Ideal Corrugated Box Corp. Of West Virginia

IDEAL CORRUGATED BOX CORP Ideal Corrugated Box Corporation of West Virginia and United Paperworkers International Union Local 124, AFL-CIO Case 9-CA-25049 September 30 1988 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On an unfair labor practice charge filed January 26 1988 by United Paperworkers International Union Local 124 AFL-CIO the Union the Re gional Director for Region 9 issued a complaint March 8 1988 against Ideal Corrugated Box Cor poration of West Virginia the Respondent alleging that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were served on the Respondent and the Charging Party The Respond ent filed a timely answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices On April 26 1988 on the basis of an all party stipulation the General Counsel filed with the Board a motion to transfer the instant proceeding to the Board without a hearing before an adminis trative law judge and submitted a proposed record consisting of the formal papers and the parties stip ulation of facts with attached exhibits On June 23 1988 the Deputy Executive Secretary of the Board by direction of the Board issued an Order granting the motion approving the stipulation and transferring the proceeding to the Board Thereaf ter the Respondent filed a brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the stipulation the brief and the entire record in this proceeding and makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Respondent a corporation is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of corrugated shipping containers at its facility in Par kersburg West Virginia where it annually pur chases and receives products goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly from points outside West Virginia We find that the Respond ent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 247 The issue is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing since November 27 1987 to furnish the Union requested information that is necessary for and relevant to the Union s role as the exclusive collective bargain ing representative of the unit employees We find that the Respondent violated the Act A The Stipulated Facts The Union is designated the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Respondents em ployees in the following appropriate unit All production and maintenance employees employed by [Respondent] at its Parkersburg West Virginia facility excluding all time keep ers clerks office clerical employees foremen other salaried employees guards and supervi sors as defined in the Act Such recognition has been embodied in succes sive collective bargaining agreements including an agreement that is effective by its terms from Sep tember 29 1986 to May 31 1989 On November 9 1987, the Respondent posted a notice to all employees announcing that it was changing its hospitalization insurance carrier A notice dated January 1988, attached to the stipula tion as Exhibit B stated that employees hospital ization coverage would remain the same, but that certain surgical operations and hospital confine ments would require a second opinion to be paid for by the carrier The January notice also stated that the Respondents method of payment had changed which might result in a paperwork change for employees On November 27 1987 the Union in writing requested the Respondent to furnish the Union with the following information I A complete copy of the previous medical and accident hospitalization insurance policy in effect prior to December 1 1987 including all amendments thereto 2 A complete copy of the new medical and accident hospitalization insurance policy which went into effect on or about December 1 1987 including all amendments thereto 3 All claims experienced under the previous medical and accident hospitalization insurance policy for the past 2 years 4 The percentage and dollar amount of pre mium increases in the previous medical and ac cident hospitalization insurance policy over the past 2 years and the effective date of such in creases 291 NLRB No 39 248 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5 The premium cost for the previous medl cal and accident hospitalization insurance policy in effect prior to December 1 1987 6 The premium cost for the new medical and accident hospitalization insurance policy which took effect on or about December 1 1987 7 A list of all changes in coverage if any under the new medical and accident hospital' zation insurance policy vs the coverage con tamed in the previous policy 8 The name and address of the agent han dlmg the new medical and accident hospital' zation insurance policy which went into effect December 1 1987 9 Information as to whether the Employer contacted the new insurance carrier to discuss the possibility of developing new insurance coverage or whether the carrier contacted the Employer Since November 27 1987 the Respondent has refused to furnish the Union with the requested in formation B The Parties Contentions The parties stipulation contains the following statement of the parties contentions The Union contrary to Respondent asserts the information requested is necessary for and relevant to the Union s performance of its function as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the Unit In this regard the Union further asserts that there have been some minor changes in the hospitalization in surance policy including the requirement of a second surgical opinion when surgery is re quired Therefore the requested information is necessary to determine whether there are any changes in actual coverage which would serve as the basis for filing a grievance Respondent contrary to the Union asserts that it has no legal obligation to furnish the information during the mid term of the parties collective bargaining agreement Moreover Respondent asserts there has been no actual change in the hospitalization insurance policy In its brief the Respondent contends that chang ing insurance carriers from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Parkersburg to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Charleston does not violate the Act because its col lective bargaining agreement with the Union does not specify that hospitalization insurance benefits must be provided under any particular insurance carrier The Respondent further contends that no employees have been denied their contractual bene fits as a result of the change in insurance carriers The Respondent also asserts that the Union s re quest for insurance information is premature be cause the parties are not currently engaged in con tract negotiations C Analysis The complaint alleges that the Respondent vio lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide the Union with the information request ed on November 27 1987 Although the Respond ent admits that it has refused to provide the re quested information since November 27 1987 the Respondent denies that the information is relevant to and necessary for the Union s performance of its function as exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees It is however well established that information concerning wages hours and other terms and conditions of employment such as hospitalization insurance for employees actually represented is presumptively relevant for purposes of collective bargaining i The Respondent has not attempted to rebut the presumed relevance of the information The Respondents arguments that it need not provide the information during the term of the col lective bargaining agreement and that the Union s request is premature because the parties are not en gaged in contract negotiations are without merit 2 The Supreme Court held in NLRB v Acme Indus trial Co 385 U S 432 436 (1967) that an employ er s duty to furnish information extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and applies to labor management relations during the term of an agreement The Respondent also relies on Bay Shipbuilding Corp 251 NLRB 809 (1980) in which the Board deferred to an arbitrators determination that the employers change of insurance carriers was per mitted by the collective bargaining agreement Bay Shipbuilding is inapposite because the only issue in this case is whether the Respondent refused to pro vide the Union requested information that is neces sary for and relevant to its function as the unit em ployees exclusive bargaining representative the complaint does not allege an unlawful unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment See Coalte Inc 278 NLRB 293 300 (1986) Masonic Hall 261 NLRB 436 437 (1982) 2 In support of its arguments the Respondent relies on NLRB v Good year Aerospace Corp 497 F 2d 747 (6th Or 1974) however that reliance is misplaced The employer in Goodyear was not required to provide the union with requested financial information when the parties were not en gaged in contract negotiations Unlike the information requested in the instant case corporate financial information is not presumptively relevant for purposes of collective bargaining IDEAL CORRUGATED BOX CORP Further the stipulation states that the Union re quested the information in order to determine whether the Respondents action warranted filing a grievance An employer violates the Act by refus ing to furnish the union requested information rele vant to and necessary for grievance processing 3 In light of the above we find that the Respond ent s refusal since November 27 1987 to furnish the Union the information it requested constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Sec tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act CONCLUSION OF LAW By refusing since November 27 1987 to provide the Union the requested information necessary for and relevant to its function as the exclusive collec tive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act we shall order it to cease and desist and to provide the Union on re quest with the necessary and relevant information it requested ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent Ideal Corrugated Box Corporation of West Virginia Parkersburg West Virginia its officers agents successors, and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to provide United Paperworkers International Union Local 124 AFL-CIO with in formation necessary for and relevant to its per formance as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit (b) In any like or related manner interfering with restraining or coercing employees in the ex ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces sary to effectuate the policies of the Act 9 NLRB v Acme Industrial Co supra 249 (a) On request provide the Union with the infor mation it requested concerning hospitalization in surance benefits applicable to unit employees (b) Post at its Parkersburg West Virginia loca tion copies of the attached notice marked Appen dix 4 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9 after being signed by the Respondents authorized representa tive shall be posted by the Respondent immediate ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places 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 covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply * 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 Enforcung an Order of the National Labor Relations Board APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 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 provide United Paper workers International Union Local 124 AFL-CIO with information necessary for and relevant to its performance as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit 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 WILL on request provide the Union with the information it requested concerning hospitaliza tion insurance benefits applicable to unit employ ees IDEAL CORRUGATED Box CORPORA TION OF WEST VIRGINIA