Anderson & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 1229 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

ANDERSON & SONS, INC. 1229
bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choice, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
WHEELING PACIFIC COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 830 Market Street, San Fran-
cisco, California , Telephone No. 556-6721 , if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Anderson & Sons, Inc. and Westfield Etchers and Lithographers
of Metal Printing Workers Union , No. 487, I.P.P. and A.U. of
N.A., AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-4684. March 26, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 8, 1965, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an exception
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting argument.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
'The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exception and argument, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent Ander-
son & Sons, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
151 NLRB No. 124.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on July 28, 1964,1 by Westfield Etchers and Lithographers of
Metal Printing Workers Union, No. 487, I.P.P. and A.U, of N.A., AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, the Acting Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on September 11 against
Anderson & Sons, Inc., herein referred to as Respondent, alleging violations of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act, by reason of Respondent's refusal to furnish information to the Union con-
cerning the identity, classification, pay rates, and wage increases of certain of its
employees. In response to said complaint, Respondent sent a letter, dated Septem-
ber 14, to the Regional Office stating: "The complaints of the Union are not justi-
fied." On October 23, General Counsel moved for summary judgment on the ground
that Respondent's answer to the complaint was insufficient and failed to comply with
the appropriate Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, to specifically
admit, deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, and prayed for
judgment, and that an appropriate Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended
Order issue on the pleadings specifically directing Respondent to furnish the Union
with the information requested in the complaint, which it had failed or refused to
supply. On November 2, the Trial Examiner, to whom the motion for summary
judgment had been referred for appropriate action, issued an order denying the
motion on the ground "that Respondent's letter of September 14, 1964, although
inartfully drawn, should be treated as a general denial sufficient to prevent a judg-
ment by default."
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner William W. Kapell in
Springfield, Massachusetts, on November 19, at which the counsel appeared on behalf
of the General Counsel and Respondent appeared on its own behalf, by its vice presi-
dent, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence,
to present oral arguments, and to file briefs. Respondent presented oral argument
and General Counsel filed a brief, which have been duly considered. Upon consider-
ation of the entire record,2 the General Counsel's brief, and upon my observation of
the demeanor of the witness testifying before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly orga-
nized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
with its principal office and place of business in the city of Westfield, county of
Hampden, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and is now, and at all times material
herein has been, continuously engaged at said plant in the etching, anodyzing, and
lithographing of metal items. In the course and conduct of its business Respondent
has sold substantial quantities of its processed metal items, which were transported
from its plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, having an annual value exceeding $50,000. I find
that at all times material herein, Respondent was an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is and at all times material herein has been , a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
For several years prior to May 11, Respondent recognized and bargained with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of its employees as herein-
after defined. On May 11 Respondent and the Union entered into a collective-
'All dates herein refer to the year 1964, unless otherwise noted.
2 During the hearing the complaint was amended without objection by deleting the
words "On or about" in paragraph 8, and inserting in their place the words "At some
undetermined time before."
ANDERSON & SONS, INC. 1231
bargaining agreement covering terms and conditions of employment for the period
December 9, 1963, through December 8, 1967, in which the Union was recognized
as the exclusive-bargaining representative of a unit consisting of all production
employees at Respondent's Westfield plant, including shipping clerks, shipping helpers,
and assistant foremen who work more than 20 percent of their time on production
work, but exclusive of all foremen, maintenance employees, firemen, watchmen and
guards, clerical help, executive and supervisory employees, and employees of the
art department.
B. The facts
It is undisputed that on or about July 6, the Union requested Respondent to furnish
it with:
(a) The names, classification, rate of pay, and date of employment of every
employee in the bargaining unit.
(b) The names of employees to whom wage increases had been granted subsequent
to the execution of the current collective-bargaining agreement, the effective date of
the increase, and the amount of said increase. Respondent admitted it failed or re-
fused to furnish the information requested in subparagraph (a) until on or about
August 24, and continues to refuse to furnish the information requested in subpara-
graph (b). Respondent based its refusal to furnish the requested information on the
grounds that: the Union did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit
involved herein; the disclosure of the information sought would be an imposition on
the privacy of certain employees; and the Union could get the information by the
simple method of subtraction if it desired.
Conclusions
The collective-bargaining agreement entered into between Respondent and the
Union raises a presumption that the Union had a majority status at the time of the
execution of the contract, and in the absence of any evidence to rebut this presump-
tion, I find that the Union was the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the unit described in the contract, and was entitled to be accorded such recog-
nition at all times material herein. Shamrock Daily, Inc., et al, 119 NLRB 998,
1002. In fact, it appears that the Union has been the recognized exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the unit involved herein for several years
prior to the execution of the current contract. Consequently, Respondent was
required to furnish the requested information pursuant to its statutory duty to bargain
with the Union, and its refusal to do so constituted a refusal to bargain in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Cadillac Steel Products Corporation, 149
NLRB 1045; Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company, et al., 115 NLRB 1267.
Furthermore, there was no need to prove the relevance and/or necessity of the
information sought by the Union, inasmuch as such relevancy is presumed. Boston-
Herald Traveler Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 223 F, 2d 58, 62-64 (C.A. 1). I find fur-
ther that the information requested by the Union may not be refused on the ground
that it would be an invasion of privacy of the individuals involved. See The Electric
Auto-Lite Company, 89 NLRB 1192, 1198-1199; Aluminum Ore Company v.
N L.R.B., 131 F. 2d 485-487 (C.A. 7). I also find that, although the information
sought by the Union could conceivably be obtained by it from other sources, the
Respondent is not thereby absolved from furnishing it. N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Allison &
Company, 165 F. 2d 766 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 335 U.S. 814. Accordingly, I con-
clude that by its conduct in refusing to furnish the information requested Respondent
has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec-
tion with its business operations as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit by
refusing to furnish to the Union the names of employees to whom wage increases had
been granted subsequent to the execution of the current collective-bargaining agree-
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, the effective date of the increase and the amount of said increases , it will be
recommended that Respondent be ordered to furnish promptly said information upon
request.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. At all times material herein the Union has been the exclusive representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the unit described herein-
above in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , or other conditions
of employment.
4. By refusing to furnish the information sought by the Union Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recom-
mended that Respondent, Anderson & Sons, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union ,as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees by refusing to furnish the Union with a list of the names of
employees to whom wage increases had been granted subsequent to the current col-
lective-bargaining agreement, the effective date of the increase, and the amount of
said increase, as requested by said labor organization in the following unit:
All production employees, including shipping clerks, shipping helpers, and assist-
ant foremen who work more than 20 percent of their working time on production
work, but exclusive of all foremen, maintenance employees, firemen, watchmen and
guards, clerical help, executive and supervisory employees, and employees in the art
department.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the above-named
Union to negotiate for or represent all employees in the aforedescribed unit as their
exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Westfield Etchers and Lithographers of
Metal Printing Workers Union, No. 487, I.P.P. and A.U. of N.A., AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit described above by promptly
furnishing the Union with a list of the names of employees to whom wage increases
had been granted subsequent to the execution of the current collective-bargaining
agreement, the effective date of the increase, and the amount of the increase.
(b) Post, in conspicuous places, at its plant in Westfield, Massachusetts, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .4
3 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"a Decision
and Order"
4 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board
, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF BRIDGE WORKERS, ETC.
APPENDIX
1233
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL upon request bargain collectively with Westfield Etchers and Lithog-
raphers of Metal Printing Workers Union, No. 487, I.P.P. and A.U. of N.A.,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below by furnishing that union with a list of the names of employ-
ees to whom wage increases had been granted subsequent to the execution of
the current collective-bargaining agreement, the effective date of the increase,
and the amount of said increase:
All production employees, employed at the employers Westfield plant,
including shipping clerks, shipping helpers, and assistant foremen, who
work more than 20 percent of their time on production work, but exclusive
of all foremen, maintenance employees, firemen, watchmen and guards,
clerical help, executive and supervisory employees, and employees of the
art department.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of the
above-named union to negotiate for or represent all employees in the afore-
described unit as their exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining.
ANDERSON & SONS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
International Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-CIO [Brayman Construction
Company] and Constructors' Association of Western Pennsyl-
vania and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 2274, AFL-CIO. Case No. 6-CD-168. March,
26, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed on September 15,
1964, by Constructors' Association of Western Pennsylvania, herein
called the Association, alleging that International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3, AFL-
CIO, herein called Iron Workers or Respondent, had violated Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Donald A. Romano, on October 22, 1964.
151 NLRB No. 120.
783-13 3-66-vol. 151-79