Conagra, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1999

328 N.L.R.B. 127 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

CONAGRA, INC. 127
Conagra, Inc. and/or Conagra Grain Processing
Companies, Inc., and Molinos De Puerto Rico,
Inc. and Congreso De Uniones Industriales De
Puerto Rico. Cases 24–CA–6856 and 24–CA–
6881
April 29, 1999
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER ON
REMAND
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND
HURTGEN
On August 20, 1996, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in this proceeding.1
The Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s deci-
sion and found, inter alia, that Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act by failing to provide to the Union during contract
negotiations requested financial information which the
Board determined to be necessary and relevant because
the Respondents were effectively claiming a present in-
ability to pay what the Union proposed. The Board also
affirmed the administrative law judge’s further finding
that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
conditioning the release of the requested information on
the Union’s withdrawing its charge alleging the unlawful
withholding of such information.
The Respondents thereafter filed a petition for review
of the Board’s Order with the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Board
filed a cross-application for enforcement. On July 8,
1997, the court issued its opinion denying enforcement
of the Board’s Order and remanding the case to the
Board for further proceedings consistent with the court’s
opinion.2 In this regard, the court, inter alia, denied en-
forcement of the Board’s order that was based on the
Board’s finding that the requested information was nec-
essary and relevant to the Union’s duty as bargaining
representative and, thus, that the Respondents were obli-
gated under law to provide it.3 In light of its rejection of
the Board’s finding that the Respondents were required
by the Act to turn over this financial information, the
court also declined to grant enforcement of the Board’s
order that was based on the Board’s finding that the Re-
spondents unlawfully sought to condition the providing
of the information to the Union on the Union’s with-
drawal of its unfair labor practice charge regarding the
Respondents’ failure to provide the information. The
court remanded the matter to the Board to consider
whether its finding that the Respondents illegally condi-
tioned the provision of information on the withdrawal of
the related unfair labor practice charge may stand despite
the court’s rejection of the Board’s finding that the Un-
ion was entitled by the Act to receive the requested in-
formation. Conagra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d at 1446–
1447.

1 321 NLRB 944.
2 117 F.3d 1435.
3 The court also denied enforcement of the Board’s order that was
based on the Board’s findings that the Respondents violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (1) by engaging in surface bargaining, and Secs. 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) by locking out employees represented by the Union and
otherwise unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of employment.
On September 25, 1997, the Board advised the parties
that it had accepted the remand and invited the parties to
submit statements of position with respect to the issues
raised by the remand. Thereafter the General Counsel
filed a statement of position, and the Respondents filed a
statement and a supplemental statement of position.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reconsidered this case in light of the
court’s opinion, which is the law of the case, and has
decided to dismiss the allegation that the Respondents
violated the Act by conditioning the provision of the re-
quested information on the withdrawal of the Union’s
unfair labor practice charge.
The conditional offer was made and discussed during a
single bargaining session. The Respondents took the po-
sition that, although they were not required to provide the
requested information to the Union, they would do so if
the Union agreed to withdraw its charge alleging that the
Respondents had not provided information required to be
provided under the Act. As noted above, the court de-
termined that the Union was not entitled to this informa-
tion under law. Thus, the Respondents ultimately pre-
vailed in their view concerning their obligation to pro-
vide the information. Because the Respondents were not
obligated to provide the information, we find that the
Respondents’ setting conditions on the provision of the
information was not a refusal to bargain in good faith
with the Union. In this regard, we find that the Respon-
dents’ conduct was akin to an offer of settlement of an
unfair labor practice charge. It is well-established that
such offers do not violate the Act. See Carlsen Porshe
Audi, Inc., 266 NLRB 141, 150 (1983), Nabisco Inc.,
267 NLRB 1236, 1241 (1983), and Hilton’s Environ-
mental, Inc., 320 NLRB 437, 455 (1995); see also United
Aircraft Corp., 192 NLRB 382, 384 (1971), enfd. in per-
tinent part 534 F.2d. 422, 464 (2d Cir. 1975).
ORDER
The complaint allegation is dismissed.

328 NLRB No. 24