Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc.

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc. and Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-13111 26 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 4 November 1983 Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. While we agree with the judge that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union a roster of those builder members that are or have been bound to either a master or memorandum agreement with the Union, we do not agree it violated the Act by refusing to furnish the names and addresses of its remaining builder members. The Respondent and the Union have been party to a series of collective-bargaining (master) agree- ments. The Respondent represents only construc- tion industry members who have authorized it in writing to negotiate with the Union. The members are at liberty to grant and withdraw at will an au- thorization to bargain. The Respondent has not always been diligent in notifying the Union when a member has executed or withdrawn a bargaining authorization. After a member has withdrawn its bargaining authorization from the Respondent, it is still bound to the terms of a memorandum agree- ment appended to the master collective-bargaining agreement. The memorandum agreement deletes the no-strike, no-lockout, and grievance provisions of the master agreement but it adheres to all other provisions, including those for fringe benefit trust funds. The memorandum agreement also contains an automatic renewal clause binding a contractor for the term of any successor contract negotiated between the Union and the Respondent, unless the contractor gives timely notice of cancellation. ' In the absence of exceptions, the Board pro forma adopts the judge's refusal to defer the dispute to arbitration 2 We find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's speculation that the Re- spondent's membership list could be useful to the Union in referring car- penters or in formulating future collective-bargaining strategy and pro- posals In 1976, 12 of the Respondent's members were bound to the master agreement. The number of members bound to the succeeding agreement dropped to 10 and the Respondent claimed that only 3 of its members were bound to the current 1982-1984 master agreement. There is no conten- tion that the Respondent promoted open shops or double-breasted operations during this time. On 7 January 1983,3 the Union's business repre- sentative Laub wrote the Respondent's executive director Porter requesting the most current list of companies that were signatories to the agreement through the Respondent. (The current master agreement does not list individual contractor signa- tories. It has signature lines only for representatives of the Union and of the Respondent association.) Receiving no response, the Union mailed a follow- up request on 8 February. On 22 February Porter sent the Union the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the three contractors that were signato- ries to the master agreement. On 19 April the Union's attorney wrote the Respondent asking for the names and addresses of all the Respondent's members, including those that the Respondent con- tended were not bound by the negotiations. The Union stated that the information was necessary with respect to the Union's obligation to fulfill its contractual commitments and determine whether there had been any violations of the agreement. On 29 April the Respondent's attorney wrote the Union stating that it had met its legal obligation by furnishing the Union with the names of members who were signatories to the contract. Laub testified that the Union had requested the Respondent's membership roster because of the severe drop in the number of contractors bound to the master agreement, and that several of those who had formerly been bound to the agreement had not given any indication that they were adher- ing to the memorandum agreement. Laub further testified that he was suspicious that some of the contractors were unlawfully engaged in double- breasted operations. He explained that the Re- spondent had given him conflicting information concerning the status of a contractor named Car- illo, that he had seen signs at jobsites reflecting contractor names which were similar to those who were formerly bound to an agreement with the Union, and that a nonunion subcontractor had some type of an association with a contractor who had been a signatory to an agreement with the Union. (The master and memorandum contracts re- quire subcontracting with unionized firms.) Laub also asserted that a contractor who the Respondent a All dates hereafter refer to 1983 274 NLRB No. 48 SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN did not identify as bound to the agreement was an employer trustee on the pension trust fund, in al- leged violation of the trust and collective-bargain- ing agreements. The master agreement, however, has no signatory requirement for trustees. The trust agreement is not in evidence. The judge specified five reasons that the mem- bership list was relevant to contract administration and enforcement purposes: (1) The Union needed the information to ascertain whether former signa- tories of the master agreement were still active and should be bound by the memorandum. (2) The Union needed to investigate the possibility of sub- contracting procedures in violation of the contract limitations. (3) The Union could use the informa- tion to investigate its suspicions about double- breasting. (4) The Union could ascertain whether certain contractors were qualified to serve as bene- fit fund trustees. (5) The information would assist the Union in identifying job opportunities for its hiring hall referral system. The judge also noted that the membership list was relevant to the formu- lation of future bargaining proposals. Consequently, the judge found that the General Counsel had dem- onstrated that the Union's request for the roster of names and addresses of all the Respondent's builder members was necessary and relevant for the Union's performance of its collective-bargaining representative duties. Accordingly, he concluded that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the request- ed information violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, under NLRB v. AGC of California, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 452 U.S. 915 (1981), and ordered the membership roster of all the builder members be furnished to the Union. Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act obligates an employer to provide a union requested information if there is a probability that such data is relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statu- tory duties as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967). Because the Union's 19 April 1983 letter requested "the names and address[es] of all members [of Respondent], includ- ing those members . . . not bound by the Master Labor Agreement negotiations," the Union had to demonstrate the reasonable and probable relevance of the requested information. NLRB v. Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. & Co., 696 F.2d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 114 LRRM 2567 (1983); NLRB v. AGC of California, supra at 770;4 San Diego 4 In joining with his colleagues, Member Hunter would necessarily overrule AGC of California, 242 NLRB 891 (1979), and Leonard B Hebert, Jr & Co, 259 NLRB 881 (1981), to the extent that they imply that information the Union sought in this case would be presumptively relevant 351 Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 867-868 (9th Cir. 1977). To satisfy its burden, a union "must offer more than mere `suspicion or surmise' for it to be entitled to the information." The "showing by the union must be more than a mere concoction of some general theory which explains how the in- formation would be useful to the union in deter- mining if the employer has committed some un- known contract violation." Otherwise, the union would have "unlimited access to any and all data which the employer had." San Diego Newspaper Guild, supra at 868. Accord: NLRB v. Temple- Eastex, 579 F.2d 932, 937-938 (5th Cir. 1978). The Union sought to justify its request by rely- ing on Business Representative Laub's testimony that, since 1976, the number of builder members bound by the master agreement dropped from 12 to 3 and that none of those formerly bound had signed the memorandum agreement; 5 that the Re- spondent had given Laub conflicting information about the membership status of one company named Carillo;6 and that two former signatories- Ernie Becker Jr. and Stan Jones-were using "non- union" subcontractors in violation of the subcon- tracting provisions of the master and memorandum agreement.7 Laub further testified that if he had a roster of all Association members he would be able to check names, addresses, telephone numbers, and business license numbers to determine if former sig- natories were circumventing the bargaining agree- ment by operating double-breasted companies or by using unlawful subcontracting practices. 5 The parties disagree whether a builder member has to actually sign the memorandum agreement to be bound by its terms after withdrawing its bargaining authorization from the Respondent The Respondent argues that a builder member does not have to sign because the master agree- ment states that a builder member "who has resigned from the Asso- ciation agrees to be fully bound by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum Agreement with the [Ulmon " From the Respond- ent's viewpoint, it would not matter if none of the nine builder members, formerly bound by the master agreement, had signed the memorandum agreement, because all would still be bound by it 8 Laub testified that 2 years earlier the Respondent mistakenly in- formed him that Carillo had signed the master agreement , but that 1 month later the Respondent informed him voluntarily that Carillo had in fact not signed the agreement While also testifying about "suspicions" concerning whether Wood Brothers had signed , Laub later admitted that the Respondent's 23 February 1983 letter listed Wood Brothers as one of three signatories to the then current master agreement 7 We find Laub's testimony about Ernie Becker Jr vague because Laub testified that Becker had "associations" with a person named Rich- ards or Richardson who was not signatory to the agreement , and that the agreement may have been violated "if Richardson was a subcontractor to Ernie Becker, Jr " Laub did testify that Stan Jones still performed contracting work, but without members of the Union While this testimony appears to demon- strate that Stan Jones was using nonbargaimng unit employees to perform bargaining unit work, Irene Porter, the Respondent's executive director, testified without contradiction that Stan Jones notified Laub before the 1982 contract negotiations began that he no longer employed any carpen- ters, and that he would resume a bargaining relationship with the Union if he employed carpenters in the future 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In our view, the Union has not shown that it is entitled to anything more than a roster of those builder members that were or had been bound to either a master or memorandum agreement with the Union. Such a roster would enable the Union to determine whether the nine builder members, formerly bound to the master agreement, currently adhere to the memorandum agreement, including the subcontracting provisions, or otherwise have satisfied, their bargaining obligation with the Union. We cannot agree with the judge that the Union is also entitled to a roster of those builder members that never were bound to a master or memoran- dum, agreement with the Union. We recognize that Business Representative Laub testified that, with a roster of all builder members, the Union "might associate" one signatory builder member with another nonsignatory member "through some rumor or through some document," and then demonstrate that both have "the same president, the same vice-president, the same record- ing secretary, right down the line." At best, Laub's testimony offers nothing more than "suspicion or surmise,"8 especially since there is no record evi- dence or even an allegation that any builder member engaged in alter ego or double-breasted operations, that the Respondent encouraged builder members to engage in alter ego or double-breasted operations, or even that any of the Respondent's builder members were not making the trust fund contributions required under the master or memo- randum agreement. Without such evidence, we cannot find that the Union has sustained its burden of demonstrating a probability that a roster of all the Respondent's builder members is relevant and will be of use in fulfilling its statutory duties.9 Ac- cordingly, we shall order the Respondent to fur- nish the Union with a roster showing the names and addresses only of those builder members that were or had been bound to either a master or memorandum agreement with the Union. 8 San Diego Newspaper Guild, supra at 868 e The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in NLRB v Lumber & Mill Em- ployers Assn., 736 F 2d 507 ( 1984), is distinguishable In that case, the court did require production of the full list of association members after the union noticed a substantial drop in the number of firms bound by the association agreement Unlike the instant case, that case involved a spe- cial situation where "[t]he [a]ssociation was the sole negotiator for member firms, and its members were bound to its agreements by virtue of its bylaws " Id at 508-509 Consequently, the union members became bound by the new association contract Here, however , the Respondent could bind a builder member to the master agreement only if that member specifically authorized the Respondent to bargain on its behalf Moreover, unlike here, there was evidence that some member employers might be operating nonunion shops at secondary locations in violation of the agreement ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Southern Nevada Home Builders Asso- ciation, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(a) Forthwith furnish Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO, with a roster showing the names and addresses of those builder members that are or have been bound to either a master or memorandum agreement with the Union and peri- odically supplement that roster in the manner spec- ified in the remedy section of this decision." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, by refusing to furnish information necessary and relevant for the Union's use in policing, administer- ing, and negotiating collective-bargaining agree- ments between us or our builder members and the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL forthwith furnish Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, with a roster con- taining the names and addresses of our builder members who are or have been bound to either a master or memorandum agreement with the Union. SOUTHERN NEVADA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN. 353 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM L. SCHIMDT, Administrative Law Judge. This matter was heard in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sep- tember 21, 1983 It is based on a charge filed by Carpen- ters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Union), against Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc. (Re- spondent or Association) on May 12 1 The Regional Di- rector for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a complaint and notice of hearing on behalf of the Board's General Counsel on June 28 alleging that the Association violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), since April 29 by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with a list specifying the names and addresses of the Association's employer-members. The Association filed a timely answer to the complaint dated July 8 (sub- sequently amended on September 9) denying that it en- gaged in the alleged unfair labor practice and alleging af- firmatively that: (1) the complaint failed to state a "cause of action upon which relief can be granted," and (2) the dispute should be deferred to arbitration under the Board's decision in Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971). On the basis of the entire record in this matter, my ob- servation of the witnesses as they testified at the hearing, and my careful consideration of the oral argument of the General Counsel and the posthearing briefs of the Asso- ciation and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION At relevant times, the Association has been an organi- zation composed of employers engaged in the building and construction industry. One of its purposes is to rep- resent its employer-members in negotiating and adminis- tering collective-bargaining agreements with labor orga- nizations, including the Union. Collectively, the Association's employer-members an- nually purchase and receive goods or services valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside Nevada, or from suppliers located in Nevada who received the goods subsequently obtained by the Association's em- ployer-members in substantially the same form directly from outside Nevada. The Association is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Evidence For a number of years the Association and the Union have maintained a collective-bargaining relationship. They have entered into several successive collective-bar- gaining agreements (master agreements), the most recent being effective by its terms from July 1, 1982, through June 30, 1984. By its own rules, and the terms of the col- lective-bargaining agreement, the Association represents and is authorized to bind its employer-members who have authorized it in writing to negotiate with the Union.2 It is undisputed that, insofar as the Association's rules are concerned, its members are at liberty to grant and withdraw an authorization to bargain at will. On some occasions, the Association has been diligent in noti- fying the Union when a member has executed or with- drawn a bargaining authorization. On other occasions, no notice has been provided to the Union for extended peri- ods. Although there is a difference of opinion about the formal procedure for continuing the binding obligation of an employer-member after it withdraws its authoriza- tion for bargaining from the Association, there is agree- ment that there is an obligation to adhere to the terms of the memorandum agreement attached to the master agreement . The memorandum agreement abrogates the no-strike, no-lockout, and grievance procedure provi- sions of the master agreement but otherwise obligates those to it to adhere to the master agreement, including the provision related to the fringe benefit trust funds. Since 1976, there has been a strong propensity by the area contractors to withdraw authorizations from the As- sociation to negotiate and enter into collective agree- ments with the Union. The Association claims that only three contractors are bound to the present agreement, whereas 10 were bound to the predecessor agreement and 12 were bound to the prior agreement. The Associa- tion feels that this tendency is product of the bad eco- nomic times in the area home building industry. There is no evidence that the Association promotes so-called open shop groups, the practice of double-breasted oper- ations, or other tactics which labor organization partisans regard as union busting . Instead, the Association's activi- ties, apart from collective bargaining, appear to be cen- tered around industry promotion programs, lobbying at the state and local level, and performing clearinghouse type activities with respect to local building work. On January 7, the Union's business representative Elmer Laub wrote to Irene Porter, the Association's ex- ecutive director, requesting the "most current list of the Companies who are signatory to our agreement through your Association " When no response was received by February 8, the Union's attorney sent a followup request. Porter finally responded by a letter dated February 22.3 The Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at the relevant times. i If the calendar year is not specified, it is 1983 2 The Association has several classes of members which include banks, savings and loan associations, suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors The Contracters are denoted builder members and this is the only group the Association represents in collective bargaining 9 The General Counsel does not allege this delay as being unlawful Porter attributed it to her attendance at conferences and the performance of her lobbying duties 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD She listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three contractors "who are signatory" to the agree- ment between the Association and the Union. After receiving the information in the February 22 letter, the Union's attorney wrote to the Association on April 19 asking for the names and addresses of all of the Association's members, "including those members whom you contend are not bound by the [Association-Union] negotiations."4 The Union's attorney stated that the in- formation was "necessary with respect to the obligation of the [Union] to fulfill its contractual commitments and determine whether there have been any violations of the [Association agreement]." According to the Laub, there were several circumstances which caused him to have suspicions especially about unlawful double-breasted op- erations which he intended to investigate. Laub ex- plained that he had received conflicting information from the Association concerning the status of a contractor named Carillo and that he had observed jobsite contrac- tor signs which reflected names which were similar to those who were formerly bound to an agreement with the Union. Laub said that several of those formerly bound had given no indication they were adhering to the memorandum agreement. Laub articulated other reasons: A. Well, Ernie Becker, Jr. was the president of the Home Builders Association, to the best of my knowledge. During the time that he was the presi- dent of the Home Builders Association he was sig- natory to the agreement. He had associations with a person named Rich- ards or Richardson who wasn't signatory to the agreement , who I believe it was a partnership or an association and maybe even a violation of the con- tract if Richardson was a subcontractor to Ernie Becker, Jr. And that raises my doubts. All the time that Ernie Becker, Jr. was the presi- dent of the Association he was bound to the agree- ment and now I understand he's not the president of the Association and he's not bound to the agree- ment. You have a fellow by the name of Stan Jones, who I understand is the president of the Association now, and prior to him being president of the Asso- ciation, he was signatory to the agreement. Now I understand he's not signatory to the agreement, but he's the president of the Association. Q. When you testified that you understand that they are not signatory to the agreement anymore, are these gentlemen, Mr. Becker and Mr. Jones, are they still doing contracting work in Las Vegas? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are they employing your members? A Stan Jones isn't. Q. Are either of these men paying into trust funds for your members? A. No, sir, but Ernie Becker, Jr., in violation of the trust fund documents and in violation of the i At the hearing, Union's counsel clarified this request to limit it to the Association's builder-members and not the banks or others which are not normally represented by the Association in collective bargaining contract that was negotiated, is sitting on the pen- sion trust, and that's a violation of the contract. Q Would you explain why you believe it's a vio- lation of the contract for Mr. Becker to sit on the trust funds? A. Because there is an article in the contract that says that you have to be a party to the agreement in order to sit on the trust fund. Q. So would that then mean that either he is a signatory and is obligated to the contract and there- fore can sit on the trust, or he is not a signatory as he says and he is violating the agreement by being on the trust? A. Yes, Sir. By letter dated April 29, the Respondent's attorney re- plied to the April 19 request saying that "[a]fter careful review, the Association asserts that it has met its legal obligation by furnishing the previously requested infor- mation to [the Union]." Porter refused a similar oral re- quest in 1982 on the ground that its membership list was "proprietary information." Porter asserted that the names and addresses of contractors, including the names of the principal owners and officers, could be obtained from publicly available building permit documents, contractor licensing agencies, and the Nevada Secretary of State's office. According to Porter, a large number of the con- tractors who had authorized the Association to bargain in past years has resigned their membership in the Asso- ciation altogether. The Association's membership lists do not indicate which of the individual contractors normally employ union members. B. Applicable Legal Principles The duty to bargain in good faith under Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act, obligates an employer to fur- nish its employees' bargaining representative with rele- vant information necessary for it to perform its duties as a bargaining representative. NLRB v. Acme Industries Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U S. 149 (1956). Information about wages and other re- lated matters is presumed to be relevant so that a labor organization normally is not required to demonstrate the precise relevance of such information in order to estab- lish its right to the information on request. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F 2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). If the request for information concerns matters other than those which are presumptively relevant to the bargaining process, then the relevance of the requested information must be demonstrated. Press Democrat Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1980); San Diego Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir 1977). The Ninth Circuit does not consider union requests for the names and addresses of the members of an employer association to be presumptively relevant. NLRB v. Associated Gener- al Contractors, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), 242 NLRB 891 (1979). However, even if the requested information is not presumptively relevant, a labor organization need not show that there has been an actual contract violation or that the information sought would fully resolve the ques- SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN tion as to whether there had been a contract violation. Instead, it only need be shown that the membership name and address information is "relevant to investiga- tions of contract violations, and that there is a reasonable basis for further investigation." Id. at 771. C The Contentions In his oral argument, the General Counsel asserted that the outcome here was controlled by the Board's de- cision in the Associated General Contractors case as, in his view, there were no significant differences in the two cases. In its brief, the Union argued that the two cases were "identical." In addition, both the General Counsel and the Union argue that the Respondent's affirmative defense seeking deferral under the Collyer doctrine should be rejected on the basis of United-Carr of Tennes- see, 202 NLRB 729 (1983), where the Board adopted, without comment, Judge Lipton's finding that- . . where the employer withholds requested in- formation which is potentially relevant in assisting a union intelligently to evaluate or process a griev- ance-unless the statutory right to such information is effectively waived in the contract-the Board's Collyer doctrine is not applicable to such an issue The Respondent argues at length that this case is fac- tually distinguishable from the Associated General Con- tractors case and that the evidence here was not sufficient to demonstrate that the name and address information sought was necessary and relevant to the Union's per- formance of its duties as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative. In effect, the Association argues that a ruling in the Union's favor would be tantamount to holding that the Association would be obligated to turn over its proprietary membership list "simply because the Union stated it wanted it." The Association observed that there was an apparent difference of opinion between the Board and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Asscociated General Contractors as to whether the name and address information similar to that sought here was presumptive- ly relevant and averred that "if necessary, the Associa- tion is willing to appeal [an adverse decision] to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." Finally, the Respond- ent renewed its argument in its brief that this entire matter should be deferred to the arbitration process under the Board's Collyer doctrine The Association's brief made no attempt to distinguish or explain the United-Carr decision. D. Conclusions Although it is true as the Association claims that this case is factually distinguishable from the Associated Gen- eral Contractors case, there is no indication that the out- come in cases of this nature turns on a showing that the employer-association was actively promoting defections from the ranks of union contractors as the Respondent's argument suggest. Clearly the relevance of the type of name and address information sought here can be dem- onstrated on the basis of a myriad of other fact patterns completely unrelated to the question of whether or not there is some scheme to promote open shops or double- 355 breasted operations. In my judgment, the circumstances show here through Laub's testimony is sufficient to dem- onstrate that the information sought by the Union in the April 19 letter of its counsel is necessary and relevant for it to perform its bargaining representative functions It is axiomatic that a bargaining representative is enti- tled to judge for itself whether to press potential claims before one or another of several available forums. Tor- rington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976). The name and address information sought here appears to have elementary significance for contract administration and enforcement purposes. Thus, according to Laub, none of the firms which bound to the last master agree- ment have signified that they are adhering to the memo- randum agreement . At the very least, the information sought by the Union would indicate the current location of those firms and whether or not they are sufficiently active in the industry to remain members of the local in- dustry association. In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume that contractors other than the one already un- covered by Laub may have altered their operations by means of the subcontracting device and the roster sought by the Union would likely provide significant informa- tion pertinent to whether or not there was compliance with the subcontracting provisions of the master agree- ment. Moreover, the information sought is very likely to be useful for confirming or allaying Laub 's suspicions that some of the Association's members are engaged in illicit double-breasted operations. The Association's dec- laration that a particular contractor is or is not currently bound to the master agreement would likewise be perti- nent to the administration of the trust fund if Laub's as- sertion about the qualifications for trustee positions is ac- curate. Finally Laub's testimony that there has been a large influx of carpenters into the area as a result of the rumors concerning the construction of an MX missile system places an added burden on the Union to secure employment opportunities for persons utilizing the hiring hall. The information sought here has obvious uses in that regard. Entirely apart from contract administration or enforce- ment purposes, the Board's decision in Associated General Contractors calls attention to the fact that name and ad- dress information can also be useful in formulating pro- posals for future collective-bargaining negotiations. Where, as here, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of contractors who have agreed to be bound to the master agreement and may no longer be adhering to the memorandum agreement, the Union may be desirous of formulating proposals other than the current mecha- nism to assure a more stable bargaining relationship and funding for the trust funds. Or, after assessing the Asso- ciation's membership roster and other informa'ion, the Union may very well desire to shift its emphasis away from negotiating its area pattern agreement with the As- sociation altogether in view of the apparent lack of alle- giance by the local contractors to that organization as their bargaining agency. Accordingly, without regard to whether or not the name and address information sought is or is not pre- sumptively relevant, I find that the General Counsel has 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demonstrated that it is necessary and relevant in this spe- cific circumstance in order for the Union to perform its duties as a collective-bargaining representative. It follows that the Association's refusal to furnish the information was unlawful. NLRB v. Associated General Contractors, supra. I further find on the basis of the Board's decision in United-Carr, supra, that it would be inappropriate to defer this dispute to the arbitration process. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practice set forth above, occurring in connection with operations of the Association's mem- bers, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead of labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Association has engaged in an unfair labor practice, it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. More specifically, it is reco- niended that the Association be ordered to furnish the Union with a roster containing the names and addresses ,of its builder members which has been found to be rele- vant and necessary for purposes of negotiating and ad- ministering agreements with the Association and its members, and that the Association periodically supple- ment that roster by notifying the Union of the additions and deletions to the roster with the same frequency the Association has followed in notifying the Union of the additions or deletions to the roster of its members who have executed or withdrawn authorizations for bargain- ing. Finally, it is recommended that the Association be ordered to post the notice attached hereto as the appen- dix and to furnish signed copies of notice for posting by the Union if it so desires. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all relevant times the Union has been the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the journey- men and apprentice carpenter employees employed by certain of the Respondent's builder-members in units which are appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing to furnish information requested by the Union which is necessary and relevant for purposes of collective bargaining in the above units, or the adminis- tration of collective-bargaining agreements applicable to said units, the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed5 ORDER The Respondent, Southern Nevada Home Builders As- sociation, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO by refusing to supply relevant information on request. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Forthwith furnish Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO with a roster showing the names and ad- dresses of its builder members and periodically supple- ment that roster in the manner specified in the remedy section of this decision. (b) Post at the Respondent's business offices and meet- ing halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to its members and others are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region 31 sufficient copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" for posting by Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, if willing, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to its member and others are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended 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 pur- poses 8 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board "