Henry M. Hald High School Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
Henry M . Hald High School Association and Lay Fa-
culty Association , Local 1261 , American Federation
of Teachers, AFL-CIO. Case 29-CA-3482
September 24, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On May 16, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Elbert
D. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs,
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Henry M. Hald High
School Association, Brooklyn, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge it is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to specify in his
recommended Order that the appropriate bargaining unit with respect to
which Respondent is required to furnish information includes the teachers
at Bishop McDonnell and Bishop Kearney High Schools Although these two
schools had closed prior to the heanng herein and are no longer in the
bargaining unit, they were still included in the unit as of the date of the
Union's request for information Moreover, the teachers employed at the two
schools retained certain rights, particularly concerning transfers , under the
Union's collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent, and the Union is
entitled to the requested information in order to effectively enforce the
contract with respect to these rights. Accordingly, we find that Respondent
is required to furnish information with respect to the unit employees em-
ployed at the two schools prior to September 1, 1973.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
463
ELBERT D. GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge of unfair labor practices filed on July 23, 1973, and
amended on September 17, 1973, by the Lay Faculty Asso-
ciation , Local 1261, American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, herein called the Union,
against Henry M. Hald High School Association, herein
called the Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Respon-
dent on October 31, 1973, alleging that Respondent, since
March 29, 1973, has refused to bargain in good faith and to
furnish appropriate information requested by the Union, in
violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7), as well as
Sections 8(a)(5) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act. Respondent filed an
answer denying the alleged unlawful conduct.
A hearing in the above matter was held before me at
Brooklyn, New York, on January 23 and 24, 1974. Briefs
have been received from counsel for the General Counsel,
counsel for the Charging Party, and counsel for the Respon-
dent, which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tions of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent is now , and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of New York, and since June
1, 1972, has been engaged in operating and maintaining
member, private nonprofit senior high schools in Brooklyn
and Queens, New York, with its office located at 345 Adams
Street, Brooklyn, New York. In the course of conducting its
school operations at the aforestated locations during the
past 12 months, Respondent purchased and caused to be
delivered to its several member schools, directly from States
of the United States other than New York, schoolbooks,
educational equipment, and other goods related to its
school operations, valued in excess of $50,000 and derived
gross revenues from tuition fees and other sources in excess
of $1 million.
The complaint alleges , the answer admits by subsequent
stipulation, and I find that Respondent is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Lay Faculty Association, Local 1261, American Federa-
tion of Teachers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is now
and has been at all times material herein , a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
213 NLRB No. 75
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
During the past 2 school years, the Henry M. Hald High
School Association, the corporate Respondent herein, has
been engaged in the maintenance and operation of a system
of private nonprofit senior high schools in Queens and
Brooklyn, New York. The teaching staffs of its several
member schools are composed of religious personnel and
approximately 550 lay personnel who are represented by
the Union. The collective-bargaining contract between the
Respondent and the Union, under which the current dis-
pute arose, became effective December 12, 1972, with a
provision for a wage reopener in 1973. Pursuant to a provi-
sion of the contract, the Union contacted Respondent by
letter dated January 8, 1973,1 in which it requested a meet-
ing to commence negotiations for a new collective-bargain-
ing agreement, in view of the fact that its current contract
would expire on August 31, and pursuant to other terms of
the contract, such negotiation should commence within 180
days prior to expiration of their current contract.
Since the Union represented lay teachers in all member
schools of Respondent, including Bishop McDonnell and
Bishop Kearney High Schools, which were going to be ter-
minated and were in fact closed by Respondent on August
31, the Union made numerous requests of Respondent to
bargain as well as several requests of Respondent to furnish
certain information about its lay teachers for the 1973-74
school year. Although Respondent met with the Union and
furnished it with information it requested on numerous oc-
casions during the period March through September, the
Union alleges that from March 29 to the present time, the
'Respondent has bargained in bad faith, has refused to meet
with the Union timely and promptly, unreasonably delaying
the negotiations; and that it has refused to provide the
Union with certain information requested by it on behalf of
all the lay teachers in its unit, in violation of the Act. The
Respondent denies the allegations as set forth by the Union.
Brother Medard Shea is an agent acting on behalf of
Respondent and therefore is a supervisor within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act. All full-time lay teachers
employed in a nonsupervisory capacity in member schools
of the Hald Association (Respondent), constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act z
Issues
The principal questions raised by the pleadings are
whether the Respondent, between March 29 and the present
date, did in fact bargain in bad faith by refusing to meet
with the Union promptly and whether Respondent refused
to provide certain information requested by the Union, with
respect to salary matters affecting all lay teachers in its
bargaining unit, in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 2(6) and
(7); as well as Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1 Hereafter all dates will refer to the year 1973 unless specified otherwise.
2 The facts set forth above are undisputed in the record.
B. Respondent's Bargaining in Bad Faith
Respondent's Refusal to Furnish Essential Information
Harry Kranepool credibly testified that he is and has
been a member of Local 1261 for several years, having
served as delegate and past president. Since December 1,
1972, he has served as vice president and that the Union's
current contract with the Union Association (Respondent)
has been in effect since December 12, 1972, effective Sep-
tember 1, 1972, with a provision for a wage reopener in
1973; that pursuant to this provision, he contacted Respon-
dent by letter (G.C. Exh. 3) dated January 8, 1973, in which
he notified Respondent that the Union's contract would
terminate August 31, 1973, and requested a meeting at
Respondent's convenience to commence negotiations for a
new collective-bargaining agreement to establish wages for
more than 550 of its lay teachers whom the Union repre-
sents . According to the terms of the contract, negotiations
were to commence within 180 days of the expiration of the
contract.
In a letter (G.C. Exh. 4) dated January 18, 1973, Mr.
Krane ool said he called Brother Medard Shea (Respon-
dent) 'Tin an effort to arrange a negotiation meeting for
March 15, 1973 (the first of the 180 days prior to expiration
of the contract), and Brother Medard tentatively agreed
with the understanding that Mr. Kranepool would call at a
later time to confirm said date. On or about March 13, Mr.
Kranepool called Respondent (Brother Medard) to confirm
the March 15 date, during which conversation Brother Me-
dard advised him that due to a prior commitment he would
not be able to meet with him on March 15 and they mutual-
ly agreed to meet March 20 for a preliminary session. At the
meeting on March 20, the bargaining teams were introduced
to each other and a few ground rules were established. They
thereupon agreed to have a formal meeting March 29, at
which time Respondent was to give its reaction to the
Union's proposal (G.C. Exhs. 5A and B) submitted to it on
March 25, which read as follows:
1. A cost of living salary increase of 16.4% applica-
ble to each step in each column of the salary scale.
Teachers who are beyond the steps in any column shall
have their salaries raised to that of the last step in their
column and, under no circumstances shall the salary of
any teacher be lowered.
2. Stipend for Chairman, $800
Stipend for Asst Chairman, $600
Stipend for Asst. Chairman, $400
3. Permanent Certification = Master's Degree for
all vertical lanes, including M.A. 30.
4. Dates for presentation of courses for salary credit
shall be changed from September 1st and January 1st
to October 1st and February 1st.
5. Salary protection via unemployment insurance
for all teachers.
6. Salary protection via income insurance applicable
during hospitalization.
7. Voluntary deduction from salary for auto and
3 By stipulation of the parties, Brother Medard Shea is an agent of Respon-
dent and a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
home/apartment insurance.
The Union and Respondent met at St. Francis College on
March 29 with the following persons in attendance: Brother
Medard, Counselor Burke, and Mr. Crossman, business
manager for Respondent, along with Counselor Fleisch-
man, Vice President Gordon, Mary Ann Tobon, secretary,
Daniel McCaffrey, treasurer, Stephen Monroe, bargaining
delegate for the Union, and a state representative, Tony
Ficchio. At that time the Respondent advised the Union
that it did not have a reaction to the Union's proposals.
Nevertheless, the Union asked for a grid 4 or a costing ar-
rangement for teachers in their unit for the current year
1973-74. They did receive such a grid for previous years
from Respondent. Counsel for Respondent advised the
Union to wait, and that Respondent would get back to it
with reference to the requested information.
At the meeting on March 29 the Union suggested and it
was tentatively agreed by the parties to meet again on April
10. In a letter (G.C. Exh. 6) dated April 3, to Brother Me-
dard, the Union (Mr. Kranepool) made a formal request for
a meeting on April 10 for the purpose of receiving the grid
information previously requested. In a letter (G.C. Exh. 7)
dated Monday, April 9, Respondent (Brother Medard) ad-
vised the Union that its letter had just come to his attention
on that date because he was not in the office on April 6; and
that the short notice allowed insufficient time to get their
bargaining team together; and that however, Respondent
was interested in another meeting without undue delay and
suggested that the Union suggest some alternative dates for
such meeting. The Union wrote a letter taking exception to
Respondent's stated inability to attend the meeting tenta-
tively scheduled for April 10 by its letter of April 9 and by
telegrams (G.C. Exhs. 9 and 10) dated April 12 as follows:
BROOKLYN NY 11201
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE LAY FACULTY ASSOCIATION IS
AND HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN READY TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU
AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY PLACE WE'LL WAIT AND EXPECT YOUR
ASSIGNEMENT OF A DATE AND PLACE BY RETURN MAIL
HARRY A KRANEPOOLPRESIDENT LAY FACULTY ASSOCIATION
+ * s
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE LAY FACULTY ASSOCIATION IS
AND HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN READY TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU
AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY PLACE WELL WAIT AND EXPECT YOUR
ASSIGNEMENT OF A DATE AND PLACE BY RETURN MAIL
HARRY A KRANEPOOLPRESIDENT LAY FACULTY ASSOCIATION
A letter dated April 16 from Respondent to the Union
read as follows:
Attention : Harry A. Kranepool , President
Dear Mr. Kranepool:
Notwithstanding our suggestion that we await the
outcome of the Supreme Court decisions concerning
Government aid to our schools, which aid has been
challenged by A.F.T. leaders and affiliated organiza-
A grid is a chart consisting of lanes and steps, years in service, and the
Increment levels showing academic achievements, etc, of all teachers.
465
tions, it appears that Local 1261 wishes to meet for
negotiations concerning the new salary schedule to go
into effect on September 1, 1973.
In light of your telegram, received on April 13, we
have arranged a meeting for Thursday, May 3, at St.
Francis College, Room 1008, at 3:30 PM.
Please confirm at your earliest convenience.
I
Sincerely yours,
Brother Medard Shea,
C.F.X.
Assistant Superintendent
Mr. Kranepool testified that during their meeting with
Respondent in March, the Union had been advised by
counsel for Respondent that Respondent wanted to delay
negotiations with the Union until the court ruled on the aid
to their particular school system. The Union saw no need
to delay negotiations since their proposals were dealing with
considerations other than salaries.
At this juncture in the proceeding it was noted that letters
from Respondent (G.C. Exhs. 4, 7, and 11) were typed on
letterhead stationary of the Catholic School Diocese of
Brooklyn, Office of the Superintendent of Schools, 345 Ad-
ams Street, instead of assistant superintendent, Henry M.
Hald High School Association; and that Brother Medard
was the same person with whom the Union had previously
negotiated contracts for the Union and the Catholic Dio-
cese of Brooklyn. The Union sent a letter (G.C. Exh. 13)
confirming the date of May 3 for the next meeting.
The Union then met with Respondent on May 3. This was
a brief meeting during which counsel for Respondent indi-
cated that an affiliate of the Union had opposed state aid
to church-related schools and the Union said they had noth-
ing to do with that position or any of its affiliates. The
Union requested the grid information and was presented a
copy of a 1972 grid (G.C. Exh. 12). Mr. Kranepool said he
had seen this same grid the year before and the numbers
(figures) were the same. The Union advised Respondent
that the grid presented was for the year 1972-73 and they
had requested the grid for 1973-74. Mr. Burke (Respon-
dent) said he would get back to the Union. The Union
suggested that the next meeting be held on May 8, 11, or 15,
but there was no definite response to this suggestion. Mr.
Burke said Respondent would wait for the decision of the
court and get back to the Union at that time.
In a letter dated May 8, the Union advised Respondent
as follows:
The Lay Faculty Association, once again, awaits
your response concerning our proposal that a meeting
be held either May 8, 1973, May 11, 1973, or May 15,
1973. As today is May 8, 1973 we assume that we will
not be meeting today.
Please do us the courtesy of responding. We wish to
make it very clear to you that we have no intention of
waiting for the Diocese to feel like bargaining and that
this constant refusal to bargain will cause us to take
appropriate action to protect the rights of our mem-
bers.
We await your reply.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Kranepool said he personally did not receive, on
behalf of the Union, any response to either of its communi-
cated requests between May 8 and June 15, but Resp. Exh.
I shows the Union did receive one reply.
In a letter (Resp . Exh. 1) from counsel for Respondent
dated May 10, the Union was advised as follows:
Your correspondence addressed to Father Fitzpa-
trick, concerning contract negotiations between the
Henry M. Hald High School Association and Local
1261, has been referred to me for a reply. So that we
may proceed in an orderly fashion, I would again re-
quest that correspondence concerning the Henry M.
Hald High School Association and Local 1261 matters
be addressed either to Brother Medard Shea, C.F.X., or
myself.
You will recall that at our last bargaining session, we
pointed out the limited scope of these negotiations and
the fact that any new salary provision would not be
effective until September 1, 1973. Based on these facts
and the present uncertainties as to governmental aid,
which, as you know, has been challenged in the courts
by leaders of your parent organization, and student
enrollment for the 1973-74 school year, it would seem
desirable to both sides that we defer specific commit-
ments concerning salary for a month or so when a more
definite understanding of the Association's income for
1973-74 will be available to us. At our last meeting on
May 3, we indicated to you that we were prepared to
continue the negotiations at that time or at any other
time that you felt that you had additional material or
information to present to us. Your Local 1261 repre-
sentative stated at that time that they had nothing more
to say until such time as the Association put forth a
specific salary proposal. If this is still the position of
Local 1261, I would again suggest that we await the
information on income through governmental aid and
tuitions so that we will have a firm basis for any propos-
als the Association would make.
Again, if Local 1261 does have additional informa-
tion in connection with the negotiations that, in your
judgment would make a meeting desirable at this time,
the Association's representatives would be happy to
meet with you.
I shall await your response.
In a letter dated May 21, the Union advised Respondent
as follows:
The Lay Faculty Association, Local 1261, again re-
peats its offer to meet with the Hald Association and
its Diocesan Counsel at a good faith and mutual bar-
gaining session at any time and at any place . The Hald
Association has had our meager proposals since March
15 and we have have not as yet received a response that
is relevant to our proposals.
We await your response.
And again, in a letter dated June 15, the Union wrote to
Respondent as follows:
Dear Brother Medard:
Once again, the Lay Faculty Association requests
that you set a date , time, and place for a meeting in
order that we might begin negotiations. We note that
you have refused to negotiate with us for over two
months, though we have made repeated requests.
Hoping to hear from you shortly, I remain
After consulting its attorney, Mr. Kranepool said the
Union filed refusal-to-bargain charges with the National
Labor Relations Board on June 25.
Respondent submitted a letter dated June 27, addressed
to the Union, which advised as follows:
In your letter of June 15, 1973, you request that we
set a date , time and place for a meeting to continue
negotiations . In our telephone call this morning you
noted some dismay that I would be unable to be pre-
sent at the July 6th meeting which had been arranged
by our mutual attorneys, Mr. Burke and Mr. Basedow.
Thus, we mutually agreed to try to arrange a meeting
on Tuesday, July 10th, at 10:00 AM, at St. Francis
College.
This meeting is based upon our both following up
that our attorneys that they will be able to attend.
Prior to June 27, Mr. Kranepool (the Union) said he
received notice from his counsel that the Supreme Court
decided that there would be no governmental aid to reli-
gious (Respondent) schools. At this proceeding, counsel for
Respondent agreed to stipulate the authenticity of this fact.
On June 27, the Union (Mr. Kranepool) drafted the follow-
ing letter (G.C. Exh. 17) in response to Respondent's letter
of even date, which it mailed on June 29:
Dear Brother Medard:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 27, 1973.
After conferring with our counsel, it is our under-
standing that both counsel have established July 6th as
a meeting date at Saint Francis College at 10:00 A.M.
for the purpose of collective bargaining. I understand
that your counsel, Mr. Burke, will be present as well as
other Diocesan representatives excluding yourself. I
together with our counsel and our representatives will
be present at this meeting. We are aware that you will
be unable to be present due to a prior comittment in
Albany. However this meeting has already been estab-
lished.
We are hopeful that this meeting on July 6th will be
a productive collective bargaining session.
Respondent and the Union met on July 6 and both nego-
tiating teams were present except Brother Medard for Re-
spondent. During this meeting counsel for the Union
requested Respondent to furnish it with the names and
addresses of teachers in the subject unit and to indicate if
they are a department chairman or a stipend member of any
club or other organization. Counsel for Respondent said the
Union did not need such information and it was setting the
stage for another NLRB case. Counsel (Mr. Burke) never-
theless did say he would be getting back to counsel for the
Union with regard to the requested information. Also dur-
ing this meeting, Mr. Kranepool said he again requested the
grid for 1973-74 school year which should have shown the
new teachers hired. The parties agreed and did in fact meet
again on July 13 at which meeting Brother Medard was
present. The Union renewed its request for the grid includ-
ing salary information and was told by Respondent's coun-
sel that he would get back to the Union as soon as possible.
However, Mr. Burke, counsel for Respondent, said securing
the names, etc., of the teachers was the Union's job and not
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
his. Mr. Kranepool said the Union had no way of contact-
ing the teachers whose names and addresses were requested
because they were on-summer vacation and the keys to their
mail boxes were turned in to the school administrator in
charge.
The only teachers whose names and addresses the Union
had were those of its members , totaling about 420 out of
about 550. Some teachers ' checks are mailed to them by
Respondent during the summer months . The Union sug-
gested that the next meeting be held on August 8 since
Respondent said it could not meet at an earlier date because
it wanted to allow its officials to go on vacation . The Union
objected to the vacation because in previous years the par-
ties mutually agreed on a time for vacation . However, union
officials or representatives were also unavailable for about
1 week in August to allow its officials to attend a confer-
ence.
In a letter (G.C. Exh. 19) dated July 11, counsel for the
Union received the following communication , with enclo-
sures, from counsel for Respondent:
Dear Mr. Basedow:
Pursuant to the request made by the Lay Faculty
Association at our bargaining session on July 6th, I am
enclosing the following material for your information:
1. Projected consolidated lay faculty schedule for
the 1973-1974 school year
2. A projected student population breakdown for
the 1973-1974 school year
3. A synopsis of the grant- in-aid program for the
1972-1973 and 1973-1974 school years
I have not been able to obtain a statement of pro-
jected income and expenses for the 1973-1974 school
year at this time ; but as soon as such a statement is
available, I will forward it to your office . I trust that
this information will be of assistance to the Lay Faculty
Association in resolving the current round of negotia-
tions in a speedy and satisfactory manner.
Sincerely,
In a letter (G.C. Exh. 18) dated July 16, the Union advised
Respondent as follows:
Dear Brother Medard:
This is to inform you that the Lay Faculty Associa-
tion rejects your suggestion to postpone our negotia-
tions until August 8, 1973 . This date is too late in view
of the fact that our Contract salary provisions expire on
August 31, 1973 and school re-opens less than a week
later . The Lay Faculty Association intends to advise its
membership not to return to work in the Fall until the
new salary provisions are agreed upon.
Further, the Lay Faculty Association does not un-
derstand your unilateral decision to "go on vacation"
less than a month before Contract expiration in that
such "vacations" have , in the past , been agreed upon
mutually.
We are unable to accept this action on your part as
anything other than continued refusal to bargain. Hop-
ing to hear from you shortly, I remain
The enclosures constituted a grid on teachers ' academic
467
qualifications , anticipated student population , and data on
grant-in-aid to each school . There was no data on teachers'
salaries.
Mr. Kranepool (the Union) testified that the information
contained in General Counsel 's Exhibit 19 was not what the
Union requested because it was not a breakdown school-by-
school, and the total number of teachers did not coincide
with the Union 's total . The Union could not determine from
the data submitted where the teachers were in each member
school unit . Moreover , he said , the Union did not request
data on student population. Bishop Kearney , as well as
several other high schools , were not listed therein . Some of
the schools in its unit not listed were to be phased out
August 31. Likewise, there were teachers at Bishop Kearney
prior to August 31 who were in the unit but Kearney school
is now closed. He also said the Union did not request grant-
in-aid information.
In a letter dated July 25 from Respondent (Resp . Exh. 3),
the Union was advised as follows:
Dear Mr. Kranepool:
My apologies for seeming to "banter" (your letter of
July 17th) with you. In reality, I am most serious in my
reply and the temptation to far more than "banter" is
very strong in the face of a veritable cascade of letters
and complaints , grievances , subpoenas , telegrams and
press releases . I am replying to three pieces of corre-
spondence , two from you , and one from Mr. William
Basedow . Of necessity , I must use this summary tech-
nique in replying.
Re: Your July 16th letter regarding negotiation dates.
Reply : The Hald Association 's offer to negotiate on
August 8th still holds and we are at a loss about your
concern about this date . Your letter is not clear as to
whether or not you plan to attend , but I am presum-
ing that you will.
Re: Your July 19th letter regarding Federal Mediation
and Conciliation.
Reply : Your answer to our proposal that we seek medi-
ation is welcomed . May we suggest that in light of
the valuable assistance of the New York State Medi-
ation Board , that they be asked to assist us in reach-
ing a settlement.
Re: Mr . Basedow's letter of July 19th on the alleged
Shannon Grievance.
Reply: I acknowledge your letter as a reply to my July
16th letter to you.
In a letter dated July 26 from Respondent (G.C. Exh. 20),
the Union was advised as follows:
Dear Mr. Kranepool:
Father Joseph P. Bynon , Superintendent of Schools,
has referred your request for an appointment (letter of
July 16th ) to my attention as the responsible party in
the Schools Office for Union matters.
Please be assured that I will meet with you at any
mutually convenient time to discuss whatever matters
you wish of interest to the Diocese of Brooklyn or the
Lay Faculty Association.
Counsel for Respondent introduced a memorandum dat-
ed 12/4/73, addressed to Reverend Michael J. Dempsey,
secretary for education for Respondent complaining and
requesting the names , addresses , and salary lines of all Re-
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent teachers to submit to the Union, which has filed
a charge against Respondent for failure to submit the same;
and that he (counsel for Respondent) has had a problem
because the information requested is on a computer.
Mr. Kranepool further testified that the Union thereafter
requested a meeting with the Federal Mediation Service
which was granted and held on August 8. At that time the
Union repeated its request for teachers names and address-
es, and it also requested data on their salaries and the identi-
ty of those with stipends. The Union was advised by
Respondent that the information was coming. Upon his
return from a convention on August 22, Mr. Kranepool said
he found data (G.C. Exh. 21) at his home. However upon
examination of the same , he discovered that it was not the
proper information he requested (not a complete listing of
all of the schools), the names of two schools, Bishop Mc-
Donnell and Bishop Kearney were onutted; that there was
no designation as to what the teachers' salaries were and
some of the teachers listed were no longer employed by
Respondent. The list also did not contain the names of some
teachers who were hired for the 1973-74 school year.
In a letter dated August 21, (Resp. Exh. 4), Respondent
advised the Union as follows:
Since you are out of town at a Convention this week,
we did mutually agree to set the date of the meeting to
discuss the Bishop Reilly High School grievance on
Tuesday, August 28, 1973.
The names and addresses of the lay teachers were
mailed to you on August 15. You will note that it was
not a simple matter to pull the teachers' names from the
computer listing, but we did it as requested.
The September 17, 1973 date for arbitration has been
set by the A.A.A. in a letter to us and we plan to
comply.
I have reviewed the use of the Hilton Motor Inn for
last minute negotiation with our bargaining team and
at this time I would specifically note that we will make
any agreement or arrangements of this nature at the
bargaining table. Simply put, recent developments
have cooled any interest I may have indicated in that
motel.
Not having received the names, addresses, and salaries of
the teachers as repeatedly requested, Mr. Kranepool said he
wrote the following letter (G.C. Exh. 22) dated August 27,
to the Respondent:
Dear Brother Medard:
Once again, the Lay Faculty Association requests
that it be provided with the salary and other wages of
the teachers in our bargaining unit. This information is
necessary in order that we might properly represent our
teachers and the union is, quite clearly, entitled to such
information.
Your delay in this matter is difficult to understand
inasmuch as all of this information is easily available
to you through your computer system. We will wait an
additional short period for the information.
Mr. Kranepool (Union) testified that he received a sec-
ond incomplete list (G.C. Exh. 23) from Respondent on or
about September 10 or 11. Not only was the list incomplete
but it contained erroneous information and did not contain
the names of the new teachers, their salaries, nor the infor-
mation on fringe benefits or stipends. Bishop McDonnell
and Bishop Kearney schools were omitted and the list con-
tained the names of teachers who were not employees after
August 31, when the school year ended. These matters were
discussed during the several bargaining sessions in late Au-
gust . The Union went on strike from September 17 to Octo-
ber 14I when a settlement was agreed on. Thereafter, the
Respondent submitted another listing (G.C. Exh. 24) to the
Union which included the names of the new teachers but it
did not show the fringe benefits or stipends nor increases in
salaries , and the names of the same two schools were again
omitted. The names and data on these two schools were
requested by the Union in bargaining sessions in May and
July. As of the date of this proceeding, the Union had not
received the grids (or the specific information) they were
requesting.
On cross-examination Mr. Kranepool, of the Union, tes-
tified that during the bargaining sessions of the past 4 or 5
years the Union did not request the names, addresses, and
salaries of the teachers. He acquiesced in the statement of
counsel for the Respondent that Respondent and the Union
had engaged in about 16 bargaining sessions in 1973, involv-
ing, admittedly, many hours; and that only one of the 38
articles of the contract was a subject for bargaining (salaries
and fringe benefits) in 1973; that both parties by agreement
negotiated on subjects now covered by the contract; that
although Respondent made it clear that it preferred defer-
ring negotiations or bargaining on money matters until the
Supreme Court ruled on financial aid to private and paro-
chial schools, the Union was asking Respondent to bargain
on some nonmonetary matters as well, but Respondent said
it did not want to discuss it. Mr. Kranepool admitted that
Respondent had advised the Union that the school princi-
pals were away and there was (during summer months)
nobody else to get the requested information, but that Re-
spondent would submit the same as soon as possible. The
Union received the first one page grid from Respondent at
the end of July or the first part of August. When the Union
requested the names, addresses, and salaries of teachers
employed at Bishop McDonnell and Bishop Kearney for
the 1973-74 school year, they were advised that those
schools were not a part of Respondent, the- Hald Associa-
tion; that Respondent was not bargaining for them; and
that there were no employees at these two schools in Sep-
tember because they were terminated in March and April,
effective August 31.
Counsel for Respondent interrogated Mr. Kranepool ex-
tensively on the feasibility and efforts the Union had made
or could have made to obtain on its own, the information
requested of Respondent. On cross-examination Mr. Kra-
nepool testified as follows:
Just one last area. Again to recap, you wanted all the
information for '73-'74?
A. We requested the information for '73-'74.
Q. How would that help a teacher employed at
Kearney in '72-'73-let's say McDonnell to avoid the
question of Kearney-an employee at Bishop McDon-
nell High School in '72-'73, terminated on August 31st,
'73, how would information about an employee who
was no longer employed next year help you this year?
A. Some of those employees are employed this year
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
in our schools system.
Q. But not at Bishop McDonnell?
A. Some of the teachers were , are employed right
now in our schools other than McDonnell and there are
provisions under our contract right now which stipu-
late the proceedings that they have to go through for
termination , and also whether or not they're a new
teacher, what category they fall under.
That would be very important to us to make sure that
they are on the same step and lane , as well as their other
contractual obligations are fulfilled by the Hald Asso-
ciation.
Q. I'm sure the concern is there . But I 'm still mysti-
fied as to how a list of names of people who are not
employed somewhere at some future date will assist
you in negotiating for them even though they're not
employees of the bargaining unit and not necessarily
represented by your union?
MR FRIEDMAN Your Honor, I might object to the
question on the grounds that I myself am not quite sure
exactly what the question is.
Q. You did not-all right I'll start again.
You did not ask for the names of the people em-
ployed last year? You wanted the '73-'74 list?
A. Yes.
Q. Not '72-'73?
A. Right.
Q. You did not ask for the people employed last
year?
A. Back up. We asked for this information earlier in
the year when the schools were still opened.
JUDGE GADSDEN That was an oral request?
THE WrrNEss. It was an oral request, at a bargaining
session we asked for the information.
Q. For '73-'74, right, that's what your testimony is,
anyhow-
Still conceding your contention , you asked for data,
names , addresses and salary of employees employed in
the member school of Hald Association effective Sep-
tember 1, 1973 for '73-'74 school year?
A. Yes, to answer that question.
Q. Now, will you agree that there are no teachers
employed by the Hald Association in the physical plant
that used to be Bishop McDonnell High School?
A. Yes.
JUDGE GADSDEN As of September 1?
Mr. Burke : '73, right.
JUDGE GADSDEN • Right.
Q. (By Mr. Burke) Is it true to say then that the Hald
Association did not have any employees for the'73-'74
school year, effective September 1, '73, at Bishop Mc-
Donnell?
A. Yes, it is true.
Q. If that's true , is it accurate to say that you did not
have any lay faculty members whom you represented
for the 1973-'74 year effective September 1st at Bishop
McDonnell?
469
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true then that you weren' t negotiating for
anybody at McDonnell?
A. McDonnell was not in existence.
Q. If our position concerning Kearney is correct,
and I 'm not asking you to concede that, would you say
that the same facts are controlling and you would
have-that I would reach the same conclusion?
A. Yes.
MR. BURKE I don't have any other questions.
Mr. Kranepool identified and acknowledged the receipt
of a consolidated grid sheet (G.C. Exh. 25) from Respon-
dent in May or June 1972 for the 1972-73 school year. The
grid was properly prepared in accordance with the specifica-
tions of the Union's request, except that it was for the previ-
ous school year and not for the school year 1973-74 as
requested . He further testified that the Union was never told
by Respondent that such a grid as Exhibit 25 could not be
provided by the year 1973-74, but rather, the Union was
told that it did not have a right to such information, or the
Union was not going to get it, or that Respondent was going
to work on it or that Respondent saw no need for it. The
Union was never told by Respondent that the requested
information would not be given to it or that it was outside
the contract or the negotiations . However, Respondent did
advise the Union that it had a computer problem. The
Union did not ask what was the nature or gravity of the
problem . Mr. Kranepool said the Union needed the infor-
mation requested because matters involving the renewal of
employment and granting of tenure notices are required to
be given by a certain date, as provided in the contract, and
it is particularly important because some of the teachers on
the list were not granted tenure for the 1973-74 year.
Robert Gordon credibly testified that he was vice presi-
dent of Local 1261 until December 1, when he became
president and chief negotiator for the Union; that he was
present at the bargaining meeting with Respondent on July
6 when he requested a current list of names , addresses and
salaries of all teachers in the unit ; and that Mr . Burke,
counsel for Respondent said:
A. Mr. Burke responded that the employer had no
obligation to provide such information , that he was not
about to do the union's work, that he saw no reason
that such request had been made , at which point Mr.
Basedow stated that-Mr. Basedow quoted some laws
to him.
I remember the Taft-Hartley Act and a number of
other things were mentioned-that we had a right and
an obligation to represent all of the people in our bar-
gaining unit and that we could not do that because we
didn't have all of their names .and addresses and that
the employer had an obligation to provide this infor-
mation to us.
He wanted the information, he told him.
Q. What was Mr. Burke's response?
A. He again responded that he had no obligation to
provide it, that this was an improper request on the part
of the union , but that he would see what he could do.
,When the bargaining teams met again,on July 13, he re-
quested a current list as of 1973, of all teachers who-were
working in member schools and the names of all teachers
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who had been hired for the next school year. Mr. Gordon
said:
A. I believe Mr. Burke referred to the previous re-
quest and repeated again that he had no obligation to
provide such information, that such request was an
improper request, that this was something the union
ought to do, that this was something that the employer
wasn't supposed to do it for the union, but that again,
he would see what he could do.
The bargaining team met again on August 8 when Mr.
Gordon renewed his request for the same information, and
in addition thereto, requested other wages in addition to
salary (stipends for coaching, chairman of a department,
etc.) Again, Mr. Burke responded that there was no obliga-
tion to provide such information but he would make an
effort to obtain it as soon as possible. Mr. Gordon's testimo-
ny corroborated Mr. Kranepool's account of the Union
requests for information and Respondent 's responses there-
to. When the teams met at the mediation service, Mr. Gor-
don said:
A. I told Mr. Burke that the information that we had
received was insufficient, that it did not meet our re-
quest or our needs nor did it meet his obligation to
provide this information to us.
I pointed out to him two schools were missing. I told
him that there was no salary information there. I told
him that we still had not received any information
about teachers who had been hired to work only a week
later. And I know that teachers are hired as early as
possible in order to have the full complement of faculty
prepared for the fall before the opening of school.
Q. In fact, taking that up for a minute, when are-
well, first of all, is there some sort of system by which
termination notices or something are sent to people,
that is, for people who are not going to be rehired?
A. Yes.
Our contract provides that March 1st is the date on
which teachers who are in their third year are informed
whether or not they will be receiving tenure.
Our way of doing things has been that teachers who
do not receive tenure, are not renewed, so a number of
teachers would know on March 1st whether or not they
were being renewed.
In addition to that, by April 15th, all teachers would
know. So any teachers who were being terminated
would have known by April 15th.
Q. By the way, are you a department head?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Oh.
Do you have any knowledge from your own experi-
ence when they start, let's say, interviewing new peo-
ple?
Have you witnessed people being interviewed at the
school?
A. People are interviewed as soon as it is known that
a place will be open. That would be at the latest, March
or April. It isn't always possible to hire people at that
point, I know, but some are hired at that time and
certainly the interviewing begins at that point in time.
Q. Now, with regard to your statement at that meet-
ing on the 29th of August-
A. Yes.
Q. (Continuing)-what was the response to the
Hald Association?
A. That some of the information had been provided,
that they were doing the best they could, that they had
no obligation to provide this information and basically
were doing us a favor anyway and couldn't understand
why it was that we were being so demanding inasmuch
as this was a favor.
I again pointed out why we needed the information,
that we couldn't properly represent these people, that
we didn't know who was in the unit, that we were
coming to the end of a contract.
It was known at that time that we were not near a
settlement. We felt that it was essential to consult all
the people we represented and to inform them of what
was going on.
Q. Now, with regard to McDonnell and Kearney,
was anything said?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us about that.
A. Well, Mr. Burke pointed out to us that-that in
his view neither Bishop McDonnell and Bishop Kear-
ney concerned us and that, therefore, he didn't see why
that information should be provided.
Q. And what was your response to that?
A. I told him that as of August 29th, there is no
dispute concerning Bishop Kearney and Bishop Mc-
Donnell.
I told him that all those people present on both sides
agreed that on August 29th those two schools are mem-
ber schools of the Hald Association.
I said that I had asked for a current list as early as
July when very clearly they were members of the asso-
ciation and that I wanted the information.
I pointed out to him that in addition to the matter
of consulting and informing him of what was transpir-
ing, I knew that some of the McDonnell teachers, be-
cause Brother Medard had told me so, would be hired
in some of the other schools, and I felt that might be
another way of contacting them by using the old Mc-
Donnell list.
I knew also that some of the articles perdure in their
rights, at least. For example, teachers have money put
into the annuity. Teachers have rights concerning
transfer to other schools.
Q. Did you say this to Mr. Burke?
A. Yes, I did. I told him all this time that those are
the reasons that I absolutely need this information.
Q. Okay.
And what was his response?
Mr. Gordon further testified that the bargaining teams
met again on September 6 when the Union renewed its
request for the information regarding teachers in its unit
and Mr. Burke advised it that Respondent had "provided
some information and that's all he intended to provide."
About a week later, Respondent sent the information con-
tained in General Counsel's Exhibit 23. The list did not
contain data for Bishop McDonnell and Bishop Kearney
High Schools, and no stipends appeared on the list and the
data was for the 1972-73 school year. The list also con-
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
tamed the names of persons who were no longer employed
by Respondent. The teams met again on September 7 at
which time he (Mr. Gordon) informed Mr. Burke that the
latter had still not provided the information requested, and
he again, specified the information omitted. Mr. Burke said
there was no obligation to provide such information but he
would do what he could. The union meeting was also held
on September 17, at which time its membership voted to
strike , commencing on the next day. The strike lasted I
week and the teams met again on September 22. When the
Union reminded Respondent that it still had not received
the information requested, Mr. Burke again said he had no
obligation to provide it but he was making some effort to
secure it. Mr. Gordon had received his check for the first
week and a half of the school year 1973-74, and it was
printed (with his name and address on it) by Respondent's
computer.
At the strike settlement meeting on October 14, the
Union asked for the requested information and Mr. Burke
said he would get back to them. The Union received a list
(G.C. Exh. 24) during the week of October 15. However,
this list did not contain the specific information heretofore
requested. The specific information requested on other
wages could mean as much as $2,000 or more a year to a
teacher. Respondent has since failed to furnish any of the
specific information requested by the Union. The Union
did not request the specific information before the schools
closed because it did not know until early July that Re-
spondent was obligated to furnish it and it did not believe
Respondent would have furnished it voluntarily. The data
furnished in Exhibit 19 was only an estimate. The Respon-
dent would know the names of members of the Union by
the check-off provisions.'
Brother Medard Shea credibly testified that he is assis-
tant superintendent for teacher personnel and has been in
three rounds of negotiations with the Union for Respon-
dent on two contracts and an attempted third contract;
Respondent furnished the union grids for the individual
schools for the school year 1972-73, at the Union's re-
quest; the Union did not request a school-by-school grid
for the 1972-73 school year; Respondent never refused to
furnish the Union with the names, addresses, and salaries
of its teachers but he attempted to obtain that information
from the accounting department (Mrs. Patricia Essex); she
eventually received some information but not what he had
requested; the Respondent implemented the computer sys-
tem in July, about the time the Union requested the infor-
mation but the system was not highly successful; and
Respondent's Exhibit 5 is submitted to show that there was
an internal problem of getting the information requested
by Respondent.
' I credit the testimony of Mr. Gordon because he appeared to be sure and
truthful as he testified and because his testimony (except his recollection that
Respondent said it would not provide the requested information ) is essential-
ly undisputed and consistent with the general tenor of all of the evidence of
record
471
Brother Medard further testified that by the terms of the
agreement , coaches were excluded from the bargaining un-
der the terms of the agreement by mutual consent of the
parties; there were no demands for extracurricular pay-
ments or changes which in his judgment would have been
barred from negotiations; on August 28 he invited the
Union to his office to obtain information on the names,
addresses, and salaries of the teachers but the Union did
not come or ask to come; he did not, nor did he hear, any
representative of Respondent advise the Union that Re-
spondent would not give the requested information; al-
though teachers are paid dung the summer by mail, the
envelopes for mailing these checks are addressed in June
by the school in which the teacher is assigned; this (his)
office would know only the beginning salary of teachers
and not their current salaries which are kept at the individ-
ual schools; he never refused to meet with the Union but
he did suggest deferring negotiation meeting with the
Union until the New York Supreme Court decided the is-
sue of state aid to (religious) Respondent's schools which
decision was expected and did issue in June; Respondent
immediately commenced negotiating after receipt of that
decision and continued to do so, except for 3 weeks in
August, when both parties absented themselves for vaca-
tion.
Brother Medard said he could have gotten the names,
addresses, and salaries from the checks after they came out
of the computer and he also could have gotten some of this
information from each of the schools.6
Harold S. Autern credibly testified that he is a manager
of Managistics, Inc., a data processing bureau, which pro-
vides payroll service for Respondent, and his business pur-
chased Respondent's account from the now defunct Pay-
roll Corporation of America in December, to take effect
January 1, 1974.
Mr. Autern further testified that at the time his enter-
prise purchased Respondent's account, it could not provide
the data requested by the Union because of the haphazard
manner in which the prior payroll enterprise kept its rec-
ords; his company is now in the process of properly pro-
gramming data from several Respondent sources , and will
soon be able to provide the requested information; and
Respondent has asked him to provide the data. Mr. Autern
was of the opinion that the Payroll Corporation of America
could not have provided the data requested. He is currently
printing out the payroll checks for all teachers, school-by-
school.'
Mr. Paul Crossman credibly testified that he is the busi-
ness manager for the Henry M. Hald Association and he
participated in practically all of the negotiation sessions
with the Union and had never heard a representative of the
Respondent say he would not,provide the information re-
6 1 credit the literal testimony of Brother Medard because I received the
impression that he was testifying truthfully and because his testimony is
essentially consistent with the general tenor of all of the evidence of record.
7 1 credit the witness' testimony to the extent that he testified because it
is conceivable that prior records were disorganized and required some time
for reworking However , the witness did not testify about collecting the data
for programming from each school rather than from the records of the
previous payroll service. '
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quested by the Union.8 He had heard representatives of
Respondent in its own meetings say that such information
should be provided to the Union. With regard to other
internal meetings of the Hald Association, the witness testi-
fied as follows:
Q. Now, with regard to the policy meetings you
mentioned, you said you recommended that you
should supply the names and addresses and the infor-
mation requested.
A. Right.
Q. Was anything said at those meetings as far as
providing the information with regard to Kearney or
McDonnell?
A. I don't recollect that.
Q. You don't in fact remember it may have actually
have been decided there not to give the information for
Kearney or McDonnell?
MR. BURKE: If it would be of assistance to counsel,
we are prepared to make a stipulation on that.
MR. FRIEDMAN: At those meetings?
MR. BURKE: Yes.
We specifically indicated that because those schools
were closing and nobody would be employed there,
that we were not bargaining for them as far as the
contract renewal is concerned. That does not apply to
bargaining on the effects of the decision to close.
But we were not bargaining for them under the con-
tract for a salary re-opener, because they already termi-
nated everyone.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Because of that you decided not to
provide the names and addresses?
MR. BURKE: Right, and no information was made
available for those two schools.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Fine.
Upon that stipulation, I would have no further ques-
tions of this witness, your Honor .9
Mr. Edward Burke credibly testified that he is the attor-
ney for the Hald Association (Respondent) and chief
spokesman in negotiations for the same at bargaining ses-
sions with the Union.
Mr. Burke further testified that he never refused to meet
with the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining; he
explained:
A. There was a period of time when particular repre-
sentatives of the Hald Association necessary to the
bargaining would be out of town. We requested that
there be deferment in the scheduling of dates at that
time simply because we were unable to proceed during
that time.
Also, there were times when, in the early part of the
negotiation, the union was-it was proposed to the
union that we await the determination of the United
States Supreme Court before proceeding to the resolu-
8 I credit this statement of the witness because it is corroborated by Brother
Medard and because he appeared to be telling the truth and the fact that he
did not hear such a statement does not mean that it was not made by Mr.
Burke or Respondent.
9 I credit the testimony of the witness except his reasons for not meeting
with the Union at times when members of Respondent were out of town. I
do not credit this statement because I received the impression it was an
excuse and because such reason was not communicated to the Union.
tion of the bargaining issues open under the re-opener
provision of the '72 clause.
Now, meetings were held, both by way of introduc-
ing the parties that were involved in the negotiations,
by general outlook of the issues , by requests for infor-
mation which was made available and, in general, set-
ting the stage for the bargaining unit that would be on
throughout the summer months.
The union indicated they wished to proceed as if the
Supreme Court decision was not a factor in the negotia-
tions and, on occasion, requested meetings.
Now, we said to them that yes, we would meet if you
felt we had to but we would suggest, however, that if
you had nothing additional to say other than what you
have said in the meetings that we have had, that you
would reconsider again and see if there wouldn't be any
benefit to both sides to wait.
With respect to the refusal to provide information to the
Union, Mr. Burke testified as follows:
We indicated, at first, as is our normal practice that
any request for the first time made for data or for
opinions on things, we would take it under advisement
and get back to it on the following meeting or as soon
as possible thereafter.
Traditionally we did not make snap judgments on
data presented to us for the first time. It was our opin-
ion that in light of the availability of this information
to the teachers, and in light of the fact that this was a
bargaining session rather than a representation elec-
tion, that it probably was not required of the associa-
tion to make this information available.
However, we didn't have any strong objection to
that. As time went on, we did attempt to develop a list
of names and addresses.
Now, as far as salary is concerned, that was a subse-
quent request made of the association.
Similarly, as is our practice, when the request was
made, we said we will look into it and come back with
an answer . I think we did look into it. We determined
that there was a legal obligation on the part of the
employer to make this information available. I advised
our client-my client to that effect. I suggested that we
go about gathering this information even though it is
going to be a rather painful and difficult experience.
Q. I ask you now to identify a group of papers titled
"Memorandum" and addressed to you from me dated
August 13, 1973. (Handling.)
A. Yes.
This is a memorandum of law from Mr. Estock to
me, which was prepared on or about August 13th at my
request.
Q. And it deals with the names and addresses.
And did you state whether you advised your client
to give the information requested?
A. Well, this particular point related specifically to
salary. At the time I received this memorandum I was
asked if further review was necessary in light of this, in
effect, preliminary view.
I responded that no, this, in effect , tells us what our
obligations are and it would be sufficient. Upon receipt
of this memorandum I notified the Hald Association
HENRY M HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN.
that they should gather the data.
Mr. Burke also testified that there were negotiations con-
cerning athletic stipends for the year 1972, and the parties
more or less agreed to leave their arrangement out of the
bargaining contract because they were traditionally han-
dled by individual schools. He does not recall being asked
by the Union for a school-by-school grid for 1973. The
witness went on as follows:
Q. How extensive were the negotiations that were
involved?
A. Well, after '72, which seemed like a full-time job
for a lot of people around the clock, it was anticipated
that the '73 negotiations would be not nearly as time-
consuming.
We only had one item open for negotiation, that
being money, and specifically salary and related provi-
sions.
We didn't have any working conditions; we didn't
have any fringe benefits; we didn't have any complex
language to draft, union rights or management rights or
anything of that kind. So that it was anticipated that
the negotiations would not be a summer-long project.
In any event, there was ample time after the Supreme
Court decision to freely view, discuss, negotiate and
resolve all matters before the parties prior to the expira-
tion of the agreement on September 31st.
The Respondent did defer negotiation during the week of
July 16 because several of their members were out of town
and it did indicate that if the Union asked for more money
the Respondent's response would be "no," until after the
Supreme Court's decision, and for that reason , we suggested
that we delay service, bargaining until the Court decision
was made; Mr. Burke continued on cross-examination as
follows:
Q. At that point, by the way, just to get-at the
point that these discussions were taking place, the
union had presented certain general proposals; right?
A. Right.
Q. Had the Hald Association responded with any at
that point?
A. Well, we had given-I can't say for sure. I could
only speculate as to what was formally said.
I do know, however, that we viewed it as all of one
package. And unless we knew what' the finances were,
some of the other less significant items had to await the
determination of the bigger items. We just simply
couldn't isolate items and make binding commitments
without knowing what the over-all package was going
to be.
So I can't say precisely what was said.
Mr. Burke said he would not deny that Mr. Basedow first
asked him for a list of names and addresses of the teachers
and in all probability he responded. When asked how and
what was his response, Mr. Burke said:
I would normally say to a request of that nature at
that time that it would be better for the union to do its
own work instead of asking us to do it, that you have
ample opportunity to do it, that we don't have that
opportunity to do it at the time and nevertheless, we
will get back to you on it.
473
He recalls that the Union first asked for salary informa-
tion in early August.10
Based upon the foregoing credible evidence, I conclude
and find that during the months of March through August
31, in particular, the Union and the Respondent were obli-
gated by agreement to bargain with respect to a wage reo-
pener, new rates of pay, and wages and hours of employ-
ment, for the 1973-74 school year; at no time prior or
subsequent to March did the Union ever waive, upon clear
and unmistakable evidence, its right or duty to bargain or
negotiate with Respondent on such rates of pay, wages,
and hours of employment; the Union made the first of its
repeated and continued requests of the Respondent to bar-
gain on the aforestated subject of negotiation on January
8; the bargaining teams of the Respondent and the Union
met for the first session on March 20 and again on March
29, at which time the Union requested a grid on its unit
employees for the 1973-74 school year; the Union had pre-
viously received such a grid for the 1972-73 school year;
during their meeting of March 29, Respondent suggested
that the parties defer further bargaining sessions until is-
suance of the Supreme Court's decision on aid to nonpubl-
ic religious schools; the Union opposed such a deferral of
the negotiations; the parties nevertheless agreed to meet on
April 10; the Union did not agree to the delay of the nego-
tiations and Respondent notified the Union on April 9 that
it could not meet with it on April 10 and suggested and
arranged a meeting for May 3; Respondent and the Union
met and bargained on nonsalary matters on several occa-
sions during March through October; the parties met in a
bargaining session on May •3 at which time the Union was
presented a grid for the 1972-73 school year; the Union
advised Respondent that it had requested a grid for the
1973-74 school year and not for 1972-73; the Union was
thereupon advised that Respondent would get back to it
with respect to its request; the Union then suggested the
next session for May 8, 11, or 15, but the only response
from Respondent was that it (Respondent) would await the
aforedescribed Supreme Court decision and get back to the
Union at that time; the Union contacted Respondent
about a bargaining session on May 8 and was advised by
Respondent on May 10 that Respondent had, pointed out
the limited scope of the bargaining sessions , and that since
new salary provisions would not become effective until
September 1, it again suggested that bargaining sessions be
deferred for a month or so when the uncertainty of govern-
mental aid to its schools is resolved by the Supreme Court
decision; Respondent further proposed that if the Union
had additional information, Respondent would be happy
to meet with' it before the Court's decision; the Union re-
newed its request for a bargaining session on May 21 and
also requested a response to its salary proposals "submitted
to Respondent on March 15, to which it had not received a
"Literally, I credit the testimony of Mr Burke not only because I re-
ceived the impression that he was testifying truthfully but because his literal
testimony, except his recollection of the date when the Union first asked
for salary information , is essentially consistent with that of most of the other
witnesses in this proceeding
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
response ; on June 15 , the Union again requested Respon-
dent to set a date (any date) to meet for negotiations on
salaries of lay teacher employees in its unit; on June 27 the
Union received word from its attorney-that there would be
no governmental aid to religious (Respondent 's) schools;
on June 27, Respondent, in response to the Union's letter
of June 15 , agreed to a bargaining session on July 6 or 10,
and the parties met on July 6; Respondent did not literally
refuse to meet and bargain with the Union; but that
Respondent's delay in meeting to bargain or negotiate with
the Union between March 30 and August 31, and its fail-
ure to respond to the Union 's proposals constituted refusal
to bargain collectively in good faith with the representative
of its employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
I further conclude and find upon the same aforedes-
cribed evidence that at the bargaining session on July 6,
the Union requested Respondent to provide it with the
names and addresses of the teachers for the Hald Associa-
tion , and indicating if a teacher is a chairman of any de-
partment or stipend member of some club or other organi-
zation ; Respondent responded that the Union did not need
such information but it would get back to the Union with
reference thereto ; at the same time (July 6) the Union re-
newed its request for the grid for the 1973-74 school year,
showing the names of new teachers hired ; the parties met
again on July 13 at which time the Union again requested
the grid and teachers salary information for the 1973-74
school year ; counsel for Respondent then said he would
get back to the Union but that securing the names, ad-
dresses , and salaries of the teachers in the Union's unit was
the Union's job and not Respondent's; the Union had the
names and addresses of about 420 of its 550 members of its
unit ; the Union's acquisition of all such data (names etc.)
was relevant and necessary to the Union's performance of
its statutory and contractual duty to negotiate and bargain
on the subject of salary , wages , or income matters of em-
ployees in its unit; the Union did not have adequate means
(including steward system) to obtain the information re-
quested; to effectively perform its duty in this regard, the
Union needed the data requested on all of the teachers in
its unit during the period March through August; if it
might have been possible for the Union to secure said data
on its own, it is clear it would have been an exceedingly
onerous, if not an impossible task for it to obtain all of the
data during the period in question; Respondent had some
mechanical or automotive difficulty in providing the said
requested information but it was not an onerous nor an
impossible task to obtain the information from its individu-
al schools or other alternative sources over the bargaining
period of nearly 60 or 90 days; it was considerably easier
for the Respondent to furnish the said information than it
was for the Union to obtain it on its own; Respondent
submitted some data to the Union on July 11, but such
data was not the data requested by the Union; on July 16
Respondent suggested a bargaining meeting for August 8
to which the Union objected but the parties agreed to a
meeting which was held on August 8 with the Federal
Mediation Service; on August 15, Respondent mailed an
extensive list of the names and addresses, without the sala-
ries of the teachers, to the Union; the list did not contain
all of its school and it contained the names of some teach-
ers whom it no longer employed and omitted the names of
some newly employed teachers; the Union renewed its re-
quest to Respondent for said data on August 27; Respon-
dent forwarded a list to the Union on September 10 or 11
which did contain salaries without other wages (stipends,
etc.) of the teachers and without reference to Bishop Mc-
Donnell and Bishop Kearney schools; Respondent admit-
ted that it initially thought that it did not have to provide
the requested information since there was no representative
election case, until it learned it was legally required to do
so; Respondent admitted that it could have obtained the
information from the checks of the teachers or from the
individual schools of the teachers; aside from advising the
Union late in the negotiation period that it had a problem
with its computer system, the Respondent did not make an
effort to notify the Union of any additional problem or of
its inability to provide said information during the negotia-
tion period or thereafter; and Respondent's failure to fur-
nish the specific information first on the ground that it was
not entitled to it, and, secondly, because it had a problem
with its computer system without exhausting other alterna-
tives readily available to it, is evidence of bargaining in bad
faith; such bad faith coupled with Respondent's failure to
provide the Union with the requested information for more
than a reasonable time constitutes a refusal to bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the representative of its employ-
ees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Analysis and Conclusion
The questions presented for decision in the instant pro-
ceeding arise from a contractual and statutory obligation of
the Union and the Respondent to bargain collectively in the
interest of Respondent 's employees , and to determine
whether each party made an effort in good faith to dis-
charge that obligation. The evidence upon which the deter-
mination of good-faith bargaining is to be made is both
documentary and testimonial , and the testimonial evidence
herein is almost free of conflict.
Thus, with respect to the Union's charge of refusal to
bargain or bargaining in bad faith, it is well established by
the evidence that while Respondent did not advise the
Union that it would not meet with it to bargain on the
subject of salary (including other wages), it nevertheless did
suggest that the parties delay the bargaining sessions for a
month, pending a decision by the State Supreme Court on
aid to private religious schools . If the Respondent 's sugges-
tion to delay negotiations stood alone, unaccompanied by
long delays in scheduling meetings , consenting to meet and
actually not meeting with the Union , as well as, actively
participating in the bargaining sessions by not responding
to the Union's proposals on salary adjustments, etc., its
HENRY M . HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN. 475
suggestion could not be construed as an act of refusal to
bargain in good faith . However, since the Union did not
agree to the deferral of negotiations , but repeatedly insisted
on frequent bargaining sessions and a response to its salary
proposal , Respondent 's conduct demonstrates that it unilat-
erally delayed negotiations from March 29 to May 3, and
further deferred negotiations from May 3 to July 6, after the
Court issued its decision . During this entire period, the Re-
spondent did not respond to the Union's salary proposal. At
this time , the schools were closed and negotiations were
further complicated by their closing as shown , infra, in the
discussion of the Union's request for information from Re-
spondent.
The evidence is not in dispute that the Respondent was
obligated by its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union, to bargain with respect to a wage reopener during
the period March through August 31. Although Respondent
met with the Union on March 20 and 29, when it was given
the Union's salary proposal and its request for a grid for the
1973-74 school year , Respondent, nevertheless , subsequent-
ly advised the Union that it had to break its commitment
to meet with it on April 10 and suggested that the next
bargaining session be held on May 3 . On May 3, the parties
met, and Respondent presented the Union with a grid for
1972-73 instead of the 1973-74 school year. It did not have
a response to the Union's wage proposal . Respondent did
not respond to the Union 's request for a bargaining session
on May 8, 11, or 15 but later, on June 27, after the Court
issued its decision on aid to religious schools , suggested a
bargaining session for July 6 or 10. Respondent had previ-
ously advised the Union that its response to the Union's
salary proposal prior to the Court's decision would proba-
bly have been "no," and therefore, any bargaining prior to
that decision would have been futile . It is clear that while
the law does not require an Employer or a union to make
concessions on its bargaining position, it does require the
parties to meet or to comniunicate in an effort to negotiate
their differences . It can hardly be expected that such differ-
ences could be resolved in the absence of such bargaining
communication in good faith . Hence, the evidence is abun-
dantly persuasive that Respondent, by its conduct in delay-
ing bargaining sessions and failing to respond to the
Union's salary proposal , refused to bargain in good faith in
violation of the Act.
It is a gross inconsistency of Respondent to admit that it
suggested the parties to defer negotiations until after the
Court's decisions , and thereafter delayed and avoided meet-
ing with the Union until after the issuance of the Court's
decision, and at the same time , now contend that it did not
refuse to bargain with the Union in good faith . Nor can it
be reasonably maintained by Respondent that such a delay
was necessary , reasonable , or unavoidable, because Re-
spondent could have bargained with the Union on the basis
of its current financial status , as it was ultimately compelled
to do; or it could have bargained tentatively on the prospect
of its receipt of governmental aid. Moreover , since the rec-
ord is devoid of any clear and unmistakable evidence that
the Union previously agreed to waive its right to bargain on
the wage reopener , Respondent's intimation that it did so is
untenable.
Although Respondent engaged in meetings and sessions
with the Union on matters unrelated to the wage reopener,
its concededly cooperative conduct in this regard cannot, in
the context of Respondent's total course of behavior, be
found sufficient to satisfy its obligation to bargain pursuant
to an express provision for wage reopener in its current
collective-bargaining agreement . Moreover, since the
Union opposed deferral of the negotiations until the Court
issued its decision , Respondent's suspension or delay of the
negotiations with the Union from March 29 to July 6, and
beyond, was a unilateral and arbitrary act, and, as such, is
evidence of its lack of good faith to bargain collectively.
Hence, Respondent 's conduct in delaying negotiations un-
der these circumstances was a refusal to bargain in violation
of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.
The Caroline Farms case cited by counsel for Respondent
is not applicable to the facts in this proceeding because the
facts therein clearly established the employer engaged in
hard bargaining, as distinguished from no bargaining, and
the evidence failed to establish that the employer therein
delayed negotiations as the Respondent did in the instant
case.
With respect to the Union's charge that Respondent re-
fused to furnish certain information it requested , it is well
established by the evidence of record that the Union first
requested a grid of its unit teachers for the 1973-74 school
year, during its bargaining meeting with Respondent on or
before March 29. Respondent responded that the Union did
not need such information but that it would get back to the
Union on that matter . Respondent did not meet with the
Union again until May 3, at which time it presented the
Union with a grid for the 1972-73 school year. The Union
renewed its request for a 1973-74 grid, specifying the inclu-
sion of new teachers for the 1973-74 school year. The Union
again renewed its request for the said grid during its bar-
gaining meetings with Respondent on July 6, at which time,
it also requested the names , addresses , and salaries of its
unit teachers . Later in July, the Union further defined salary
in its request to include other wages . At practically all times,
Respondent said it would get back to the Union with respect
to the matter of this information , but it felt securing such
information was the duty of the Union and not the
Respondent's.
The evidence of record also clearly established that the
information requested by the Union is relevant and neces-
sary to the Union's effective discharge of its obligation to
bargain for unit teachers on matters relating to their sala-
ries, as affected by their tenure, transfers , etc. Furthermore
the evidence amply demonstrates that the names and ad-
dresses of the teachers whose salaries , tenure, etc., for which
the Union is obligated to bargain , were only partially avail-
able to the Union and the latter did not have any adequate
efficacy by which to obtain them. Specifically, since the
unidentified or unreachable unit teachers reside in various
and distant locations throughout the New York metropoli-
tan area , and since the individual schools in which they
taught were closed for the summer season and a steward
system was not established to have been effective or in
operation during the period in question, it would have been
considerably difficult if not impossible for the Union to
obtain the data related to the salaries of such teachers with-
out the information it requested . On the contrary, while the
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent could not have furnished the requested data
with the degree of facility and expedition with which it nor-
mally would have been able to do, had its computer system
been functioning properly , it was not impossible , too bur-
densome , nor unreasonable for the Respondent to furnish
the requested data from its individual schools or from the
teachers checks which it mailed to the teachers twice per
month . Consequently , under these circumstances , it is clear
that Respondent was required to furnish the requested data,
the grid and the names , addresses, and salaries of its teach-
ers because it was relevant and necessary to an effective
discharge of the Union's duty. Magma Copper Company,
Sam Marvel Division, 208 NLRB 53.
Although the evidence is clear that Respondent submit-
ted a list of the names and addresses of teachers to the
Union on August 15, such list was submitted nearly 40 days
after the Union requested it and only 16 days before expira-
tion of the bargaining agreement on August 31. However,
even so, this list did not contain the salary data, the names
of some newly employed teachers , the names of all schools
involved, and it contained the names of some teachers not
now employed by Respondent. The Union thereupon re-
newed its request for the same data to Respondent on Au-
gust 27, and on September 10 or 11, Respondent forwarded
to the Union a list containing the flat salary data without
other wages (stipends) as specifically requested by the
Union in July. Also omitted from the list were the names of
Bishop McDonnell and Bishop Kearney High Schools. Al-
though Brother Medard testified that Respondent had invit-
ed union representatives to his office to obtain what
information that was available , the witness also said the
specific information requested by the Union was not in his
office. Furthermore the Union did not confirm that such an
offer had been made and the record does not contain any
written communication of such an offer. The evidence,
therefore, does not establish that Brother Medard ever ex-
tended an unequivocal opportunity to the Union to come to
its facilities to obtain the information requested even if he
had such information in his office. Thus, the question pre-
sented for decision is whether the manner in which Respon-
dent furnished information requested and its failure to
furnish all of the information, as requested by the Union,
constitute bargaining in bad faith as alleged by the Union.
In answering this last question raised by the complaint
and the evidence , it is observed that Respondent , through
its legal counsel , admitted at the hearing that initially Re-
spondent did delay furnishing the requested information
because, initially, it did not believe it was legally required
to furnish it. This admission is amply supported by
Respondent 's statements to union representatives at the
times they requested the information. Under these circum-
stances, it would appear that the Respondent was laboring
under an honest mistake of law or opinion. In any event,
even if such a mistake did not constitute bad faith , I am not
persuaded that Respondent would be exonerated of the
charge of refusal to bargain in good faith since it failed to
bargain, in reliance on its erroneous position that it did not
have to provide the requested information. However, be
that as it may, when I review and reflect upon the total
course of conduct of the Respondent in bargaining with the
Union since March, I am persuaded by the evidence that its
initial and subsequent delays , in furnishing a reasonably
accurate list of the specific data requested by the Union,
was not necessarily an honest mistake of law or opinion, but
rather , evidence of an extension of its failure to bargain in
good faith since March 29. This position is especially sup-
ported when the intervening delays are considered along
with the piece meal and incomplete fashion in which Re-
spondent furnished the Union with what information it did
provide, in the midst of the Union's repeated requests for
the specific information and meetings to bargain . Since the
requested data was relevant and necessary to an effective
discharge of the Union's statutory and contractual duty to
bargain collectively with Respondent on behalf of its unit
employees, such bargaining in bad faith by Respondent
constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Reed & Prince Manu-
facturing Companyy 205 F.2d 131 (C.A. 1). However, noth-
ing in the findings in this proceeding should be interpreted
as being inconsistent with the findings of the Administra-
tive Law Judge in the NLRB proceeding, Case 29-
CA-3336, with respect to the unit employees now em-
ployed at Bishop Kearney High School.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above , have a close , intimate,
and substantial relationship 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
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union , it will be recommended that the
Respondent, upon request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit.
Having found that Respondent has delayed giving and
has failed and refused to give the Union, upon its request,
the grid and all of the names , addresses , salary, and other
wages of all of its teachers (including newly employed
teachers) for the 1973-74 school year, it will be recommend-
ed that the Respondent provide the Union with the afore-
described data as requested by the Union.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices herein found, the recommended Order will pro-
vide that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , I make the following:
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL ASSN. 477
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Henry M. Hald High School Association , the Respon-
dent , is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
mg of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Lay Faculty Association , Local 1261, American Fed-
eration of Teachers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All lay faculty employees (except agents and supervi-
sors) of Respondent , Henry M. Hald High School Associa-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. At all times on and after January 8 , 1973, the Union
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in
said unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages (salary), hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
5. By failing and refusing on and after March 29 to con-
fer timely and promptly with the Union for the purpose of
bargaining on the subject of wages (salary) and wage related
matters , and by failing and refusing to furnish the Union,
upon its request , with the names, addresses , salary, and
other wages of all of its teacher's in the said bargaining unit,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 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.
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ORDER 11
Respondent, Henry M. Hald High School Association, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representatives of the employees in the unit herein
found to be appropriate.
(b) Refusing to furnish the Union with the names, ad-
dresses, salary, and other wages of all employees (teachers)
in the unit herein found to be appropriate.
(c) In any like manner from interfering with , restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with Lay Faculty Association,
Local 1261, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of Respondent 's employees
in the unit herein found appropriate and embody any un-
derstanding reached in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, provide the Lay Faculty Association,
Local 1261, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO,
with the names , addresses, salary, and other wages of all
employees (teachers) in the unit herein found to be appro-
priate.
(c) Post at all its schools and facilities where notices to
unit teachers are customarily posted, copies of the attached
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Lay
Faculty Association, Local 1261, American Federation
of Teachers , AFL-CIO, by refusing to meet with it
timely upon its request, or by refusing to give it, upon
request, the names, addresses, salary, and other wages
of all employees (teachers) in the unit herein found to
be appropriate.
WE WILL NOT, in any like manner , interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of any
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively in good
faith with Local 1261 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit
herein found appropriate.
The appropriate bargaining unit is composed of
lay teachers, exclusive of clerical, custodial, or other
personnel who are agents of Respondent or supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, provide Local 1261 with the
data and information hereinabove requested, as well as
any other relevant information subsequently requested
to which it is entitled.
HENRY M. HALD HIGH SCHOOL
ASSOCIATION
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(Employer) anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
Dated By from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
(Representative) (Title) or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor, Brook-
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by lyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.