California Portland Cement Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1375 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

CALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY 1375
7. By requiring and coercing employees of Respondent Company to sign
authorizations for the deduction of dues and initiation fees as a condition of
membership in Respondent Union ; requiring, between November 15, 1951, and
June 28, 1952, that they become and remain members of said Union ; threatening
them, during said period, with discharge if they failed to do so ; and by the
statements of its representatives or officials , detailed herein , Respondent Union
has restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) 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.
9. Respondent Company has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment or the terms and conditions of employment of Vivian Allean
Sample, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3).
10. Respondent Union has not caused or attempted to cause Respondent Com-
pany to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Vivian
Allean Sample in violation of Section 8 (a) (3), within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
CALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY and UNITED CEMENT, LIME &
GYPSUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 89. Case No.
21-CA-1472. March 31,1953
Supplemental Decision and Order
On December 29, 1952, the Board issued its Decision and Order
in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had
violated and was violating Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
Thereafter, on February 20, 1953, the Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration, requesting the Board to reconsider its foregoing
Decision and Order, that the case be referred to the full Board, and
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the record, the Board 2 makes the following additional find-
ings :
1. The Respondent contends that the charging Union was not in
compliance with section 9 (f) and (g) of the Act at the time of the
issuance of the complaint on February 1, 1952. It is well established
that compliance is a matter for administrative determination and is
not an issue litigable by the parties. Moreover, we are administra-
tively satisfied that the Union was in compliance when the complaint
was issued.
1 101 NLRB No. 232.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Styles and Petersonl.
103 NLRB No. 126.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Respondent also contends that the Board's Decision, in re-
quiring it to divulge the classifications and compensation of its sal-
aried employees, is in conflict with the provisions of Section 8 (d)
of the Act. The pertinent part of Section 8 (d) is as follows:
. . . the duties so imposed shall not be construed as requiring
either party to discuss or agree to any modification of the terms
and conditions contained in the contract for a fixed period, if
such modification is to become effective before such terms and
conditions can be reopened under the provisions of the contract.
In support of the above contention the Respondent states that the
,contract has many provisions requiring the Respondent and the Union
to furnish each other and to the employees certain information not
here in issue and that, by so specifying that certain information
should be disclosed, the parties manifested an intention that for the
term of the agreement neither party would be obliged to furnish any
other information. However, the record shows that the Respondent
has on numerous occasions, upon request, provided the Union with
information not specified in the contract.
More specifically, the Respondent contends that it is relieved from
the obligation to furnish the requested information by article 7 (c)
of the contract, which reads :
The wages specified in this schedule are minimum wages and
are not to be construed as preventing the Employer from giving,
or the employees from receiving, any additional compensation.
However, the Employer shall immediately notify the Union of
any additional increases in the hourly rates . [Emphasis added.]
The Respondent construes the italicized language to mean that it need
notify the Union only of increases in hourly rates and not of the salary
increases. Assuming, without deciding, that this is true, it does not
follow that the foregoing article precludes the disclosure of existing
classifications and salaries of its salaried employees, as distinguished
from any increases in salaries . Accordingly, we find nothing in
article 7 (c) or the other provisions cited by the Respondent that
precludes the disclosure of the salary data requested by the Union, and
we find that to require such disclosure would not constitute a modifi-
cation of the contract within the meaning of Section 8 (d) of the Act.
3. The Respondent contends, further, that under article 21 of the
contract the Union expressly waived its right to request disclosure of
salary data. In that article the parties acknowledge that they have
"settled all issues between them and all collective bargaining obliga-
tions for the term of the contract." However, this article does not
purport to relieve the Respondent of the obligation to bargain about
grievances arising under the contract, nor does the Respondent impute
CALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY 1377
that effect to the article. As the disclosure of the salary data sought
by the Union is essential to the effective discharge of the Union's
responsibility for administering the contract by processing griev-
ances ,3 it follows that the duty to supply such data was not intended
to be affected by article 21.
4. The Respondent asserts that its refusal, because of the pendency
of the Union's charge before the Board, to consider the Union' s griev-
ance concerning an alleged violation of the contract did not violate
the Act. In support of this position it contends that (1) the grievance
clearly had no merit, as the contract expressly conferred on the Re-
spondent the right to transfer work from one plant to another, and
(2) the grievance was not filed in good faith, having been filed on the
same day as the Union's charge.
As to (1), that fact, if it be a fact, that the grievance had no merit
may have justified rejection of the grievance by the Respondent on
its merits, but would not justify the Respondent's refusal to consider
it at all. As to (2), we do not agree with the Respondent's contention
that the mere fact that the charge was filed on the same day as the
grievance establishes that the grievance was filed in bad faith. The
fact that the Union continued to press the grievance even after the
charge was filed negates any inference that the grievance was not filed
in good faith.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find no
reason to set aside our original Decision herein, and we will deny the
Respondent's motion in all other respects.
Order
IT Is ORDERED that the Respondent's motion for reconsideration be,
and it hereby is, denied.
s The Respondent disputes the Board 's finding in its original Decision herein that the
disclosure of salary data is needed for the administration of article 9 (a) of the contract
relating to temporary transfers . The Respondent contends that the word "wages" in
article 9 (a) of the contract does not include "salaries" but refers only to "hourly rates."
We do not agree. The salaried employees are in the bargaining unit which is covered by
the contract . Elsewhere in the contract the Respondent has used "wages" as including
salaries. Thus, the Respondent recognized in negotiations concerning article 7 (c) that
the term "wages" as used in the first sentence thereof referred to salaries as well as hourly
rates.
Furthermore , the requested salary data is necessary for the proper administration not
only of article 9 ( a), but also of article 9 (b) of the contract , which prescribes the rate
of pay applicable in case of permanent transfers . In its original brief herein , the Respond-
ent indicated that it considered article 9 (b)i to apply to salaried employees.
It is well settled that an employer violates Section 8 ( a), (5)' of the Act when he refuses
to furnish to a union information concerning employees ' rates of pay and classifications,
which are needed by the union to enable it to administer the contract . General Controls
Company/, 88 NLRB 1341 ; E. W. Scripps Company, 94 NLRB 227; Aluminum Ore Com-
pani v. N. L. R . B., 131 F . 2d 485 ( C. A. 7),; J. H. Allison d Company, 70 NLRB 377,
enforced 165 F. 2d 766 ( C. A. 6), cert . den. 335 U . S. 814 ; Leland-Gifford Company, 95
NLRB 1306 , enforced as modified 200 F . 2d 620 ( C. A. 1).