Bendix Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

THE BENDIX CORPORATION
The Bendix Corporation and Local 807 Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 25-CA-7316
June 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On February 8, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and Charging
Party filed exceptions and briefs, and the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief.
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, cross-ex-
ceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative
Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith and
to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
The Union, by letter dated May 28, 1975, re-
quested several items of information from Respon-
dent, including (1) data on the race and sex of persons
in various classifications in the bargaining unit and of
persons who had been hired for those classifications.
along with information on wage rates and promotions
for those employees;' (2) copies of complaints and
charges filed against Respondent under the Equal
Pay Act, Title VII, Executive Order 11246 and state
fair employment practices laws; and (3) reports re-
quired under Executive Order 11246.2 Respondent re-
fused to provide any of the information requested by
the Union.3 The Administrative Law Judge found the
Union was entitled to the information. Respondent
excepted.
For the reasons set forth in Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 239 NLRB 106 (1978), we find, despite
Respondent's exceptions, that the Union is entitled to
I Respondent has interpreted the request for information regarding per-
sons hired in each of the bargaining unit classifications as a request for
applicant information, arguing that such data are not relevant for purposes
of collective bargaining. We do not agree with that interpretation, however,
and find that the Union has made no request for applicant data.
2 A postcript to this letter contained a request for "a copy of our Insurance
Agreement." We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that this
request was stated in terms too ambiguous to give rise to a compliance
obligation.
Respondent, in its June 19, 1975, reply to the Union's request, stated,
inter alia, that it would not produce the information pending an ultimate
resolution to the contrary in a case raising similar issues at the Respondent's
Dayton, Ohio, facilities. The Administrative Law Judge, in fn. 2 of his Deci-
sion, erroneously cited The East Dayton Tool and Die Co., Case 9-CA-8887,
rather than Automation & Measurement Division, The Bendix Corporation,
Case 9-CA-8762, 242 NLRB 62 (1979).
the requested race and sex data for the unit employ-
ees described in (1), above, and we adopt the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's recommended Order that Re-
spondent furnish the current requested data.
Respondent also excepted to the portion of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's recommended Order requir-
ing that the Respondent furnish the Union with cop-
ies of all complaints and charges filed against
Respondent under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, Ex-
ecutive Order 11246, and state fair employment prac-
tices laws. We find merit to these exceptions only to
the extent that we will modify the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge to limit the
documents produced to those charges and complaints
involving unit employees and to allow deletion of the
names of the charging parties therefrom. The Union
has established the relevance of the charges and the
complaints in light of the facts set forth below. The
relevant collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent and the Union contains a clause stating that
the parties will not discriminate in the hiring of em-
ployees, or in related employment matters, on the ba-
sis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital
status, age, handicaps, veteran status, or membership
in the Union. There were at the time of the hearing
approximately 90 employees in the unit, of which
only I or 2 were black. The majority of the unit em-
ployees were women with the percentage of female
employees in lower paying jobs being greater than the
percentage in higher paying positions. Furthermore,
at the hearing the union president testified that he
regularly receives complaints from female employees
concerning the work they perform, with at least two
complaints from women with respect to their classifi-
cations, although no grievances have been filed be-
cause of the Union's lack of information necessary to
determine whether or not Respondent is engaging in
discriminatory practices. We find that these factors
establish the relevance of the complaints and charge.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Westinghouse,
supra, we will order Respondent to furnish the Union
copies of the complaints and charges with the above-
stated modifications.
The Administrative Law Judge further recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to furnish the
Union copies of reports filed under Executive Order
11246. We find merit to Respondent's exceptions on
this point inasmuch as the Union has not established
the relevance of these reports. In accord with the
principles set forth in Westinghouse, supra, we find
that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act by refusing the Union's request for this
information.
Finally, the Union made an additional request for
information in a letter dated July 31, 1975:
242 NLRB No. 170
1005
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Through observation we can see that there are
very few minorities employed by the Company
and we feel it is very necessary for you to explain
the reasons for not hiring more minorities. Also,
what the Company has to recommend to elimi-
nate such practices in the future.
In response, Respondent stated that it maintained a
policy of hiring on a nondiscriminatory basis and
would continue to do so. For the reasons set forth in
The East Dayton Tool and Die Co., 239 NLRB 141
(1978), we find merit to Respondent's exceptions to
the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Re-
spondent violated the Act by refusing to supply the
requested information. We will dismiss the complaint
in this respect.
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 Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, The
Bendix Corporation, Franklin, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Upon request, furnish the above-named
Union current information relevant to possible race
or sex discrimination or the advancement of equal
opportunities for female and minority group employ-
ees in the bargaining unit, as specified in the Board's
Decision."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
not found herein.
MEMBER MURPHY, dissenting:
Once again the Board majority has ordered an em-
ployer to breach its employees' confidentiality, as well
as its own, concerning charges filed by employees un-
der various Federal and state fair employment laws.4
Although well motivated, the Board shows its inex-
perience in this area by attempting to "protect the
confidentiality of these employees" by "deletion of
the names of the charging parties" in the documents
it orders the Employer to turn over to the Union.
Anyone who has ever examined an EEOC charge or
complaint would realize how simple it is to deduce
4The laws referred to by the majority are the Equal Pay Act of 1963. 73
Stat. 56, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. 2000e); Executive Order 11264, as amended by Executive Order
11375 (1967): and various state fair employment practice laws.
the names of the charging parties from the informa-
tion supplied in the charge itself.'
Obviously, as I have stated in other dissents on this
subject, 6 the Board, by forcing the disclosure of these
documents, not only breaches the confidentiality of
the employees involved but also breaches the confi-
dentiality guaranteed employers under these Federal
and state statutes.
In Wes.tinghouse, the great-grandfather of the case
in hand, the Board found the Union's request for
EEO data to be "relevant" without ever stating why.
Now, finally, after issuing a number of decisions, the
Board undertakes to explain its meaning of "rel-
evant." The facts upon which the Board bases its rele-
vancy finding are that the unit of 90 employees con-
tained "only I or 2" blacks and that women, who
comprised the majority of the unit employees, were
also in the majority of the low paying jobs. Further,
the Board finds "relevant" the unsupported testimony
of the union president that although he "receives
complaints from female employees" grievances have
not been filed because of the Union's "lack of infor-
mation necessary to determine whether or not Re-
spondent is engaging in discriminatory practices.'"
Although these facts establish "relevancy" for the
Board majority as to the charges and complaints,
these same reasons are not "relevant" enough to war-
rant disclosure of the reports filed by the Employer
under Executive Order 11246. Although I agree with
the majority that employers should not be ordered by
the Board to furnish reports under Executive Order
11246, I do so on the grounds of due process protec-
tion and not for any pretended "lack of relevancy." I
emphasize here as I did in the earlier cases involving
this issue that one of the main purposes of Title VII
and of Executive Order 11246 is to obtain voluntary,
compliance by the Employer and the Union. The
Board here is placing this valuable goal of voluntary
compliance in jeopardy by fooling around in an area
where it has no expertise or statutory mandate.
For reasons stated in my dissent in Westinghouse,
supra, I would also not require the Employer to turn
over to the Union data on the race and sex of persons
in various classifications in the bargaining unit and of
persons who have been hired for those classifications.
Although the Board majority, in footnote 1, found
that the Employer incorrectly interpreted the Union's
request as seeking to include applicant information
' See fn. 86 in my dissent in tWestmnghouwe Electric (orporailon. 239 NLRB
1)6 (1978).
6 14esinghouse Electric (Corporalion. supra; .he h'awr Da lton Too71 and Die
Co., 239 NLRB 141 (1978); Safesa' Stores. Inorparated 240 NLRB 836
(1979). and Aurtoma,ion & Measurement Division. The Bendix (Corporation.
242 NLRB 62 (1979).
Here again the Board is turning over documents to the Union even
though neither the Utnion nor any unit employees have filed grievances alleg-
ing discrimination
1006
1HE BEND)IX (ORPORAT'ION
and tbund that the Union made no such request for
applicant data, I would deny any future request con-
cerning information about applicants who are nei-
ther hired nor ever become part of the unit for rea-
sons stated in my dissent in The East Dayton Too/l and
Die Co., supra.
[)DECISION
SI A IIMENIT O() Iit CASt
IRw N II. So( oloi:I:, Administrative law Judge: Upon a
charge filed August 22. 1975, b Local No. 807, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO CLC, herein referred to as the LUnion, against
The Bendix Corporation. herein called Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
by the Regional Director for Region 25, issued a complaint
dated October 30. 1975, alleging violations by the Respon-
dent of Section 8(a)( I) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, herein
called the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, hearing was held before me in Indian-
apolis. Indiana, on November 17. 1976. at which the Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel
and all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard.
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence, Thereafter, the parties filed briefs which have
been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from m, obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDIIN(S ()- FA( I
1. JUtRISI)I( IION
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged, at its
Franklin, Indiana, plant, in the manufacture, sale, and dis-
tribution of electrical components and related products.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a rep-
resentative period, Respondent received at its Franklin fa-
cility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which
were shipped from points located outside the State of Indi-
ana. In that same period, Respondent shipped products val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside
the State of Indiana. I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2).
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Local No. 807. International Union of Electrical. Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO CLC. is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. 111tE NFAIR ABOR PRA(CII(TS
A. Background
The Union has been the certified collective-bargaining
representative of the production and maintenance employ-
ees working at Respondent's Franklin. Indiana. plant since
1964. The instant dispute. which revolses about the nion'
requests for certain information. and Respondent's reflusal
to accede to such requests. arose during the life of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which was in effect from October
1,. 1973. until September 30. 1976. In this proceeding. the
General Counsel and the Union contend, and Respondent
denies, that Respondent iolated Section 8(a (5) ad ( I ) ot
the Act bh its refusal to suppl1 to the I ni on the aforesaidl
information pertaining to possible race and sex dlscrilllna-
tion within the appropriate bargaining unit.
B. Fhcts
On MaN 28. 1975. the inion sent a letter to Respondent.
requesting certain information, and stating:
The IF has had a consistent program calling tfor the
total elimination of all forms of discrimination in the
community and on the job. In accordance with the
policy of our International Union and this local and
our duty to represent all employees in the bargaining
unit. we have been looking into these matters and ind
that the employer can best furnish certain information.
Accordingly, we would appreciate our supplNing the
following to us:
I. he number of male. female, black and Span-
ish-surnamed employees in each classification in the
bargaining unit. Please also state the wage rate tor
each of these classifications.
2. The number of persons hired in each classifica-
tion during the past twelve months, with a break-
down as to race. sex, and Spanish-surnamed em-
ployees showing the sex of all black and Spanish-
surnamed employees.
3. The number of promotions or upgrades for the
last twelve months, broken down b race. sex and
Spanish-surnamed persons showing the job level of
each upgraded employee prior to arid subsequent to
each such upgrade and the race, sex and whether
Spanish-surnamed or each oft' these upgraded em-
ployees.
In connection with each of the above, please show
the sex of all white, black and Spanish-surnamed em-
ployees, i.e.. white male, white female. black male.
black female. Spanish-surnamed male and Spanish-
surnamed female.
In addition, please send us:
4. A list of all complaints and charges tiled
against the company under the Equal Pa, Act. IVitle
VII. Executive Order 11246. and state fair emplo?-
ment practices laws and copies of each complaint or
charge. Please advise also of the status of each of
these cases.
5. If you have filed a report under Executive Or-
der 11246 requiring equal employment opportunity
statements of all government contracters. please
send us a cops of that report and an,, compliance
res iews which have been made.
If the intormation is not available in the form re-
quested, we will accept such alternatives as may be
convenient to the Compan\ so long as they will essen-
tiallv provide the best a ailable bargaining informa-
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion concerning the foregoing subjects. To facilitate the
receipt of this information, it is requested that you pro-
vide some or any part thereof as soon as it is prepared
and becomes available. In addition, if you have any
questions concerning what information is requested or
whether an alternative form will be appropriate. please
communicate with us so that its receipt may be expe-
dited.'
Thereafter, on June 19, 1975, Respondent stated in its reply
to the Union that "it shall be our position that the informa-
tion which you seek is inappropriate for submission to you"
unless and until an ultimate resolution to the contrary ob-
tains in a case raising similar issues involving The Bendix
Corporation at its Dayton. Ohio, facilities.2 On July 31,
1975, the Union, by letter, requested the following informa-
tion:
Through observation we can see that there are very
few minorities employed by the Company and we feel
it is very necessary for you to explain the reasons for
not hiring more minorities. Also, what the Company
has to recommend to eliminate such practices in the
future.
By letter dated August 26, 1975, Respondent stated that it
had maintained a policy of hiring on a nondiscriminatory
basis, and would continue to do so.
The bargaining unit represented by the Union consists of
some 90 employees, the majority of whom are women, and
generally includes only I or 2 black employees. According
to the testimony of Union President David Hall, as cor-
roborated by Plant Manager Charles Toolan's testimony,
the percentage of women employed in the lower paying
departments is greater than the percentage of women work-
ing at higher paying jobs. Hall further testified that he regu-
larly receives complaints from female employees concern-
ing the work they perform, and, in two instances, he
received complaints from women with respect to their clas-
sifications.3 Nonetheless, grievances have not been filed be-
cause, according to Hall, the Union does not have the infor-
mation needed to determine whether or not the Company is
engaging in discriminatory practices.
The effective collective-bargaining contract contains the
following pertinent clauses:
Article Ill
NON-DISCRIMINATION
Section 1. The Company will not discriminate in the
hiring of employees, or their training, upgrading, pro-
motion, transfer, layoff, discipline, discharge, or other-
wise because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex,
marital status, age, physical or mental handicaps, dis-
abled veterans and Vietnam Era Veterans, or for mem-
bership in the Union. The Union likewise agrees that it
will not discriminate because of the aforementioned
reasons.
The following appeared as a postscript to that letter: "I would like to
request a copy of our Insurance Agreement."
The East Dayton Tool and Die Co., Case 9-CA-8887.
In one of those cases, after oral protest by the Union, the employee
received her desired classification.
Article XXI
WAIVER
Section 1. The Company and the Union, for the life of
this Agreement, each voluntarily and unqualifiedly
waives the right and each agrees that the other shall
not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to
any subject or matter referred to or covered in this
Agreement, even though such subjects or matter may
not have been within the knowledge or contemplation
of either or both of the parties at the time that they
negotiated or signed this Agreement.
Respondent concedes that it was able to understand,
from a reading of the Union's letters, exactly what informa-
tion was being requested in the equal employment opportu-
nities area. It also concedes its ability to comply with those
requests. However, with respect to the "Insurance Agree-
ment" requested in the postscript to the May 28 letter, Re-
spondent's supervisor of administrative services, John
Stoker, testified that he thought that request referred to the
detailed insurance agreement between Respondent and the
Union, a matter already in the Union's possession. On the
other hand, Charles Ziegler, and International representa-
tive of the International Union of Electrical Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, testified that the request
was for the agreement between Respondent and the carrier
which implemented the insurance agreement of the Union
and Respondent. Ziegler further testified that his request
followed a change of carriers by Respondent.
C. Conclusions
It is well established that a labor organization, acting in
its capacity as collective-bargaining representative. is enti-
tled, upon appropriate request, to information from the em-
ployer that is needed by such bargaining agent for the
proper performance of its duties.' The employer's obliga-
tion to supply relevant information is part of its general
obligation to bargain in good faith and applies, not only
during the period of contract negotiations, but also during
the term of an agreement.' In the latter period, the bargain-
ing agent is entitled to information relevant to the perform-
ance of its duty to police the administration of an existing
agreement as well as its duty to formulate proposals in con-
nection with future contract negotiations.6
Generally, any information which is relevant, and, there-
fore, reasonably necessary to the union's discharge of its
statutory obligations, falls within the sphere of the union's
entitlement.' This includes information of"potential value"
to the union in assisting it "in its task of deciding whether
to institute grievance proceedings or use other policing tools
under the existing agreement" and in guiding the union "in
contract negotiations themselves."' Certain data, such as
wage and related information pertaining to employees in
' N. L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967).
Ibid
6 Western Massachusetts Electric Company, 234 NLRB 118 (1978).
Verol Division, Boeing Company, 182 NLRB 421 (1970).
8Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v. N.LR.B.,
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965).
1008
THE BENDIX CORPORATION
the bargaining unit, are presumptively relevant since such
information "concerns the core of the employer-employee
relationship."' In addition, if requested information relates
to one or more existing contract provisions it thus is "infor-
mation that is demonstrably necessary" to the union "if it is
to perform its duty to enforce the agreement and to prepare
for possible future negotiations."' 0
In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court in Enmpo-
rium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organi-a-
tion" warrants the conclusion that information pertaining
to possible race and sex discrimination in the bargaining
unit is also presumptively relevant to the bargaining agent's
discharge of its statutory obligations. In that case, the Court
stated that "the elimination of discrimination and its vestig-
es is an appropriate subject of bargaining" and that:
Plainly, national labor policy embodies the princi-
ples of nondiscrimination as a matter of highest prior-
ity ... and it is a commonplace that we must construe
the NLRA in light of the broad national labor policy
of which it is a part.
That decision, when read in light of the numerous Board
and court cases holding that discrimination in representa-
tion because of race or sex is prohibited by this Act,'2 and
other Federal laws which require employers and unions to
eradicate discrimination in employment, convinces me that,
like wage related information, information relating to possi-
ble race or sex discrimination "concerns the core of the
employer-employee relationship." Accordingly, requests for
such information need not contain a precise showing of rel-
evance, unless effective employer rebuttal comes forth.'
In addition to the presumptive relevance which I believe
attaches to information concerning possible race or sex dis-
crimination, the Union's requests for such information in
this case, expressed in terms of its need to meet its "dutv to
represent all employees in the bargaining unit," occurred
during the life of a collective-bargaining contract which
broadly prohibited race, sex, and other forms of discrimina-
tion in employment. As such, the information was "demon-
strably necessary" to the Union's performance of its duty to
enforce the agreement and prepare for future negotiations.
Indeed, as noted, Union President Hall testified that the
Union has not filed grievances pursuant to employee com-
plaints because the Union does not have the information
needed to determine whether or not the Company is engag-
ing in discriminatory practices.
In light of the foregoing considerations, I reject Respon-
dent's contentions that the requested information need not
be supplied because:
I. There were neither grievances nor employment dis-
crimination claims pending at the time the requests for in-
formation were made.
2. The requests were not made as part of the Union's
preparation for negotiations and. moreover, by the contrac-
9 Ibid
'o The A. S. Abell Company, 230 NLRB 1112 (1977).
" 420 U.S. 50 (1975).
i2 See, e.g., Local Union No. 12, United Rubber. Cork, Linoleum & Plastic
Workers of America, AFL CIO (The Business League of Gadsen). 150 NLRB
312 (1964), enfd. 368 F.2d. 12 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 389 U.S. 837
(1967).
3 Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v. L.R.B.
supra.
tual waiver clause, the Union waived its right to bargain
and to gain information respecting employment discrimina-
tion.
3. The Union's sole motive for making the requests was
its interest in protecting itself against potential liability.
4. The requests, inter alia, sought information with re-
spect to Respondent's hiring practices, a matter beyond the
legitimate interests of the Union.
Under the case authorities cited above, the pendency of
grievances or discrimination claims is not a condition prec-
edent to the Union's entitlement to information. It is suffi-
cient that the requested information is relevant to the per-
formance of the Union's statutory duties and obligations.
As to the contractual waiver clause, whatever its substan-
tive effects, if any, upon possible midcontract negotiations,
it does not, by its terms, apply to requests for information
needed to police compliance with the contract or to prepare
for future negotiations. I likewise reject, as irrelevant, the
contention that the Union desired the information solely to
protect itself against potential liability. Even assuming the
truth of that assertion, it is of no moment that a bargaining
agent, in seeking to enforce an antidiscrimination agree-
ment, or prepare future contract proposals in that area, is
motivated by a desire to protect its own legal position by
meeting its statutory responsibilities. Finally, with respect
to the hiring information requested by the Union, such in-
formation is plainly relevant to enforcement of the contrac-
tual nondiscrimination clause which specifically prohibits
discrimination in hiring. Moreover, the Board has held that
"an employer's hiring policies and practices are of vital con-
cern to employees inasmuch as such policies and practices
inherently affect terms and conditions of employment.""
Thus, the information requested was within the legitimate
interests of the Union.'
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent, by refusing to
supply to the Union information pertaining to possible race
and sex discrimination or the advancement of equal em-
ployment opportunities within the appropriate bargaining
unit, pursuant to the Union's requests made on May 28,
1975, and July 31, 1975, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of
the Act.'6
IV. THE EFFECI OF HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
" Tanner Motor Lvers, Ld., 148 NLRB 1402 (1964). enforcement denied
on other grounds 419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1969).
" See General Electric Company, 199 NLRB 286 (1972). enfd. 466 F.2d
1177 (6th Cir. 1972), where the Board held that requested information, if
shown to be relevant to the Union's statutory duties and obligations, need
not be related directly to the employees in the bargaining unit.
"s My findings and conclusions herein apply to all matters requested by the
Union's letters with the specific exception of the May 28, 1975, postscript
request for a copy of "our Insurance Agreement." In light of all the evidence
in this case, I find that this last request was stated in terms too ambiguous to
give rise to a compliance obligation.
1009
[)EC'ISIONS OF NA'I()NAL ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. il RMIt)Y
F tavilng found that Respondcnt has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8 (a)(5) and () of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to efectuate the policies of the Act. specifically, that
Respondent be ordered to furnish to the Union the inlor-
mation which I have found herein was unlawfully denied to
it.
C()N( I USI(NS ()I lAW
I. Respondent. the Bendix ('orporation, is an employer
engaged in commerce, and in operations affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local No. 807, International Union of Electrical. Ra-
dio and Machine Workers, AFI CIO CLC, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of Re-
spondent at its Franklin, Indiana, plant, excluding drafts-
men, foremen, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees. guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Local No. 807, International Union of Electrical. Ra-
dio and Machine Workers, AFL ('IO-CLC, is, and at all
times material herein has been, the exclusive representative
of the employees in the unit described above within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to furnish the above-named Union, upon
its requests made on May 28, 1975, and July 31, 1975, with
information relevant to possible race or sex discrimination
or the advancement of equal opportunities for female and
minority group employees in the unit referred to above.
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent's failure to furnish the Union with copies
of its master insurance agreement was not in violation of
the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent, The Bendix Corporation, Franklin, In-
diana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Local No. 807, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL CIO CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the unit described above, by refusing to
furnish the Union with information relevant to possible
17 In the event no exceptions are filed, as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National l.abor 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 he deemed
waived for all purposes.
race or sex discrimination or the advancement of equal op-
portunities for female and minority group employees in the
bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. 'Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, furnish to the above-named Union in-
formation relevant to possible race or sex discrimination or
the advancement of equal opportunities for female and mi-
nority group employees in the bargaining unit, including
the information requested by the Union on Ma? 28. 1975,
and July 31, 1975.
(b) Post at its Franklin, Indiana. facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional irector for Re-
gion 25. after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, 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 fobr Region 25. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
" In the event that this Order is enforced b 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 Enftrcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NoI I(l To EMI'I.oYittS
POSTED BY ORDER O(E r111
NArIINAI. LABOR REI.AII()NS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WL WILL Nor refuse to bargain collectively with Lo-
cal No. 807, International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL CIO-CLC, by refusing to
furnish information needed by the Union in order to
fulfill its obligation to represent all employees fairly.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing draftsmen, foremen, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Wti wi.t, upon request, furnish Local No. 807, In-
ternational Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO CLC, with information relevant
to possible ace or sex discrimination or the advance-
ment of equal opportunities for female and minority
group employees in the bargaining unit.
Til BENDIX CORPOIRAIION
1010