Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 34 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Building Construction Employers Association of Lin-
coln, Nebraska and M . W. Anderson Construction
Co. and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local Union No . 1055, AFL-
CIO
Building Construction Employers Association of Lin-
coln, Nebraska and George Cook Construction Co.
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Local Union No. 1055 , AFL-CIO.
Cases 17-CA-4051 and 17-CA-4052
August 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
MCCULLOCH AND BROWN
On April 15, 1970, Trial Examiner James T. Barker
issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondents filed timely exceptions, and a brief in
support thereof, to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the "Trial
Examiner's Decision", the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations,' as modified herein.
While, as indicated, we agree with the Trial Examin-
er's finding and conclusion that Respondents violated
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by their failure
to bargain in good faith with the Union regarding
the request for presumptively relevant wage data,
' We adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondents violated
Sec 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act When faced with the Union' s request
for presumptively relevant wage data , Respondents replied that the Union
could obtain the information directly from the particular employees
ks found by the Trial Examiner, and in accordance with the cases cited by
him, a union's right to wage information from an employer is not affected by
the fact that it might obtain such information elsewhere Respondents'
response was indicative of a bad-faith approach to its bargaining obligation.
and we so find
we are of the opinion that the Trial Examiner's
remedy and, by incorporation, the Recommended
Order, is unduly broad, to the extent that it would
require Respondents to furnish all data previously
requested without regard to its need or relevancy.
The unfair labor practices found will be adequately
remedied by an order directing Respondent Associa-
tion, on behalf of Respondent Anderson and Respond-
ent Cook, to furnish wage and related data to the
Union relevant to alleged improper overtime payments
to employees of Respondents Anderson and Cook
represented by the Union and relevant to alleged
performance of carpenter work by laborer employees
of Respondents Anderson and Cook. Accordingly,
section V of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled
"The Remedy" is so modified.
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
Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that
Respondents, Building Construction Employers Asso-
ciation of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W. Anderson Con-
struction Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, and George Cook
Construction Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as modified above.'
' The first indented paragraph of the notice is conformed to the
modified Order to read as follows THE UNDERSIGNED ASSOCIA-
TION WILL, on behalf of Anderson and Cook, upon request, furnish
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union
No 1055, AFL-CIO, the information requested by the Union on July
1, 1969, relevant to alleged improper overtime payments to employees
of Anderson and Cook represented by the Union and relevant to alleged
performance of carpenter work by laborer employees of Anderson and
Cook
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T . BARKER , Trial Examiner . These matters were
heard at Lincoln, Nebraska , on February 10, 1970 , pursuant
to separate charges filed in the respective cases on September
3, 1969, by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , Local Union No. 1055 , AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Union . On December 12, 1969 , the Regional
Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region
17 issued an order consolidating cases, complaint, and
notice of hearing alleging that Building Construction
Employers Association of Lincoln , Nebraska, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the Respondent Association or
the Association ; M. W. Anderson Construction Co.; and
George Cook Construction Co., which entities in combina-
tion with the Association are referred to herein as Respond-
185 NLRB No. 8
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB
ents, have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act The parties timely
filed briefs with me.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and
upon the record in this case, and my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
At all times material herein M. W Anderson Construction
Co., and George Cook Construction Co. have been engaged
in the construction business and have been members of
Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln,
Nebraska, a multiemployer association which exists in part
for the purpose of representing its members in labor rela-
tions During pertinent times Respondents Anderson and
Cook have been represented by the Association for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
In the conduct of their businesses, the members of the
Association annually perform services valued in excess of
$50,000 for customers located outside the State in which
the respective principal places of business are located and
annually purchase materials and supplies valued in excess
of $50,000 from suppliers outside the State in which said
members' respective principal places of business are located
Upon these admitted facts I find that Building Construc-
tion Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W.
Anderson Construction Co., and George Cook Construction
Co., are individually, and have been at all times material
herein, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America , Local Union No. 1055 , AFL-CIO, is admitted
to be a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The sole issue in this is whether the Respondents violated
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by declining, as requested
by the Union, to furnish information concerning the
"amount of wages" paid certain named employees during
a specified period of time spanning approximately 27
months.
It is the contention of the Respondents that the wage
information requested by the Union was not related to
the Union's collective-bargaining duties because, at the time
of the request, there was no collective-bargaining agreement
being negotiated and no collective-bargaining negotiations
were pending; and because the Union would not have
been assisted in the fulfillment of any proper collective-
bargaining obligation by receipt of data revealing gross
annual wages of the designated employees which, Respond-
ent contends, was the information sought by the Union.
B. Pertinent Facts
1. The negotiations and status
of the Union
35
At all times since April 1, 1966, the Union has been
recognized by members of the Association, including
Respondents Cook and Anderson, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all individuals employed by
them as carpenters and apprentices. During the period
from January 1969 through May 1969, the Union and
the Association engaged in negotiations for a new collective-
bargaining agreement covering individuals employed by
members of the Association, including Respondents Cook
and Anderson, in the carpenter and apprentice classification.
On September 27, 1969, the Union and the Association
executed a collective-bargaining agreement to remain in
effect until March 31, 1972. Oral agreement on new terms
had been achieved by the parties on May 19, 1969. Included
in the agreement is a provision requiring the employers
to make certain health and welfare and pension contributions
during the term of the agreement.
2. Wage data requested and declined
Over the signature of R. D. Dittenber, the Union, by
letter dated February 24, addressed to George Cook Con-
struction Co., made the following request:
In order to properly and efficiently represent the
employees in the bargaining unit covered by the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, the Union requests that you
furnish to it the amount of wages paid by your company
to the undersigned employees on the attached list
under our agreement which commenced on April 1,
1966.
Attached to the letter was a list of 54 names.
Subsequently, on March 20, Dittenber dispatched a letter
to M. W. Anderson Construction Co., wherein an indentical
request was made. Attached to the March 20 letter was
a list of 25 names.
Thereafter, by letter dated March 25, the president of
M. W. Anderson Construction Co. responded as follows:
This will acknowledge your letter of 3-20-69 in which
you request us to furnish the amount of wages paid
by our company to certain listed employees covered
by our contract commencing April 1, 1966.
If you will have each of the employees listed submit
a written request to us asking for the above information
we will be glad to supply it to them individually.
By letter dated May 12, a representative of George Cook
Construction Co. responded as follows-
In response to your letter requesting that we furnish
you the amount of wages paid by us to certain designat-
ed employees, please be advised that we have paid
these employees the wages provided in the collective-
bargaining agreement between your union and our
company.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The alleged departure from
contract terms
R. D. Dittenber testified credibly that as business repre-
sentative for the Union it was his duty to police collective-
bargaining agreements which the Union has with the Associ-
ation. In the fulfillment of his duties it is his practice
to go from job to job and check the wages being paid
employees on the job and handle grievances that may
arise. In addition, Dittenber dispatches employees to employ-
ers requesting men and assists in negotiating collective-
bargaining agreements.
Dittenber credibly testified that in December 1968 or
January 1969 he observed one Robert O'Brien working
on a Cook Construction Co. job. Further, Dittenber testified
that on a date he could not fix with certainty he observed
Gene Wright working on an Anderson Construction Co
job. He testified that both individuals were classified as
laborers and that he observed them doing carpenters' work.
Additionally, Dittenber credibly testified that he received
complaints from carpenter employees that they had not
received "proper overtime wages."'
4. The list of carpenters compiled
Dittenber credibly testified that as a consequence of
his personal observation of laborers performing carpenters'
work and the complaints he had received concerning discre-
pancies in overtime compensation he studied health and
welfare remittance forms submitted by individual employers
to the trust office maintained by the Union and other
labor organizations in connection with their respective health
and welfare and pension fund agreements with the Associa-
tion. These remittance forms, submitted by the individual
contractors, contain the name of the individual employee
on behalf of whom a contribution is remitted, the total
number of hours for which contribution is being made,
and the total contribution. This total is the product of
the number of hours worked multiplied by the appropriate
hourly sum contractually required to be contributed to
the specific fund.' The craft of each individual employee
listed on the remittance form is specified by a code number
which is entered on the form next to the employee' s name.
The code number for carpenters is the numeral "2."
Dittenber testified that from his personal study of the
remittance forms maintained at the trust office he compiled
the separate lists which were attached to his letters of
February 24 and March 20, sent to Respondents Cook
and Anderson, respectively. He testified further that with
two exceptions each of the names contained on the respective
lists attached to the aforesaid letters was a name designated
on the trust fund remittance form as a carpenter Dittenber
testified that to the Cook list he added the name of Robert
O'Brien and to the Anderson list he added the name
of Gene Wright, laborers whom, as found, he had previously
' The collective-bargaining agreement provides that "all overtime work
shall be compensated at double time rates "
' The hourly contribution to the health and welfare is 12 1/2 cents
per hour and that to the pension fund is 10 cents per hour
observed working on the job performing carpenter work.
Dittenber credibly testified that, upon observing O'Brien
and Wright working in the manner described, he inquired
of the superintendent of the two jobs if O'Brien and Wright,
respectively, were being paid carpenters' wages. From one
superintendent he received a noncommittal answer. The
other superintendent told him that it was none of his
business. Dittenber did not go directly to either George
Cook or M. W. Anderson to learn if O'Brien and Wright,
respectively, were being compensated at carpenter scale
Neither did Dittenber approach O'Brien or Wright personal-
ly.
5. The alleged need for the wage data
Dittenber testified that he needed information pertaining
to the hourly wage and weekly wage of individual employees
in order for him to determine whether Cook and Anderson
were complying with their collective-bargaining agreement.
In this connection, he credibly testified that the remittance
forms maintained in the trust office contained no breakdown
of hourly compensation for any of the individual employees
listed thereon. He further testified, in substance, that the
Union retains no records from which such a determination
can be made. Dittenber testified further that the employees
for whom he sought data lived in localities and towns
in the general area and vicinity of Lincoln, Nebraska.
6 The data again requested
a. Original unfair labor practice
charges dismissed
The record establishes that on March 28 the Union
filed unfair labor practice charges against M W. Anderson
Construction Co. in Case 17-CA-3852 . Similarly, on April
15, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges in Case
17-CA-3865 against George Cook Construction Co. In
each instance it was alleged that Section 8(a) (5) of the
Act had been violated by reason of the refusal of the
respective companies to comply with the Union 's separate
requests for information concerning wage rates.
These charges were dismissed by the then Regional
Director of Region 17 on June 9 . The reason for the
dismissal action was stated , in pertinent part, as follows:
Since the Union directed its request for collective-
bargaining information to individual members of a
multi-employer bargaining unit instead of to their bar-
gaining representative , it does not appear that the
request was properly made , and the Companies ' refusal
and failure to respond did not constitute a violation
of the Act.
b. The July 1 requests
On July 1, R. D. Dittenber dispatched to the Association
a letter containing the following:
The undersigned labor organization is the recognized
collective bargaining agent for certain employees affili-
ated with your Association working as journeymen
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB
carpenters and carpenter apprentices and performing
carpenter work. The collective bargaining agreement
between your association and the union is binding
upon present and future members of your association
during the life of the agreement. As bargaining repre-
sentative of M W. Anderson Construction Company,
a member of your association represented in collective
bargaining with the undersigned labor organization,
and in order to properly and effectively represent
employees of this company in the bargaining unit
covered by such collective bargaining agreement, the
union requests that you furnish to it the amount of
wages paid the M. W. Anderson Construction Company
to the designated employees on the attached list under
our agreement which commenced on April 1, 1966.
Similarly, on July 1, R. D. Dittenber dispatched to
the Association a letter identical in pertinent respects
requesting "the amount of wages paid" by Cook Construc-
tion Co. Attached to the letter referring to the M W.
Anderson Construction Co., was a list of 24 names. The
lists were identical to those that had earlier accompanied
the separate demands made upon the employers individually
c The July 14 responses
By letter dated July 14, the Association through its
secretary, Dean G. Kratz, responded in separate letters
directed to Dittenber. In each of the letters it acknowledged
receipt of the Union's July 1 request' that the Union
be furnished with "the total amount of wages paid" by
the respective companies to designated employees from
April 1, 1966, to date and further stated the following:
These figures are not available in this office. Most
of the information that you request would be available
in the W-2 forms of the designated employee. We
suggest that it would be easier for you to get this
information directly from the employees, who are mem-
bers of your union.
Counsel for Respondent stated on the record at the
hearing that the Respondent was not basing its defense
to the refusal to supply wage information to the Union
on any lack of authority in the Association to furnish
information of the general variety requested by the Union,
or the unavailability to the Association of wage information
or any general inability of the Association to compile it.
Except for the correspondence between the parties above
set out there was no other contact between representatives
of the Respondents, on the one hand, and representatives
of the Union pertaining to the wage information requested.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of record establishes a tacit refusal on
the part of Respondents to furnish to the Union, upon
request, wage information relating to the earnings of 54
named employees of Cook Construction and 25 named
employees of Anderson Construction.
' The letter specified July 9 as the date of receipt of the Union's
requests
37
An employer is under a statutory duty to bargain collec-
tively with representatives of its employees with respect
to wages, and a union's right to wage information during
the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, to enable
and permit it to police the administration of the agreement,
is well established.' "Wage and related information pertain-
ing to employees in the bargaining unit is presumptively
relevant, for, as such data concerns the core of the employer-
employee relationship, a union is not required to show
the precise relevance of it, unless effective employer rebuttal
comes forth "5 Absent special circumstances, a collective-
bargaining representative is entitled to obtain relevant wage
information from the employer of unit employees," and
a union's right to relevant wage information is not defeated
merely because it is obtainable through individual members
of the unit .' "It is immaterial that the Union might have
gathered the bulk of this needed material through a series
of interviews with members and employees: It was entitled
to that complete, accurate, and authoritative statement of
facts which only the employer was in position to make."8
The evidence establishes, and I find, that the Union
has been since April 1, 1966, the exclusive bargaining
representative of carpenter and apprentice employees
employed by members of the Association, including Cook
and Anderson. The collective-bargaining agreement in effect
until March 31, 1969, between the Union and the Associa-
tion, which was binding on Cook and Anderson, contained
wage and overtime scales for journeymen carpenters and
apprentices and a maintenance-of-standard provision relat-
ing specifically to wages, overtime differentials, and "general
working conditions." In fulfillment of his duties as business
representative of the Union, Dittenber received information
which led him reasonably to believe that the wage standards
of that agreement had not been fully observed by Cook
and Anderson, and he personally observed on-the-job condi-
tions indicating that carpenter tasks were being performed
by laborers. The potentially erosive effect of these purported
practices and conditions on wage and working condition
standards established by contract is immediately discernible.
The relevance of information which would shed light on
employer adherence or deviation from contractual standards
is equally patent. The value of wage data properly linked
to specific unit employees as an aid to the Union in fulfilling
the task of contract administration relating to enforcing
compliance with contractual wage standards can not be
doubted.' Indeed, the precedents requiring the production
of relevant wage data are not seriously challenged by
Respondent.
Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v NL R B.,
347 F 2d 61 (C A 3), NL R B v Northwestern Publishing Company,
343 F 2d 521 (CA 7), The Timken Roller Bearing Company v. NL.R B,
325 F 2d 746 (C A 6)
Curtis-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v NL R B.,
supra; see also Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation v NL.R B, 223
F2d58(CA 1)
Sign & Pictorial Union Local 1175 (Webster Outdoor Advertising
Co.)v N.L.RB,419F2d726,734(CAD.C)
' See Weber Veneer & Plywood Company, 161 NLRB 1054, 1056
' S. H Kress & Company, 108 NLRB 1615.
The value of this information as an aid to determining sporadic
or ad hoc use of laborers as carpenters is not discernible and is not
explicated by the General Counsel or Charging Party
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rather, in the Respondent's view of the case, as I interpret
it, the issue is whether the Union made an efficacious
request for wage information relevant to the fulfillment
of the Union's statutory duty to administer the collective-
bargaining agreement.
The Respondent contends that the request which the
Union made was for total wages paid the named employees
over a 3-year penod and that such information was not
relevant to any duty of contract administration devolving
on the Union Additionally, contends Respondent, the Union
sought data for a penod covered by the expired agreement
which could have no bearing on administration of the
existing agreement.10 Moreover, contends Respondent, in
the circumstances of this case, the Union was put on
prior notice that the Company interpreted the Union's
request as one for total wages. Despite this, asserts Respond-
ent, the Union did not modify or clarify its request, but
merely repeated it. Finally, Respondent contends that the
Union's request was for the purpose of harassment and
was burdensome, as evidenced by the fact that the Union
sought data concerning earnings of individuals known to
the Union to be supervisors.
On the other hand, the General Counsel contends that
the information sought by the Union was relevant, and
that, in characterizing the Union's request as one calling
for "total wages," the Respondent is engaging in semantics
and is applying "the most niggardly interpretation of the
words wages paid." Moreover, the General Counsel contends
that the reason advanced by Respondent in its letter respon-
ses to the Union's requests, when measured against the
defenses of Respondent advanced at the hearing reveals
dilatory and evasive tactics indicative of bad faith. Further,
the General Counsel contends that Respondent's bad faith
is further demonstrated by its failure to inquire into the
nature of the information the Union was seeking.
It is not essential, upon the record in this case, to
determine whether as an abstract principle an employer
faced with a demand for wage data which is susceptible
of more than a single interpretation has the affirmative
duty of seeking clarification of the request from the labor
organization proffering it." Decisive of the issue posed
in this case is the evidence revealing Respondent's bad
faith in responding to the serves of letter demands which
reveals declination not on the ground of relevancy, but
on grounds which the Board and courts have held to
be specious, when measured against the purposes and
requirements of statute.12
The initial response of Respondent Cook was, in effect,
a flat rejection of the Union's request. The response of
Respondent Anderson was similar, except that the latter
10 As found, the previous agreement expired on March 31, 1969,
oral agreement on a new contract was achieved on May 19, and the
new agreement was executed on September 27 Meantime, from January
to May the parties engaged in collective bargaining
" Cf Keller Industries, Inc, d/b/a American Carpet Mills, Inc, 170
NLRB 1715, 1723, Cranston Print Works Company, 115 NLRB 537,
557-558
" The declination of Respondents Anderson and Cook, individually,
shed light on and give dimension to the July 14 declination on their
behalf by the Association, which is the conduct attacked as constituting
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
employer, in substance, placed the burden on the Union
of marshalling the information from individual members.
The Union thereafter renewed its requests, directing them
to the Association. At the time of these last requests,
oral agreement had been achieved on new collective-bargain-
ing terms but the agreement had not yet been executed.
While the Respondent is quite accurate in the assertion
that, in the then prevailing state of the bargaining relation-
ship, the wage data had no value for contract negotiation
purposes, it did, I find, have value to the Union for contract
administration purposes. This is so because a substantiation
of past deviations from contract terms and standards could
well point the way for more strenuous policing by the
Union of the new, current agreement. On the other hand,
if the suspicions of failure to conform were revealed to
be unfounded, efforts at closer supervision could be obviated
with savings to the Union in money and manpower that
would otherwise be devoted to the policing effort. Addition-
ally, as the General Counsel contends, failure to abide
by past contract terms might give rise to efforts on the
part of the Union to recover wages improperly denied.
It is in this context of relevance that the Association's
July 14 responses must be evaluated.
By its responses of July 14, the Respondent Association,
like Respondent Anderson, sought to transfer to the Union
the obligation of gathering the desired data from constituents
of the unit. While it specifically characterized the Union's
request as one for "total amount of wages paid" designated
employees, no issue of relevancy was raised directly by
the Association. Rather, the Association salted its refusal
with the evasion that the information was not available
"in [its] office." While literally true, the information was,
in fact, available to the Association as collective-bargaining
agent of Cook and Anderson; a fact not disputed at the
hearing. The Act places on an employer the obligation
to treat in good faith with the chosen collective-bargaining
representative of its employees. If the Respondent in good
faith had believed that the Union was requesting only
total wages and not linked data, they were under duty
to comply or to declare the data irrelevant and thus outside
its obligation to furnish. The Respondents, through the
Association, made no pretense at furnishing data. Neither
did they label the requested data irrelevant. Either a bona
fide effort at compliance with the Union's request as assert-
edly interpreted, or a declination on the grounds of relevancy
would have created circumstance compatible to the opera-
tion of the machinery of free collective-bargaining. Apprised,
the Union could then have reassessed its position, modified
its demands, or opened a dialogue of peaceful persuasion
consistent with Section 8(d) of the Act. The Respondents
followed a course quite different. The result was a frustration
of the machinery of collective-bargaining.
I specifically find that in the circumstances of this case
as detailed above, having failed to raise the issue of relevancy
in their July 14 declinations, and by relying instead on
invalid grounds as warrant for withholding wage data from
the Union, the Respondents revealed bad faith which is
a departure from the requirement and mandate of Section
8(d) of the Act.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS OF LINCOLN, NEB
I further find that the separate requests for wage data
pertaining to 25 and 54 employees, respectively, and covering
pay periods for a term of 3 years were not unduly burden-
some when construed in light of the Union's collective-
bargaining rights under the Act so as to constitute a defense
to the Union's request." Nor do I find evidence sufficient
to substantiate the Respondents' contention that the Union
was motivated in its request by a desire to harass the
respective companies to which the requests were directed.14
Rather, I find that the requests were made in good faith
and were predicated on reasonable indicia of noncompliance
with contractual terms by Respondents Cook and Anderson.
In sum , I find that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by declining for the reasons advanced
and in the circumstances prevailing to honor the Union's
July 1 request for wage data.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of Respondents described in Section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease
and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent Association, as the
designated collective-bargaining representative for Respond-
ents Cook and Anderson has in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act failed to furnish wage information requested
by the Union and relevant to the Union's duty to administer
the collective-bargaining agreement between it and the
Respondents. I shall accordingly recommend that the
Respondent Association, acting on behalf of Respondents
Anderson and Cook, furnish to the Union wage information
pertaining to the nonsupervisory carpenters and apprentices
employed by Respondents Cook and Anderson who are
named in the pertinent lists attached to the Union's July
1 requests. The wage information so furnished shall be
broken down with respect to each of said carpenter or
apprentice employees on the basis of the payroll period-
weekly, biweekly or monthly-utilized by the respective
" An employee may be absolved from furnishing wage information
if the task is unduly burdensome upon the resources of the Company
See e g, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 129 NLRB 850, 866, Fruit
& Vegetable Packers Local 760 v N.L.R.B., 316 F 2d 389, 390 (C A D C)
" That the Union sought wage data relating to six supervisors in
the employ of Cook and five in the employ of Anderson is not sufficient
to support Respondents' contention Data on other individuals whom
the parties stipulated performed at intervals as supervisors does not,
with respect to the construction industry, render all wage data relating
to them outside the purview of the Act
39
Respondents in compensating their employees for their
services.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. On July 1 , 1969, and at all times relevant in this
proceeding, the Union was, and has been , the recognized
collective-bargaining representative of all individuals
employed as carpenters and apprentices by members of
the Respondent Association, including Respondents Ander-
son and Cook.
4. On or about May 19 , 1969, the Union and the Respond-
ent Association orally agreed on terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement covering employees employed as car-
penters and apprentices by employer-members of the Associ-
ation , including Respondents Cook and Anderson. On or
about September 27, 1969, the parties executed a written
collective-bargaining agreement.
5. On July 1, 1969, the Union requested the Respondents
to furnish it with relevant wage information pertaining
to carpenter and apprentice employees employed by
Respondents Anderson and Cook.
6. On or about July 14 , 1969, Respondents refused to
furnish the Union with wage information.
7. By such refusal the Respondents engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case , I recommend that Building Construction Employers
Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, M. W. Anderson Con-
struction Co., and George Cook Construction Co., their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union
No. 1055, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
carpenters and their apprentices employed by Respondents
Cook and Anderson by failing and refusing to furnish
the wage information pertaining to carpenters and appren-
tices represented by said Union and employed by Respond-
ents Anderson or Cook requested by the Union on July
1, 1969.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, and in the manner specified in the
portion of this decision entitled "The Remedy," furnish
the wage information requested by the Union on July
1, 1969.
(b) Post at their respective offices and places of business
in Lincoln, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly
signed, shall be posted by each Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing,
within 20 days of the receipt of this Decision what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16
" 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, recommendations, 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
in the event that the Board's 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 be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
16 in the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional
Director, in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request, furnish United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, the information
concerning nonsupervisory employees specified by the
Union in its July 1, 1969, request.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local Union No. 1055, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of carpenters and their appren-
tices, by refusing, upon proper request, to furnish
to the Union wage information relevant to the Union's
duty to administer the collective-bargaining agreement
between it and the members of the Association.
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.
Dated By
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
Dated By
Dated By
M. W. ANDERSON
CONSTRUCTION CO.
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
GEORGE COOK
CONSTRUCTION CO.
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 610
Federal Building , 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.