Los Angeles Chapter, Sheet Metal Contractors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 886 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Chapter, Sheet Metal and Air Condition-
ing Contractors National Association, Inc.; Alham-
bra Sheet Metal; Brecht Manufacturing Inc.;
Brothers Metal Products Inc.; California Blowpipe
Mfg.; Doubarn Sheet Metal; Duray, Inc.; Food
Equipment Fabrications Inc.; Kitcor Corporation;
Kruse Metals Mfg. Co.; Lay Vee Inc.; Loyl Peter-
son Inc.; Marine Sheet Metal Workers; Menco
Metal Products; Rehco Corporation; San Pedro
Sheet Metal Works; Ship & Shore Sheet Metal;
Troy Sheet Metal Works and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 75,
AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-17359
December 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBRS PNELI.()
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on December 12, 1978, by
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Lo-
cal Union No. 75, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Charging Party or Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 21, issued a complaint and notice of
hearing on February 9, 1979, against Los Angeles
Chapter, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contrac-
tors National Association, Inc., herein called Respon-
dent SMACNA, and against its members, Alhambra
Sheet Metal, Brecht Manufacturing Inc., Brothers
Metal Products Inc., California Blowpipe Mfg., Dou-
barn Sheet Metal, Duray Inc., Food Equipment Fab-
ricators Inc., Kitcor Corporation, Kruse Metals Mfg.
Co., Lay Vee Inc., Loyl Peterson Inc., Marine Sheet
Metal Works, Menco Products, Rehco Corporation.
San Pedro Metal Works, Ship & Shore Sheet Metal,
and Troy Sheet Metal Works, herein collectively
called Respondent Employers. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing were served on the
Respondents.
The complaint alleged that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint
alleged that the Respondents refused to bargain with
the Union in that they refused to furnish it with cer-
tain information requested by it in reference to the
payment of prorata vacation benefits to unit employ-
ees who have left their employment with any of the
Respondent Employers after less than I year of ser-
vice. On February 22, 1979, the Respondents filed
their answer to the complaint and thereby denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
On June II, 1979, the parties executed a stipulation
of facts in which the parties waived a hearing before
an administrative law judge and agreed to submit the
case to the Board for findings of facts, conclusions of
law, and a Decision and Order, based on a record
consisting of the stipulation of' facts and exhibits
thereto attached.
On July 18, 1979, the Board approved the stipula-
tion of the parties and ordered the case transferred to
the Board, granting permission for the filing of briefs.
Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party,
and the Respondents filed briefs.
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.
Upon the basis of the stipulation, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FA(''S
1. JRISI)I(I O()N
Respondent SMACNA is an association of em-
ployers, including the Respondent Employers, en-
gaged in business as sheet metal subcontractors and
fabricators in southern California, and it exists for,
and does engage in, collective bargaining for, and ne-
gotiates collective-bargaining agreements on behalf
of, its employer-members with labor organizations,
including the Union. The employer-members of Re-
spondent SMACNA, including the Respondent Em-
ployers, which participate in multiemployer bargain-
ing through Respondent SMACNA, in the course
and conduct of their businesses during the past 12-
month period purchased and received, in the aggre-
gate, goods and products in excess of $50,000 from
suppliers located within the State of California, each
of which in turn purchased those same goods directly
from suppliers located outside the State of California.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Respon-
dent Employers, which are employer-members of Re-
spondent SMACNA, are employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. IIF IABOR ORGANIZAIION INVOIVEI
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Union
is now, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
246 NLRB No. 140
886
L.OS AN(iEI.ES CHAPTER. SHEET METAL. (CONTRACT''ORS
111. T'I'H AIl.I.(til) tUNFAIR LABOR PRA(II('iES
A. The Stipulated hFuts
On or about July 1, 1974, the Union and Respon-
dent SMACNA, on behalf of its employer-members,
including the Respondent Employers, entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement. which was effective
by its terms through June 30, 1979. All employees
employed by the employer-members of Respondent
SMACNA, including the Respondent Employers, in
the job classifications set forth in that collective-bar-
gaining agreement constitute a unit appropriate fr
the purposes of collective bargaining. At all times ma-
terial herein, the Union has been the collective-bar-
gaining representative for those unit employees.
In June 1978, a dispute arose between the Union
and Doubarn Sheet Metal, one of the Respondent
Employers herein, concerning an employee's entitle-
ment to prorated vacation benefits under the afore-
mentioned collective-bargaining agreement. Doubarn
Sheet Metal contended that the employee, who had
voluntarily quit after only 9-1/2 months on the job,
was not contractually entitled to vacation pay be-
cause he had not worked a minimum of I year. The
Union contended that the contract required payment
of prorated vacation benefits to any unit employee
who had been employed for 30 days or more. After
the filing of a grievance, the Union submitted the dis-
pute to the National Joint Adjustment Board for the
Sheet Metal Industry.
On June 29, 1978, the National Joint Adjustment
Board issued its decision finding that Doubarn Sheet
Metal was obligated to pay prorated vacation benefits
to the employee in question. Doubarn Sheet Metal
complied with that decision. On October 11, 1978, the
Union returned to the National Joint Adjustment
Board and requested it to render a decision concern-
ing the alleged failure of various employer-members
of Respondent SMACNA, including all of the Re-
spondent Employers herein, to pay prorated vacation
benefits to employees who left their employment with
less than I year of service. On November 2, 1978, the
National Joint Adjustment Board issued a decision
finding that the issue presented had been resolved by
its earlier decision of June 29, 1978, and that all em-
ployer-members of Respondent SMACNA were re-
quired to give prorated vacation pay to employees
who left their jobs with less than I year of service.
On November 14, 1978, the Union sent letters to
each of the Respondent Employers wherein it cited
the National Joint Adjustment Board's more recent
decision and requested, inter alia, the names, ad-
dresses, starting dates, termination dates, wage scales,
and amount of prorated vacation pay for former unit
employees. Since on or about December 1, 1978, the
Respondent Employers have followed instructions
from Respondent SMACNA and have refused to fur-
nish the requested information.
On March 9, 1979, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California issued an order
vacating the National Joint Adjustment Board's arbi-
tration award of November 2, 1978, and directing a
rehearing before the Adjustment Board on the pro-
rated vacation benefits issue. Thereafter. by letter
dated April 13, 1979. counsel fr the Union reiterated
its request to the Respondent Employers for the
aforementioned information about former unit em-
ployees. The letter stated, in part: "Local 75 believes
that it has a good grievance concerning this subject,
and wishes to pursue the matter. Without the specific
information requested in the November 14, 1978 let-
ters, Local 75 is unable to properly pursue its griev-
ance.
By letter dated April 30, 1979. counsel for the Re-
spondents again refused to provide the information
requested by the Union. The letter set forth the Re-
spondents' "position that the only information rel-
evant to the union's processing of their grievance is
information which would establish or tend to estab-
lish whether or not employees with less than one year
of service with an employer were paid pro rata vaca-
tion pay." It further indicated that the Union already
possessed the affidavits of various Respondent Em-
ployers wherein the failure to pay prorated vacation
benefits to any unit employee with less than I year of
service was admitted.
On May 3, 1979, the Union responded to the letter
from the Respondents' counsel with another letter
from its own counsel. The Union's letter acknowl-
edged possession of affidavits admitting nonpayment
of prorated vacation benefits for certain former unit
employees, but noted:
The affidavits do not contain the name or ad-
dress of the employees, the dates of employment,
or the amounts of prorated vacation pay to
which the employees would be entitled under
Local 75's interpretation of the agreement.
Under the circumstances, without the infor-
mation requested Local 75 is unable to ascertain
whether the companies are listing all of their em-
ployees (no names were given). In addition, Lo-
cal 75 wishes to contact the employees who are
entitled to benefits; however, no addresses were
given.
If you now agree that the information re-
quested is relevant, we would appreciate receiv-
ing it as quickly as possible.
The record does not indicate any further response
by the Respondents to the Union's requests. The Re-
887
I)I-.( ISI()NS ()I NII()ON .1 ILAB()R R lAII()NS BO()ARI)
sporidents have continued to refLuse to provide thie re-
quested inOrmniation a bout f'ormer unit employees.
B. (onictliotn. o /he Pa/licv
The General ('ounsel and the Unlion contend ti hat
the informaition requested by the Union was relevant
to its processing of outstanding grievances concerning
prorated vacation benefit payments. Assuing. l ,rgll-
(n/, the ahbsence of any underlying grievances. the
(General ('ounsel further asserts the presumptive rele-
vancy of' the information requested for purposes of
negotiation and contract administration. Finall>, the
General ('ounsel argues that the relationship of, the
inf'orniation sought to individuals who are no longer
unit employees has no bearing on the relevancy of' the
information or the obligation of' the Respondents to
furnish it upon request. Both the General Counlsel
and the Union accordingly submit that the Respon-
dents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act
by failing to provide the requested infbOrmation.
The Respondents contend that the information re-
quested by the Union was sought ft'r the sole purpose
of achieving comnpliance with the National Joint Ad-
justment Board's arbitration award. They maintain
that any obligation to provide the informalation was
stayed pending judicial review of the award. Once the
award had been vacated, the Respondents argue. the
information could no longer be considered relevant to
the Union's duties and they had, and continue to
have, no obligation to supply it.
('C. Dixcu.vxion ind (onc.io.rv
It is well established that an employer has an obli-
gation as part of its duty to bargain in good faith, to
provide infi)rmation needed by a bargaining repre-
sentative fr the proper performance of its duties.'
The obligation extends beyond contract negotiations
to matters of contract administration, including the
processing o grievances. 2 An employer has no obliga-
tion to provide information which is plainly irrelevant
to any dispute concerning the bargaining unit.' but it
must supply information which is of even probable or
protential relevance.4 The refusal of an employer to
provide information relevant to a requesting union's
tasks as representative of unit employees is a per se
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The record in this case conclusively demonstrates
the probable or potential relevance of the information
sought to the Union's processing of grievances about
the prorated vacation pay issue. When the Union first
I ' . R B v 7ruti Miluartu ring (r emprn. 351 l.S 149 (19561.
2 '. LRB v. A, me Induirial (,. 385 S 432 (1967).
1 Su/hni ternr Bell 7Telephone (olpanr . 173 NRB 172 11968)
4(General Elletr ('rimpanl, 199 Nl.RB 286 11972).
reqtuested the names. addresses, starting dates, termi-
nation (date,. sage scales, aind anlotunt of' prorated
pa' for ormerr- uniit emplllo\es, it did s for the undis-
puted pur-pose of policilig the Respondent's compli-
ance ithll the Niational Joint Adtiustment Bioard's ar-
hitrationl award. Such inforriiation lhen sought f'or
the purpose stated is clearly relevant to a union's role
in the processiLng of grievances, s and the Respondents
were not usti tied in withhold ig the information
pending judicial review of the award.
After the arbitral award had been vacated, the
rinion at least twice reiterated its request for the
above-described intorniatioll about former employees
and indicated that it needed the infioriiation in order
to pursue urther grievances concerning prorated va-
cation benefit payments. l'he Respondents did not at-
tenipt specifically to rebut the L;nion's need for the
information requested other than to assert that the
Ilnion needed nothing more than the information
contained in affidavits from the Respondent which it
already possessed. Once again, however, we find that
the intoralltionl sought bh the Union tor the purpose
stated is sufficiently relevant under Board law to war-
rant its production. It is not necessary that any griev-
alnces actually be outstanding or that the information
be such as would clearly dispose of them. The Union
is entitled to the inforniation it' it bears upon its deter-
mination to file a grievance or is helpful in evaluating
the merits of a contractual claim and the propriety of
pursuing it to arbitration.') It was not hound to accept
as suIticienit information the conclusionarN statements
contai ned in the aidaviits. ()n the contrary. it was
entitled to colntact afiected forrier unit employees
and to ascertain the potential scope of their alleged
loss of vacation pay betfore choosing its best course of
action as unit representative. lhe fhct that the intor-
mation requested concerns individuals who are no
longer unit employees (does not lessen its relevance. In
evaluating and processing grievances of the kind in-
volved herein, the Union is satfguarding not only the
particular interests of forrler unit employees. but also
the interests of the entire current bargaining unit with
respect to the payment of contractual vacation hene-
fits.7
On the basis of the lforegoing, we find that the in-
tornmation requested by the Union was relevant to the
perfiormance of its duties as the bargaining represent-
ative of the Respondents' employees. We therefore
conclude that the Respondents, by failing and refus-
ing to provide the information requested by the
Union have violated and are violating Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act.
'Scc .lmnrual Ship Buihding (oiili, 240 N.RB 1 16 (1979)
Ig.. Ohni Poer (mpn, 216 NI.RB 987. 991 (1975).
See Mlir lanuiluiuring (nqmpinv, 225 N.RB 1317, 1328 (1976)
888
lOS *\NG iIS ( IAPIER. Sil l El I. A1 ( )\N I R \( IORS
. ii 111 1tt( (I 1111 t NIAI I R I.) R ( I iS
tl PI'N ( )MNIR( I
The activities of the Respondents set forth in sec-
tion 1ll. above occurring in connection \vith the op-
erations described in section I. above. have a close.
intimate. and substantial relationship to trade. traffic.
and commerce among the se eral States and ten d to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
\V. Iit1 R:MI)Y
Ilaving fund that the Respondents have engaged
in unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fct.
and upon the entire record in this proceeding. we
make the following:
CO()NCI.ISI()NS OF Lx
1. The Los Angeles Chapter. Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors National Association. Inc..
is an association of employers, including Alhambra
Sheet Metal. Brecht Manufacturing Inc.. Brothers
Metal Products Inc., California Blowpipe Mfg.. Dou-
barn Sheet Metal. Duray. Inc.. Food Equipment
Fabricators Inc.. Kitcor Corporation, Kruse Metals
Mfg. Co.. Lay Vee Inc., Loyl Peterson Inc.. Marine
Sheet Metal Works. Menco Metal Products. Rehco
Corporation. San Pedro Sheet Metal Works. Ship &
Shore Sheet Metal. and Troy Sheet Metal Works.
which are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sheet Metal Workers International Association.
Local Union No. 75. AFL-CIO. is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing. on and after December
1, 1978, to provide the Union with the information
requested on November 14. 1978, and continuousl
thereafter, the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
OR[)ER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National l.abor
Relations Act, as amended. the National I.abor Rela-
tions Board herebx orders that the Respondents. I os
Angeles C(hapter. Sheet Metal and Air ( ondiioniitg
C(ontractors National Association, Inc.: Alhambra
Sheet IMetal: recht Marlnuftlcturing Inc.: Brothers
Metal IlPoducts Inc.' (alitornia Blowpipe Itg.: I)ou-
harn Sheet lMetal: [)ura. Inc.:; ood quipmelnt
Fabricators Inc.: Kitcor Corporation: Kruse Metals
1fg. C(o.: l.ay Vee Inc.: L.oxl Peterson Inc.: Marine
Sheet Metal Work: Menco Metal Products: Rehco
(orporation: San Pedro Sheet Metal Works: Ship &
Shore Sheet Metal: and Irov Sheet Metal Works. Ios
Angeles. Caliornia. their officers. agents, successors.
ind assigns, shall:
1. (ease and desist frolm:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectix.el' with Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, l.ocal
Union No. 75. AFI. ('10, hb refusing to furnish it
with the intfrmation requested b it on and aiter No-
vember 14, 1978.
(b) In an\ like or related manner intertering with.
restraining. or coercing emploees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following aflirmati e action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) pon request. hargain collecti elx ith Sheet
Metal Workers International Association. l.ocal
Union No. 75. A FL ( (). hb furnishing the said la-
bor organization with the i nftrmation it has re-
quested on and after November 14. 1979.
(b) Post at their southern (California places ot hbusi-
ness copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' Copies of said notice. on torms prox ided b\ the
Regional I)irector for Region 21. atter being dulI
signed b, the Respondents' representati e. shall be
posted hb the Respondents im;m1ediatelx upon receipt
thereof. and bhe mnaintained hb them tfor 60 consecu-
tive daxls thereafter. in conspicuous places. including
all places where notices to emplosees are custonliril
posted. Reasonable steps shall he taken b the Re-
spondents to insure that said notices are not altered.
defaced. or covered hb an' other material.
(c) Notil the Regional I)irector for Region 1. in
writing. within 20 days from the date of this Order
what steps the Respondents have taken to compl\
herexxith.
' the cenl thail thil ()rdcr enl rced h . Judgnlct .o a I llted Sl.elc,
(uiurt t \ppealk. the rd, In the notice readling "P tcld hN (Order t the
,tinri I habor Relition Boa.rd h.all read "Poied Pru.lant 1 . JURdIgnic
. the I 1llLedI Stte ( ourt ot Xppea, lI:nt..ring n ()rdcr l the "anirmal
la.Fbr Rcltlon, Board "
N I I( I TIo) :I' I )YI S
P()S I1) BIY ()RI)I:R ()I 1111:
N xii\11,\1 L.Bt(R Rt I AlIO()NS BO()A\RI)
An cricnex of the Inited States (i; ernmlient
WiV \i11 'l refuse to hargalin collectixel'
\ith Sheet letail \orkcrs Internationa l Associ-
allon. Ioca I nion No. 7 AlI. (0I(). bh\ tiiling
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and refusing to furnish the said labor organiza-
tion with the information requested by it from us
on and after November 14, 1978.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish Sheet Metal
Workers International Association, Local Union
No. 75, AFL-CIO, with the information re-
quested by it from us on and after November 14,
1978.
Los ANGELES CHAPTER, SHEET METAL AND
AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC.: ALHAMBRA
SIl EE METAL; BRECHT MANUFA(CTURING
INC.; BROTHERS METAL PRODUCTS IN(.;
CAI.IFORNIA BLOWPIPE MFG.; DOUBARN
SHEET METAL; DURAY, INC.; FOOD EQUIP-
MENT FABRICATOR INC(.; KITCOR CORPORA-
TION; KRUSE METALS MFG. Co.; LAY VEE
INC.; LOYL PETERSON INC.; MARINE SHEET
METrA WORKERS; MEN(CO METAL PROD-
UCT(S; REH(CO CORPORATION; SAN PEDRO
SitEL METAL WORKS; SHIP & SHlORE SHEH
METAL; TROY SHEET METAl. WORKS
890