bargain- information for the stated purpose. The Respondents fur- ing agreement provides for a grievance procedure, the ther argue that if the Union believed that the contract Union chose rather to file the instant unfair labor prac- was violated it could have filed a grievance. The Re- tice charge in order to obtain the information necessary spondents conclude that the true reason for the Union's to support a grievance. Some testimony was adduced by information request was a desire to engage in organiza- the Respondents in cross- examination of Laborde to the tional activity, and that the Respondents are under no effect that in June 1980 the Union filed a certain lawsuit obligation to assist such effort. Finally, the Respondents against one of the Respondents, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., contend that certain questions are unrelated to any prof- and an alleged double-breasted company, wherein the fered reason; i.e., identity of customers and membership Union alleged that the two companies constituted a in the AGC. single integrated employer. Laborde explained that at the An employer is obliged by the Act to bargain in good time of the lawsuit he did have some information as to faith with the employees' designated bargaining agent that individual respondent to support the suit, but that and a failure to furnish to the union requested informa- "as we go along we pick up information," and that he is tion which is relevant to the negotiation of and adminis- continually "picking up information." Laborde testified tration of a collective-bargaining agreement may consti- 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6. What supervisory functions are performed by that he consulted with an attorney as to the most effica- employees of your Company over employees of cious manner in which to proceed. [other Company)? 7. What insurance or other benefits are shared in Conclusion common by employees of your Company and the The General Counsel contends that the Respondents employees of [other Company)? violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to 8. What skills do the employees of [other Compa- provide to the Union requested information concerning ny) possess that employees of your Company pos- alleged double-breasted operations to which the Union se s s ? was entitled in order properly to represent bargaining 9. Please list all former employees of your Com- unit employees. pany that are now employed by [other Company] The Respondents take the position that the Union has and their titles. failed to demonstrate a relevant need for the information 10. State whether [other Company] is a member requested, and that the actual purpose for which the in- of the Associated General Contractors of Louisiana, formation was sought-organizing-is irrelevant thereby In c . excusing the Respondents of any obligation to provide 11. Does [other Company] have separate contrac- same. tor license, bank account, books, insurance policies, The Respondents argue that the information is not tax returns than your Company? necessary for the administration of the contract because, 12. Was there any leasing of equipment between despite a long history of contractual relations, such infor- the two companies during the last year and was it mation was never previously requested. It argues that the done by written agreement? information was not necessary to further the Union's 13. Was there any interchange of employees in duty of fair representation because the Union failed to the field during the last year between the two com- prove that it needed the information for fair representa- panies? tion of employees and that there is no actual evidence adduced herein that the Union represents any employees The Respondents all declined to provide the requested of the alleged double-breasted companies. information. Thereafter, negotiations for the most recent With respect to negotiations, the Respondents assert collective-bargaining agreement transpired and resulted that, in view of the Union's lack of persistence for the in a new agreement prior to the expiration date of the information during the bargaining process, it truly did old contract. The instant unfair labor practice charge not need that information; and that in any event it did had been filed on March 14, 1980. not ask for other information that would have been nec- I credit Laborde's more certain testimony that during essary to support its economic position in bargaining. the recent contract negotiations Robert Boh, president of The Respondents conclude, correctly, that the primary Respondent Boh Bros. Construction Co., president of the purpose advanced by the Union for the information was AGC, and chairman of the contractors negotiation com- to discover whether any of the Respondents were acting mittee, referred disparagingly to the aforedescribed infor- as a single integrated employer with any other compa- mation request letters and to the instant unfair labor nies. The Respondents dismiss this objective because it practice charge. However, Boh testified without contra- concludes that the Union "already knew" that Perrilliet- diction that the Union sought no contractual modifica- Rickey and Claiborne, who are not respondents herein, tion concerning alleged double-breasted companies, nor were operating as separate employers having had "an of- did it state that it could not bargain effectively without ficial decision" of the Acting Regional Director in the the aforesaid requested information. Moreover, Laborde representation case, and because the Union filed the law- conceded that he said nothing more concerning the re- suit in June 1980 against another individual Respondent. quested information other than, "Well, you received my The Respondents argue that the Union could have filed a letter, but that's it, I'm waiting for an answer." I credit unit clarification petition with the Regional Director to his testimony. obtain the same information if it indeed really desired the Laborde testified that, although the collective-bargain- information for the stated purpose. The Respondents fur- ing agreement provides for a grievance procedure, the ther argue that if the Union believed that the contract Union chose rather to file the instant unfair labor prac- was violated it could have filed a grievance. The Re- tice charge in order to obtain the information necessary spondents conclude that the true reason for the Union's to support a grievance. Some testimony was adduced by information request was a desire to engage in organiza- the Respondents in cross- examination of Laborde to the tional activity, and that the Respondents are under no effect that in June 1980 the Union filed a certain lawsuit obligation to assist such effort. Finally, the Respondents against one of the Respondents, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., contend that certain questions are unrelated to any prof- and an alleged double-breasted company, wherein the fered reason; i.e., identity of customers and membership Union alleged that the two companies constituted a in the AGC. single integrated employer. Laborde explained that at the An employer is obliged by the Act to bargain in good time of the lawsuit he did have some information as to faith with the employees' designated bargaining agent that individual respondent to support the suit, but that and a failure to furnish to the union requested informa- "as we go along we pick up information," and that he is tion which is relevant to the negotiation of and adminis- continually "picking up information." Laborde testified tration of a collective-bargaining agreement may consti- LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 885 tute a breach of that obligation. Detroit Edison Company The Board also held that, even if the information was v. N.LR.B., 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); N.LR.B. v. Acme also sought by the Union for organizing purposes, it was Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); N.LR.B. v. nonetheless entitled to the information sought inasmuch Truitt Mfg., Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956). Information as a request for information made for a proper and legiti- concerning terms and conditions of employment within mate purpose is not vitiated by the coexistence of other the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant and no spe- purposes, or that other uses can be made of such infor- cific showing of relevance is required, but as to areas mation.' outside the unit a more restrictive standard of relevance In Doubarn Sheet Metal Inc., 243 NLRB 821 (1979), is applied. Ohio Power Company, 216 NLRB 987, 991 the Board considered issues similar, if not identical, to (1975). those raised in this case. Therein the labor organization In Associated General Contractors of California, 242 had received "information" that a certain enterprise was NLRB 891 (1979), enfd. 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), the performing with nonunit employees work which was of Board considered the issue of whether a union was enti- tled to receive from a multiemployer bargaining associ- a type normay performed, and whih unit employees ation a list of "open shop" members. Prior to the infor- been performed by the emloyer with unit employee mation request, thunntrihdeo a f The union thereafter by letter requested of the employer mation request, the union therein had become aware of the employer association's activities in encouraging and answers toseve uestons concerning the business rela aiding the expansion of open shop and "double breasted" tionsh of the mherh the other Of ventures by its employer-members and prospective mem- those questions 6 are virtually the same as 6 of the 13 bers. The Board observed that, with respect to a "double questions posed by the Union to the Respondents herein. breasted" operation, i.e., a contractor who operates a The employer there, as in this case, contended that the union company and a nonunion company may, depend- information requested was irrelevant. The Board found ing upon the factual configuration, effectuate a single ap- that the data sought provided information as to whether propriate bargaining unit, or separate units. The Board a single-employer situation existed or whether the em- noted that, where a single unit has been effectuated, the ployer had assigned or contracted work to the other en- collective-bargaining unit may be held to cover the non- terprise and therefore served the purpose of assisting the union employees as well, or the employer may be union by supporting its contention that the employer as a obliged to bargain on behalf of both enterprises with the single employer with the other company was not meet- collective-bargaining agent of the unionized entity.2 Ac- ing contractual obligations, e.g., wage scale and union se- cordingly, the Board concluded that the Union's princi- curity, or as a separate employer had violated contrac- pal purpose in seeking the data was to "facilitate in- tual provisions concerning subcontracting or the industry quiry" into whether or not some of the employer associ- protection clause of the collective-bargaining agreement. ation's open-shop members were bound by the collec- The Board held that the union had demonstrated the tive-bargaining agreements and included in the represent- "reasonable and probable relevance" of such information ed units. The Board stated: in regard to its contentions of contract violations, and re- jected the employer's argument that the union was They [unions] are entitled to the requested informa- ected the employer's argument that the union was tion under the "discovery-type" standard enumer- obliged to demonstrate actual instances of contractual ated in NL.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at violations as a condition precedent to the employer's ob- 437, to judge for themselves whether to press their ligation to provide the information. The Board also re- claims in the contractual grievance procedure, or jected the argument that the union's contentions as to before the Board or courts, or through remedial contract violations constituted "mere speculation or sus- provisions in the contracts under negotiation. The picion." The Board noted that the bona fides of the Torrington Company v. N.LR.B., 545 F.2d 840 (2d union's receipt of "information" was unchallenged. 5 Cir. 1976). It is certainly well within the statutory The Board's Decision in the Doubarn and AGC of responsibilities of the Unions to scrutinize closely all California cases are dispositive of the issues in this case. facets relating to the diversion or preservation of The Union herein obtained "information" to the effect bargaining unit work and, therefore, they are fully that the Respondents were forming double-breasted oper- warranted in any reasonable probing of data con- ations. It is not necessary that this "information" be cerning the exclusion of the employees of certain shown to be accurate, nonhearsay, or otherwise admissi- AGC members from the bargaining units. [242 ble in a court of law, or even ultimately reliable. Howev- NLRB at 894, citing N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard er, coming from several sources, including an employer Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge party to the contract and at that time a member of the Division, 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969); Curtiss- AGC, I conclude that the information was such as to Wright Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61 (3d warrant the inference that the Union, in consequence, en- Cir. 1965).13 tertained bona fide questions concerning the existence and nature of related operations of the Respondents. I Id. at 892, fn. 5, citing therein: Don Burgess Construction Corporation. 227 NLRB 765 (1977); R.L Sweet Lumber Company, 207 NLRB 529 Ibid, citing, Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 229 F.2d 575 (1973), enfd. 515 F.2d 785 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 423 U.S. 986. (2d Cir. 1956). The Board noted, however, that assuming arguendo that the informa- 5 The parties therein had stipulated that the union had "received infor- tion sought was not otherwise "presumptively relevant" under the dis- mation" as set forth above. The stipulation did not specify the precise covery standard of the Acme Industrial Co., case, the relevance was es- nature of that information, and the Board appears not to have considered tablished on the record before it. Ibid. the nature or source of the information. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 885 tute a breach of that obligation. Detroit Edison Company The Board also held that, even if the information was v. N.L*R.B., 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); N.L.R.B. v. Acme also sought by the Union for organizing purposes, it was Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); N.LR.B. v. nonetheless entitled to the information sought inasmuch Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956). Information as a request for information made for a proper and legiti- concerning terms and conditions of employment within mate purpose is not vitiated by the coexistence of other the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant and no spe- purposes, or that other uses can be made of such infor- cific showing of relevance is required, but as to areas mation. 4 outside the unit a more restrictive standard of relevance In Doubarn Sheet Metal, Inc., 243 NLRB 821 (1979), is applied. Ohio Power Company, 216 NLRB 987, 991 the Board considered issues similar, if not identical, to (19 7 5). those raised in this case. Therein the labor organization In Associated General Contractors of California, 24 2 had received "information" that a certain enterprise was NLRB 891 (1979), enfd. 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), the performing with nonunit employees work which was of Board considered the issue of whether a union was enti- a noml pformed, and which previously had tied to receive from a multiemployer bargaining associ- b performed by the employer with unit employees. ation a list of "open shop" members. Prior to the infor- T thereafter by letter requested of the employer mation request, the union therein had become aware of a t s q c t b r the employer association's activities in encouraging and t ns hir o t he emp loye wohce the eness Of aiding the expansion of open shop and "double breasted" those o ns 6 are v lly t h e sam e as 6 o f ventures by its employer-members and prospective mem- t h o s e qqestions 6 are virtually the same as 6 of the 13 bers. The Board observed that, with respect to a "double questions posed by the Union to the Respondents herein. breasted" operation, i.e., a contractor who operates a r h e employer there, as in this case, contended that the union company and a nonunion company may, depend- information requested was irrelevant. The Board found ing upon the factual configuration, effectuate a single ap- that the data sought provided information as to whether propriate bargaining unit, or separate units. The Board a single-employer situation existed or whether the em- noted that, where a single unit has been effectuated, the ployer had assigned or contracted work to the other en- collective-bargaining unit may be held to cover the non- terprise and therefore served the purpose of assisting the union employees as well, or the employer may be u"non by supporting its contention that the employer as a obliged to bargain on behalf of both enterprises with the single employer with the other company was not meet- collective-bargaining agent of the unionized entity.2 Ac- ing contractual obligations, e.g., wage scale and union se- cordingly, the Board concluded that the Union's princi- curity, or as a separate employer had violated contrac- pal purpose in seeking the data was to "facilitate in- tual provisions concerning subcontracting or the industry quiry" into whether or not some of the employer associ- protection clause of the collective-bargaining agreement. ation's open-shop members were bound by the collec- The Board held that the union had demonstrated the tive-bargaining agreements and included in the represent- "reasonable and probable relevance" of such information ed units. The Board stated: in regard to its contentions of contract violations, and re- They [unions] are entitled to the requested informa- jected the employer's argument that the union was tion under the "discovery-type" standard enumer- ^obliged to demonstrate actual instances of contractual ated in N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at violations as a condition precedent to the employer's ob- 437, to judge for themselves whether to press their ligation to provide the information. The Board also re- claims in the contractual grievance procedure, or je c t ed the argument that the union's contentions as to before the Board or courts, or through remedial c o n t r a c t v io la tio n s c o n stit u t ed "m er e specul a tio n o r sus- provisions in the contracts under negotiation. The picion." T h e B o a rd n o t ed t ha t t he bon a f i d es o f t h e Torrington Company v. N.LR.B., 545 F.2d 840 (2d u nio n receipt o f "formation was unchallenged. Cir. 1976). It is certainly well within the statutory T h e Board's Decision in the Doubarn and AGC of responsibilities of the Unions to scrutinize closely all California cases are dispositive of the issues in this case. facets relating to the diversion or preservation of T h e U ni o n herein obtained "information" to the effect bargaining unit work and, therefore, they are fully that the Respondents were forming double-breasted oper- warranted in any reasonable probing of data con- ations. It is not necessary that this "information" be cerning the exclusion of the employees of certain shown to be accurate, nonhearsay, or otherwise admissi- AGC members from the bargaining units. [242 ble in a court of law, or even ultimately reliable. Howev- NLRB at 894, citing N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard er, coming from several sources, including an employer Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge party to the contract and at that time a member of the Division, 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969); Curtiss- AGC, I conclude that the information was such as to Wright Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61 (3d warrant the inference that the Union, in consequence, en- Cir. 1965).13 tertained bona fide questions concerning the existence and nature of related operations of the Respondents. I Id. at 892, fn. 5, citing therein: Don Burgess Construction Corporation, 227 NLRB 765 (1977); R.L. Sweet Lumber Company, 207 NLRB 529 Ibid, citing, ULica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 229 F.2d 575 (1973), enfd. 515 F.2d 785 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 423 U.S. 986. (2d Cir. 1956). ' The Board noted, however, that assuming arguendo that the informa- s The parties therein had stipulated that the union had "received infor- tion sought was not otherwise "presumptively relevant" under the dis- mation" as set forth above. The stipulation did not specify the precise covery standard of the Acme Industrial Co., case, the relevance was es-nature of that information, and the Board appears not to have considered tablished on the record before it. Ibid. the nature or source of the information. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 885 tute a breach of that obligation. Detroit Edison Company The Board also held that, even if the information was v. N.L*R.B., 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); N.L.R.B. v. Acme also sought by the Union for organizing purposes, it was Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); N.LR.B. v. nonetheless entitled to the information sought inasmuch Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956). Information as a request for information made for a proper and legiti- concerning terms and conditions of employment within mate purpose is not vitiated by the coexistence of other the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant and no spe- purposes, or that other uses can be made of such infor- cific showing of relevance is required, but as to areas mation. 4 outside the unit a more restrictive standard of relevance In Doubarn Sheet Metal, Inc., 243 NLRB 821 (1979), is applied. Ohio Power Company, 216 NLRB 987, 991 the Board considered issues similar, if not identical, to (19 7 5). those raised in this case. Therein the labor organization In Associated General Contractors of California, 24 2 had received "information" that a certain enterprise was NLRB 891 (1979), enfd. 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), the performing with nonunit employees work which was of Board considered the issue of whether a union was enti- a noml pformed, and which previously had tied to receive from a multiemployer bargaining associ- b performed by the employer with unit employees. ation a list of "open shop" members. Prior to the infor- T thereafter by letter requested of the employer mation request, the union therein had become aware of a t s q c t b r the employer association's activities in encouraging and t ns hir o t he emp loye wohce the eness Of aiding the expansion of open shop and "double breasted" those o ns 6 are v lly t h e sam e as 6 o f ventures by its employer-members and prospective mem- t h o s e qqestions 6 are virtually the same as 6 of the 13 bers. The Board observed that, with respect to a "double questions posed by the Union to the Respondents herein. breasted" operation, i.e., a contractor who operates a r h e employer there, as in this case, contended that the union company and a nonunion company may, depend- information requested was irrelevant. The Board found ing upon the factual configuration, effectuate a single ap- that the data sought provided information as to whether propriate bargaining unit, or separate units. The Board a single-employer situation existed or whether the em- noted that, where a single unit has been effectuated, the ployer had assigned or contracted work to the other en- collective-bargaining unit may be held to cover the non- terprise and therefore served the purpose of assisting the union employees as well, or the employer may be u"non by supporting its contention that the employer as a obliged to bargain on behalf of both enterprises with the single employer with the other company was not meet- collective-bargaining agent of the unionized entity.2 Ac- ing contractual obligations, e.g., wage scale and union se- cordingly, the Board concluded that the Union's princi- curity, or as a separate employer had violated contrac- pal purpose in seeking the data was to "facilitate in- tual provisions concerning subcontracting or the industry quiry" into whether or not some of the employer associ- protection clause of the collective-bargaining agreement. ation's open-shop members were bound by the collec- The Board held that the union had demonstrated the tive-bargaining agreements and included in the represent- "reasonable and probable relevance" of such information ed units. The Board stated: in regard to its contentions of contract violations, and re- They [unions] are entitled to the requested informa- jected the employer's argument that the union was tion under the "discovery-type" standard enumer- ^obliged to demonstrate actual instances of contractual ated in N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at violations as a condition precedent to the employer's ob- 437, to judge for themselves whether to press their ligation to provide the information. The Board also re- claims in the contractual grievance procedure, or je c t ed the argument that the union's contentions as to before the Board or courts, or through remedial c o n t r a c t v io la tio n s c o n stit u t ed "m er e specul a tio n o r sus- provisions in the contracts under negotiation. The picion." T h e B o a rd n o t ed t ha t t he bon a f i d es o f t h e Torrington Company v. N.LR.B., 545 F.2d 840 (2d u nio n receipt of "formation was unchallenged. Cir. 1976). It is certainly well within the statutory T h e Board's Decision in the Doubarn and AGC of responsibilities of the Unions to scrutinize closely all California cases are dispositive of the issues in this case. facets relating to the diversion or preservation of T h e U ni o n herein obtained "information" to the effect bargaining unit work and, therefore, they are fully that the Respondents were forming double-breasted oper- warranted in any reasonable probing of data con- ations. It is not necessary that this "information" be cerning the exclusion of the employees of certain shown to be accurate, nonhearsay, or otherwise admissi- AGC members from the bargaining units. [242 ble in a court of law, or even ultimately reliable. Howev- NLRB at 894, citing N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard er, coming from several sources, including an employer Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge party to the contract and at that time a member of the Division, 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969); Curtiss- AGC, I conclude that the information was such as to Wright Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61 (3d warrant the inference that the Union, in consequence, en- Cir. 1965).13 tertained bona fide questions concerning the existence and nature of related operations of the Respondents. I Id. at 892, fn. 5, citing therein: Don Burgess Construction Corporation, 227 NLRB 765 (1977); R.L. Sweet Lumber Company, 207 NLRB 529 Ibid, citing, ULica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 229 F.2d 575 (1973), enfd. 515 F.2d 785 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 423 U.S. 986. (2d Cir. 1956). ' The Board noted, however, that assuming arguendo that the informa- s The parties therein had stipulated that the union had "received infor- tion sought was not otherwise "presumptively relevant" under the dis- mation" as set forth above. The stipulation did not specify the precise covery standard of the Acme Industrial Co., case, the relevance was es-nature of that information, and the Board appears not to have considered tablished on the record before it. Ibid. the nature or source of the information. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 885 tute a breach of that obligation. Detroit Edison Company The Board also held that, even if the information was v. N.L*R.B., 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); N.L.R.B. v. Acme also sought by the Union for organizing purposes, it was Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); N.LR.B. v. nonetheless entitled to the information sought inasmuch Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152 (1956). Information as a request for information made for a proper and legiti- concerning terms and conditions of employment within mate purpose is not vitiated by the coexistence of other the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant and no spe- purposes, or that other uses can be made of such infor- cific showing of relevance is required, but as to areas mation. 4 outside the unit a more restrictive standard of relevance In Doubarn Sheet Metal, Inc., 243 NLRB 821 (1979), is applied. Ohio Power Company, 216 NLRB 987, 991 the Board considered issues similar, if not identical, to (19 7 5). those raised in this case. Therein the labor organization In Associated General Contractors of California, 24 2 had received "information" that a certain enterprise was NLRB 891 (1979), enfd. 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), the performing with nonunit employees work which was of Board considered the issue of whether a union was enti- a noml pformed, and which previously had tied to receive from a multiemployer bargaining associ- b performed by the employer with unit employees. ation a list of "open shop" members. Prior to the infor- T thereafter by letter requested of the employer mation request, the union therein had become aware of a t s q c t b r the employer association's activities in encouraging and t ns hir o t he emp loye wohce the eness Of aiding the expansion of open shop and "double breasted" those o ns 6 are v lly t h e sam e as 6 o f ventures by its employer-members and prospective mem- t h o s e qqestions 6 are virtually the same as 6 of the 13 bers. The Board observed that, with respect to a "double questions posed by the Union to the Respondents herein. breasted" operation, i.e., a contractor who operates a r h e employer there, as in this case, contended that the union company and a nonunion company may, depend- information requested was irrelevant. The Board found ing upon the factual configuration, effectuate a single ap- that the data sought provided information as to whether propriate bargaining unit, or separate units. The Board a single-employer situation existed or whether the em- noted that, where a single unit has been effectuated, the ployer had assigned or contracted work to the other en- collective-bargaining unit may be held to cover the non- terprise and therefore served the purpose of assisting the union employees as well, or the employer may be u"non by supporting its contention that the employer as a obliged to bargain on behalf of both enterprises with the single employer with the other company was not meet- collective-bargaining agent of the unionized entity.2 Ac- ing contractual obligations, e.g., wage scale and union se- cordingly, the Board concluded that the Union's princi- curity, or as a separate employer had violated contrac- pal purpose in seeking the data was to "facilitate in- tual provisions concerning subcontracting or the industry quiry" into whether or not some of the employer associ- protection clause of the collective-bargaining agreement. ation's open-shop members were bound by the collec- The Board held that the union had demonstrated the tive-bargaining agreements and included in the represent- "reasonable and probable relevance" of such information ed units. The Board stated: in regard to its contentions of contract violations, and re- They [unions] are entitled to the requested informa- jected the employer's argument that the union was tion under the "discovery-type" standard enumer- ^obliged to demonstrate actual instances of contractual ated in N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at violations as a condition precedent to the employer's ob- 437, to judge for themselves whether to press their ligation to provide the information. The Board also re- claims in the contractual grievance procedure, or je c t ed the argument that the union's contentions as to before the Board or courts, or through remedial c o n t r a c t v io la tio n s c o n stit u t ed "m er e specul a tio n o r sus- provisions in the contracts under negotiation. The picion." T h e B o a rd n o t ed t ha t t he bon a f i d es o f t h e Torrington Company v. N.LR.B., 545 F.2d 840 (2d u nio n receipt of "formation was unchallenged. Cir. 1976). It is certainly well within the statutory T h e Board's Decision in the Doubarn and AGC of responsibilities of the Unions to scrutinize closely all California cases are dispositive of the issues in this case. facets relating to the diversion or preservation of T h e U ni o n herein obtained "information" to the effect bargaining unit work and, therefore, they are fully that the Respondents were forming double-breasted oper- warranted in any reasonable probing of data con- ations. It is not necessary that this "information" be cerning the exclusion of the employees of certain shown to be accurate, nonhearsay, or otherwise admissi- AGC members from the bargaining units. [242 ble in a court of law, or even ultimately reliable. Howev- NLRB at 894, citing N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell-Standard er, coming from several sources, including an employer Corporation, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge party to the contract and at that time a member of the Division, 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969); Curtiss- AGC, I conclude that the information was such as to Wright Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61 (3d warrant the inference that the Union, in consequence, en- Cir. 1965).13 tertained bona fide questions concerning the existence and nature of related operations of the Respondents. I Id. at 892, fn. 5, citing therein: Don Burgess Construction Corporation, 227 NLRB 765 (1977); R.L. Sweet Lumber Company, 207 NLRB 529 Ibid, citing, ULica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 229 F.2d 575 (1973), enfd. 515 F.2d 785 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 423 U.S. 986. (2d Cir. 1956). ' The Board noted, however, that assuming arguendo that the informa- s The parties therein had stipulated that the union had "received infor- tion sought was not otherwise "presumptively relevant" under the dis- mation" as set forth above. The stipulation did not specify the precise covery standard of the Acme Industrial Co., case, the relevance was es-nature of that information, and the Board appears not to have considered tablished on the record before it. Ibid. the nature or source of the information. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conclude that the answers to these questions necessitated were separate employer and therefore the Union was al- information that was of reasonable or probable relevance ready aware of that status when it requested the same in- to the Union's effective performance as administrator and formation from Perrilliet-Rickey. However, Perrilliet- negotiator of the collective-bargaining agreement. Fur- Rickey is not a respondent herein. In any event, La- thermore, as the Board observed, in the AGC of Califor- borde's credible testimony reveals that his conversation nia case, the data which was sought, was sought for the with Lemoine occurred after the Acting Regional Direc- primary purpose of ascertaining whether or not other tor's decision and thus he did not have sufficient infor- specifically identified operations were so related to the mation to sustain a contrary position in the representa- Respondents' operations by a variety of factors such as tion case. to encompass the other employees within the unit. If, in Respondent suggests that the Union must have had fact, those employees were within the same unit, infor- sufficient information regarding Pratt Farnsworth in that mation as to them would be presumptively valid. Ac- the Union had filed a lawsuit in which it contended that cordingly, I conclude that information necessary to re- a single integrated enterprise existed. However, the solve a bona fide question as to whether the collective- nature of the law suit, the issues involved, and the deci- bargaining unit has expanded is presumptively relevant. sion therein are unknown. Whatever information the The Respondents' arguments that the Union's sole pur- Union may have had regarding Pratt Farnsworth for pose in seeking the information was for organizational purposes of that lawsuit, it is not shown that such infor- purposes are unconvincing. The Union may very well mation was identical to that requested in this proceeding. have desired to organize these other operations, but such With respect to the Respondents' suggestions that the organizing effort would be unnecessary if the Union Union could have proceeded with a unit clarification pe- could ascertain that these other operations constituted tition with the Board, or could have filed a grievance, mere extensions of the collective-bargaining units which such action would have been fruitless without informa- it represents. tion to sustain such action. As the Board has noted, a Furthermore, there is no basis on which to infer that union is entitled to seek information under discovery- the Union already possessed conclusive information that type standards by which it can judge for itself whether these other operations constituted separate and distinct to press its claim before the Board, the courts, or in a employing entities with separate bargaining units, as sug- grievance procedure. gested by the Respondents. The answer to the Respond- Finally, contrary to the Respondents, I conclude that ents' questions as to why the Union did not press for the all the questions posed by the Union to the Respondents so-called subsidiary clause in negotiations, and why it did are manifestly related to the primary purposes for which not adduce evidence herein that it represented employees the information was sought, in view of the totality of in the other companies, is self-evident; i.e., it did not factors the Board considers in deciding whether or not have sufficient information to support its position, ergo its an "arm's length relationship" exists between unintegrat- request for same. The Respondents ask, if the Union ed companies. Don Burgess Construction Co., supra; see needed the information to bargain effectively, why did it also Erlichs' Inc., 231 NLRB 1237, 1242-44 (1977); Great not insist on the requested information in the 1980 nego- Chinese American Sewing Co., 227 NLRB 1670, 1678 tiations? The answer is that the Union had already made (1977); Altemose Construction Company, 210 NLRB 138 a formal written request and had filed an unfair labor (1974). practice charge upon the Respondents' refusal to supply Accordingly, I conclude that the Union by its letters the information. That the Union proceeded with negotia- of January 18 and February 12, 1980, addressed to the tions without the information does not indicate that the Respondents requested information that was relevant and information was irrelevant to its secondary purpose nor necessary to the performance of its obligations as bar- that it would not have assisted the Union in bargaining. gaining agent for the Respondents' employees; i.e., the The Union never contended that the information was es- administration and negotiation of collective-bargaining sential for bargaining nor that it was the sine qua non for agreements with the Respondents. I therefore find that bargaining, but only claimed that it would have assisted the Respondents, by failing and refusing to provide the it in bargaining. The Respondents' contention that the re- information requested by the Union, violated and is vio- quested information was too incomplete to assist the lating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Union in bargaining again does not render it unrelated to that purpose. Perhaps the Union could have asked for CONCLUSIONS OF LAW more complete information, but what it did ask for was not unrelated to the secondary purposes as stated by 1. The Respondents are, individually and collectively, Union Agent Laborde. In any event the information was employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of clearly related to the primary purpose stated by the Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Union. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- The Respondents argue that the stated primary pur- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. pose of the requested data, i.e., the ascertainment of 3. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with whether the Respondents were acting as a single inte- the information it requested in its letters to the Respond- grated employer with other companies, must be rejected ents of January 18 and February 12, 1980, the Respond- as not being the true purpose. The Respondents claim ents have each engaged in and are engaging in unfair that the Acting Regional Director had made a finding in labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and a representation case that Perrilliet-Rickey and Claiborne (1) of the Act. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conclude that the answers to these questions necessitated were separate employer and therefore the Union was al- information that was of reasonable or probable relevance ready aware of that status when it requested the same in- to the Union's effective performance as administrator and formation from Perrilliet-Rickey. However, Perrilliet- negotiator of the collective-bargaining agreement. Fur- Rickey is not a respondent herein. In any event, La- thermore, as the Board observed, in the AGC of Califor- borde's credible testimony reveals that his conversation nia case, the data which was sought, was sought for the with Lemoine occurred after the Acting Regional Direc- primary purpose of ascertaining whether or not other tor's decision and thus he did not have sufficient infor- specifically identified operations were so related to the mation to sustain a contrary position in the representa- Respondents' operations by a variety of factors such as tion case. to encompass the other employees within the unit. If, in Respondent suggests that the Union must have had fact, those employees were within the same unit, infor- sufficient information regarding Pratt Farnsworth in that mation as to them would be presumptively valid. Ac- the Union had filed a lawsuit in which it contended that cordingly, I conclude that information necessary to re- a single integrated enterprise existed. However, the solve a bona fide question as to whether the collective- nature of the law suit, the issues involved, and the deci- bargaining unit has expanded is presumptively relevant. sion therein are unknown. Whatever information the The Respondents' arguments that the Union's sole pur- Union may have had regarding Pratt Farnsworth for pose in seeking the information was for organizational purposes of that lawsuit, it is not shown that such infor- purposes are unconvincing. The Union may very well mation was identical to that requested in this proceeding. have desired to organize these other operations, but such With respect to the Respondents' suggestions that the organizing effort would be unnecessary if the Union Union could have proceeded with a unit clarification pe- could ascertain that these other operations constituted tition with the Board, or could have filed a grievance, mere extensions of the collective-bargaining units which such action would have been fruitless without informa- it represents,.tion to sustain such action. As the Board has noted, a Furthermore, there is no basis on which to infer that union is entitled to seek information under discovery- the Union already possessed conclusive information that type standards by which it can judge for itself whether these other operations constituted separate and distinct to press its claim before the Board, the courts, or in a employing entities with separate bargaining units, as sug- grievance procedure. gested by the Respondents. The answer to the Respond- Finally, contrary to the Respondents, I conclude that ents' questions as to why the Union did not press for the all the questions posed by the Union to the Respondents so-called subsidiary clause in negotiations, and why it did are manifestly related to the primary purposes for which not adduce evidence herein that it represented employees the information was sought, in view of the totality of in the other companies, is self-evident; i.e., it did not factors the Board considers in deciding whether or not have sufficient information to support its position, ergo its an "arm's length relationship" exists between unintegrat- request for same. The Respondents ask, if the Union ed companies. Don Burgess Construction Co., supra; see needed the information to bargain effectively, why did it also Erlichs' Inc., 231 NLRB 1237, 1242-44 (1977); Great not insist on the requested information in the 1980 nego- Chinese American Sewing Co., 227 NLRB 1670, 1678 tiations? The answer is that the Union had already made (1977); Ahemose Construction Company, 210 NLRB 138 a formal written request and had filed an unfair labor (1974). practice charge upon the Respondents' refusal to supply Accordingly, I conclude that the Union by its letters the information. That the Union proceeded with negotia- of January 18 and February 12, 1980, addressed to the tions without the information does not indicate that the Respondents requested information that was relevant and information was irrelevant to its secondary purpose nor necessary to the performance of its obligations as bar- that it would not have assisted the Union in bargaining. gaining agent for the Respondents' employees; i.e., the The Union never contended that the information was es- administration and negotiation of collective-bargaining sential for bargaining nor that it was the sine qua non for agreements with the Respondents. I therefore find that bargaining, but only claimed that it would have assisted the Respondents, by failing and refusing to provide the it in bargaining. The Respondents' contention that the re- information requested by the Union, violated and is vio- quested information was too incomplete to assist the lating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Union in bargaining again does not render it unrelated to that purpose. Perhaps the Union could have asked for CONCLUSIONS OF LAW more complete information, but what it did ask for was not unrelated to the secondary purposes as stated by 1. The Respondents are, individually and collectively, Union Agent Laborde. In any event the information was employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of clearly related to the primary purpose stated by the Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Union. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- The Respondents argue that the stated primary pur- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. pose of the requested data, i.e., the ascertainment of 3. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with whether the Respondents were acting as a single inte- the information it requested in its letters to the Respond- grated employer with other companies, must be rejected ents of January 18 and February 12, 1980, the Respond- as not being the true purpose. The Respondents claim ents have each engaged in and are engaging in unfair that the Acting Regional Director had made a finding in labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and a representation case that Perrilliet-Rickey and Claiborne (1) of the Act. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conclude that the answers to these questions necessitated were separate employer and therefore the Union was al- information that was of reasonable or probable relevance ready aware of that status when it requested the same in- to the Union's effective performance as administrator and formation from Perrilliet-Rickey. However, Perrilliet- negotiator of the collective-bargaining agreement. Fur- Rickey is not a respondent herein. In any event, La- thermore, as the Board observed, in the AGC of Califor- borde's credible testimony reveals that his conversation nia case, the data which was sought, was sought for the with Lemoine occurred after the Acting Regional Direc- primary purpose of ascertaining whether or not other tor's decision and thus he did not have sufficient infor- specifically identified operations were so related to the mation to sustain a contrary position in the representa- Respondents' operations by a variety of factors such as tion case. to encompass the other employees within the unit. If, in Respondent suggests that the Union must have had fact, those employees were within the same unit, infor- sufficient information regarding Pratt Farnsworth in that mation as to them would be presumptively valid. Ac- the Union had filed a lawsuit in which it contended that cordingly, I conclude that information necessary to re- a single integrated enterprise existed. However, the solve a bona fide question as to whether the collective- nature of the law suit, the issues involved, and the deci- bargaining unit has expanded is presumptively relevant. sion therein are unknown. Whatever information the The Respondents' arguments that the Union's sole pur- Union may have had regarding Pratt Farnsworth for pose in seeking the information was for organizational purposes of that lawsuit, it is not shown that such infor- purposes are unconvincing. The Union may very well mation was identical to that requested in this proceeding. have desired to organize these other operations, but such With respect to the Respondents' suggestions that the organizing effort would be unnecessary if the Union Union could have proceeded with a unit clarification pe- could ascertain that these other operations constituted tition with the Board, or could have filed a grievance, mere extensions of the collective-bargaining units which such action would have been fruitless without informa- it represents,.tion to sustain such action. As the Board has noted, a Furthermore, there is no basis on which to infer that union is entitled to seek information under discovery- the Union already possessed conclusive information that type standards by which it can judge for itself whether these other operations constituted separate and distinct to press its claim before the Board, the courts, or in a employing entities with separate bargaining units, as sug- grievance procedure. gested by the Respondents. The answer to the Respond- Finally, contrary to the Respondents, I conclude that ents' questions as to why the Union did not press for the all the questions posed by the Union to the Respondents so-called subsidiary clause in negotiations, and why it did are manifestly related to the primary purposes for which not adduce evidence herein that it represented employees the information was sought, in view of the totality of in the other companies, is self-evident; i.e., it did not factors the Board considers in deciding whether or not have sufficient information to support its position, ergo its an "arm's length relationship" exists between unintegrat- request for same. The Respondents ask, if the Union ed companies. Don Burgess Construction Co., supra; see needed the information to bargain effectively, why did it also Erlichs' Inc., 231 NLRB 1237, 1242-44 (1977); Great not insist on the requested information in the 1980 nego- Chinese American Sewing Co., 227 NLRB 1670, 1678 tiations? The answer is that the Union had already made (1977); Ahemose Construction Company, 210 NLRB 138 a formal written request and had filed an unfair labor (1974). practice charge upon the Respondents' refusal to supply Accordingly, I conclude that the Union by its letters the information. That the Union proceeded with negotia- of January 18 and February 12, 1980, addressed to the tions without the information does not indicate that the Respondents requested information that was relevant and information was irrelevant to its secondary purpose nor necessary to the performance of its obligations as bar- that it would not have assisted the Union in bargaining. gaining agent for the Respondents' employees; i.e., the The Union never contended that the information was es- administration and negotiation of collective-bargaining sential for bargaining nor that it was the sine qua non for agreements with the Respondents. I therefore find that bargaining, but only claimed that it would have assisted the Respondents, by failing and refusing to provide the it in bargaining. The Respondents' contention that the re- information requested by the Union, violated and is vio- quested information was too incomplete to assist the lating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Union in bargaining again does not render it unrelated to that purpose. Perhaps the Union could have asked for CONCLUSIONS OF LAW more complete information, but what it did ask for was not unrelated to the secondary purposes as stated by 1. The Respondents are, individually and collectively, Union Agent Laborde. In any event the information was employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of clearly related to the primary purpose stated by the Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Union. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- The Respondents argue that the stated primary pur- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. pose of the requested data, i.e., the ascertainment of 3. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with whether the Respondents were acting as a single inte- the information it requested in its letters to the Respond- grated employer with other companies, must be rejected ents of January 18 and February 12, 1980, the Respond- as not being the true purpose. The Respondents claim ents have each engaged in and are engaging in unfair that the Acting Regional Director had made a finding in labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and a representation case that Perrilliet-Rickey and Claiborne (1) of the Act. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conclude that the answers to these questions necessitated were separate employer and therefore the Union was al- information that was of reasonable or probable relevance ready aware of that status when it requested the same in- to the Union's effective performance as administrator and formation from Perrilliet-Rickey. However, Perrilliet- negotiator of the collective-bargaining agreement. Fur- Rickey is not a respondent herein. In any event, La- thermore, as the Board observed, in the AGC of Califor- borde's credible testimony reveals that his conversation nia case, the data which was sought, was sought for the with Lemoine occurred after the Acting Regional Direc- primary purpose of ascertaining whether or not other tor's decision and thus he did not have sufficient infor- specifically identified operations were so related to the mation to sustain a contrary position in the representa- Respondents' operations by a variety of factors such as tion case. to encompass the other employees within the unit. If, in Respondent suggests that the Union must have had fact, those employees were within the same unit, infor- sufficient information regarding Pratt Farnsworth in that mation as to them would be presumptively valid. Ac- the Union had filed a lawsuit in which it contended that cordingly, I conclude that information necessary to re- a single integrated enterprise existed. However, the solve a bona fide question as to whether the collective- nature of the law suit, the issues involved, and the deci- bargaining unit has expanded is presumptively relevant. sion therein are unknown. Whatever information the The Respondents' arguments that the Union's sole pur- Union may have had regarding Pratt Farnsworth for pose in seeking the information was for organizational purposes of that lawsuit, it is not shown that such infor- purposes are unconvincing. The Union may very well mation was identical to that requested in this proceeding. have desired to organize these other operations, but such With respect to the Respondents' suggestions that the organizing effort would be unnecessary if the Union Union could have proceeded with a unit clarification pe- could ascertain that these other operations constituted tition with the Board, or could have filed a grievance, mere extensions of the collective-bargaining units which such action would have been fruitless without informa- it represents,.tion to sustain such action. As the Board has noted, a Furthermore, there is no basis on which to infer that union is entitled to seek information under discovery- the Union already possessed conclusive information that type standards by which it can judge for itself whether these other operations constituted separate and distinct to press its claim before the Board, the courts, or in a employing entities with separate bargaining units, as sug- grievance procedure. gested by the Respondents. The answer to the Respond- Finally, contrary to the Respondents, I conclude that ents' questions as to why the Union did not press for the all the questions posed by the Union to the Respondents so-called subsidiary clause in negotiations, and why it did are manifestly related to the primary purposes for which not adduce evidence herein that it represented employees the information was sought, in view of the totality of in the other companies, is self-evident; i.e., it did not factors the Board considers in deciding whether or not have sufficient information to support its position, ergo its an "arm's length relationship" exists between unintegrat- request for same. The Respondents ask, if the Union ed companies. Don Burgess Construction Co., supra; see needed the information to bargain effectively, why did it also Erlichs' Inc., 231 NLRB 1237, 1242-44 (1977); Great not insist on the requested information in the 1980 nego- Chinese American Sewing Co., 227 NLRB 1670, 1678 tiations? The answer is that the Union had already made (1977); Ahemose Construction Company, 210 NLRB 138 a formal written request and had filed an unfair labor (1974). practice charge upon the Respondents' refusal to supply Accordingly, I conclude that the Union by its letters the information. That the Union proceeded with negotia- of January 18 and February 12, 1980, addressed to the tions without the information does not indicate that the Respondents requested information that was relevant and information was irrelevant to its secondary purpose nor necessary to the performance of its obligations as bar- that it would not have assisted the Union in bargaining. gaining agent for the Respondents' employees; i.e., the The Union never contended that the information was es- administration and negotiation of collective-bargaining sential for bargaining nor that it was the sine qua non for agreements with the Respondents. I therefore find that bargaining, but only claimed that it would have assisted the Respondents, by failing and refusing to provide the it in bargaining. The Respondents' contention that the re- information requested by the Union, violated and is vio- quested information was too incomplete to assist the lating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Union in bargaining again does not render it unrelated to that purpose. Perhaps the Union could have asked for CONCLUSIONS OF LAW more complete information, but what it did ask for was not unrelated to the secondary purposes as stated by 1. The Respondents are, individually and collectively, Union Agent Laborde. In any event the information was employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of clearly related to the primary purpose stated by the Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Union. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- The Respondents argue that the stated primary pur- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. pose of the requested data, i.e., the ascertainment of 3. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with whether the Respondents were acting as a single inte- the information it requested in its letters to the Respond- grated employer with other companies, must be rejected ents of January 18 and February 12, 1980, the Respond- as not being the true purpose. The Respondents claim ents have each engaged in and are engaging in unfair that the Acting Regional Director had made a finding in labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and a representation case that Perrilliet-Rickey and Claiborne (1) of the Act. LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 887 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor ny, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their officers, agents, practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- successors, and assigns, shall: tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters THE REMEDY District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by refusing to furnish it with the informa- Having found that by the aforementioned conduct the tion requested by it in its letters to the Respondents of Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the January 18 and February 12, 1980. Act, I recommend that they be ordered to cease and (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. policies of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondents be essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: ordered to furnish the Union with the requested informa- (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- tion found above to be relevant and necessary to con- named Union by furnishing it with the information re- tract administration and contract negotiation as set forth quested by its letters of January 18 and February 12, in the Union's letters to the Respondents of January 18 1980. and February 12, 1980. (b) Post at their places of business in New Orleans, Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section di." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed mended: by the Respondents' representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and ORDER 6 be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- The Respondents, Leonard B. Hebert Jr. & Co., Inc.; tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; American Gulf said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman other material. Construction Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in nings Construction Co., Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Compa- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. ' 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 find- In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 887 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor ny, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their officers, agents, practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- successors, and assigns, shall: tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters THE REMEDY District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by refusing to furnish it with the informa- Having found that by the aforementioned conduct the tion requested by it in its letters to the Respondents of Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the January 18 and February 12, 1980. Act, I recommend that they be ordered to cease and (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. policies of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondents be essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: ordered to furnish the Union with the requested informa- (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- tion found above to be relevant and necessary to con- named Union by furnishing it with the information re- tract administration and contract negotiation as set forth quested by its letters of January 18 and February 12, in the Union's letters to the Respondents of January 18 1980. and February 12, 1980. (b) Po st a t t heir places of business in New Orleans, Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section dix."' Copies o f said no t ic e , on forms provided by the 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed mended: by the Respondents' representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and ORDER 6 be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- The Respondents, Leonard B. Hebert Jr. & Co., Inc.; tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; American Gulf said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman other material. Construction Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in nings Construction Co., Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Compa- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. ' 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 find- In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 887 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor ny, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their officers, agents, practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- successors, and assigns, shall: tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters THE REMEDY District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by refusing to furnish it with the informa- Having found that by the aforementioned conduct the tion requested by it in its letters to the Respondents of Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the January 18 and February 12, 1980. Act, I recommend that they be ordered to cease and (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. policies of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondents be essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: ordered to furnish the Union with the requested informa- (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- tion found above to be relevant and necessary to con- named Union by furnishing it with the information re- tract administration and contract negotiation as set forth quested by its letters of January 18 and February 12, in the Union's letters to the Respondents of January 18 1980. and February 12, 1980. (b) Po st a t t heir places of business in New Orleans, Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section dix."' Copies o f said no t ic e , on forms provided by the 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed mended: by the Respondents' representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and ORDER 6 be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- The Respondents, Leonard B. Hebert Jr. & Co., Inc.; tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; American Gulf said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman other material. Construction Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in nings Construction Co., Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Compa- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. ' 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 find- In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." LEONARD B. HEBERT, JR. 887 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor ny, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, their officers, agents, practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- successors, and assigns, shall: tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters THE REMEDY District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity and Local Union 1846, by refusing to furnish it with the informa- Having found that by the aforementioned conduct the tion requested by it in its letters to the Respondents of Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the January 18 and February 12, 1980. Act, I recommend that they be ordered to cease and (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. policies of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondents be essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: ordered to furnish the Union with the requested informa- (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- tion found above to be relevant and necessary to con- named Union by furnishing it with the information re- tract administration and contract negotiation as set forth quested by its letters of January 18 and February 12, in the Union's letters to the Respondents of January 18 1980. and February 12, 1980. (b) Po st a t t heir places of business in New Orleans, Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section dix."' Copies o f said no t ic e , on forms provided by the 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed mended: by the Respondents' representative, shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and ORDER 6 be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- The Respondents, Leonard B. Hebert Jr. & Co., Inc.; tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable Landis Construction Company, Inc.; Pratt Farnsworth, steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that Inc.; Boh Bros. Construction Co., Inc.; American Gulf said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any Enterprises, Inc.; Gutler-Herbert & Co., Inc.; Pittman other material. Construction Company, Inc.; Bartley, Incorporated; Bin- (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in nings Construction Co., Inc.; Gervais F. Favrot Compa- writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. ' 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 find- In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."