Tennessee Steel Processors

1132 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tennessee Steel Processors and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union. Case 10- CA-22367 29 January 1988 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 26 August 1987 Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Linton issued the attached decision, The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2 and conclusions as modified and to adopt the rec- ommended Order as modified. We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by fail- ' The Respondent has excepted to certain of the judge 's evidentiary rulings In particular , the Respondent contends that the judge improperly admitted testimony concerning a request for information by OCAW Local 3-981 in early 1986 We find no merit in this exception The judge admitted the testimony solely as background to assist him in evaluating the credibility of the Respondent 's assertion that it had not understood the OCAW's November 1986 request for information about the Respond- ent's subcontracting practices That asserted failure to understand the OCAW's request was a major part of the Respondent's defense, and any testimony about how similar previous requests had been treated, could have been useful to the judge in assessing that defense Accordingly, the judge properly overruled the Respondent's objection In any event , the disputed testimony actually shed no light on the Re- spondent's credibility, and was not relied on by the judge in his credibil- ity determinations Thus, even if the admission of the testimony was im- proper, it did not prejudice the Respondent Similarly , the evidence that was admitted over the Respondent's other objections was not relied on by the judge in his decision , and therefore could not have prejudiced the Respondent As a result, we need not pass on the merits of the Respond- ent's other evidentiary exceptions 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find- ings The- Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings The judge found that a 17 December 1985 settlement agreement be- tween the Respondent and the OCAW "presumably" focused on absen- teeism only, and not on subcontracting We do not rely on that finding because it was based entirely on the fact that a subsequent supplement to the earlier agreement was confined to issues concerning absenteeism It does not follow , from the mere fact that the supplement was limited in scope, that the subject matter of the December agreement was similarly limited We also do not rely on the judge's implicit finding in part 111,6,4, of his decision that attorney Gentry testified evasively and unpersuasively concerning the Respondent 's apparently inadvertent error in sending se- niority lists to OCAW headquarters in Denver rather than to OCAW representative Abel We find no basis for that characterization Gentry's testimony on that subject was consistent with that of Abel, and the judge did not otherwise disparage its accuracy It appears to us that the judge, in describing Gentry's testimony as evasive and unpersuasive "concerning these items" (of which the seniority list issue was but one of many), unin- tentionally tarred the testimony about the seniority lists with the same brush ing for some 6 months to provide information re- quested by the OCAW.3 The Union made its re- quest about 14 November 1986, yet the Respondent did not provide any of the requested information until late May or early June 1987.4 The Respond- ent's attorney, Eldred Gentry, testified that the Re- spondent had numerous questions about the mean- ing of the Union's request, and that he informed OCAW International Representative Larry Abel that the Respondent wished to meet and confer concerning the manner and method of complying with that request. However, Gentry never told Abel what questions the Respondent had or what parts of the Union's request it could not under- stand. Moreover, we find it significant that on 2 June 1987, 2 weeks after the Union, on 20 May, fi- nally demanded answers to its request, the Re- spondent provided answers to every question, not- withstanding its professed inability to fathom the meaning of those questions. We conclude that the reason the Respondent was able to answer the Union's questions only 2 weeks after the Union demanded answers (and without having the questions explained) is that, although the Respondent may have harbored doubts about the meaning of those questions, it had no doubt about the appropriate answers. Thus, 5 of the 11 questions concerned work that the Respondent might have subcontracted; the answer, in each case: the Respondent had not subcontracted any such work.5 Another request was for detailed job descriptions for certain job classifications; the answer: the Respondent does not maintain such de- scriptions. Still another question concerned steel coils placed in demurrage with a railroad; the answer: there were none.6 Two other questions were answered, at least in part, by reference to rel- evant provisions in the collective-bargaining agree- ment. It is apparent, as the judge found, that the Respondent could easily have answered the great majority of the Union's questions within a short time after those questions had been received.7 Ac- 9 The parties stipulated that the information requested was presump- tively necessary for and relevant to the OCAW's performance of its func- tion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain of the Respondent 's employees 4 Gentry sent Abel a letter, dated 28 May, that contained some of the information sought by the Union, Abel received the letter around 31 May or 1 June The Respondent provided answers to each of the Union's questions at a meeting on 2 June 5 At the hearing, in fact, Gentry testified categorically that "We gave them our answer- we don 't subcontract We don't " Again, Gentry testified "nobody places anything in [demurrage] For the same reason , the Respondent's requests to meet and confer over the manner and method of complying with the Union's request were plainly disingenuous Although some requests for information may call for the production of data in a form that would prove time-consuming and costly , and thus may be legitimate subjects for negotiations over less Continued 287 NLRB No. 109 TENNESSEE STEEL PROCESSORS 1133 cordingly, we conclude, as did the judge, that the Respondent's protracted failure to provide answers to the Union's request for information was an act of bad faith, the purpose of which was to frustrate the bargaining process, and therefore was unlawful. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Tennessee Steel Processors, Knoxville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(a) On request by the OCAW, furnish the Union information which it requests and which is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's perform- ance of its functions as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of the employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees employed by Tennessee Steel Processors within Knox County, Tennessee, excluding all engineering department employees, office cler- ical employees, over-the-road truck drivers, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. onerous methods of compliance , see, e g , Soule Glass & Glazing Co v NLRB, 652 F 2d 1055, 1097-1099 (1st Cir 1981), the Respondent was not presented with any such request it is difficult to imagine what alternative "manner" or "method " of compliance the Respondent had in mind, given that all or parts of 9 of the Union 's I l questions could have been (and, in substance , were) answered either "None" or "Read the contract " Without deciding whether the judge aptly characterized the Union's agreeing in 1987 to meet with the Respondent as "acquiescence" in the Respondent's delay, we agree with him that the Union's actions do not affect the result As we have observed, the Respondent could, and should, have answered the Union's request even before Gentry began to negotiate with Abel about meeting dates Inner City Broadcasting Corp, 270 NLRB 1230, 1232 (1984) That it did not do so means, as the judge found , that the violation occurred in late 1986, before the subject of meetings ever came up 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 furnish to the OCAW information which it lawfully requests. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE HAVE furnished to the OCAW the informa- tion we have which the Union requested on 14 No- vember 1986. WE WILL, on request by the OCAW, furnish the Union information which it requests and which is necessary for, and relevant to, the performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit' All production and maintenance employees employed by Tennessee Steel Processors within Knox County, Tennessee, excluding all engineering department employees, office cler- ical employees, over-the-road truck drivers, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. TENNESSEE STEEL PROCESSORS Milton D Jones, Esq, for the General Counsel Eldred A. Gentry, Esq. (Gentry & Gentry), Cleveland, Ohio, for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J. LINTON, Administrative Law Judge This is a refusal-to-bargain case-refusal by Respondent, Ten- nessee Steel Processors, to furnish information requested by the OCAW Union on 14 November 1986. Respondent furnished what information it had, but not until 2 June 1987 Because I find Respondent acted in bad faith when it delayed in furnishing the information requested by the OCAW, I find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged I order Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in such unlawful conduct in the future. This case was tried before me in Knoxville, Tennessee, on 4 June 1987' pursuant to the 21 April 1987 complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Re- lations Board through the Regional Director for Region 10 of the Board The complaint is based on a charge filed 5 March 1987 by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW, International, or Union) against Tennessee Steel Processors (Respondent or TSP).2 By its answer Respondent admits certain factual mat- ters but denies violating the Act On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of 1 This manner of setting forth dates complies with the wishes of the Board 2 All dates are for 1987 unless otherwise indicated 1134 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respond- ent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION A Tennessee corporation with a place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee (the facility involved here), TSP processes steel.3 During the past 12 months at its Knox- ville plant, Respondent purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 direct from suppliers located outside Tennessee. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act iI. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that the OCAW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Following an organizing campaign conducted by the OCAW (1:52),4 a majority of Respondent's employees, in a Board-conducted election held 15 February 1985, se- lected the Union as their collective-bargaining represent- ative for the employees in the following unit:5 All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Tennessee Steel Processors within Knox County, Tennessee, excluding all engineering de- partment employees, office clerical employees, over-the-road truck drivers, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act consi- tute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act On 28 May 1985 the Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Respondent admits that at all times since 28 May 1985 the Union has been the exclu- sive bargaining representative of the employees in such unit. Respondent and the Union have been parties to a col- lective-bargaining agreement (CBA) effective by its terms from 7 October 1985 until midnight on 6 October 1989 (G.C. Exh. 2). After the hearing the parties stipulated that about 14 November 1986 Respondent received a letter or letters from the Union requesting the following information (1:6, 12): a. A total and complete list of slitter-related work which has been subcontracted from October 7, 1985 to present; 3 A copy of various documents in evidence conclude Respondent's name with "Co " and that is the way Respondent listed its name on the appearance sheet filed at the opening of this hearing * References to the short one-volume transcript of testimony are by volume and page 5 The seniority list of 26 May 1987 contains 31 names (R Exh 6d). b All work being subcontracted to the PDQ Corporation; c. Respondent's attendance and sick leave policy; d. All work being subcontracted to United Steel Service, e. An up-to-date seniority list, f A detailed job description for the classifications of maintenance workers, slitter machine operator, CTL machine operator, checker, crane operator, CTL/slitter helper, bander, hooker and janitor/- service center worker; g. All facilities and destinations of steel coils placed in demurrage by Southern Railway known by Respondent; h. All subcontracts between Respondent and Briggs Steel; I. Respondent's policy on acceptance of doctor's excuses from work; j. List of overtime hours paid to employees; k. Any subcontracts between Respondent and Empire Steel. The parties also stipulated that the information re- quested by the Union is "presumptively necessary and relevant" to the Union's performance of its function as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit em- ployees (1:79). B. Evidence 1. November 1986 to May 1987 Three witnesses testified before me. Larry G. Abel, an International representative of the OCAW, testified as a witness for the General Counsel. Respondent called its attorney, Eldred A. Gentry.° In rebuttal the General Counsel called Abel plus John Williams. Williams is the district director of the Union's district three (1:72). The next contact between the Union and Respondent following the Union's mid-November 1986 request for in- formation was not until early January when Abel and Gentry acknowledged receipt of the Union's request and stated that he wanted to meet and confer with Abel on the matter because he had questions over the manner and method of complying (1:28, 33, 37, 40. Gentry). Abel did not ask what questions Gentry had, and Gentry did not say because, as Gentry testified, he and Abel do not work that way (1.33). In the past Abel at various times has requested data by telephone and Gentry understood and complied with the requests because Abel made him- self clear. This time, however, Gentry had questions (1:32-33, Gentry). Abel's home is in Johnson City, Tennessee (1:13), and Gentry's office is in Cleveland, Ohio (R. Exh. 11). Cleveland is the headquarters of Respondent's parent company, Mor-Flo Industries Inc. (1:35-36). As an atlas reflects, Johnson City is in the northeastern end of Ten- nessee, about 104 miles from Knoxville. 6 The parties stipulated that Gentry would testify as set forth in his letters to Abel and to NLRB Region 10 (i 25-26) Gentry then mounted the witness stand and testified on cross-examination , redirect, and recross The letters are discussed below TENNESSEE STEEL PROCESSORS 1135 In their January telephone conversation, Abel and Gentry discussed dates that they could meet to discuss the matter (1 37) The testimony is only sketchy on the point, and apparently the two were unable to fix a date to meet. Nothing happened thereafter until the Union filed the instant charge on 5 March Thus, between the Union's mid-November request and the filing of the charge, the only discussion between Abel and Gentry was their early January telephone conversation (1 60-61) Although' the January telephone conversation was their only discussion, however slight, about the request before March, it was not their only contact Abel repre- sents two of Gentry's other clients, and Gentry and Abel are in contact on matters other than TSP (1 27) On two occasions during the first quarter of 1987, Abel and Gentry met in connection with matters involving firms other than TSP. On both these occasions the only con- versation they had concerning the OCAW's request for information from TSP was to discuss possible meeting dates (1 42-44) In March, after the Union filed its charge, Abel and Gentry had a second discussion. This one also, apparent- ly, was by telephone During the course of the conversa- tion Abel asked about the requested information. Gentry replied that they could confer on the matter the follow- ing month, April, when the two were to meet at an arbi- tration hearing scheduled for 13 April (1 15). Although saying the request was clear and that the Union wanted the information, Abel, I find, nevertheless agreed to meet with Gentry on the matter in April (1.15) Abel testified that in a telephone conversation on 7 April Gentry "stated that we would discuss the-turn over the information at the arbitration hearing on April the 13th " (1.16) I do not credit Abel to the extent he claims Gentry said Respondent would furnish the re- quested data on 13 April Abel testified in a disjointed fashion and frequently in vague generalities. As we shall see in a moment, Gentry's April correspondence clearly shows he wanted to confer over the manner and method of complying. The arbitration meeting apparently was rescheduled to 20 April Abel testified that Gentry was ill and that the parties did not discuss the Union's request at the arbitra- tion meeting (1:15-16). It is unclear whether the arbitra- tion was postponed a week because Gentry was ill, or whether the parties did not discuss the data request at the arbitration meeting because Gentry felt ill. The first correspondence of record is Gentry's 13 April letter to Attorney Jones of NLRB Region 10 con- cerning the charge in this case In the first paragraph Gentry advises Jones (R Exh 1) This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with you on April 13, 1987 concerning this matter, in which I brought you up to date following our telephone conversation on April 1, 1987 I had tele- phone conversations with Mr. Abel concerning this matter on April 7, 1987 and April 13, 1987 The ar- bitration, at which Mr Abel and I are to appear and which we discussed in my letter of April 1, 1987 to you, has been rescheduled for April 20, 1987 As I told you, Mr Abel and I will attempt to meet on that date, following the arbitration, since Mr Abel could not meet on April 13, 1987 At the present, I am scheduled to fly out of Johnson City, Tenn immediately following the arbitration, but I have asked Mr Abel to hold April 21, 1987 open because I am trying to change my schedule If we cannot meet, we will arrange a meeting in the near future The day after the arbitration meeting Gentry sent Abel the following letter of 21 April (R Exh 2) (emphasis added)- Dear Mr Abel This letter will act as a follow-up to my letter of April 13, 1987 to Field Attorney Milton D Jones concerning our attempts to meet and confer over the manner and method of complying with the Union's re- quests for information, which are the subject matter of this case and over which the charge in this case was filed by another person I am sorry that we did not have time to discuss a meeting date during the arbitration hearing, at which we appeared for other parties on April 20, 1987 I will be available on April 28, 29, or 30, 1987 and will be pleased to dis- cuss any other dates with you Please get in touch with me at your earliest convenience so that we can set up this meeting Very truly yours, /s/ Eldred A Gentry Eldred A Gentry Out of town when Gentry's letter arrived, Abel did not return and learn of the 21 April letter until early May. By that time another letter from Gentry, dated 1 May, had arrived (1.17) Gentry's 1 May letter reads (R Exh 3) (emphasis added) Dear Mr Abel This letter will act as a follow-up to my letter of April 21, 1987 to you I am sorry that you did not communicate with me concerning that letter in which I offered to meet with you on April 28, 29, or 30, 1987 and to discuss any other dates with you, if those dates were not convenient for you The Company wants to meet and confer with you as International Representative over the manner and method of complying with the International Union's request for information As of May 1, 1987, Field Attorney Milton Jones is sending us a copy of the data on which the ULP Complaint is based, because we learned from him that, contrary to the Com- plaint, more than one letter is involved. Without this information on what documents are included in the Complaint, we have no knowledge of what items form the basis of the Complaint's allegeations of failure to supply information. The Company says again it is not refusing to supply information 1136 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Please get in touch with me at your ealiest con- venience so that we can arrange to meet. Will you be able to meet on May 7 and 8, 1987? We can ar- range another meeting date also Very truly yours, Gentry & Gentry Co., L.P.A. /s/ Eldred A. Gentry Eldred A. Gentry When Abel arrived home and read the two letters he called Gentry and they agreed to meet on 20 May (1.17- 18). The next letter, also from Gentry to Abel, is dated 11 May and reads (R. Exh. 4) (emphasis added)- Dear Mr Abel- This letter will confirm our telephone conversa- tion of May 8, 1987 in which we agreed to meet and confer with you as International Representative over the manner and method of complying with the International Union's request for information As [sic] I will have a Company representative with me and you will have two members of the bargaining unit with you. Please notify the Company as soon as possible of the names of the employees, who will attend with you, so that the Company can arrange work in their absence I suggest 10:00 a.m. as the time of the meeting and I will notify you of the place as soon as arrangement are made. Please call me, if you have any comments or sug- gestions. Very truly yours, Gentry & Gentry Co, L P.A /s/ Eldred A. Gentry Eldred A Gentry 2 The meeting of 20 May 1987 Abel testified that four or five of the items requested related to the discharge of Greg Rudd.7 The 20 May meeting held in Knoxville, Tennessee, was devoted to a discussion of Greg Rudd's termination and the requested items relating to him (121, 45) Although Gentry said Respondent wanted clarification about the requested items, and Abel replied that the request was clear enough to speak for itself, the parties, at this meeting, never reached the point of going down the list item by item (1:18, 45) Respondent furnished no documents at the 20 May meeting (1 18, 54) The seniority list, however, was discussed. Gentry said TSP had been sending seniority lists every 3 months to OCAW headquarters in Denver, Colorado (1.19, 20-21, 39-40). Gentry said he would notify TSP to send it direct to Abel's Johnson City, Tennessee address (1:39- 40). Gentry promised to send a seniority list to Abel. Gentry did so by letter dated 28 May (1:18-20, 40; R. Exh. 6d). Abel said the Union wanted answers to its re- 7 Although the charge alleges that Greg Rudd was discriminated against on 10 December 1986 in some unspecified way, the allegation is not included in the complaint Apparently NLRB Region 10 deferred de- cision on Rudd to the grievance -arbitration procedures ( 1 22) Rudd was reinstated a week or two after his termination ( 144, Gentry) quest (1.45) Respondent and the Union met again on 2 June. 3 The meeting of 2 June 1987 Following the 20 May meeting , Gentry testified, Re- spondent began preparing answers as Abel had requested on 20 May (1:45). When the parties assembled on 2 June Gentry tendered to Abel a letter, dated 2 June, from Re- spondent , by John D. Mulford Jr, addressed to Abel (1:19-20) Mulford is Respondent's general manager Al- though the record does not list all the attendees , Gentry and Mulford apparently were present for TSP, with the Union represented by at least Abel and John Williams, district director for the OCAW's District Three Roger Frazier, chief steward for the Union (1:18, 63-64), also attended with the Union (1.42). Gentry testified that Abel opened the meeting by saying he presumed TSP had some information for the Union . Gentry replied that Respondent had prepared an- swers for the Union but TSP wanted to meet and confer with the Union over the manner and method of comply- ing with the Union's request . Williams, Gentry testified, said "We're not interested in meeting ; we want answers " So Gentry tendered the 2 June letter that Mulford had prepared (1.45-46, 49-50). Abel testified that either he or Williams did ' say the Union was there for the information, but asserts that Gentry said nothing about wanting to meet and confer (1.73). I credit Gentry. I note that her version is consistent with the entire pattern of his conduct. Williams testified that after looking over Mulford's an- swers in the 2 June letter he and Abel felt the answers were incomplete and that the instant case (already set for hearing) would have to be litigated in order for the Union to get complete answers (1:73). Abel agrees and testified he told Gentry and Mulford the Union had information TSP was subcontracting. So far as the record reflects, the meeting apparently con- cluded shortly after the exchange about subcontracting. In Abel's opinion , expressed at the hearing, Respondent's answers of 2 June could have been furnished in Novem- ber 1986 (1 58). Mulford's letter of 2 June to Abel reads as follows (R Exh. 6a)• Dear Mr Abel This letter is in answer to the Union's request for information contained in Paragraph Ila.-k of the Complaint herein. 1la. The Company has not subcontracted any work of the type listed in this subparagraph of the Complaint. llb. The Company has not subcontracted any work of the type listed in this subparagraph of the Complaint. llc. The Company's attendance and sick leave policies are contained in Articles 10 and 5 of the 1985-89 Labor Agreement, respectively, and in the settlement agreement between the Union and the Company which was read into the record by Union TENNESSEE STEEL PROCESSORS 1137 , Attorney DeHaven in Case Nos 10-CA-20727, 10- CA-21085, and 10-CA-21243. lld. The Company has not subcontracted any work of the type listed in this subparagraph of the Complaint. I le. A copy of Mr Gentry's letter of explanation and transmittal of May 28, 1987 to Mr. Abel with an attached seniority list is attached llf The Company does not maintain detailed or written job descriptions of bargaining unit jobs, nor does the 1985-89 Labor Agreement require them. A copy of Article 5, Article 10 and a copy of a copy of that settlement agreement are enclosed 11g. The Company has not placed any steel coils in demurrage with Southern Railway at any other facility or destination llh. The Company has not subcontracted any work of the type listed in this subparagraph of the Complaint lli. The Company's policy on acceptance of doc- tor's excuses is contained in Article 10 of the 1985- 89 Labor Agreement. A copy is enclosed of the Company's bulletin board notice of April 28, 1986 that clarifies the procedure to be followed under the policy set forth in Article 10 Enclosed are all doc- tor's slips turned,in by employees to the Company from February, 1986 through May 4, 1987, a total of some 219 slips I I j. The Company has attached lists of overtime hours worked by bargaining unit employees for the 1985-86 vacation year and for the 1986-87 vacation year through the week ending May 24, 1987 Ilk. The Company has not subcontracted any work of the type listed in this subparagraph of the Complaint. The Company is pleased that you were able to find time to meet with the Company and Union committees on June 2, 1987 and confer over these requests I am looking forward to seeing you then Very truly yours, /s/ John D. Mulford, Jr. John D. Mulford, Jr. The following day Mulford sent Abel a letter, dated 3 June, amending paragraphs l lc and 1 if. The correction simply moved the last sentence shown in 1lf to become the last sentence of 1Ic On the morning of the hearing Respondent furnished the Union some additional information about five em- ployees concerning doctor's excuses and absenteeism (R. Exh. 7, 1:10-11). 4. The question of Respondent's good faith Did Respondent (Gentry) act in good faith') Gentry testified there was no contact in November and Decem- ber 1986 because of other business and the Christmas- New year holidays (127-28). In his contacts thereafter with Abel, Gentry told Abel he had questions about the Union's request and wanted to meet and confer over the manner and method of complying. Was Gentry dragging his feet simply to delay complying with the Union's re- quest? What questions did TSP have about the request? There is no dispute that before the hearing Gentry at no time expressed or described Respondent's questions to the Union Of course, Gentry contends he was never given the opportunity to do so in a meeting with the Union. On cross-examination Gentry described Respondent's questions as follows (1.34-42) On subcontracting (items a, b, d, h, and k) Gentry testified, unpersuasively, that he did not know what the Union meant by subcontracting and that Respondent wanted to meet with, the Union to ascertain what the Union meant by the term Gentry tes- tified that Chief Steward Fraizer, at the meeting of 2 June, displayed a shipping tag from a steel service center, Potomac Steel Company of Warren, Michigan, but the tag had no reference to TSP. Gentry, and per- haps Mulford, said TSP did not know the relevance of the shipping tag No evidence was adduced at the hear- ing to show any relationship between Respondent's oper- ation and that of Potomac Steel Also on item (a) Respondent wanted to ascertain what the Union meant by "slitter-related," plus Respondent wanted to ask why the request went back into a time- frame covered by a 28 January 1986 settlement agree- ment of another charge the Union had filed with NLRB Region 10 (1 34). However, that settlement agreement, on its face, pertains only to warnings issued for absentee- ism (R. Exh. 6c). Although the document asserts that it "supplements - the agreement announced on December 17," presumably the 17 December agreement also fo- cused on absenteeism only. Thus, it had nothing to do with subcontracting of slitter-related work However, Gentry apparently planned to argue that anything pre- dating the settlement agreement was barred by the settle- ment whether previously raised or not. Moreover, Respondent wanted to ascertain whether the Union wanted TSP to dig up every invoice the Com- pany had issued since 7 October 1985 (1.37). Gentry testified TSP was mystified by item (c), the at- tendance and sick leave policy, because the policy is set forth in article 10 of the CBA. Thinking that the Union perhaps had something else in mind, TSP wanted to meet and find out why the Union would ask for some- thing that is spelled out in the CBA (1:38). As for the seniority list, it appears that Respondent had submitted copies by sending them to the OCAW's Denver headquarters rather than, as Abel wanted, to Abel in Johnson City. Respondent corrected that after the parties finally met on 20 May. Gentry testified that Respondent does not maintain de- tailed job descriptions At the hearing he did not de- scribe what question, if any, TSP had concerning item (f). Mulford's letter gives the same answer, adding also that no written job descriptions are maintained and that the CBA does not require such Gentry testified that Respondent could not understand item (g) because no company puts products in demurrage (1.41) Of course, Respondent could have easily given that answer, or Mulford's June answer, in November or December 1986. As for item (i), Gentry explains that Respondent's policy on doctor's excuses is also set forth in article 10 of 1138 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the CBA (1.41). Gentry does not describe what question Respondent had with item (i). Mulford's 2 June answer gives no evidence of any underlying question, although he does attach a 28 April 1986 notice TSP posted on its bulletin board to clarify the policy. The 219 doctors' slips Mulford also furnished on 2 June apparently were included as a result of the 20 May meeting. Gentry never reached item (j), overtime hours, in his testimony. I note that item (j) does not specify any time- frame. Mulford's 2 June response submitted overtime data from June 1985 (predating the CBA) to 24 May 1987 (R Exh. 6f, g). Before me Gentry testified evasively and unpersuasive- ly concerning these items, particularly as to the subcon- tracting." For example, he offered no reason why Re- spondent needed the Union to define subcontracting Gentry did not describe why Respondent's business, or a portion of it, might be interpreted by one person as sub- contracting yet not so by another. Nor did Gentry testify that Respondent had questions about the firms named, PDQ Corporation, United Steel Service, Briggs Steel, and Empire Steel. As TSP does no subcontracting at all, Respondent could have given, in November or Decem- ber 1986, the answer Mulford gave on 2 June 1987 Although Gentry and Abel have worked successfully on an informal basis (frequently by telephone) on a number of other matters, the Union in this instance went the formal route of making its request by letter. Gentry's demeanor was unfavorable, and I disbelieve him Con- cerning his testimony that he had questions, I disbelieve him. I find that his entire course of conduct was de- signed to delay and stall in order to frustrate the collec- tive-bargaining process. In finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by put- ting off for over 6 months that which it could have sup- plied in 2 weeks, I am reminded that the saying "Justice delayed is justice denied" springs from that first great charter of the western world, the Magna Carta. By the river Thames near Windsor Castle on the "meadow of Runnymede" in the year 1215,9 when faced with a list of demands by the English barons, King John promised in paragraph 40 10 To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or ,justice. C. Analysis and Conclusions Case citations concerning relevance of the requested data are unnecessary, for the parties stipulated the re- quested items are "presumptively necessary and rele- vant." I have found that Respondent sought in bad faith to delay furnishing the requested items. It is immaterial that the Union acquiesced to some of the delay in 1987 by agreeing to meet with TSP. The point is that Respondent could have submitted all but one of its answers immedi- ately. As for item (j), the list of overtime hours, Re- spondent could have asked for a timeframe. It did not, I find, because it wanted to delay and frustrate the bar- gaining process I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged. The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish the re- quested information since "on or about November 14, 1986 " The allegation is not defective because it does not grant Respondent until, say, mid-December 1986 to have submitted an itemized answer to the Union's request. Had Respondent been acting in good faith the law would grant a reasonable response time. Because Respondent was acting in bad faith from the beginning, the violation dates from the beginning. The General Counsel has not submitted a proposed order. As Respondent has supplied the data it has, there appears to be nothing more for Respondent to be or- dered to furnish. i i Because Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to furnish the requested data, however, I shall issue a cease-and-desist order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Tennessee Steel Processors (TSP) is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The OCAW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following employees of TSP constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Tennessee Steel Processors within Knox County, Tennessee, excluding all engineering de- partment employees, office clerical employees, over-the-road truck drivers, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 4. At all times since 28 May 1985 the OCAW has been, and is, the exclusive representative of all the em- ployees in the unit described above for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 5 Respondent TSP violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing, from 14 November 1986 to 2 June 1987, to furnish the OCAW with relevant in- formation the Union requested on 14 November 1986. 6 The unfair labor practices found affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 8 In chapter 19 of the Instructions of Amenemope, the Egyptian sage offered the following advice for witnesses some 3000 years ago Do not vacillate in your answers Lichtheim, 2 Anicent Egyptian Literature 146, 158 (1976) 9 Howard, Magna Carta Celebrates Its 750th Year, 51 ABA Journal 529 (1965) 1s Id at 530, 10 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, 1032, 1034 (15th ed 1982), Griffin v Illinois, 351 U S 12, 16 (1956) I I There is no allegation that Respondent has unlawfully withheld in- formation, or that any of its answers, such as on subcontracting, were false and made in bad faith At one point Abel did testify that he had evidence Respondent was subcontracting to the firms named in the Union's request letter of 14 November 1986, but Respondent objected, the matter was not litigated, and the evidence came in response to ques- tions I asked in an effort to clarify the issues and to assist me in resolving credibility (1 41, 55-56, 65-67) TENNESSEE STEEL PROCESSORS 1139 THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed12 ORDER The Respondent, Tennessee Steel Processors, Knox- ville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to furnish to the OCAW infor- mation that the Union has requested and that is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its func- tion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request by the OCAW, furnish the Union infor- mation that it requests and that is necessary for, and rele- vant to, the Union's performance of its functions as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the following appropriate unit. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Tennessee Steel Processors within Knox County, Tennessee, excluding all engineering de- partment employees, office clerical employees, over-the-road truck drivers, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act (b) Post at its Knoxville, Tennessee plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply 12 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. 11 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 Nation- al 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 "