Connecticut Light and Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 967 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO.
Connecticut Light and Power Company ; Hartford
Electric Light Company ; Holyoke Water Power
Company; Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power
Company; Western Massachusetts Electric Compa-
ny and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Locals 420, 455 and 457.1 Case
1-CA-10331
September 30, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On May 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter, General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondents Con-
necticut Light and Power Company, Hartford Elec-
tric Light Company, Holyoke Water Power
Company, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Com-
pany,2 and Western Massachusetts Electric Compa-
ny filed cross -exceptions and a supporting brief and
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 only to
the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondents' refusal to furnish pension payment data
to the Union at its request did not violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We find merit in General
Counsel 's exceptions to this finding.
i Herein collectively referred to as the Union.
2 The parties stipulated that effective January 1, 1969, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (hereinafter IBEW) and Respondents
became parties to a System Pension Plan covering all bargaining unit em-
ployees of all Respondents except Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Com-
pany . Insofar as the complaint alleges that Connecticut Yankee Atomic
Power Company's refusal to supply the information requested by the IBEW
is unlawful , it is hereby dismissed . Whereas the other four Respondents
thereby bargain jointly with respect to pension benefits , Connecticut Yan-
kee bargains separately. Connecticut Yankee thus signs a separate contract
with IBEW for its own employees and is not a party to the joint agreement
signed by the other four companies . Unlike the most recent System Pension
agreement which was due to expire on 'January 1, 1975, Connecticut
Yankee's pension agreement was not due to expire until March 1, 1975.
Although the parties agreed to include a representative of Connecticut Yan-
kee when negotiations to amend the most recent four-company agreement
began on November 21, 1974, we do not deem Connecticut Yankee's pres-
ence at negotiations concerning an agreement to which it is not a party
sufficient to impose upon it an obligation to supply the requested informa-
tion here in issue.
967
Pension negotiations to amend the agreement ef-
fective January 1,-1975,1 began November 21, 1974.
Prior to the first negotiating session, IBEW submit-
ted its proposals to Respondents, one of which re-
quested that a provision be added to the plan "pro-
viding for annual adjustment to the pension of
present and future retirees to reflect changes in the
cost of living." 4 By letter dated December 4, 1974,
IBEW requested certain information from Respon-
dent regarding the pension negotiations, including:
An explanation of increases in benefits granted
to retirees over the past five years listing the
amount of increase and how the amount was
arrived at. This information is needed so we may
evaluate our proposal for a cost of living in-
crease for present bargaining unit members.
Though not complying with the Union's request
for information concerning increases in benefits
granted to retirees over the past 5 years, Respondents
did provide a summary of the benefits being received
by current retirees who retired during the last 3 years,
rather than for the full 5 years the pension plan had
been in operation.
It is well settled that an employer is not obligated
to bargain as to pension or other retirement benefits
for retirees since retirees are not part of an appropri-
ate bargaining unit.' Where a union requests infor-
mation pertaining to individuals not in the bargain-
ing unit, it bears the burden of establishing that the
information is relevant and necessary for purposes of
bargaining for employees in the bargaining unit .6
Here, the General Counsel contends that the
Union's request for data explaining increases in ben-
efits granted to retirees over the past 5 years was
necessary in order to properly evaluate its cost-of-
living proposal for present bargaining unit members.
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find
that Respondents' failure to provide such informa-
tion as requested violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
Nor do we agree with the Administrative Law
3 Subsequent to the first System Pension agreement which was effective
January 1, 1969, the parties made pension agreements for the years 1970
and 1971 . On January 1, 1972, the System Pension Plan was amended by
Joint negotiations to be effective for a period of 3 years. In January 1972,
the companies unilaterally made special adjustments in the pension benefits
of current retirees who had retired before January 1, 1969, the date on
which the System Pension Plan first went into effect . Such payments began
in March 1972.
At the outset of negotiations, Respondents made it clear that they would
refuse to bargain with respect to current retirees . The Union's proposal was
later rephrased so as to exclude "present" retirees from any consideration.
5 Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pitts-
burgh Plate Glass Co., Chemical Division, 404 U.S. 157 (1971).
6 See, e.g., Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, 157 NLRB 496 (1966), enfd.
388 F .2d 673 (C.A. 6, 1968); General Electric Company, 199 NLRB 286
(1972); Union Carbide Corporation, 187 NLRB 113 (1970), 197 NLRB 717
(1972).
220 NLRB No. 143
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Judge's finding that the Union's information request
was made in order to determine whether or not these
employers are "compassionate toward retirees." The
Union's demand was made on several occasions
while the parties were meeting in their negotiations
for a new 3-year pension agreement. Although John
Healey, business manager of IBEW Local 402, testi-
fied that "if the the company could evidence to us by
giving us the information that they were, in fact,
compassionate and had done something for the peo-
ple presently on retirement," the Union might con-
sider withdrawing its cost-of-living proposal, it is ap-
parent that the Union needed the information in
order to make an objective determination as to
whether to pursue this cost-of-living proposal or
withdraw it. Had the Union been provided with such
information, it would have been in a position either
to make a specific cost-of-living adjustment proposal
for future retirees or to formulate other pension pro-
posals.' In this vein, it appears that the Union's re-
quested information is relevant and necessary to car-
ry on intelligent bargaining with respect to current
unit employees based on what had been done in the
past by Respondents. As such, the information
should be given.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents, Connecticut Light and Power
Company, Hartford Electric Light Company, Ho-
lyoke Water Power Company, and Western Massa-
chusetts Electric Company are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Unions, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Locals 420, 455, and 457, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. At all times material to this case, the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals
420, 455, and 457 have been the representatives for
purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of
employees in the following described units, and by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act have been and are
now the exclusive representatives of all the employ-
ees in said units for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment:
(a) All employees of Connecticut Light in-
cluding Area Stockman, Assistant Control Oper-
ator, Attendant, Automotive Body Mechanic,
Automotive Equipment Mechanic, Auxiliary
7 See Union Carbide Corporation, 187 NLRB 113, 117 (1970), 197 NLRB
717 (1972).
Operator, Building Maintenance Man, Carpen-
ter, Carpenter Helper, Chief Carpenter, Chief
Construction Mechanic, Chief Customer Ser-
viceman, Chief Electrician, Chief Garageman,
Chief Gas Fitter, Chief Lineman, Chief Me-
chanic, Chief Meter Repairman, Chief Meter-
man, Chief Plant Serviceman, Chief Plant Test-
man, Chief of Shift, Chief Splicer, Chief
Stockman, Chief of Turbine Room, Collector,
Construction Equipment Operator, Construc-
tion Mechanic, Construction Welder, Control
Operator, Control Operator Assistant, Customer
Serviceman, Customer Service Helper, Electri-
cian, Electrician Helper, Equipment Operator,
Equipment Operator Assistant, Equipment Test-
man A, Equipment Testman B, Equipment Test
Helper, Express Driver, Fireman A, Fireman B,
Garage Mechanic, Garage Mechanic Helper,
Gas Dispatching Operator, Gas Fitter, Gas Fit-
ter Helper, Gate Operator, Groundman, Hydro
Attendant, Janitor, Laborer, Lineman, Line
Helper, Mason, Mechanic, Mechanic B, Me-
chanic Helper, Mechanic-Building Mainte-
nance, Meter Reader, Meter Repairman, Meter
Repair Helper, Meterman, Meter Helper, Oper-
ating Assistant (Gas Turbine), Operating Assis-
tant (Hydro), Operating Attendant, Operator
Helper, Painter, Patrolman, Plant Equipment
Operator, Plant Serviceman, Plant Serviceman
B, Plant Testman, Plant Testman B, Plant Test
Helper, Shift Electrician, Splicer, Splicer Helper,
Station Operator, Station Operator, Station Op-
erator, Station Operator, Stockman, Streetman
B, Substation Operator, Substation Operator,
Tractor Trailer Driver, Transformer Repairman,
Troubleman, Electric, Turbine Operator, Utili-
tyman A, Utilityman, Watchman and Welder of
Connecticut Light, exclusive of office clericals,
professionals, guards and all supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employ-
ees of Hartford Electric at its Stamford and New
London, Connecticut plants and all the employ-
ees in the Line Department, Street Department
and Maintenance Department of Hartford Elec-
tric at its Middletown and Torrington, Connect-
icut plants, excluding office clericals, profession-
al employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(c) All production, construction and mainte-
nance employees of Holyoke Water in its Engi-
neering and Construction, Production and Op-
eration Departments excluding professionals,
office clericals, guards and all supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. 969
(d) All employees of Western Massachusetts
Electric in its underground department, over-
head department, stock department, trouble de-
partment, maps and record department, street
light department, transportation department,
maintenance department and janitors, including
metermen , servicemen, meter readers, area
maintenance operators, assistants, and appren-
tices, in all cases in the City of Springfield, Mas-
sachusetts; all operating employees, including
electrical maintenance and other maintenance
employees at West Springfield generating sta-
tion, operators and station apprentices at West-
field Substation, area operators and control cen-
ter operators and assistants in the Springfield
area , all the employees of the Employer in its
Line Departments at Greenfield, Amherst, East-
hampton, South Deerfield and Gardners Falls,
including linemen , troublemen, groundmen,
truck drivers, cable splicers and helpers, meter-
men, meter clerks, stock clerks at Greenfield,
Amherst and Easthampton, all automobile me-
chanics, floormen and building janitors at
Greenfield Service Building, all meter readers,
servicemen at Greenfield, Amherst and East-
hampton, maintenance men, maintenance men's
assistants and apprentices, and area mainte-
nance operators, assistants and apprentices,
working out of the Greenfield Service Building,
headgate operators at the Headgates, and hydro
operators, assistants and apprentices at #1 sta-
tion at Turners Falls and Gardners Falls Sta-
tions, and all employees at Cabot Station, in-
cluding operators, auxiliary operators and
station apprentices, all the employees of the Em-
ployer in its Line Department at Pittsfield, in-
cluding linemen, troublemen, groundmen, cable
splicers and helpers, metermen, area mainte-
nance operators, assistants and apprentices,
maintenance men and assistants, stock room
and garage employees, janitors, and utility
maintenance men, meter readers and ser-
vicemen , exclusive of executives, superinten-
dents, office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, draftsman, laboratory
employees, trouble and meter district employ-
ees, radio interference employees, line depart-
ment clerks and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(115 of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing on and after December
4, 1974, to provide the Union with information con-
cerning increases in benefits granted to retirees over
the past 5 years, listing the amount of increases and
how the amount was determined, Respondents have
failed and refused to bargain collectively with the
sole and exclusive bargaining representative of their
current employees in the aforedescribed units and
have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that all Respondents, with the ex-
ception of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Com-
pany as to which we have dismissed this proceeding,
have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we shall
order that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondents,
Connecticut Light and Power Company, Hartford,
Connecticut, Hartford Electric Light Company,
Hartford, Connecticut, Holyoke Water Power Com-
pany, Holyoke, Massachusetts, and Western Massa-
chusetts Electric Company, West Springfield, Massa-
chusetts, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth below:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals
420, 455, and 457, by failing and refusing to furnish
the said labor organizations with information they
requested on December 4, 1974, concerning increases
in benefits granted to retirees over the past 5 years,
listing the amount of increases and how the amount
was determined.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or as-
sist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a)' Upon request, bargain collectively with the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo-
cals 420, 455, and 457, by furnishing to the said labor
organizations the information they requested on De-
cember 4, 1974, concerning increases in benefits
granted to retirees over the past 5 years, listing the
amount of increases and how the amount was de-
termined.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at the appropriate facilities of the four
Respondents as indicated in the unit findings herein-
above, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." S Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by representatives of the respective Respon-
dents shall be posted by Respondents immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Locals 420, 455, and 457, by furnish-
ing to the said labor organizations the informa-
tion requested on December 4, 1974, concerning
increases in benefits granted to retirees over the
past 5 years, listing the amount of increases and
how the amount was determined.
CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY;
HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY;
HOLYOKE WATER POWER COMPANY;
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC
COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Locals 420, 455, and 457, by failing
and refusing to furnish the said labor organiza-
tions with information they have requested con-
cerning increases in benefits granted to retirees
over the past 5 years, listing the amount of in-
creases and how the amount was determined, in
order that they may bargain effectively for cur-
rent employees in the respective appropriate
units.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concert-
ed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
Thomas A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held at Boston , Massachusetts, on
March 25, 1975, on complaint of the General Counsel
against five named Respondents , each a gas and electricity
public utility company operating in the New England area.
The charge was filed on December 23, 1974, by three sepa-
rate Locals of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, herein collectively called the Union, and the
complaint issued on February 24, 1975. The sole issue of
the case is whether by their refusal to furnish pension pay-
ment data to the Union at its request the Respondents vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondents.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Each of the five named Respondents-Connecticut
Light and Power Company, Hartford Electric Light Com-
pany, Holyoke Water Power Company, Connecticut Yan-
kee Atomic Power Company and Western Massachusetts
Electric Company-does business either in Connecticut or
Massachusetts, supplies gas and/or electricity to consumer
customers , annually receives gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 and annually receives goods used in its business
operations from out-of-State sources valued in excess of
$50,000. I find that each of the five Respondents is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
I find that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, and each of its separate Locals 420, 455, and 457,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. 971
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue Presented
This case presents a pure question of law . There is no
dispute about any of the pertinent facts-the relationship
between the Unions and these companies , the date of the
demand for information plus the fact of clear refusal, and
the exact nature of the data which the Respondents are, or
not, required by law to produce.'
The IBEW has two separate collective-bargaining agree-
ments with these five companies , one covering the usual
comprehensive conditions of employment, and the other
limited to pension rights . Four companies bargain as a
group for both contracts , and the fifth-Connecticut Yan-
kee Atomic Power Company-bargains separately, or at
least signs separate contracts with the IBEW for its own
employees-one single-employer agreement for general
conditions and another single -employer agreement for pen-
sions . Apparently bargaining about general terms and con-
ditions has been going on for years , but as to pensions the
first System Pension Plan went into effect between the par-
ties effective January 1, 1969. Employees , of course, had
been retiring even before that date , and, it must be as-
sumed, whatever pensions they were thereafter paid by the
Companies were determined unilaterally by the employers.
A union pension agreement was made for the years 1969,
1970, and 1971, and another for the 3-year period 1972,
1973, and 1974. The one with Connecticut Yankee was due
to expire on March 1 , 1975, and the four-company pension
agreement on January 1, 1975.
The new 3-year pension agreement reached early in
1972-one for four companies and one for the fifth-called
for increases in the pension benefits for employees who
might retire thereafter . The Companies, of course, imple-
mented these changes and did give better pensions to later
retirees . At the same time , however, the Companies looked
over all those employees who had retired before January 1,
1969, i .e., persons who had retired before there was any
company-union System Pension Plan , and made certain
adjustments in what amounts they were receiving, and in-
creased their current payments . These changes were made
and payments started in March of 1972.
When the parties met late in 1974 to negotiate changes in
the now contractually established pension plan , changes to
become part of the renewed agreement of 1975, 1976, and
1977, the Union requested certain information from the
Companies. Various forms of data were requested, and a
certain amount of it was given. This case is concerned with
one specific demand , and that one only. There is no claim
any other demand was not met, or that anything improper
occurred in any other respect . The Unions wanted to know
what changes the Companies had made during the immedi-
ately preceding 5 years in the benefits of all retirees, and
' There is no warrant in this instance to set out in detail findings as to
appropriate unit and precise union representative status ordinarily appear-
ing in refusal to bargain decisions . It is a fact , shown either by stipulation or
admissions to pleadings, that the IBEW is the recognized exclusive represen-
tative of employees of all five of the Respondent companies , and that the
separate bargaining units , described exactly in the complaint , are appropn-
ate for collective-bargaining purposes.
what formula, if any, the Employers had used in determin-
ing the changes made in those payments. The request was
phrased as follows:
An explanation of increases in benefits granted to re-
tirees over the past five years listing the amount of
increases and how the amount was arrived at.
Among the proposals for changing the existing pension
plan, the Union simultaneously requested " . . . a provi-
sion to the plan providing for an annual adjustment in the
pension of present and future retirees to reflect changes in
the cost of living." The Respondents refused to give this
information then and they refuse to furnish it now.2
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
As in every so-called wage data or information case con-
sidered in the past, there are two threshhold questions that
must be clarified before any issue of law can be resolved.
(1) Exactly what data is it that was demanded and refused?
And (2) what relevance, if any, does that information bear
to the matters of proper concern to the collective-bargain-
ing agent?
At the time this demand was made, on December 4,
1974, the "retirees" of whom the request spoke, fell into
three categories: (1) persons who had retired before Janu-
ary 1, 1969, the day when the parties first entered into a
collective-bargaining contract fixing the amount to be paid
to then current employees whenever they might thereafter
retire; (2) persons who had retired during the 3-year period
1969, 1970, and 1971, and who were therefore receiving
pension benefits fixed in the 3-year pension agreement be-
tween the parties for the 3-year period; and (3 ) persons
who had retired during the 3-year period 1972, 1973, and
1974, and who were therefore receiving pension benefits as
fixed in the 3-year pension agreement between the parties
for that 3-year period. Regardless of what other informa-
tion the Union may have sought-and maybe have been
given pursuant to other demands having nothing to do with
this case--what it wanted to know here was what changes
in pension payments the Companies had voluntarily and
unilaterally made during the past 5 years in the benefits
received by all retirees in any of the three above categories.
This is-what the phrase "increase in benefits" appearing in
the written demands means.
And on the total record there is no question but that the
data requested was precisely so limited; indeed other stipu-
lations narrowed the information sought even more. All
parties agreed that the two latter categories-those who
had retired pursuant to the successive 3-year pension con-
tracts-had never been given anything more than the con-
tract provision arrangements called for. It was only infor-
mation as to what gratuities the Company had
given-primarily during the early part of 1972-to people
2 One of the Respondents-Connecticut Yankee-argues that no unfair
labor practice can be found against it because the demand was untimely as
to it; it says December 1974 was too early for the Union to ask information
for renewal of a contract that would not expire until the following March.
But this company's bargaining agent was also present in December, it did
receive and reject the demand , and the demand was not untimely in any
event. Were the demand a proper one under the statute, I would make the
unfair labor practice finding against this company also.
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the first category-those who had retired before January
1, 1969-that the Union wanted and that the Companies
refused to reveal.
With this the precise information sought, we come to the
question: what relevance did it have to the Union's right to
bargain about the proper amount of pension to be paid at
a future date when the present complement of employees
might retire? This question was answered by the Union's
agents at the hearing and in the General Counsel's brief
filed later. The demand was made while the parties were
meeting several times in their negotiations towards a new
3-year pension agreement in the fall of 1974. One of the
proposals then advanced by the Union was an annual ad-
justment in the pensions of the future retirees to reflect
changes in the cost of living. This proposal was later re-
phrased so as to exclude "present" retirees from any con-
sideration; there is no question that the IBEW was not
attempting to bargain on behalf of, or to bring about any
changes in the benefits of, employees already retired by the
fall of 1974.
Beyond these facts, the rest of the record, whether in the
form of oral testimony or written brief, is no more than
argument. When John Healey, business manager of IBEW
Local 402, testified the reasons for the Union's demand
was "to evaluate . . . our proposal on a cost of living ad-
justment," he did no more than reassert the theoretical
conclusion of relevance . His real reason in a factual sense
he conceded later. "We told the company that we might
consider with the drawing [sic-withdrawing] our proposal
for the cost of living adjustment clause in our pension
agreement, if the company could evidence to us by giving
us the information that they were, in fact, compassionate
and had done something for people presently on retire-
ment."
In plain language the Union's position then was, and it
still is today, that if it believed the Companies were kindly,
generously disposed towards retirees, it would not attempt
to force a cost-of-living escalator clause into the binding
contractual pension agreement. Restated: It would instead
rely on the Companies' goodwill towards former employ-
ees, its sympathy towards people with fixed income who
suffered because of mounting inflation, or, as Healy him-
self put it, its "compassion." This is all the Union agent
meant as he kept repeating the contention the Union need-
ed the requested data to "evaluate" its economic proposals.
It is an interesting question, but from the Respondents the
issue so raised by the complaint provoked the following
comment in the brief: "Whether or not an employer is
compassionate certainly does not constitute a discernible
condition of employment as to which the parties are
obliged to bargain."
I do not think the Respondents were required to furnish
the information requested by the Union in this case. Cave-
at: This is not the case where the employer's ability to pay
was put in issue by anybody; how much money the Re-
spondents have, what they do with their profits, how much
they can afford to give old retired employees as gifts, is not
a proper subject of inquiry here, and the General Counsel
concedes as much. Does the statute require an employer to
reveal its financial transactions-otherwise privileged to
management-so that the bargaining agent of its employ-
ees will be better informed as to the "compassionate" char-
acter of the company as a whole, or of its controlling man-
agers? How the employer treats retired employees-apart
from any old contractual obligations resting upon it-is of
no concern to the union, which no longer has any right to
represent them. Allied Chemical and Alkali Workers v.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 404 U.S. 157. If the subject is open
to the union's inspection because of an understandable in-
terest in the kind of company it is dealing with at the mo-
ment, does not the union of necessity also have the right to
inquire into the extent of the employer's generosity towards
public charities, or any other activities which might or
might not reveal the milk of human kindness in the breast
of management? In the case of an individual employer may
the union ask how many mink coats the boss buys his wife
out of his business profits? In the sense that union negotia-
tors will consider what kind of people sit across the table in
the bargaining process, there certainly is a relevance be-
tween the goodness, or lack of goodness, in the particular
employer and the extent to which the union will seek to tie
his hands to guarantee the well-being of the people it repre-
sents . But this sort of sociological relevance is not what
past Board decisions dealt with.
Nor is it enough, to support this complaint, that in other
circumstances the Board has ordered employers to reveal
information about employees outside the bargaining unit.
In Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, 157 NLRB 496 (1966),
the union wanted to know what work was being performed
by excluded categories, what duties were being assigned to
them that possible belonged, under its collective-bargain-
ing agreement, to the union-represented group, possibly so
that grievances might be filed. The Board held the informa-
tion had to be produced because of the possibility "the unit
was being improperly eroded." And in Curtiss-Wright Cor-
poration, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152
(1964), the Board dealt with the fact that whereas in the
beginning there were "4,500 to 4,700 employees in the bar-
gaining unit . . . . Those excluded numbered about 2100.
Over the years the proportion changed until the excluded
numbered more than those in the unit." In enforcing the
Board's Order that the employer there must produce data
relative to the job descriptions, classifications, wages, etc.,
of the excluded categories, the court held the union had a
right "to closely scrutinize all facets relating to any en-
croachment upon the rights of those unit employees to the
end that a stable employment structure for the members of
the bargaining unit may be maintained. A misclassification
of an employee to the excluded group instead of to the
bargaining unit is such an encroachment and the union
was fully warranted in any reasonable probing of the data
concerning the excluded employees to assure the classifica-
tion of employees in the appropriate groups pursuant to
the bargaining agreement." Curtiss-Wright Corporation,
Wright Aeronautical Division v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61, 70
(C.A. 3, 1965). See, also, General Electric, 199 NLRB 286.
The relevancy concept considered in those cases bears no
semblance to that in the case at bar.
Here the General Counsel rests the complaint entirely
upon Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division,
197 NLRB 717 (1972) and 187 NLRB 113 (1970). Al-
though in that case the union wanted to know something
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO.
about pension payments to employees already retired, the
so-called precedent is not really apposite . The case dealt
with the following demand : "(a) the number of employees
presently retired under the pension plan; (b) the amount of
benefits each retiree is receiving per payment period; (c)
the years of service of each retiree prior to retirement; (d)
the number, identity , and amount of payments to all per-
sons receiving disability benefit s ; and (e) the extent of disa-
bility for employees receiving disability payments."
Again and again the decision in Union Carbide makes
clear the union wanted information "to effectively police
the pension agreements" and "administer its contracts,"
"would like to know how the plan worked . . . so that he
[the Union President] could tell his members the amount of
the payment they should receive," "so that it could better
understand how the plan worked for the retirees ." The sig-
nificant fact is that the information sought was how the
plan in effect actually worked : it was so extensive a pro-
973
gram, effectively implemented by Prudential Insurance
Company. and Metropolitan Insurance Company, that the
union had no way of knowing just how much the dispersed
retirees were in fact receiving . That case had nothing to do
with the humane or social predilections of the employer, or
of its representatives . In fact, Union Carbide was just an-
other wage data case like The Timken Roller Bearing Co.,
138 NLRB 15, enfd . 325 F.2d 746 (C.A. 6, 1963).
To hold, as an unfair labor practice finding in this case
would require, that an employer must produce at the
union's request any information which will help the bar-
gaining agent form a rational opinion of the employer's
compassionate or not compassionate nature, would open
too wide a door and curtail management perogatives be-
yond the dictates of the statutes . I shall therefore recom-
mend dismissal of the complaint.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from publi-
cation.}