Andy Johnson Co., Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Andy Johnson Co., Inc. and Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structur- al, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL- CIO. Case 19-CA-9016 June 20, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER Upon a charge filed on November 8, 1976, by Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein- forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served on Andy Johnson Co., Inc., herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 19, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on December 10, 1976, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that Respondent is a member of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.-Seattle Chapter, herein called AGC, and, by virtue of its membership in AGC, has been at all times material herein a party to a collective- bargaining agreement between the AGC and the Union, which agreement designates the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the agreement; that on or about October 29, 1976, the Union requested of Respondent's agent, AGC Director of Labor Rela- tions Bell, the names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications of Respondent's unit employees for the period of July 1, 1974, through October 22, 1976; and that, commencing on or about November 4, 1976, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to provide the Union with the requested information. Subsequently, Re- spondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint. t In its letter, dated October 29, 1976, to AGC Director of Labor Relations Bell, the Union requested "a true and correct copy of the Andy Johnson and Company payroll records from July I, 1974 to October 22, 1976." Although Respondent in its answer stated that it lacked independent knowledge of, and therefore denied, the allegation of the complaint that the 230 NLRB No. 31 On January 2, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof, with exhibits attached. The General Counsel submit- ted that the wage-related information sought is presumptively relevant to the Union's policing of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement and that Respondent in its answer has failed to advance any reason for not providing the Union with the requested information. He therefore moved that the Board grant summary judgment against Respondent based on the pleadings and the attached exhibits and issue a Decision and Order requiring Respondent to provide the requested information. Subsequently, on February 8, 1977, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. On February 16, 1977, Respondent filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment to the Board and for transfer to the Board pursuant to Section 102.50 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and on February 24, 1977, filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and in support of its Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment In its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment to the Board, Respondent concurs with the General Coun- sel that the material facts in this proceeding are not in dispute. In this regard, Respondent states that, although the complaint mischaracterized the Union's October 29, 1976, request for information 1 as specifically seeking the names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications of Respon- dent's employees within the unit, "the difference between the actual demand by the Union [i.e., for information pertaining to nonunit as well as unit employees] and the General Counsel's characteriza- tion of it [i.e., for unit employees only] does not appear to be material." Respondent, therefore, in effect, concedes that it would have refused the Union's request for information even if that request Union requested such information of Bell, it admitted the allegations of the complaint that at all times material herein, Bell has been its agent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act and that it has refused to provide the Union with the information requested. 308 ANDY JOHNSON CO., INC. had been limited solely to unit employees. In support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Respon- dent argues that in the absence of a showing of the relevance of such information, it was not required to comply with the Union's request. It is well established that wage and employment information pertaining to bargaining unit employees is presumptively relevant for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and contract administration inas- much as such information concerns the heart of the employer-employee relationship, and that such infor- mation must be provided upon request to the unit employees' bargaining representatives In addition, it is well settled that a union is not required to show the precise relevance of such requested information unless the employer comes forth with effective rebuttal. 3 In its answer, Respondent did not assert any reason for its refusal to provide the information requested by the Union. In its brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg- ment and in support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent, however, defends its refusal to provide any payroll information to the Union on the ground that the Union's demand for payroll information "on its face presents an undue burden on the employer." Respondent, however, has offered nothing in support of this naked assertion. Inasmuch as Respondent has not asserted facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of relevancy of the Union's request for information, insofar as it applies to unit employees, we find that no material issues of fact exist in this proceeding which warrant a hearing. Therefore, we further find that Respondent is and was at the time of the demand under an obligation to furnish such information to the Union upon request, and that its refusal to do so violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We therefore hereby grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, and, accordingly, Respondent's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Washington corporation, is engaged in the general construction business at its place of 2 Western Electric, Inc., 225 NLRB 1378 (1976); Hotel Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Royal Inn of South Ben4 224 NLRB 810 (1976); Warehouse Foods, A Division of M.E Carter andCompany, Inc., 223 NLRB 506(1976); Dynamnc Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975); Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska and M W. Anderson Construction Co., 185 NLRB 34 (1970); Cowles Communications, Inc., 172 NLRB 1909 (1968); Curtiss-WriRht Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152 (1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3. 1965). business located at Olympia, Washington. In the course and conduct of its business during the past 12 months, Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Washington. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein- forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Collective-Bargaining Relationship 1. The unit The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain- ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the collective-bargaining agreement between Andy Johnson Co., Inc., and Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Struc- tural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO. 2. The collective-bargaining agreement At all times material herein, the Employer has been a member of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.-Seattle Chapter (AGC), an organiza- tion of employers existing for the purpose of dealing with labor organizations representing employees of its employer-members concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. At all times material herein, Respondent, by virtue of its membership in AGC, has been a party to a collective-bargaining agreement between AGC and the Union, which agreement designates the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees in said unit. 3 Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Div.. supra at 69. We note that the unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union stated, inter alia, that "the requested information is relevant to the needs of Local * 114 in determining whether the contract has been adhered to, and whether there is a basis for filing a grievance under the agreement." 309 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Request for Information and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about October 29, 1976, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respondent to supply it with a copy of Andy Johnson Co., Inc.'s payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976. Commencing on or about November 4, 1976, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to furnish the requested informa- tion to the Union. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has, since November 4, 1976, and at all times thereafter, refused to furnish the Union with payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, for employees in the bargaining unit, including the names, address- es, social security numbers, and job classifications of said unit employees, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom. We shall further require Respondent, upon request, to furnish the Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, for employees in the bargaining unit, including the names, address- es, social security numbers, and job classifications of said unit employees. The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Andy Johnson Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the collective-bargaining agreement between Andy John- son Co., Inc., and Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the above-named labor organization has been and is now the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit by refusing on or about November 4, 1976, and at all times thereafter to furnish wage and employment information with respect to said unit employees, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the aforesaid refusal to furnish information, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Andy Johnson Co., Inc., Olympia, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Ironwork- ers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all ironworkers within the jurisdic- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement between Andy Johnson Co., Inc., and the above-named labor organization by refusing to furnish the said labor organization with payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, concerning employees in the 310 ANDY JOHNSON CO., INC. bargaining unit, including the names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications of said unit employees. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Iron- workers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, by furnishing the said labor organization with payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, for Respondent's unit employ- ees, including the names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications of Respondent's employees within the aforesaid appropriate unit. (b) Post at its Olympia, Washington, facility, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associ- ation of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of all ironworkers within the jurisdiction of our collective-bargain- ing agreement, by refusing to furnish the said labor organization with payroll records from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, concerning our employees in the bargaining unit, including the names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications of our unit employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, by furnishing to the above-named labor organiza- tion, as the exclusive representative of all employ- ees in the bargaining unit described below, payroll records from July 22, 1974, to October 22, 1976, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and job classifications, for the employ- ees in the appropriate unit. The bargaining unit is: All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement between Andy Johnson Co., Inc., and Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein- forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO. ANDY JOHNSON Co., INC. 311