Binswanger Glass Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 253 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY
Binswanger Glass Company and Glaziers Local Union
No. 1852, International Brotherhood of Painters &
Allied Trades, AFL-CIO
Glaziers Local Union No. 1852, International Brother-
hood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO and
Binswanger Glass Company. Cases 23-CA-7078
and 23-CB-2197
September 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On June 21, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
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 Respondent Binswanger
Glass Company, Austin, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, and Respondent Glaziers Lo-
cal Union No. 1852, International Brotherhood of
Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
i We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent Employer
in Case 23-CA-7078 should be required to furnish the Union with "invoices.
or other appropriate records, reflecting the fabrication and/or installation of
any glass work by personnel employed at the Burnett Road location, includ-
ing a description of the nature and type of that work involved" so as to
enable the Union to determine whether there has been an erosion of unit
work by the Employer. However, we do not agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that the Employer should also be required to furnish the Union
with the "names of all Inonunitl employees engaged in such work" as well as
the number of hours worked and wages paid said employees, since the Union
has failed to show either the necessity or relevancy of such information. See
Tins-Heral4 Inc., 237 NLRB 1080 (1978); Brown Newspaper Publishing
Co., 238 NLRB 1354 (1978). Accordingly, we shall modify the Administra-
tive Law Judge's recommended Order by deleting therefrom that portion
requiring the Employer to provide the Union with said information.
1. Delete the following language from paragraph
2(a) in the recommended Order in regards to Respon-
dent Binswanger Glass Company (Case 23-CA-
7078):
"The names of all employees engaged in such
work, including amount of hours devoted thereto and
the wage rate paid all such employees."
2. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the opportu-
nity to present evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the Act and
we have been ordered to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to supply Glaziers
Local Union No. 1852, International Brother-
hood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO.
with information relevant or necessary in the
performance of its duties as bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request by the above-named
Union, provide it access to the following infor-
mation previously requested by it relating to the
bargaining unit it represents:
(1) Invoices or other appropriate records re-
flecting the fabrication and/or installation of
any glass work by personnel employed at the
Burnett Road location, including a description
of the nature and type of work involved.
(2) All other information relevant and rea-
sonably necessary to the performance of the
Union's obligation as bargaining representa-
tive.
BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the opportu-
nity to present evidence, the National Labor Rela-
245 NLRB No. 36
253
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Board has found that we violated the Act and
we have been ordered to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collec-
tively with Binswanger Glass Company regard-
ing their wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of the employees in the
appropriate unit for which we are the recognized
bargaining representative by failing to sign a col-
lective-bargaining contract agreed to us by on
June 30, 1978, or from engaging in any like or
related conduct in derogation of our statutory
duty to bargain with Binswanger Glass Com-
pany.
WE WILL upon request of Binswanger Glass
Company, forthwith, execute the contract agreed
to by us on June 30, 1978, in accordance with
our agreement, and, upon such execution deliver
a signed copy thereof to said Employer.
GLAZIERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1852, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters & Allied
Trades, AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The hear-
ing in this case, held November 29, 1978, is based upon an
unfair labor practice charge filed on May 22, 1978, by Gla-
ziers Local Union No. 1852, International Brotherhood of
Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (the Union), against
Binswanger Glass Company (the Employer), alleging a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended (the Act), by refusing since Decem-
ber 1, 1977, to furnish the Union with information it
requested relating to the work of employees of the Em-
ployer outside the bargaining unit.
The case also arises from an unfair labor practice charge
filed on August 14, 1978, by the Employer against the
Union alleging that since July 17, 1978,' the Union has
refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Em-
ployer in that it has failed and refused to sign a collective-
bargaining contract agreed upon between the parties, and
that it has repudiated said agreement by attempting to re-
open or add a provision not agreed to by the parties.
On October II the Regional Director for Region 23 is-
sued an Order consolidating cases upon which complaints
based on those charges were issued in Cases 23-CA-7078
and 23-CB-2197. The respective Respondents filed answers
denying the allegations of the complaints.
Based upon the entire record, including my observation
of the witnesses and considerations of the briefs filed by the
General Counsel, the Union, and the Employer, I make the
following:
All events herein occurred in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
FNDINNGS OF FAC(I
1. THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a wholly owned subsidiary of National
Gypsum Company, Inc., is a corporation organized under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with facilities in
various States of the United States including Austin, Texas.
The Employer is engaged in the sale and distribution of
glass and allied products at retail and wholesale, which in-
cludes erection and installation of frames and glass for cus-
tomers at their locations. The Employer's operations in
Austin, Texas, are the only facilities involved in this pro-
ceeding. During the past 12 months, a representative pe-
riod, the Employer, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its Austin, Texas,
facility directly from suppliers located outside the State of
Texas. The Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. Since June 1, 1958, and for a period
of 20 years thereafter, as modified by Respondent and the
Union in negotiations during 1975 resulting in execution by
them of a succeeding collective-bargaining agreement dated
July 1, 1975, and effective until June 30, 1978, and as clari-
fied by the decision and clarification of bargaining unit in
Case 23-UC-89 issued June 26 the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's employees in an appropriate unit described as fol-
lows:
Employees who are employed by Binswanger Glass
Company for work of outside glazing in the Austin,
Texas, area, excluding employees who are employed
by Binswanger Glass Company for work of outside
glazing and who are employed at 8733 Burnett Road,
Austin, Texas, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Prior to October 1977 the Employer was a party to a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union which, by
its terms, was between "Binswanger Glass Company, 300 S.
Lamar, Austin, Texas," and the Union. On November 1,
1977, Binswanger opened a new facility at 8733 Burnett
Road in North Austin, Texas. The opening of the North
Austin facility caused R. W. Harrell, business representa-
tive of the Union, to write a letter dated October 28, 1977,
to Cal Harris, manager of the Employer's facility at 300 S.
Lamar Boulevard, Austin, Texas. In his letter Harrell stated
that he understood the Employer was "planning to do out-
side glazing work" at the new store, "with non-union help."
Harrell also stated "that this work was covered in the work-
ing agreement between Binswanger and Glaziers Union
No. 1852."
254
BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY
By letter dated November 3, 1977, Harris responded to
Harrell's letter, stating that the collective-bargaining agree-
ment was between the Union and Binswanger Glass Com-
pany, 300 S. Lamar, Austin, Texas. Harris also stated that
the store mentioned in the letter (the new store in North
Austin), "is a separate and distinct operation from the one I
manage. I have no authority or responsibility for it and no
control over its labor policies, whatsoever." Harris also
stated, "As I understand it, it specializes in a different type
work, different customers, etc. Its operation should not
have any effect on the employees you represent."
Following this exchange of correspondence, on Novem-
ber 16, 1977, a meeting was held between George Canter-
bury, the Employer's contract manager for the southwest
region, and union representatives. At that meeting Canter-
bury told the union representatives that Binswanger at its
North Austin operation would be performing certain resi-
dential work such as mirrors, tub enclosures, reglazing win-
dows, and some small replacement type work. Canterbury
also stated at that meeting that in his opinion the South
Lamar facility would not be losing bargaining-unit work.
However, Canterbury recognized that the 2 employees out
of 20 or so glaziers at the South Lamar facility also were
doing this type work under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment; Canterbury also advised the union representatives at
the November 16 meeting that the business being per-
formed at North Austin "was additional business that we
could not reach otherwise."
Sometime after the November 16 meeting the truck from
the North Austin facility picked up certain metal at the
Lamar warehouse that was not "considered to be the same
type of work that they had suggested they would be doing
at the North Austin store." Harrell testified, "it was a larger
type of metal which is normally used for store fronts or in
construction." Harrell admitted that he never asked Cal
Harris or George Canterbury or the Employer about that
metal or what it was being used for at the North Austin
facility.
On December 28, 1977, the attorney for the Union sent a
letter to Harris at the Employer's 300 S. Lamar Boulevard,
Austin, Texas, store requesting certain information as fol-
lows:
(I) Invoices, or other appropriate records, reflecting
the fabrication and/or installation of any glass work
by personnel employed at the Burnett Road location,
including a description of the nature and type of that
work involved.
(2) The names of all employees engaged in such
work, including amount of hours devoted thereto and
the wage rate paid all such employees.
On January 9 Canterbury replied to the Union's letter,
renewing the Employer's position regarding North Austin.
With respect to the nature and type of work involved at
North Austin the letter stated:
The North Austin operation at 8733 Burnett Road
was established to serve customers not currently being
served by the Lamar operation. A different type of
work for different customers is performed at North
Austin and it is separately managered [sic) by an indi-
vidual who is only in charge of the day-to-day opera-
tions of the North Austin facility. The work performed
at the location covers residential work such as mirrors,
tub enclosures, reglazing windows and some small re-
placement type work which is sometimes called in dif-
ferent areas an 'auto glass' installation or facility.
It does not appear that the North Austin facility will
be bidding published AGC work which is the prime
work handled by the Lamar facility, and there is no
hint or suggestion that North Austin is handling La-
mar work. Indeed, we think the North Austin facility
will serve an entirely different market which cannot be
reached by the Lamar facility.
* *
In view of the above, we do not believe your request
for certain information concerning the North Austin
facility is appropriate or that we are required to pro-
vide it for the reasons you suggest.
As reflected by our willingness to meet and discuss
the issue on November 16, 1977, we would be glad to
discuss any impact on the Lamar facility, the collec-
tive-bargaining unit at the Lamar facility, etc. How-
ever what you seek in your December 28, 1977, letter
goes beyond the separate Lamar unit and facility.
On January 24 the attorney for the Union responded to
Canterbury's January 9 letter, stating:
It is the position of Union that your firm is in viola-
tion of the current agreement by its establishment of a
branch office in the Austin, Texas, area for which office
outside glazing work is being performed, without the
recognition and application of the collective-bargain-
ing contract.
The Union demanded arbitration of the "ongoing dispute.'
On March 15 the Employer filed an RM petition with the
Board claiming a question concerning representation has
been raised with respect to "all glazers and glass workers
employed at the Employer's facility located at 8733 Burnett
Road, Austin, Texas."'
On April 24 Binswanger Glass Company filed a unit
clarification petition seeking to exclude the employees at
8733 Burnett Road, North Austin, Texas, from the bargain-
ing unit covered by collective-bargaining agreement at 300
S. Lamar. On June 26 the Regional Director issued a deci-
sion and clarification of bargaining unit in Case 23-UC-89.
The Regional Director found as follows:
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the recognized bargaining
unit be clarified by excluding therefrom employees en-
gaged in the performance of outside glazing work or
employed at 8733 Burnett Road, Austin, Texas.
As clarified, the recognized bargaining unit is de-
scribed as:
2 After heanring on March 29 in Austin, Texas, the Regional Director, on
April 14, dismissed the petition, finding that the Union had not requested to
represent the employees at 8733 Burnett Road. North Austin, in a separate
unit. Case 23-RM-361.
255
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Included: Employees who are employed by Bins-
wanger Glass Company for work of outside glazing in
the Austin, Texas, area.
Excluded: Employees who are employed by Bins-
wanger Glass Company for work of outside glazing
and who are employed at 8733 Burnett Road, Austin,
Texas, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the Employer vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its refusal to furnish the
requested information. The record shows that the Union
believed that the Employer was eroding the unit at Lamar
Boulevard by the operations conducted at its new facility at
8733 Burnett Road. The Employer admits that it refused to
furnish to the Union the names and rates of pay of its em-
ployees employed at that facility. The Employer also re-
fused to furnish the information as to the work being per-
formed by the nonunion employees at 8733 Burnett Road
facility which would have been shown on invoices. The Em-
ployer refused to furnish that information which the Union
needed in order to process its grievance in accordance with
the procedure provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement. The record shows that the Union requested the
information in order to protect unit work. The Union's pur-
poses were clearly known to the Employer as a result of the
correspondence between them and discussions. The Em-
ployer's contention that the Union has failed to demon-
strate their requisite relevancy is therefore rejected.
According to the standard of relevancy applied by the
Board and the courts it is not the obligation of the union to
prove that its allegation of contract erosion is absolutely
and finally meritorious. It is sufficient that the union's claim
be supported by a showing of probable or potential rel-
evance. See N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432
(1967). Considering the record as a whole I am convinced
that the "probable" or "potential" relevance of the data
requested by the Union has been demonstrated, and I find
and conclude that Respondents' failure to supply the infor-
mation is per se a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. See Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical
Division v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965); General
Electric Company, 199 NLRB 286 (1972); Ohio Power Com-
pany, 216 NLRB 987 (1975); Rockwell-Standard Corpora-
tion, Transmission and Axle Division, Forge Division, 166
NLRB 124 (1967), enfd. 410 F.2d 953 (6th Cir. 1969);
Northwest Publications Inc., 211 NLRB 464 (1974); Globe
Stores, Inc., 227 NLRB 1251 (1977).
The Facts Concerning the Collective-Bargaining
Agreement and the Negotiations for a New Contract
The collective-bargaining agreement between the Union
and the Company expired on June 30. Between June 15 and
30 a union commitee and certain glazing contractors in-
cluding the Employer herein met to negotiate renewal of
the agreements between their companies and the Union.
George Canterbury, district manager of the Employer, was
elected spokesman for the employers. R. W. Harrell, busi-
ness representative for the Union, was the chief negotiator
for the Union.
Three negotiating sessions were held, the last on June 30.
On that date a new wage package was discussed and nego-
tiated. A pay increase of 60 cents per hour for 3 years was
proposed by the employers. Business representative Harrell
told Canterbury that he believed he could "sell this wage
proposal to the members."
Changes in the language of the 1975-78 collective-bar-
gaining agreement tentatively agreed on by the union com-
mittee during the period June 15 to 30 were as follows: (1)
article VIII "Safety Tools." a new sentence was added as
follows: "Tools issued by the employer and signed for by
the employee will be the responsibility of the employee":
(2) the funding of the apprenticeship program was changed
from $.01 per hour worked to $.02 per hour worked; (3)
double time pay for Saturday and Sunday overtime work
eliminated; and (4) a change in the calculation of reporting
pay; namely, "pay to be from home-to-home within Austin
City limits." Both Harrell and Canterbury had notes con-
cerning these discussions.
Those tentative agreements and the 60-cent-per-year
wage package, which were taken to the members as a final
proposal, were to be ratified at a union membership meet-
ing. The first union membership meeting to discuss ratifica-
tion was in the evening of June 30, but the membership did
not ratify the agreement on that occasion. The employer
representatives were advised of this by the union president,
Darilik, who advised that the Union would keep voting un-
til it was approved.
The next day, July 1, the unit employees of the employers
ceased work and went out on strike. The strike lasted until
July 7, on which date R. W. Harrell notified employer rep-
resentative Canterbury that the union membership had ac-
cepted and ratified the new contract and were ready to re-
turn to work.
Inasmuch as it was Friday afternoon, the employees
would return to work on Monday, except for certain emer-
gency work which was performed that day by two glazers
for the Employer. In that same conversation Harrell asked
Canterbury to come back to Austin to finalize the written
agreement. Canterbury brought to Austin on July I I a copy
of the 1975-78 agreement, and Canterbury and Harrell,
using their notes of the negotiating session, went through
the 1975-78 agreement, adding or marking the changes
agreed upon, which were then initialed in the margin of the
document. They agreed that the new contract would be
effective July 10. At the conclusion of the meeting Canter-
bury agreed to take the changes in the initial document
back to Houston and to type a new contract from it. Can-
terbury was then to mail the formal contract back to Austin
to the Union for proofreading before he was to "run all of
them." Harrell requested "100" copies for his own use.
After the new document embodying the agreement was
typed in Houston copies were mailed to Harris, the S. La-
mar branch manager, to deliver to Harrell. Except for a
couple of minor changes the Union approved the typed
document.'
There was a typographical error where the word "industrial" was used
instead of "industry." The other change involved "verbiage" in the picket
line clause. These changes were communicated to Canterbury by Harris by
telephone in the presence of Business Representative Harrell. Canterbury
agreed to those changes.
256
BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY
Canterbury then received in the mail two letters dated
July 21 and 24 and a handwritten note from Harrell. The
letter dated July 21 indicated that Harrell was transmitting
"an executed copy of our recently negotiated collective-bar-
gaining agreement." but no executed copy of the document
was enclosed. The enclosed document did make the two
corrections which had been discussed earlier by telephone.
Harrell also made reference to "a reopener" to resolve cer-
tain issues that might arise out of the UC case decision. By
his handwritten note accompanying these two letters Har-
rell renewed his request for 100 copies of the agreement.
The July 24 letter advised that the membership of the
Union wished to increase the contribution to the pension
fund by 10 cents per year to be taken from their wage pack-
age.
On July 25 Canterbury responded in part to Harrell's
July 21 letter by rejecting the Union's proposal to "reopen"
the contract to "dispose of any issues" resulting from the
Board UC case. In that letter Canterbury emphasized that
an agreement had been reached and again enclosed the
copies of the new agreement which he had signed, to be
executed by the Union.
On July 26 Canterbury again wrote to Harrell concerning
Harrell's letters expressing approval of the pension contri-
bution change and the change in article XX. section 3. con-
cerning "lawful pickets."'
Canterbury testified that he wrote to Harrell on July 25
and called Harrell's attention to Respondent Union's fail-
ure to sign the collective-bargaining agreement agreed upon
on June 30 and informed the Union its reopener reserva-
tions were unacceptable in view of their agreement as of
June 30 and subsequent actions.
Although the Union executed the new collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Pittsburgh Plate Glass (another em-
ployer in the bargaining sessions), it refused to execute such
an agreement with Employer Binswanger. Except for pen-
ciled changes to increase the pension contribution and to
make the "lawful pickets" change, all of which Binswanger
had agreed to in Canterbury's July 26 letter, the PPG agree-
ment is identical to the agreement Canterbury signed and
proposed that the Union signed.
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent Union contends that at the time of the nego-
tiations, Binswanger and the Union were in the midst of a
unit clarification proceeding, a proceeding which had direct
bearing upon the negotiations. In this connection the Union
cites the timeframe as follows: May 12-unit clarification
hearing in Case 23-UC-89: June 26-the Regional Direc-
tor issues decision in Case 23-UC-89; July 7--Union mails
and serves its request for review of Regional Director's de-
cision; and August-the Board acts on the request for re-
view. denies same. The Union contends that the parties
never reached a complete agreement; that the Employer
refused to discuss with the Union, despite repeated re-
'Another correction made by the Union in the returned contract was
contained on p. 9 of the document, which struck the words "strike conditions
authorized by the Austin Building Trades Council and (Central .ahbor (Coun-
cil" and substituted the words "lawful pickets"
quests, the obviously crucial issues arising as a consequence
of the pending unit clarification proceeding.
The Union cites the testimony of Canterbury. contending
that it demonstrates conclusively that there never was a
meeting of the minds of any relevant time with respect to a
complete agreement. Canterbury did testify that he did re-
fuse to discuss a reopener of the contract with respect to the
resolution of the LiC. Canterbury said Harrell raised it with
him on June 30 and on July II, and he responded "take it
up with counsel. Don't discuss it with me." In that connec-
tion Canterbury testified that Harrell told him "There may
be an addendum necessary."
On the basis of the ratification of the contract by the
union membership. the termination of the strike, the re-
quest for 100 copies of the contract by the Union and the
execution of almost an identical copy of the contract by
Pittsburgh Plate Glass I find that there was a meeting of the
minds, and that a new collective-bargaining agreement had
been agreed upon on June 30. notwithstanding the above
timeframe which is not relevant.
Under H. J. Heinz Conmpany v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514
(1941). the Board has the authority, at the request of any
party, to direct or compel the execution of an agreed upon
collective-bargaining agreement. Accordingly, I shall rec-
ommend that the Union be directed to execute the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement presented to it by the Employer
by letter of July 25 with the subsequent letter agreement of
July 26 attached as an addendum. Even though the Union
proposed in the July 21 letter to Canterbury a reopener to
resolve any questions that might arise from the Board's re-
view of the UC case, agreement had already been reached.
With respect to Harrell's statements concerning the Union's
problems with the recognition clause and the possibility of
a change in wording on June 30. the matter was not pur-
sued after Canterbury refused to discuss any such changes
in the recognition clause.
I find and conclude that Respondent Union. by the fore-
going conduct, violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
CON(CI.USIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Respondent Company, by its refusal to furnish the
Union with the requested invoices or other appropriate rec-
ords, reflecting the fabrication and/or installation of any'
glass work by personnel employed at the Burnett Road lo-
cation, including a description of the nature and type of
that work involved and the names of all employees engaged
in such work including amount of hours devoted thereto
and the wage rate paid all such employees, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Respondent Union has been and is exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees who are employed by Bins-
wanger Glass Company for work of outside glazing in the
Austin, Texas, area excluding employees who are employed
by Binswanger Glass Company for work of outside glazing
and who are employed at 8733 Burnett Road. Austin.
257
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Texas, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act which
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. On June 30, 1978, the Employer and Respondent
Union negotiated a new collective-bargaining agreement re-
lating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
terms and conditions of employment of the employees in
the unit described above.
6. Respondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act by refusing, since July 21, 1978, to execute the written
collective-bargaining agreement described above, which
agreement was ratified by the employees in the unit de-
scribed above.
7. The unfair labor practices found herein affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices I recommend that each cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent Employer, in viola-
tion of Section 8(aX5) and (I) of the Act, unlawfully refused
to furnish the Union with the requested data and informa-
tion described above and caused and is causing the Union
to be unable to knowledgeably and properly function as a
statutory bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit described above and properly administer the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement also described above.
I shall recommend that Respondent Employer Binswan-
ger Glass Company shall cease and desist from failing and
refusing to supply Glaziers Local Union No. 1852, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades. AFL-CIO.
with information relevant or necessary to the performance
of its duties as bargaining representative of its employees
and in any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
I shall also recommend that Respondent Employer take
the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary
to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request by the Union, provide it access to the
following information relating to the bargaining-unit repre-
sentatives, previously requested by it:
Invoices or other appropriate records reflecting the
fabrication and/or installation of any glass work by
personnel employed by the Burnett Road location, in-
cluding a description of the nature and type of work
involved.
The names of all employees engaged in such work,
including amount of hours devoted thereto and the
wage rate paid all such employees.
All other information relevant and reasonably nec-
essary to the performance of the Union's obligation as
bargaining representative.
(b) To post appropriate notices.
In Case 23-CB-2197 I shall recommend that Respondent
Union, Glaziers Local Union No. 1852, International
Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with
Binswanger Glass Company regarding the wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the unit described above by failing to sign the
collective-bargaining contract agreed to by the Union on
June 30. 1978, or from engaging in any' like or related con-
duct in derogation of the Union's statutory duty to bargain
with Binswanger Glass Company.
(b) Take the following affirmative action upon request of
Binswanger Glass Company. forthwith: Execute a contract
agreed to by the Union on June 30, 1978, in accordance
with the agreement and upon such execution deliver a
signed copy thereof of the Employer.
(c) Post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record of the case. I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER5
A. Respondent Binswanger Glass Company, its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to supply Glaziers Local Union
No. 1852, International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied
Trades, AFL-CIO. with information relevant and neces-
sary to the performance of its duties as bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employ ees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request of the above-named Union, provide it
access to the following information previously requested by
it relating to the bargaining unit it represents:
Invoices or other appropriate records reflecting the
fabrication and/or installation of any glass work by
personnel employed by the Burnett Road location, in-
cluding a description of the nature and type of that
work involved.
The names of all employees engaged in such work,
including amount of hours devoted thereto and the
wage rate paid all such employees.
All other information relevant and reasonably nec-
essary to the performance of the Union's obligation as
bargaining representative.
(b) Post at its plant at 300 S. Lamar Boulevard. Austin,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."6 Copies of said notice, on frms provided by the Re-
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
6 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."
258
BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY
gional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by its
authorized representatives, shall be posted by Respondent
Employer immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish signed copies of the notice to the Regional
Director for Region 23 for posting by Glaziers Local Union
No. 1852, International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied
Trades. AFL-CIO, said Union willing, at all locations
where notices to its members are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Glaziers Local Union No. 1852, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades. AFL CIO,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with
Binswanger Glass Company regarding the wages. hours.
and other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit for which the Union is rec-
ognized by failing to sign the collective-bargaining contract
agreed to by the Respondent Union on June 30, 1978. or
from engaging in any like or related conduct in derogation
of Respondent Union's statutory duty to bargain with Bins-
wanger Glass Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request of Binswanger Glass Company, forth-
with: Execute a contract agreed to by Respondent Union
on June 30, 1978. in accordance with its agreement and
upon such execution deliver a signed copy thereof to Bins-
wanger Glass Company.
(b) Post at its Austin. Texas. facilities copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix B."7 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23.
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Union's au-
thorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Furnish signed copies of the notices to the Regional
Director for Region 23 for posting by Binswanger Glass
Company. said Employer willing, at all locations where no-
tices to its employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
' See fn. 6, supra.
259