Pratt & Lambert, Inc.

529 319 NLRB No. 72 PRATT & LAMBERT, INC. 1 The Respondent contends that the information sought by the Union is not relevant because the Respondent’s subcontracting ac- tivities have not resulted in the displacement or layoff of employees. The Union has demonstrated that the maintenance department has lost approximately three employees over the course of a year and that these employees have not been replaced. The Respondent asserts that those three employees retired and were not laid off or displaced. We agree with the judge that the Union has established that the in- formation requested is relevant to the Union’s ability to administer the collective-bargaining agreement. We note that, despite the Re- spondent’s assertions, there is no evidence in the record that those three employees retired. Moreover, the Respondent’s argument re- garding the definition of the phrase ‘‘laid off or displaced’’ is appro- priate for an arbitrator to decide and is not an issue that is properly before the Board. See generally Bell Telephone Laboratories, 317 NLRB 802 (1995). 2 The Union has represented the Respondent’s production and maintenance employees since 1946. The parties’ collective-bargain- ing agreement has included the subcontracting provision at issue since 1989. Pratt & Lambert, Inc. and International Brother- hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local Union No. 1125, AFL–CIO. Case 3–CA–18352 October 31, 1995 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING AND TRUESDALE On June 22, 1995, Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Gen- eral Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. The Respondent excepts to the judge’s rec- ommended Order for two reasons. First, the Respond- ent argues that the Order is too broad because it re- quires information prior to the effective date of the collective-bargaining agreement in place at the time that the Union made its information request. We reject this argument as untimely. The Respondent did not make this argument to the judge and raises it for the first time in its exceptions. Furthermore, even if the ar- gument was timely, we would reject it because the in- formation requested is relevant to the Union’s concern that the Respondent’s subcontracting activities during the time in question eventually resulted in noncompli- ance with the collective-bargaining agreement.2 Haw- kins Construction Co., 285 NLRB 1313 (1987). The Respondent also excepts to the requirement in the judge’s recommended Order that it provide the number of man-hours subcontracted out during the pe- riod in question. The Respondent contends, and the General Counsel concedes, that the Respondent’s wit- nesses testified without contradiction that the Respond- ent does not keep systematic track of the man-hours subcontracted out. The record establishes, however, that some of the documents that include descriptions of the work contracted out (for example, subcontractor’s invoices) also include man-hours or include informa- tion that would allow the Union to estimate man-hours. In light of the evidence presented, we will modify the Order and direct the Respondent to produce the total man-hours worked by outside contractors insofar as that information is available. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Pratt & Lambert, Inc., Buf- falo, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for subparagraph 2(a)(i): ‘‘(i) Total man-hours worked by outside contractors in the performance of maintenance department work at its Tonawanda facility per year for the period February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993, insofar as that in- formation is available.’’ 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad- ministrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish International Broth- erhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local Union No. 1125, AFL–CIO with the requested information, set forth below, which is relevant to administering the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL furnish the Union with the following infor- mation: Total man-hours worked by outside contractors in the performance of maintenance department work at its Tonawanda facility per year for the period of February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993, in so far as that information is available. A brief description of each maintenance department job/project at its Tonawanda facility which was con- VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 530 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 Respondent admits that the charge was filed, but denies that it was served. An affidavit of service and other documents in evidence establish that a copy of the charge, mailed to Respondent on January 31, was served on it on February 1. 2 This case was originally consolidated for hearing with Case 3– CA–19103. Thereafter, Respondent requested a separate hearing in Case 3–CA–19103. The Regional Director granted the request, and on April 10, 1995, issued an order severing cases, second amended complaint and notice of hearing in the instant case. 3 There are certain further exclusions from the unit which are not relevant here. 4 The collective-bargaining agreement, which ran from February 1992 to February 1995, has been renewed and contains the same lan- guage in art. 21, sec. 3. 5 The term ‘‘subcontractor’’ and ‘‘vendor’’ will be used inter- changeably. 6 Respondent’s answer admits Murray’s title, but denies that he is its supervisor or agent. Ringer gave uncontradicted testimony that Murray represents Respondent at third-step grievance meetings, and tracted out per year for the period of February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993. PRATT & LAMBERT, INC. Ron Scott, Esq., for the General Counsel. Paul M. Murray, Corporate Director of Human Resources, for the Respondent. John Ringer, President, Local 1125, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge. Based on a charge filed on January 31, 1994, by International Brother- hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local Union No. 1125, AFL– CIO (the Union), a complaint was issued on April 7, 1995, against Pratt & Lambert, Inc. (Respondent).1 The complaint alleges essentially that the Union requested certain informa- tion concerning Respondent’s subcontracting of work, and that Respondent failed and refused to furnish it, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted certain affirmative defenses, and on April 24, 1995, a hearing was held before me in Buffalo, New York.2 On the evidence presented in this proceeding, and my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consid- eration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re- spondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a corporation having its office and place of business at 75 Tonawanda Street, Buffalo, New York, has been engaged in the business of manufacturing paints and coatings. During the past year, Respondent sold and shipped from its New York facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside New York State. Respond- ent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background On October 11, 1946, the Union was certified, and contin- ues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the following unit: All production and maintenance employees and truck drivers, except for office and clerical employees, chem- ists, foremen, and all supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or other- wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action.3 Respondent employs about 300 to 350 employees, about 81 of whom are unit employees. Of the 81 workers, about 7 to 9 are employed in Respondent’s maintenance depart- ment. Those workers perform general maintenance and repair work such as carpentry and masonry block work. They also maintain the facility and equipment, working throughout Re- spondent’s facility. This dispute arose from a belief by the Union that Re- spondent’s subcontracting activities were causing a loss of work and the layoff of employees in the maintenance depart- ment. The parties negotiated certain language in 1989 which permitted such subcontracting work except if it caused the displacement or layoff of maintenance department employ- ees. The specific contractual clause, article 21, section 3, pro- vides as follows: Any additional, extra or emergency work for all depart- ments except the Maintenance Department shall be given to the regular employees of the Company, if available and qualified, before obtaining outside help. For the Maintenance Department and/or work currently performed by Maintenance Department employees, the Company may engage outside contractors provided such engagement does not result in the displacement of any Maintenance Department employee and/or such en- gagement leads to layoff of any Maintenance employee. Nothing contained herein shall preclude additional, extra or emergency work within the Maintenance De- partment from being assigned to any employee(s).4 B. The Requests for Information and the Responses John Ringer, the Union’s president, testified that he had received complaints from the Union’s members that Re- spondent was using subcontractors to perform work pre- viously done by its maintenance department employees, and that he believed that the loss of at least three such employees had been caused by the increasing amount of subcontract- ing.5 On September 15, 1993, Ringer sent a letter to Paul Mur- ray, Respondent’s corporate director of human resources which stated that the Union has experienced a ‘‘steady loss’’ of its members employed in the maintenance department, and was ‘‘very concerned that our diminished presence within that department can be directly traced . . . to the 1989 intro- duction of the subcontracting clause within our agreement.’’6 VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 531 PRATT & LAMBERT, INC. has full authority to settle, adjust, or dispose of grievances. Murray chaired Respondent’s bargaining committee during recent contract negotiations, signed Respondent’s answer to the complaint, and rep- resented it at this hearing. I find that Murray is a supervisor and agent of Respondent. 7 The recitation of the facts is based on Ringer’s credited version. He testified candidly and forthrightly. Respondent’s official Murray did not testify. 8 Respondent’s answer admits that Zodda was the plant manager, but denies that he was its supervisor or agent. Ringer gave uncontradicted testimony that Zodda possessed the authority to ad- just grievances, and that as the plant manager, had the authority to hire, discipline, and discharge employees. I find that Zodda was Re- spondent’s supervisor and agent. 9 The grievance was withdrawn, without prejudice, to the Union’s assertion of future violations of art. 21, sec. 3. 10 Respondent’s third-step grievance answer also noted that Liftech charges about $300 per inspected machine. The Union’s letter requested ‘‘detailed information’’ re- garding the use of subcontractors from February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993, including (a) annual dollars spent, (b) total man-hours worked, and (c) a brief description of each job/project which was contracted out. About 1 month later, Murray told Ringer that he was not familiar with the way Respondent maintains its records as to the information the Union sought.7 He also told Ringer that the Union had an obligation to set forth specific contractors and specific jobs for which the information was requested. Ringer replied that such a task was virtually impossible, and emphasized that, although he realized that it may not be easy to obtain the information, the Union needed it in order to process a grievance and to see whether article 21, section 3 had been violated. Murray suggested that Ringer speak to Plant Manager Richard Zodda. On October 19, Ringer sent a letter to Zodda, which was identical to that sent on Sep- tember 15 to Murray.8 On October 19, 1993, the Union filed a grievance, claim- ing a violation of article 21, section 3 by Respondent’s re- cent decision to enter into a subcontract with Liftech Han- dling, Inc., to maintain the plant’s fleet of material handling vehicles, instead of assigning such work to the maintenance department’s employees. The grievance stated that in April 1993, employee Renzoni, who performed such work, was transferred out of the maintenance department due to lack of work. The grievance requested information concerning the Liftech contract. Thereafter, in late February 1994, the griev- ance was withdrawn when Renzoni returned to the mainte- nance department.9 On December 6, Murray sent a letter to Ringer, advising that the ‘‘type of data you are looking for cannot be easily attained. We do not keep a separate accounting of sub- contractors hours or breakout billing by functional area. I am willing to facilitate accessing whatever data you require rel- evant to specific subcontracting activities . . . . [Y]our initial request is too broad and non specific to gather any relevant data.’’ On December 16, Ringer sent a letter to Murray, noting that the Union had not received any of the requested infor- mation. Ringer conceded that ‘‘it appears that our initial re- quest can’t be satisfied because of the way that we asked for it to be broken down.’’ Ringer continued that the Union could not be more specific, and requested that ‘‘any and all related documentation’’ be provided, and that ‘‘whatever in- house method is used to document outside contracting activi- ties will suffice.’’ He stated that documentation from ‘‘suc- cessful bidders . . . would undoubtedly prove to be very useful.’’ Ringer stated that the documents are necessary in order to determine whether article 21, section 3 has been vio- lated due to the loss of maintenance department employees and the increasing use of contractors. On January 10, 1994, Murray ‘‘flatly refused’’ to provide the Union with the requested information, saying that the re- quest is ‘‘too vague, therefore it represents an unreasonable request.’’ Two days later, when Ringer complained that he had not received any of the requested information, Murray again said that the Union was obligated by the ‘‘contract and reason to limit/narrow its request to specific contractors and engagements.’’ Ringer denied that the Union had such an ob- ligation, adding that the information was needed in order to determine whether the contract was violated, and further that the Union was considering filing a grievance. He also told Murray that a ‘‘good starting point’’ would be documenta- tion from Don Vacanti, a construction contractor, which does a substantial amount of work for Respondent. On January 16, Ringer sent a letter to James Gouck, the new plant manager, requesting ‘‘any and all subcontracting data pursuant to 21–3, for the period February 4, 1992, through January 13, 1994, specifically (a) names of each sub- contractor (b) total dollars spent during the period and sepa- rately for each subcontractor and the (c) total number of man-hours paid for during the period indicated above and separately for each subcontractor.’’ On January 31, the instant charge was filed. Following the filing of the charge, a file for subcontractor Vacanti was pre- sented to the Union for the ‘‘previous year,’’ presumably 1993. The documents were barely legible and difficult to read. On February 3, a third-step grievance meeting was held on the Renzoni grievance, set forth above. A third-step answer, denying the grievance, was issued on February 24. Attached to the answer was Respondent’s purchase order dated Octo- ber 7, 1993, concerning Liftech. The purchase order listed the total dollar amount of the contract, and a description of the job: 1-year preventive maintenance agreement to cover all riding and walking lift trucks; riding lift trucks to be in- spected monthly; walking lift trucks to be inspected quar- terly; lube, oil, and filter to be covered (air filter if nec- essary); and all other items to be covered as per basic BPM plan. Also attached was Liftech’s detailed maintenance form listing 66 maintenance items to be performed according to the Hyster maintenance recommendations.10 Ringer stated that the data supplied, the dollar amount of the subcontract, only partially complied with the Union’s re- quest for information in that no information was provided concerning total man-hours worked, and Ringer did not be- lieve that the description of the job was sufficient. On about February 17, Respondent turned over informa- tion concerning about six subcontractors concerning jobs per- formed in 1994. Such information included all the invoices that each of the vendors submitted to the Respondent in 1994. The data furnished includes receipts and invoices that Re- spondent received from the subcontractors, and also copies of Respondent’s purchase orders. The data gave specific infor- VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 532 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mation concerning the jobs performed—emergency repair to window in R. Miller’s office; landscaping service including the furnishing of labor, material, and equipment and includ- ing spring cleanup; installation of wallboard in room 201; painting of specific rooms; and repairs to vehicles. The dollar amount of the subcontracting was set forth in the documents. Gouck testified that there were other subcontractors who performed work for Respondent in 1994, but documents con- cerning them were not turned over to the Union because Re- spondent did not maintain a list of subcontractors, and the Union would not state specifically the specific jobs or names that it was seeking. Gouck stated that without such a list, Re- spondent could not determine who the specific vendors were. On tendering these documents to Ringer, Murray asked him whether those papers would ‘‘suffice.’’ Ringer inter- preted this as meaning that Murray wanted him to withdraw the charge in exchange for these documents. Ringer replied that his request for information covered years prior to 1994, and therefore the tender, which only contained 1994 records, was not sufficient. On April 17, Ringer sent a letter to Murray which stated that ‘‘the information did not satisfy our request since it was for 1994 only [and did not include] total man-hours worked.’’ Thus, the Liftech purchase order, the file for Vacanti which was illegible, and the 1994 documents supplied on February 17 constitute the data produced in response to the Union’s request. No information has been provided for the years 1989 through 1993, except for the 1993 Vacanti file. The General Counsel concedes that there has been partial compliance with the Union’s request. The question is whether such compliance is sufficient to meet Respondent’s obligation to provide information. C. Respondent’s Evidence Respondent’s affirmative defense as set forth in its answer is that the information requested by the Union is ‘‘overly broad, imprecise, irrelevant and unnecessary for the Union’s performance of its duties as bargaining representative.’’ Gregory Kazmierczak, Respondent’s maintenance coordi- nator, testified that once a decision is made to subcontract a job, he utilizes several resources to identify a subcontractor to perform the task: he has a list (called a short list) contain- ing the names of contractors he uses on a regular basis, which comprises about 60 to 70 percent of all the sub- contracting work done at the facility; telephone yellow pages listings; or the Thomas trade directory, which lists the sub- contractors in the immediate area. Kazmierczak then calls the subcontractors, who submit bids to the purchasing department. A minimum of three bids are obtained, and a bidder is then selected. The purchasing department then writes a purchase order which contains a synopsis of the bid, and notifies the winning bidder. An emergency job is contracted for by using the short list, ap- parently without seeking other bidders. On receipt of the Union’s request for information dated January 16, 1995, which asked for data from February 1992 through January 13, 1994, James Gouck, Respondent’s plant manager, asked Kazmierczak to contact the vendors who Re- spondent used the most, those who did a majority of the sub- contracting work, and obtain from them their invoices for 1994. Only information for the year 1994 was requested of the subcontractors because that year had just ended. No in- formation was requested for the years 1989 through 1993. Those vendors were Atlas Elevator, Liftech, and Vacanti. Such documents were supplied to the Union on February 17, as set forth above. Gouck did not request from the purchasing department any bids it might have retained. Rather, in order to expedite the search, he decided to make the requests from the subcontrac- tors directly. Such bids have a rough description of the work to be performed. Kazmierczak requested of the subcontractors invoices for work performed in the facility, with whatever specific infor- mation they had including man-hours. Gouck stated that Re- spondent does not keep information concerning man-hours, and that most of the contractors do not submit bids based on total man-hours. The subcontractors were not happy about providing the information, because much time was required to obtain the information from their files. Kazmierczak stated that he could not supply the informa- tion for all the contractors as there were too many. He fur- ther stated that Respondent could not supply a description of each job, as requested, because he did not keep such accurate records, adding that the order would say ‘‘paint room 302 using [Respondent’s] paint.’’ Suzanne Anderson, Respondent’s general accounting man- ager who is responsible for accounts payable, testified that each subcontractor has a vendor number. Following the com- pletion of a job performed by a subcontractor, the vendor sends an invoice which is filed with that vendor’s number. Prior to 1990, vendors were listed alphabetically, but there- after numbers were assigned. Vendor files are kept for 7 years. Currently there are 40,000 vendor numbers. Anderson stated that there is no sep- arate listing for subcontractors’ vendor numbers. She further stated that most invoices do not contain the total man-hours, however, a few do. In addition, about 85 to 90 percent of the invoices have a brief description of the job and the total amount of money charged. Such information is in the vendor file. Anderson testified that in order to comply with the Union’s request for information, the vendor’s name and num- ber must be known. She estimated that it would take two people, one from accounts payable, and the other from the maintenance department, about 60 to 80 hours to search the records in order to locate the information requested. The records that must be searched include expense reports, utility bills, raw materials purchases, office purchases, payroll tax accounts, and bank accounts. Analysis and discussion The complaint alleges that the Union requested, and Re- spondent unlawfully refused to furnish, the following infor- mation: (1) Total man-hours worked by outside contractors in the performance of Maintenance Department work at its Tonawanda facility per year for the period February 4, 1989 through September 4, 1993. (2) A brief description of each Maintenance Depart- ment job/project at its Tonawanda Street facility which was contracted out per year for the period February 4, 1989 through September 4, 1993. VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 533 PRATT & LAMBERT, INC. (3) Detailed information regarding the use of outside contractors (Liftech Handling, Inc.) so that the Union can determine the extent to which recoverable monies are involved in the case of the grievance dated October 19, 1993 by Carl Marcotte [the Renzoni grievance]. The alleged failure to furnish the annual dollars spent on such subcontracts, which was part of the original September 1993 request for information, was accordingly not alleged as a violation. An employer’s duty to bargain collectively obligates it to furnish the union with relevant information necessary for the proper performance of the union’s duties as the employees’ bargaining representative. Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). When a union seeks information concerning the bargaining unit itself, such information is presumptively relevant and will be ordered disclosed without any showing of relevance by the union. When a union seeks information concerning matters outside the bargaining unit, as here, however, the union has the burden of showing that the ‘‘request for infor- mation concerning subcontractors raises ‘the probability that the desired information was relevant’ and of use to the Union in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.’’ Wachter Con- struction, 311 NLRB 215 (1993). The Union’s requests for information concerning sub- contracting arose out of its concern that the increasing use of subcontractors had caused the loss of jobs in the mainte- nance department in violation of article 21, section 3 of the collective-bargaining agreement which prohibits subcontract- ing if it causes the displacement or layoff of such employees. The requests also grew out of a grievance concerning the subcontracting of work involving the maintenance of ma- chines which had formerly been done by Respondent’s em- ployees. In fact, the number of maintenance department employees has declined since the inclusion of the contractual clause per- mitting subcontracting in 1989. Thus, the Union sought to establish, through its requests for information, that the contract had been violated—that subcontracting had impermissibly resulted in the displace- ment of, and led to the layoff of, employees. The grievance that was filed on October 19, 1993, only 1 month after the request for information, expressly alleged a violation of article 21, section 3 of the contract in Respond- ent’s engaging a subcontractor to perform work which had previously been done by maintenance department employees. The time period for the information sought, February 4, 1989, related directly to the time that the subcontracting clause was first included in the contract. I find that the information sought is relevant since the data requested had ‘‘potential relevance to grievances’’ concern- ing a breach of the terms of article 21, section 3. See Detroit Edison Co., 314 NLRB 1273, 1274–1275 (1994). Although at the time the request for information was made, no griev- ance had been brought, it is clear that the grievance which was filed 1 month later related to such information. Although that specific grievance involved one company, Liftech, and information sought in that grievance was apparently limited to Liftech, the Union properly sought much broader informa- tion concerning Respondent’s subcontracting activities. In requesting such information, the Union clearly ex- pressed its belief that increased subcontracting by Respond- ent had caused a loss of jobs in the maintenance department, in violation of the contract. Thus, the information sought is relevant because it had as its purpose efforts by the Union to ensure compliance with the collective-bargaining agree- ment, and to determine if it had been breached. Wachter, supra. In Somerville Mills, 308 NLRB 425, 441 (1992), the union learned that employees were being laid off for lack of work while at the same time their work was subcontracted to out- side companies. The union’s request for the names and ad- dresses of the subcontractors; the type of work which was contracted; the savings by reason of; and the labor costs of the subcontracting was upheld by the Board. Specifically, the information sought which has been al- leged to have been unlawfully refused—a brief description of, and the total man-hours worked by, outside contractors on maintenance department jobs—is clearly relevant and nec- essary to the Union’s functions as the employees’ collective- bargaining representative. The description of the jobs would enable the Union to determine whether jobs ordinarily per- formed by the maintenance department employees were being performed by subcontractors. The total man-hours worked by such subcontractors would enable the Union to determine the extent of the work performed by the outside companies. With this information, the Union would then be in a posi- tion to make a determination as to whether (a) outside com- panies were performing unit work, and (b) whether the mag- nitude of such work ‘‘result[ed] in the displacement . . . or [led] to the layoff’’ of maintenance department employees, in violation of article 21, section 3 of the contract. Having found that the information requested, as set forth in the complaint, was necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees, I find that Respondent had an obligation to furnish such information. The Information Sought from the Subcontractors After a finding of relevance has been made, the employer has the burden to provide adequate reasons why it cannot, in good faith, supply such information. Public Service Co. of Colorado, 301 NLRB 238, 247 (1991). First, Respondent asserts that it does not have the informa- tion. As to a brief description of the jobs performed by the subcontractors, it is clear that Respondent possessed the in- formation. Respondent’s witnesses stated that the bids sub- mitted by the subcontractors to the purchasing department contain such a description. The purchasing department, how- ever, was not asked to search its records for such bids. In addition, the purchasing department writes a synopsis of the bid on its purchase order. Such description would clearly have been sufficient to satisfy the Union’s request for a ‘‘brief description’’ of the job. Kazmierczak’s example of such a purchase order as ‘‘paint room 302 using the compa- ny’s paint’’ would undoubtedly be an adequate description of the job which would acquaint the Union with the nature of the work performed. Indeed, the Liftech purchase order, sub- mitted by Respondent to the Union in February 1994, con- tained a detailed description of the job, as set forth above. It should also be noted that Respondent’s witness Anderson VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 534 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the 8Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec- ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 12 If 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.’’ stated that about 85 to 90 percent of the invoices contain a brief description of the job, and that such information is in the vendor file. As to the total man-hours, Respondent’s witness Anderson stated that a few invoices contain such a figure. Next, Respondent seems to state that it is in possession of the information, but demanded that the Union supply more precise data, such as the names of the vendors, their num- bers, and the specific jobs that the contractors did in order to access it. Clearly, such information is not in the Union’s possession and constitutes an unreasonable request. This is especially so since Respondent’s witness Kazmierczak stated that 60 to 70 percent of the work is subcontracted to firms on its ‘‘short list,’’ and as to the others, Respondent utilizes the Thomas directory or the telephone yellow pages, and thus Respondent had ready access to such information. Finally, Respondent argues that if it had the information it would be too burdensome and costly to provide it. Re- spondent’s witness Anderson stated that it would take two people in two different departments about 60 to 80 hours to search the records in order to locate the information re- quested. Although this does represent a major expenditure of time and money, ‘‘the burden in time and money necessary to fulfill a request for information is not a basis for refusing the request.’’ Wachter, supra at 216. ‘‘The parties must bar- gain in good faith as to who shall bear such costs.’’ Tower Books, 273 NLRB 671 (1984). The evidence establishes that Respondent has supplied the Union with part of the requested information for the year 1994 which it obtained from some of its subcontractors, but not all of the 1994 subcontractors were solicited for the in- formation. None of the requested information, however, has been furnished for the years 1989 through 1993, with the ex- ception of the 1993 Vacanti file. Respondent admits not having furnished any information for the prior years, asserting that it asked its subcontractors to furnish information only for 1994 since that year had just ended at the time it asked them to supply such data, and that they were reluctant to comply with Respondent’s request. I do not find this to be a sufficient reason. Respondent simply had to ask the contractors to furnish the information for the prior years. This it was not willing to do. Based on the above, I cannot find that Respondent made reasonable efforts to obtain and provide the information re- quested. Public Service Co., supra. The Information Regarding the Liftech Grievance I find that the information provided to the Union concern- ing the Liftech grievance, although provided late, satisfied Respondent’s obligation to supply such information. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Pratt & Lambert, Inc, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local Union No. 1125, AFL–CIO is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By refusing to furnish the Union with requested infor- mation that is relevant to administering the Union’s collec- tive-bargaining agreement with Respondent, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent be required to furnish the Union with the information requested, as set forth in the recommended Order, with any concerns about the allocation of costs to be resolved by good-faith bargaining between the parties. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended11 ORDER The Respondent, Pratt & Lambert, Inc., Buffalo, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to furnish the Union with the requested infor- mation, set forth in 2(a) below, which is relevant to admin- istering the collective-bargaining agreement between the Re- spondent and the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Furnish the Union with the following information: (i) Total man-hours worked by outside contractors in the performance of maintenance department work at its Tona- wanda facility per year for the period February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993. (ii) A brief description of each maintenance department job/project at its Tonawanda Street facility which was con- tracted out per year for the period February 4, 1989, through September 4, 1993. (b) Post at its facility at 75 Tonawanda Street, Buffalo, New York, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appen- dix.’’12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 3, after being signed by the Re- spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04 535 PRATT & LAMBERT, INC. where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply. VerDate 12-JAN-99 11:25 Jul 30, 1999 Jkt 183525 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\319\31972 apps04 PsN: apps04