Boeing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 421 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

VERTOL DIV., BOEING COMPANY 421
Vertol Division , Boeing Company and Local 1069 , Interna-
tional Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case
4-CA-4975
May 14, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On January 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommend-
ing 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
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a sup-
porting brief. The General Counsel and Charging Party
filed reply briefs in support of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
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 con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,` conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
We agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner
that by its refusal to furnish the Charging Party with
information concerning maintenance work being per-
formed by subcontractors on Respondent's premises,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
The Union sought the information in aid of certain
grievances which it had filed, and "in order to fully
investigate the strength of the Union's [grievance] posi-
tion and in order to reach a final decision as to whether
or not to proceed to arbitration.. . ." The Trial Examin-
er found that the information sought was relevant and
reasonably necessary to the Union's responsibility for
administering the collective-bargaining agreement, or to
represent unit employees; and in the affirmative part
of his Recommended Order directed the Respondent
to furnish information concerning the subcontracting
of maintenance work "relevant and reasonably neces-
sary" to the Union's responsibility.
The Respondent argues that the Recommended Order
is so broad and devoid of guidelines as to be unsupporta-
ble; and that it sets out no specifics as to what is
"necessary and relevant." It is apparent, however, that
in directing the Respondent to furnish information "rele-
vant and reasonably necessary," the Trial Examiner
was merely characterizing the information which had
been requested and which he had in fact already found
was "relevant and reasonably(necessary," as indicated
in the use of that term in the "cease and desist" part
of -his Recommended Order. The ' obligation imposed
on the Respondent, as we understand the Trial Examin-
er's Recommended Order, is simply to furnish the Union
with the details of the arrangements Respondent had
with the subcontractors performing maintenance work
in accordance with the Union's request and not to
impose on the Respondent the responsibility for deciding
what is relevant and reasonably necessary. We conclude
therefore that the Respondent's exception is without
merit.
As for the Respondent's objection that the working
of the Trial Examiner's proposed "Notice to Employ-
ees," is even more improper in that it does not even
limit the Union to "relevant and reasonably necessary"
information, we can see no basis for the objection.
It is apparent that the Respondent's obligation is deter-
mined by the terms of the Trial Examiner's Recommend-
ed Order, ' which we adopt, and is neither enlarged
nor limited by the language of the Notice.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby ' orders that Vertol
Division , Boeing Company , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard before Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, on October 22, 1969, upon allega-
tions in the complaint issued August 29, 1969, based
upon charges filed by the Charging Party (herein called
the Union) on July 17, 1969 (all dates hereinafter in
1969, unless otherwise noted) The complaint alleges
that since on or about June 26, the Union, a party
to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent
covering an appropriate unit, has requested and Respond-
ent has refused certain information relating to subcon-
tracting necessary and relevant to the processing of
grievances by the Union and the policing and administra-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
The answer admits allegations of the complaint
sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction under
current standards of the Board and to support a finding
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act. The answer denies the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in this case, and after due
consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel,
182 NLRB No. 62
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, and the Respondent, the Trial Examiner
makes the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Facts
A. Description of the Unit Involved
For several years the Union has been recognized
by Respondent as the bargaining representative of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees
located at three so-called centers in the vicinity of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.' At the time of the hearing
in this matter, there were about 6,300-6,500 employees
in the appropriate unit among a total employment of
approximately 12,000 employees employed at the three
centers, which are somewhat separated one from the
other. Center # 1, at Morton, Pennsylvania, is approxi-
mately 6 miles from Center # 2, at Eddystone, Pennsyl-
vania, which, in turn, is approximately 4 miles from
Center # 3, near the Philadelphia airport. Of the three
centers, Eddystone appears to be the largest, involving
approximately 60 buildings on approximately 800-1,000
acres of ground on both sides of a major highway.
There are about 25 buildings at Center # 1, and between
15 and 20 buildings at Center # 3. Approximately 100
stewards service the employees in the unit represented
by the Union.
In the unit involved, the Respondent employs several
hundred maintenance employees, the group which the
Union claims were primarily affected by the matters
herein in-issue. Most of these maintenance employees
work throughout Respondent's operations, where need-
ed, rather than being strictly confined to a certain place.
A number of stewards, as well as shop committeemen,
are available to handle their complaints and grievances.
B. The Contractual Limitation on Subcontracting
The Union and the Respondent are parties,to a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement covering the unit described
above, to which is attached a supplement, originally
executed October 12, 1968, relating to subcontracting,
which is the principal contract provision involved herein,
providing in pertinent part as follows:
The Company will not subcontract any maintenance
work now performed by members of the bargaining
unit if such action would result in the layoff of
any maintenance employees who are qualified to
do such work or if such action would prevent
the recall from layoff of any maintenance employees
who are qualified to do such work, unless the
Company does not have the equipment to perform
' It is admitted that the following employees constitute an appropriate
unit within the meaning of the Act
All production and maintenance employees [of the Respondent
herein] excluding guards, professional employees , office clerical
employees , salaried clerical employees , all technical and office
payroll employees and all supervisory employees as defined in
the Act
such work or unless conditions require its immediate
performance. Any claim by the Union that the
Company has violated . . . this paragraph shall
be subject to the grievance and arbitration provi-
sions . . . of the Agreement.
Other provisions of the bargaining agreement will
be referred to hereinafter as becomes necessary.
C., The Grievances
The principle grievance with which we are here con-
cerned, No. 2-159, was filed by the Union in written
form (at step 3 of the contract grievance procedure)
on April 21, 1969. However, prior to that date, on
March 12, the Union had also filed a somewhat related
greivance, numbered 2-138, also involving the contractu-
al limitation on subcontracting which , in its early stages,
as hereinafter noted, became somewhat intertwined with
the treatment of grievance 2-159. In the earlier grievance,
No. 2-138, the Union complained that the Respondent
had subcontracted janitorial and maintenance services
in building 3-28 to "Gooser Company," "with Maint.
people on Layoff or could cause a layoff of maint.
emp's in violation of Letter of Agreement [limiting sub-
contracting] signed October 1968.
As noted above, the second grievance involving
alleged subcontracting of maintenance work was filed
on April 21. Prior to that time the Union had received,
in accordance with normal practice, a document from
Respondent entitled "Employee Surplus Final Distribu-
tion Report," showing the names, classifications, shifts,
plant location, etc. of employees' whose status had
changed effective April 18, because they were no longer
needed in their original positions '(and therefore were
"surplus"). A significant number of these were mainte-
nance employees.2 At that time other maintenance
employees were already on layoff. According to John
Taylor, president of the Union, the only witness at
the hearing, this condition has continued to the time
of the hearing in this matter. According to Taylor,
various employees and shop stewards had reported to
the union office that various named contractors had
been seen on Respondent's property doing work, and
the Union was being requested to advise the members
what these contractors were doing on the property,
"and so forth." On the basis of thisl information, the
Union filed grievance No. 2=159, asserting, "The surplus
effective Friday, April 18, 1969 whereas Maintenance
type employees are being surplused is in violation of
sub-contract letter of understanding ," and requesting
that "Company recall work that is now subcontracted
out from the maintenance type work, and pay all money
lost to maintenance employees now on layoff and in
the future."
2 Although Respondent in its brief states that this action of the
Respondent resulted in the layoff of about 13 maintenance employees,
the Trial Examiner's analysis of G C Exh 4 indicates that about
24 maintenance employees suffered displacement of one sort of another
at that time as a result of being declared surplus
VERTOL DIV, BOEING COMPANY
D The Requests for Information
On April 22 the day after the date of written grievance
No 2-159, representatives of the Union and the
Respondent met on this subject According to Taylor,
the Union "pointed out to [Respondent] that we had
information which led us to believe that there were
subcontractors in the plant," and asked for information
concerning them Taylor stated that the Union advised
the Respondent of the names of `several firms
which we knew were operating on the premises, but
we did not know what they were doing, and we had
asked for information at that time " It appears that
the Union asked "what they were doing and what reason
they were there," as well as, possibly, 'how many
subcontractors there were," and ' what was the dollar
volume of the business " Taylor stated that the Union
asked for the latter, "because we felt that it was impor-
tant that we knew the size of the contract, how many
people were required, and so forth, due to the fact
that we had a lot of people laid off "
As an example of the discussion, Taylor stated that
"on the final disposition reported dated 4/18, you'll
notice one construction equipment operator At the meet-
ing held on April 22, 1969, I specifically asked for
information pertaining to a construction firm called Elsier
and Diviney, which had construction equipment on the
premises at the time " Respondent adamently refused
to give the Union any information, although it appears
that Respondent's Manager of Industrial Relations, Bun-
nell, also stated that he would consult with Respondent's
attorney on the matter
From this point on communication between the
Respondent and the Union on this subject was written
The first of these communications was a letter dated
April 30, from Taylor to Bunnell, stating, in pertinent
part
As you are aware, there are presently pending
grievances numbered 2-138 and 2-159, [which]
relate to the subcontracting of maintenance work
and allege that the Company has violated the agree-
ment concerning subcontracting
In order to determine the propriety of these
grievances, in order to fully investigate the strength
of the Union's position, and in order for the Union
to reach a final decision as to whether or not
to proceed to arbitration, we request that the Com
pany supply to the Union immediately the following
information and material
[The first four numbered requests were for the
name and address of the contractor doing the work
covered by grievance No 2-138, a copy of any
agreement which the Respondent had covering such
work, or the arrangement of the contractor perform-
ing such work if not by agreement with Respondent,
and for a list of the number of nonunit employees
and hours worked by such employees on such
work since February 1 ]
5 A list of all subcontracts presently in effect
covering maintenance work to which the Company
is a party together with a statement containing
423
the date of entry of such subcontracts and the
specific work covered thereby
6 A statement of the man hours worked by
non-bargaining unit employees under the subcon-
tracts listed in the previous question since January
1, 1969, and a description of the work performed
by such individuals
The Union believes that there have been certain
violations of the subcontracting agreement by the
Company and we desire to conduct a full, thorough
and complete investigation of all subcontracting
of maintenance work in order to determine the
nature and extent of such violations of the agree
ment The Union obviously intends to pursue its
legal remedies if it is determined that the Company
has acted in a fashion contrary to the collective-
bargaining agreement
It appears that the Respondent did not reply to the
Union ' s letter until May 28 (which reply was withdrawn
because of a typographical error and a new letter dated
June 4 substituted for it ), but before that time, on
May 5, Respondent made a written response to grievance
No 2-159 at step 3 of the grievance procedure, as
follows
The grievance is improperly submitted for the fol-
lowing reasons
I Article V-A, Sec 1, Step 3 specified (sic)
that the written grievance " shall set
forth" " the facts involved "
2 There are roughly 30 maintenance type clas
sifications , there is no specific "type", noted
in the grievance
3 The company extended time to the Union
to rewrite the grievance providing the neces-
sary information needed The Union has ref-
used
The Company has no alternative but to answer
the general charge with the general answer that
the Company is not aware of what the specific
complaint is The grievance is improper 3
Respondent ' s letter of June 4, in response to the
requests contained in the Union ' s letter of April 30,
advised, as to the first four inquiries made , that the
work involved in grievance No 2-138 was being per-
formed by "The Albert J Grosser Company" under
arrangements with the owner of the building, only a
part of which was leased to Respondent , that the Union
had a written description of the services being performed,
that Respondent did not have a list of the persons
employed , or hours worked in connection with these
services , and that Respondent would make available
9 The Union thereafter although admittedly without the evidence
to support its claim submitted grievance No 2-159 to arbitration
because under the contract such submission must be made within
10 days after the Respondents response at step 3 or the right to
do so is waived Respondent is contesting the arbitrability of the grievance
on the ground that the grievance allegedly does not as the contract
requires set forth a statement of the issue and the facts involved
the remedy requested and the violation of the Agreement which
is claimed The grievance apparently has not been heard by an
irbitrator
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Union the lease agreements under which Respond-
ent occupied the building iii question. The letter conclud-
ed as follows:
As for the requests numbered 5 and 6, neither
your letter nor Grievance #2-159 establishes any
legitimate basis for .honoring them. You have not
indicated the specific maintenance work or the
location of its performance heretofore performed
by members of the Bargaining Unit which is now
being performed by Non-Bargaining Unit employ-
ees, the maintenance employees qualified to do
such work who have been laid off or prevented
from recall by such work, nor have you established,
in any way, the necessity and relevance of this
information to the Onion's responsibilities as a
Bargaining Agent.
On June 5, apparently before it received Respondent's
letter of June 4', the Union addressed another communi-
cation to the Respondent on this subject. In this letter,
the Union stated that it had been advised that Respondent
had subcontracted work to the Mitchell Comapny of
Jersey City, New Jersey, which firm appeared to be
engaged in machine building, but was not "advised
of what work," or "exactly when" such work had
been subcontracted. The letter requested (1) a copy
of any agreement between Respondent and the Mitchell
Company for performance of work, for the Respondent,
and (2) a statement of the work covered and the date
of any'such subcontract. It was stated that the informa-
tion was "necessary in order for the Union to pursue
and process Grievance No. 2-159."
In reply to these requests,. Respondent, ' on June 26,
wrote the Union, in pertinent part:
until we have been informed [by the Union]
as to . . . the specific-maintenance work or the
location of its performance heretofore performed
by members of the bargaining unit which is now
being performed by non-bargaining unit employees,
the maintenance employees qualified to, do such
work who have been laid, off • or prevented from
recall, by such work, and the necessity and the
relevance of this information to the Union's respon-
sibilities as bargaining agent, we are not in a position
to supply you with generalized information about
sub-contracting by the Boeing Company's Vertol
Division.
The letter then concluded with the statement that
if the Union was making the work done by the Mitchell
Company the 'sole basis of Grievance No. 2-159, and
would inform Respondent "to this effect, in writing,"
Respondent would then "be happy to make available
for your examination a copy of the agreement between
[Respondent] and the Mitchell Company, and to inform
you when this agreement was made and what work
is covered by it."
At the time the Respondent sent this last-letter (dated
June 26), it was in possession of'an intervening letter
from the Union, dated June 19, on this same subject,
in which the Union,,with respect to grievance No.
2-138 asked for certain information, and with respect
to grievance No. 2-159, in pertinent part, stated:
. . In your communication . . . of June 4,
1969, you state that [the Union has] not indicated
the specific maintenance work being performed by
non-bargaining unit employees or provided you with
other information concerning such subcontracts.
Obviously this information is not within our posses-
sion and this is exactly why it is being requested
of the Company.
The Union is aware, however, that the Company
has subcontracted with a number of concerns. Our
information, although limited, indicates that among
these concerns are the following:
[The Union here listed the names of 15 companies
including Mitchell Company, Eliser & Diviney and
Grossner, previously mentioned ]
In regard to the above concerns, the Union insists
that you supply to us the following information:
1. Whether the Company has subcontracted any
work to- such concerns
2. The date of such subcontract.
3. The specific work covered by such' subcon-
tract. '
4. The man hours worked by nonbargaining unit
employees under each such subcontract, and advise
as to whether such work was performed on or
off the Company's premises.
5 A statement as to whether the work covered
by the subcontract is continuous, sporadic or, was
simply a single act.
The Union further requested that it be advised of
any other subcontracts concerning maintenance which
the Respondent might have, unknown to the Union,
with information concerning such subcontractors similar
to that previously requested It was stated that the
information was, desired to permit an investigation of
subcontracting or maintenance work, which it was assert-
ed at another place in the letter` was believed 'to be
in violation of the agreement, and it was further indicated
that the information was essential to the processing
of grievance No 2-159
By a long letter dated July 9, Respondent replied
to the Union's letter of June 1§. It set forth at. length
certain information concerning grievance No. 2-138,
which had been requested, and, at some length, criticized
'the Union for its failure to "particularize"• grievance
No. 2-159, and, in effect, denied that the Respondent's
failure to supply the information requested had "prevent-
ed [the Union] from telling us what Grievance No.
2-159 is all about."
Respondent also stated in this letter that, though
the Union had listed certain alleged subcontractors to
Respondent, "there is nothing in your letter which in
any way indicates that any of these subcontracts, if
they exist at all, have any bearing upon the commitments
that the company has undertaken in the subcontracting
agreement." In particular, Respondent stated, "You
have still not given us any indication of the specific
maintenance work or the location of its performance
heretofore performed by members of the bargaining
unit which is now being performed by non-bargaining
VERTOL DIV, BOEING COMPANY
unit employees or the maintenance employees qualified
to do such work who have been laid off or prevented
from recall by such work " Respondent stated that
if more fully informed about grievance No 2-159, it
would do its "best to reply within the extent of our
legal obligations '
So far as this record shows, the Union addressed
one additional letter to Respondent on the subject, on
July 23, referring to Respondent's letters of June 26
and July 9 The Union stated its satisfaction with the
information submitted with respect to grievance No
2-138 However, as to grievance No 2-159, the Union
again stated that it believed that the Respondent had
subcontracts with the firms named in its previous letter
which it believed "may well be in violation" of the
subcontracting agreement, that the Union needed the
information requested to determine whether the agree-
ment had been violated, "and in order to determine
whether or not to pursue our remedies through the
grievance procedure and arbitration", that the Union
could not advise Respondent of the "specific mainte-
nance work" which was the basis for grievance No
2-159, as requested by Respondent, until Respondent
supplied the information sought by the Union, and that
`the work being done by the Mitchell Company is
not the sole basis of Grievance No 2-159 " The Union
renewed its request for information previously detailed
On August 12, Respondent replied, confirming its
position previously set forth
Analysis and Conclusions
It is now well established that a labor organization
obligated to represent employees in a bargaining unit
with respect to the terms and conditions of their employ
ment is entitled, upon appropriate request, to such infor
mation from the employer as may be relevant and reason-
ably necessary to the proper execution of that obligation
And the right to such information exists as well for
the purposes of administering a collective-bargaining
agreement after it has been negotiated as for the purposes
of negotiating the agreement in the first instance As
the Board has stated, The employer's duty, in either
instance, is predicated upon the need of the union for
such information in order to provide intelligent represen
tation of the employees " See F W Woolworth Compa-
ny, 109 NLRB' 196, 197, enfd 352 U S 938 While
the limits of this right to information and the correlative
duty to supply it have not been fully defined as yet,
all of the cases considering this issue, either in their
facts or their rationale indicate, as the Board stated
in Woolworth, that the right to the information arises
out of a ' need' for it shown by the circumstances
of the particular situation See N L R B v Acme Indus-
trial Co , 385 U S 432 The American Oil Company
164 NLRB 29
The Respondent argues, however, that while a union
need not make a special showing of relevance or
necessity to obtain information about employment of
employees within the bargaining unit "where the
request is for information concerning matters outside
425
the bargaining unit [which Respondent indicates in the
case here], the union must demonstrate more precisely
the relevance of the data it requests by reference to
the circumstances of the case " (Br , p 7 )4 In particular,
Respondent argues that in the circumstances of this
case it had no obligation to inform the Union of "mainte-
nance subcontracts which might involve bargaining unit
work" where the Union had not established "a particular
need for such documents in respect to a particular
dispute " (Br , p 11 )
A similar point was considered by the Board in Interna
tional Telephone and Telegraph (ITT Federal Laborator-
ies), supra, where the Union involved had requested
from the employer the seniority dates of out-of-unit
employees who might have the right to displace unit
employees under the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement there applicable In rejecting the employer's
contention that it had no obligation to supply the informa-
tion pertaining to nonunit employees, the Board stated
(154 NLRB at 1759, footpotes omitted)
The Union's right to such data, however, turns
not on whether the employees to whom the data
refers are in a unit, but rather on whether the
data itself is necessary and relevant to the Union's
role as bargaining representative Where, as here,
the requested information relates to the possibility
of unit job displacement by nonunit employees,
we do not see how the Union could properly detect
infractions of the contract or institute grievances
in order to protect the rights of unit employees
improperly or adversely affected by such transfers
unless it were given the requested information
Upon review of this decision the Court held that
though there was no obligation to provide such informa-
tion in the circumstances there presented, where harm
to unit employees was merely speculative, when employ-
er action made displacement of unit employees imminent,
rather than theoretical, the union was entitled to such
information about non-unit employees "in order that
it may detect possible contract infractions and, if
appropriate, institute grievance procedures " I T & T
Corp v NLRB 382 F 2d 366 372
In N L R B v Acme Industrial Co , supra, the appli
cable collective-bargaining agreement provided (1) that
it was the employer's policy not to subcontract work
which would cause a layoff of employees or prevent
their recall, and (2) that employees subject to displace
ment might transfer to a new location to which the
employer moved machinery out of the plant covered
by the contract When the union representatives there
asked for information about machinery which was being
moved out of the plant,) the employer refused, both
' Citing Curtiss Wright Corp v N L R B 347 F 2d 61 International
Telephone & Telegraph Corp (ITT Federal Laboratories) 159 NLRB
1757 American Oil Contpans supra Southitevern Bell Telephone Co
173 NLRB No 29
The information sought rel sled to the dates of the number of
and the reason for the removals of machinery as well as the place
to which it had been removed whether such facility w is operated
or controlled by the employer and whether the machinery was being
used for production elsewhere See Acme supra 567
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before and after grievances were filed, on the ground
that it had not been shown that a violation of the
agreement had occurred. The Supreme Court, in agreeing
with the Board's order that the information should be
given to the union, noted that the "Board found the
information was `necessary in order to enable the Union
to evaluate intelligently the grievances filed' " (385
U.S. at 435), and stated that in ordering the employer
to furnish the requested information, the Board "was
only acting upon the probability that the ordered informa-
tion was relevant and that it would be of use to the
union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibili-
ties " (385 U S. at 437.)' The Court further held that
requiring the employer to provide such information
would assist the process of arbitration by enabling the
union to "sift out unmeritorious claims" and prevent
overburdening the aribtral system. As the Court stated,
"The expense of arbitration might be placed upon the
union only for it to learn that the machines had been
relegated to the junk heap." (385 U S. at 438-439.)
These principles are controlling here. Whatever might
be the case under different circumstances, in the present
matter-where Respondent had obligated itself not to
subcontract maintenance work which would have the
effect of displacing maintenance employees, and where
the Union had cause to believe that Respondent had
subcontracted such work at a time when such employees
were displaced from their jobs by Respondent as surplus
labor- the information sought was clearly relevant and
reasonably necessary to the Union's responsibility to
administer the collective-bargaining agreement, detect
infractions of its terms, and intelligently counsel the
employees whom it represents See International Tele-
phone and Telegraph Corp., supra.
Nor is it required, as Respondent argues, that a specific
dispute under contract grievance procedures be present-
ed before the Union's right to information obtains.
Indeed, it is clear that a right to such information
may arise even in the absence of a pending formal
grievance. What is significant, in the words of the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is the "potential value
of [the information sought] as pertinent data with which
the Union should be supplied in order to assist it in
its task of deciding whether to institute grievance pro-
ceedings or use other policing tools under the existing
bargaining agreement and to guide the Union in contract
negotiations." See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,
supra, 70. Moreover, in the present case, where there
were grounds for belief that Respondent was subcon-
tracting maintenance work while maintenance employees
were displaced from their jobs as surplus labor, the
issues involved were certainly specific enough to justify
In Soutltnestern Bell Telephone Company , supra , the Board adverted
to this same standard of relevance in holding that the union there
was not entitled to information relating to the cost of subcontracting,
where the employer had supplied other information requested and was
not relying upon cost factors in subcontracting out work The Board
held that , in the circumstances of that case, it saw no probability
of relevance " to the union ' s functions and responsibilities in the informa-
tion sought See also Uniiersal Atlas Cement Dnnoon of United Steel
Corp 178 NLRB No 75, fn I
the Union's request for information in order to determine
whether it should file grievances, and thereafter, as
the Court stated in Acme, to permit the Union "to
evaluate intelligently the grievances filed" and to "sift
out unmeritorious claims" prior to arbitration. To require
a greater specificity would permit the Respondent, which
possesses the information needed; to control, in many
instances, the practical ability, of the Union to test
Respondent's compliance with the agreement, and thus
seriously undermine the Union's ability to represent
the employees in the unit.
Respondent also asserts that what the Union is really
attempting here is "to make a complete investigation
of the Company's maintenance subcontracting." (Br.,
p. 11.) It is not necessary, however, to determine here
the extent to which the Union may be justified in pursuing
an examination of Respondent's apparent subcontracting
activities, but only to note that its requests for informa-
tion, particularly as set forth in written communications
to Respondent, were justified in the circumstances. It
may be noted, however, as the Supreme Court has
indicated, that, the Union's right to know in these situa-
tions rests upon a "discovery-type standard." See
N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., supra, 437; see also
American Oil Company, supra, fn. 14 and cases there
cited. The Union should not be required "to grope blindly
through the grievance procedure" for want of relevant
information within the possession of the Respondent.
See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 70; Fafnir
Bearing Companyv. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 716, 721.'
Therefore, upon the entire record in this matter, it
is found that Respondent, by refusing the Union's
requests for information with respect to subcontracting
of maintenance work, 'engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 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, which, at all times
material, has been and continues to be the exclusive
representative of Respondent's employees in the
appropriate unit set forth in footnote 1, hereinabove,
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act.
The cases relied upon by Respondent are readily distinguishable
In the case apparently most relied upon, American Oil Company, supra.
where the employer was held justified in refusing to supply information
concerning subcontracting , the, union's request , made at a time when
there was no showing that the employer was subcontracting or intended
to subcontract work or that any employees were or might be harmed
by such subcontracting, was for copies of subcontracts which the
employer might take indefinitely in the future, a vastly different situation
from that involved here
' In coming to this conclusion I do not pals upon the relevance
of the Union's early oral request for the value of the subcontracts,
which request was not thereafter confirmed in writing and appears
to have been dropped
VERTOL DIV , BOEING COMPANY 427
3 By the acts and conduct herein found violative
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l)
and (5 ) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respond-
ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in this
case , it is recommended that Respondent Vertol Division,
Boeing Company , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1069,
International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ-
ees in the appropriate unit set forth hereinabove by
refusing to furnish the Union or its agents information
concerning the subcontracting of maintenance work rele-
vant and reasonably necessary to the Union 's responsibil-
ity to administer collective -bargaining agreements
between the Union and the Respondent , or to represent
the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the purposes of the Act
(a) Upon request , furnish to the Union or its agents
information concerning the subcontracting of mainte-
nance work relevant and reasonably necessary to the
Union ' s responsibility to administer collective -bargaining
agreements between the Union and the Respondent,
or to represent the employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit
(b) Post at its premises copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix " s Copies of said notice to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 4 , shall,
H In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
after being duly signed by the Respondent , be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith "'
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
" In the event this Recommended order is adopted by the Board
this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional Director
for Region 4 in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request , furnish to Local 1069,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), information with respect to subcontracting
of maintenance work so that the Union can deter-
mine whether these matters are in compliance with
the collective -bargaining agreement between the
Company and the Union, and properly represent
and advise the employees with respect to these
matters
VERTOL DIVISION,
BOEING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office 1700 Bankers Securities Building Walnut & Juni
per Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone
215-597-7601