Medco Health Solutions of Spokane

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 2008

352 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
352 NLRB No. 78
640
Medco Health Solutions of Spokane, Inc. and United
Steelworkers Local 12-369, affiliated with
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL–
CIO. Case 19–CA–30143
May 30, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide
the Union with requested information and by unilaterally
implementing new performance standards and related
disciplinary measures. The judge1 concluded that these
allegations were appropriate for deferral to arbitration, in
accordance with Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837
(1971). For the reasons set forth below, we find, con-
trary to the judge, that the allegations are not appropriate
for deferral to arbitration. We therefore reverse the judge
and remand the case for determination on the merits of
the alleged violations.
I. BACKGROUND2
The Respondent operates a pharmacy. Since 1991, its
employees have been represented by the Union in two
units, the pharmacist unit and the pharmacy unit.3 The

1 On September 12, 2006, Administrative Law Judge William G.
Kocol issued the attached bench decision. The General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed exceptions and briefs. The Respondent filed
an answering brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed reply briefs.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the
exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent herewith, and to
remand the proceeding for an unfair labor practice hearing on all of the
allegations.
Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 The recitations set forth in this section are based on the complaint,
the opening statements made at the hearing, the briefs to the Board, and
documents submitted into evidence, without objection, by the General
Counsel. In light of our determination not to defer the allegations to
arbitration, and to remand this proceeding to the administrative law
judge for a determination on the merits, we find it unnecessary to ad-
dress substantive issues regarding the complaint allegations.
3 The pharmacist unit is limited to pharmacists, and the pharmacy
unit includes pharmacy technicians, customer service representatives,
data entry operators, and pharmacy support employees.
units are covered by separate collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which are effective from
April 20, 2003, to October 1, 2006.
This case arose in 20054 when the Respondent insti-
tuted and announced new performance standards and
attendant discipline structures for employees in both
units.
A. Pharmacist Unit
On September 1, the Respondent showed pharmacists
a presentation about new performance and disciplinary
standards. The Union orally requested a copy of the
presentation on September 1 and 7 and subsequently
made several written requests for information about the
new standards. On or about October 10, the Respondent
presented the pharmacist performance standards to the
Union’s chief steward, Mark Johnson. On October 26,
the Union, by letter, requested a copy of the performance
rankings of pharmacists, an opportunity to consult with
the pharmacists about the new standards, and an oppor-
tunity to bargain. The same day, however, the Respon-
dent implemented the new standards and disciplinary
structure. On October 31, the Union, by letter, requested
more information about employee rankings and the
newly-implemented performance standards. On Novem-
ber 22, the Union requested copies of all notes and
documents presented to specified pharmacists during
performance counseling sessions, and stated that it was
requesting this information to determine whether to file
grievances or other charges.
B. Pharmacy Unit
On November 14, the Respondent presented new per-
formance standards to employees in the pharmacy unit.
The Respondent also showed pharmacy unit employees
their matrix rankings and counseled some employees
before implementing the standards in late November. On
November 28, to assist in the investigation of a possible
grievance, the Union requested data the Respondent used
to create performance management criteria for two unit
classifications. On November 30, the Union requested
performance-related spreadsheets for those classifica-
tions. On December 6, the Union requested performance
management meeting notes for all customer service em-
ployees who were counseled on performance, again for
the purpose of investigating possible grievances.

A decertification election was conducted in the pharmacist unit in
2006, after the events alleged here occurred. The results of that elec-
tion remain pending.
4 All dates are in 2005, unless otherwise indicated.
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS OF SPOKANE, INC. 641
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES AND JUDGE’S RULING
The complaint alleges that the Respondent refused to
provide information to the Union on various dates in
September, October, November, and December, and uni-
laterally implemented the performance standards in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The Respondent ac-
knowledges that the Union made the information re-
quests, but asserts that it provided most of the informa-
tion, though not necessarily in the form the Union
wanted, and that other requested information (e.g., the
counseling reports) was confidential but was available
from the employees themselves. The Respondent further
asserts that implementation of the new standards was
permitted by the collective-bargaining agreements.
Prior to the taking of any testimony at the hearing, the
Respondent moved to defer the allegations to arbitration.
The judge found that the implementation of the new per-
formance standards was arbitrable, and he thus granted
the motion.5
He reasoned that, although the Board customarily does
not defer information request allegations to arbitration,
deferral was appropriate here because the Respondent
agreed to concede in arbitration that the contractual rec-
ognition clause of each agreement6 allows the arbitrator
to resolve the information request allegations, and it fur-
ther agreed to waive any timeliness issues that relate to
grieving the complaint allegations.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party except,
contending that all of the complaint allegations should be
resolved in a Board proceeding. The General Counsel
argues that the judge did not adhere to the Board’s policy
of not deferring refusal to furnish information allegations
and that the unilateral implementation allegations should
not be deferred because they are intimately related to the
information allegations.7

5 The 2003–2006 agreements for the two units contain nearly identi-
cal language. The grievance and arbitration provision of each agree-
ment encompasses the establishment of a grievance committee, steps
and timetables, and arbitration procedures, including a provision that
states as follows:
Arbitrable disputes shall include matters affecting the application,
interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this
Agreement. In no event shall the arbitrator have authority to modify,
add to, disregard or abolish, in any way, any of the terms and provi-
sions of this Agreement.
6 The recognition clause of each collective-bargaining agreement
provides:
The [Respondent] recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive
representative for purposes of collective bargaining of a unit consisting
of all regular full-time and part-time [pharmacists/pharmacy employ-
ees]. . . .
7 The Charging Party further argues that there is no contractual pro-
vision covering the information request; therefore the issue is beyond
the arbitrator’s province. Finally, the Charging Party contends that the
unilateral change allegations are not deferrable because mandatory
III. ANALYSIS
A. Alleged Refusal to Furnish Information
In cases alleging a refusal to furnish information, in
violation of Section 8(a)(5), the Board has maintained a
policy against deferral to arbitration because deferral can
result in a “two-tiered” process that may cause delay in
resolving the underlying dispute and undue expense for
the parties involved, and because the bargaining repre-
sentative has a statutory right to relevant information that
is independent of rights accorded under the contract.
Postal Service, 276 NLRB 1282, 1285 (1985), citing
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). In
Team Clean, Inc., 348 NLRB 1231 fn. 1 (2006), the
Board recently reaffirmed its policy not to defer informa-
tion request allegations.8
Here, a controversy exists concerning whether or not
requested information was provided or withheld from the
Union. Deferral of the information allegations would
contravene the Board’s established policy against defer-
ring such allegations.
Accordingly, we find that deferral of the information
request allegations is not appropriate here.
B. The Alleged Unilateral Implementation
Generally, in cases in which “an allegation for which
deferral is sought is inextricably related to other com-
plaint allegations that are either inappropriate for deferral
or for which deferral is not sought, a party’s request for
deferral must be denied.” American Commercial Lines,
291 NLRB 1066, 1069 (1988). Accord: Arvinmeritor,
Inc., 340 NLRB 1035 fn. 1 (2003) (“closely intertwined”
allegations); Clarkson Industries, 312 NLRB 349, 352
(1993) (“closely related” allegations); S.Q.I. Roofing,
Inc., 271 NLRB 1 (1984) (“close interrelationship”).
Here the unilateral change allegations are arguably de-
ferrable, based on the contractual management-rights
clauses, which reference discipline standards of produc-
tion and the adjustment procedure.9 However, the alleg-

subjects of bargaining are at issue, and it did not clearly and unmis-
takably waive its right to bargain over those subjects.
8 Chairman Schaumber would defer the information request allega-
tions to arbitration, finding that they are covered by the parties’ con-
tractual arbitration clause. See Team Clean, Inc., supra. He recog-
nizes, however, that Board precedent is to the contrary. See, e.g.,
Shaw’s Supermarket, 339 NLRB 871, 871 (2003). Accordingly, for
institutional reasons, he concurs in finding that deferral of the informa-
tion request allegations is not appropriate here. See also DaimlerChrys-
ler Corp., 344 NLRB 1324 fn. 1 (2005); SBC California, 344 NLRB
243 fn. 3 (2005).
The management-rights clause of each agreement states, in pertinent
part:
[t]he Company reserves the right to exercise all the duties and re-
sponsibilities of management and to determine all matters of manage-
ment policy and pharmacy operation, and to direct and control the work
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD642
edly unlawful unilateral implementation of the standards
is closely intertwined with the nondeferrable allegations
concerning the refusal to provide information about those
standards. This information was relevant not only for the
purpose of considering whether to grieve disciplinary
decisions resulting from the change in the performance
standards, but also for the purpose of facilitating the Un-
ion’s ability to engage in negotiations regarding any such
changes in the standards prior to their implementation.
In view of this interrelation, and having found that the
information issues are not appropriate for deferral, we
conclude that deferral of the unilateral implementation
allegations would, under these circumstances, be inap-
propriate.
Accordingly, we shall remand the entire case to the
judge for determination of the complaint allegations on
the merits.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board remands this pro-
ceeding to Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol,
who shall prepare and serve on the parties a supplemen-
tal decision containing credibility resolutions, findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended Order con-
cerning the allegations, as appropriate on remand. Fol-
lowing service of the supplemental decision on the par-
ties, the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations shall be applicable.
Daniel R. Sanders, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John J. Peirano, Esq. (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpen-
ter, LLP), of Morristown, New Jersey, and John J. Shea,
Esq., for the Respondent.
Todd A. Lyon, Esq. (Reid, Pederson, McCarthy & Ballew,
LLP), of Seattle, Washington, for the Union.
BENCH DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Spokane, Washington, on August 22, 2006. I
granted Respondent’s motion to defer this case under Collyer
Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), and I issued a Bench
Decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations setting forth findings of facts and con-
clusions of law. In accordance with Section 102.45 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, I certify the accuracy of the
Bench Decision; it is attached as Appendix A.

force . . . . The Employer shall be the exclusive judge of all matters
pertaining to the servicing of its client . . . the schedule and standards of
production, equipment methods, processes, means and materials to be
used. The promulgation and enforcement of rules and regulation not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement are vested in the
Employer. . . .
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed, provided that jurisdiction is re-
tained for the limited purpose of entertaining a timely motion
for further consideration upon a showing that either (a) that the
dispute has not, with reasonable promptness after the issuance
of this Bench Decision, either been settled or promptly submit-
ted to arbitration or (b) the arbitrator reached a result that is
repugnant to the Act.
APPENDIX A
BENCH DECISION
JUDGE KOCOL: The following shall constitute my bench de-
cision in this case, pursuant to the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions.
Jurisdiction in this case is admitted by Respondent, right,
Mr. Peirano, in the filing and service of the charge?
MR. PEIRANO: Admitted, Your Honor.
JUDGE KOCOL: All right. The parties in this case have had a
fairly long—someone mentioned 1990, if I caught the year
right—harmonious relationship. I’m not aware of any unfair
labor practice findings by the Board involving these units.
The parties have had collective bargaining relationships.
There is a contract now in effect. The contract now in effect
clearly covers the alleged unlawful implementation allegations
here.
Respondent has agreed to arbitrate the allegations concerning
the unlawful refusal to provide information and Respondent is
also willing to concede and will concede in arbitration that the
recognition clause in the respective collective bargaining
agreements will allow the arbitrator to resolve the refusals to
provide information.
This, in my view, is a major distinguishing factor from some
of the prior cases where a Respondent is willing to arbitrate just
the underlying alleged unfair labor practices, but not the refusal
to provide information, and this will allow all the issues to be
presented to the arbitrator.
The employer, the Respondent, here has also agreed to waive
any timeliness allegation that they might otherwise have in the
Com—I’m sorry—in the respective collective bargaining
agreements concerning the filing of grievances covering the
allegations in this complaint and another factor I take into ac-
count is that, on the face of the Complaint, the pertinent refusal
to provide information allegations were not made at a time
sufficiently in advance of the alleged unilateral implementation
that would have allowed the union an opportunity to meaning-
fully use that information in deciding whether or not to bargain.
And so, for all those reasons, I am going to grant the motion
to defer this case to arbitration.

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS OF SPOKANE, INC. 643
Within a few days after I get the transcript in this hearing,
I’ll issue a short written decision in accordance with the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, adopting what I’ve just said as
my bench decision in this case.
Any other matters for the parties?
MR. LYON: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE KOCOL: Yes? Okay, Mr. Lyon.
MR. LYON: Yes. Just in terms of a clarification of Your
Honor’s order, I think it would be helpful for the parties to
identify the issues, if we can, for arbitration.
JUDGE KOCOL: All the substantive allegations of the Com-
plaint, including the refusal to—All right. Let’s be more spe-
cific. You’re right, Mr. Lyon. What I’m talking about is the
allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Those cover the
refusal to provide information. 6 and 7, actually, cover that.
And 8 and 9 cover the alleged unilateral changes. So thank you
for raising that. I’ll clarify that by specifically referring to
those paragraphs in the Complaint.
MR. LYON: Okay.
JUDGE KOCOL: All right. Thank you all for your courtesy
and cooperation.
The hearing is now closed.