Andy Johnson Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 308 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Andy Johnson Co., Inc. and Ironworkers Local No.
114, International Association of Bridge, Structur-
al, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-
CIO. Case 19-CA-9016
June 20, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
Upon a charge filed on November 8, 1976, by
Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein-
forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, and duly served on Andy Johnson Co., Inc.,
herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for Region 19, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing on December 10, 1976, against
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies
of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that Respondent is a
member of the Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc.-Seattle Chapter, herein called AGC,
and, by virtue of its membership in AGC, has been at
all times material herein a party to a collective-
bargaining agreement between the AGC and the
Union, which agreement designates the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all ironworkers
within the jurisdiction of the agreement; that on or
about October 29, 1976, the Union requested of
Respondent's agent, AGC Director of Labor Rela-
tions Bell, the names, addresses, social security
numbers, and job classifications of Respondent's unit
employees for the period of July 1, 1974, through
October 22, 1976; and that, commencing on or about
November 4, 1976, Respondent has refused, and
continues to date to refuse, to provide the Union
with the requested information. Subsequently, Re-
spondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting
in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the
complaint.
t In its letter, dated October 29, 1976, to AGC Director of Labor
Relations Bell, the Union requested "a true and correct copy of the Andy
Johnson and Company payroll records from July I, 1974 to October 22,
1976." Although Respondent in its answer stated that it lacked independent
knowledge of, and therefore denied, the allegation of the complaint that the
230 NLRB No. 31
On January 2, 1977, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof,
with exhibits attached. The General Counsel submit-
ted that the wage-related information sought is
presumptively relevant to the Union's policing of the
parties' collective-bargaining agreement and that
Respondent in its answer has failed to advance any
reason for not providing the Union with the
requested information. He therefore moved that the
Board grant summary judgment against Respondent
based on the pleadings and the attached exhibits and
issue a Decision and Order requiring Respondent to
provide the requested information. Subsequently, on
February 8, 1977, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. On February 16, 1977, Respondent filed a
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment to the Board
and for transfer to the Board pursuant to Section
102.50 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, and on February 24, 1977, filed a
brief in opposition to the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment and in support of its Cross-
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motions for Summary
Judgment
In its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment to the
Board, Respondent concurs with the General Coun-
sel that the material facts in this proceeding are not
in dispute. In this regard, Respondent states that,
although the complaint mischaracterized the Union's
October 29, 1976, request for information 1 as
specifically seeking the names, addresses, social
security numbers, and job classifications of Respon-
dent's employees within the unit, "the difference
between the actual demand by the Union [i.e., for
information pertaining to nonunit as well as unit
employees] and the General Counsel's characteriza-
tion of it [i.e., for unit employees only] does not
appear to be material." Respondent, therefore, in
effect, concedes that it would have refused the
Union's request for information even if that request
Union requested such information of Bell, it admitted the allegations of the
complaint that at all times material herein, Bell has been its agent within the
meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act and that it has refused to provide the Union
with the information requested.
308
ANDY JOHNSON CO., INC.
had been limited solely to unit employees. In support
of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Respon-
dent argues that in the absence of a showing of the
relevance of such information, it was not required to
comply with the Union's request.
It is well established that wage and employment
information pertaining to bargaining unit employees
is presumptively relevant for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and contract administration inas-
much as such information concerns the heart of the
employer-employee relationship, and that such infor-
mation must be provided upon request to the unit
employees' bargaining representatives In addition, it
is well settled that a union is not required to show the
precise relevance of such requested information
unless the employer comes forth with effective
rebuttal. 3
In its answer, Respondent did not assert any
reason for its refusal to provide the information
requested by the Union. In its brief in opposition to
the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and in support of its Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment, Respondent, however, defends
its refusal to provide any payroll information to the
Union on the ground that the Union's demand for
payroll information "on its face presents an undue
burden on the employer." Respondent, however, has
offered nothing in support of this naked assertion.
Inasmuch as Respondent has not asserted facts
sufficient to rebut the presumption of relevancy of
the Union's request for information, insofar as it
applies to unit employees, we find that no material
issues of fact exist in this proceeding which warrant a
hearing. Therefore, we further find that Respondent
is and was at the time of the demand under an
obligation to furnish such information to the Union
upon request, and that its refusal to do so violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We therefore
hereby grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and, accordingly, Respondent's
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
denied.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Washington corporation, is engaged
in the general construction business at its place of
2 Western Electric, Inc., 225 NLRB 1378 (1976); Hotel Enterprises, Inc.,
d/b/a Royal Inn of South Ben4 224 NLRB 810 (1976); Warehouse Foods, A
Division of M.E Carter andCompany, Inc., 223 NLRB 506(1976); Dynamnc
Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975); Building Construction Employers
Association of Lincoln, Nebraska and M W. Anderson Construction Co., 185
NLRB 34 (1970); Cowles Communications, Inc., 172 NLRB 1909 (1968);
Curtiss-WriRht Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152
(1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3. 1965).
business located at Olympia, Washington. In the
course and conduct of its business during the past 12
months, Respondent purchased goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources
outside the State of Washington.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein-
forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Collective-Bargaining Relationship
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Andy
Johnson Co., Inc., and Ironworkers Local No.
114, International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural, Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers,
AFL-CIO.
2. The collective-bargaining agreement
At all times material herein, the Employer has been
a member of the Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc.-Seattle Chapter (AGC), an organiza-
tion of employers existing for the purpose of dealing
with labor organizations representing employees of
its employer-members concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment. At all
times material herein, Respondent, by virtue of its
membership in AGC, has been a party to a
collective-bargaining agreement between AGC and
the Union, which agreement designates the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit.
3 Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Div.. supra at 69. We
note that the unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union stated, inter
alia, that "the requested information is relevant to the needs of Local * 114
in determining whether the contract has been adhered to, and whether there
is a basis for filing a grievance under the agreement."
309
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Request for Information and
Respondent's Refusal
Commencing on or about October 29, 1976, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to supply it with a copy of Andy
Johnson Co., Inc.'s payroll records from July 1, 1974,
to October 22, 1976. Commencing on or about
November 4, 1976, and continuing at all times
thereafter to date, the Respondent has refused, and
continues to refuse, to furnish the requested informa-
tion to the Union.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since November 4, 1976, and at all times thereafter,
refused to furnish the Union with payroll records
from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, for employees
in the bargaining unit, including the names, address-
es, social security numbers, and job classifications of
said unit employees, and that, by such refusal,
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions 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 com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom. We
shall further require Respondent, upon request, to
furnish the Union, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, payroll records
from July 1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, for employees
in the bargaining unit, including the names, address-
es, social security numbers, and job classifications of
said unit employees.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Andy Johnson Co., Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Ironworkers Local No. 114, International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Andy John-
son Co., Inc., and Ironworkers Local No. 114,
International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the above-named
labor organization has been and is now the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit by refusing on or
about November 4, 1976, and at all times thereafter
to furnish wage and employment information with
respect to said unit employees, Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to furnish information,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Andy Johnson Co., Inc., Olympia, Washington, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Ironwork-
ers Local No. 114, International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced
Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all ironworkers within the jurisdic-
tion of the collective-bargaining agreement between
Andy Johnson Co., Inc., and the above-named labor
organization by refusing to furnish the said labor
organization with payroll records from July 1, 1974,
to October 22, 1976, concerning employees in the
310
ANDY JOHNSON CO., INC.
bargaining unit, including the names, addresses,
social security numbers, and job classifications of
said unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Iron-
workers Local No. 114, International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforced
Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, by furnishing the said labor
organization with payroll records from July 1, 1974,
to October 22, 1976, for Respondent's unit employ-
ees, including the names, addresses, social security
numbers, and job classifications of Respondent's
employees within the aforesaid appropriate unit.
(b) Post at its Olympia, Washington, facility, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this 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 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
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Ironworkers Local No. 114, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all ironworkers
within the jurisdiction of our collective-bargain-
ing agreement, by refusing to furnish the said
labor organization with payroll records from July
1, 1974, to October 22, 1976, concerning our
employees in the bargaining unit, including the
names, addresses, social security numbers, and
job classifications of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Ironworkers Local No. 114, International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, by
furnishing to the above-named labor organiza-
tion, as the exclusive representative of all employ-
ees in the bargaining unit described below,
payroll records from July 22, 1974, to October 22,
1976, including names, addresses, social security
numbers, and job classifications, for the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit. The bargaining unit
is:
All ironworkers within the jurisdiction of the
collective bargaining agreement between
Andy Johnson Co., Inc., and Ironworkers
Local No. 114, International Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein-
forced Ironworkers, AFL-CIO.
ANDY JOHNSON Co.,
INC.
311