Contract Carriers Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 851 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

CONTRACT CARRIERS CORP. 851
Contract Carriers Corporation, Bucko Construction
Company and Vector Transport Corporation, A
Single Integrated Enterprise and Teamsters Lo-
cal Union 142, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Cases 13–CA–39900 and
13–CA–39932
July 29, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On July 2, 2002, Administrative Law Judge C. Richard
Miserendino issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief to
the Respondents’ exceptions. The Respondents filed an
answering brief to the cross-exceptions and a reply brief
to the General Counsel’s answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions, and
adopt the recommended Order except as modified and set
forth in full below.
We agree with the judge, for the reasons stated in his
decision, that the Respondent, Contract Carriers, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide
requested information to the Union and by refusing to
meet with the Union’s designated representative for
processing grievances, Steven Parks. We also agree with
the judge that the Respondent, Vector Transport, violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to meet with Steven
Parks as the Union’s designated representative for griev-
ance processing. However, the judge found, and our
dissenting colleague agrees, that the Respondents did not
violate the Act by failing and refusing to attend contrac-
tual grievance hearings for the purpose of resolving sev-
eral grievances. For the reasons set forth below, we dis-
agree with the judge and our dissenting colleague and
find that the Respondents’ refusal to attend these hear-
ings violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Respondents, Contract Carriers and Vector Trans-
port, have collective-bargaining agreements with the
Union. Both of those contracts contain grievance/arbi-
tration clauses. Contract Carriers’ grievance procedure
provides, inter alia, that if a controversy between the
parties cannot be settled, then the dispute shall be re-
duced to writing and referred to a six-member Board.
The Board consists of three members selected by signa-
tory employers and three members selected by the Un-
ion. The Board shall meet within 14 days of the selec-
tion of the members “to hear the evidence and endeavor
to arrive at a decision” which is final and binding on the
parties. “In the event one party fails to appear without an
appropriate notice to one of the co-chairs, the Board shall
hear the case and make a decision based upon the evi-
dence presented.” In the event of a deadlock, the matter
may be referred to final and binding arbitration.
Article 16 of Vector Transport’s grievance procedure
provides that if satisfactory settlement of a grievance is
not achieved at steps 1 or 2, “the Company shall be noti-
fied in writing of the date and time to appear before the
Executive Board Hearing Committee.” At the hearing,
the parties present their positions to the Hearing Commit-
tee, which issues a “written recommendation” within 14
days of the hearing. If the matter is not resolved before
the executive board hearing committee, the Union may
pursue the matter to arbitration. This contract, unlike the
Contract Carriers contract, is silent regarding the compo-
sition of the executive board hearing committee. How-
ever, there was testimony that the members of this board
were all employees or representatives of the Union.
On September 20, 2001, the Union filed a grievance
against Vector Transport regarding the Respondent’s
underpayment of drivers working on the “Gary Baseball
Field” in Gary, Indiana. On November 13, the Union
filed a grievance against Contract Carriers alleging that
Contract Carriers was underpaying its drivers working on
the “Walnut Street” job. On November 14, the Union
sought specific information from Contract Carriers in
order to prepare for the processing of the grievance. The
following day, November 15, the Union filed another
grievance alleging that Contract Carriers had changed its
method of paying the drivers for “digouts” and sought
backpay for them from January 2001 to the present. On
this same day, the Union, by letter, filed another informa-
tion request so that it could prepare for the grievance
hearings. Contract Carriers never provided the requested
information. The Union scheduled hearings on the
grievances and repeatedly requested the Respondents to
attend. The Respondents, however, refused to participate
in any of those hearings. Additionally, after a meeting
was arranged to discuss the grievances, the Respondents’
representative, Robert Bucko, refused to meet on De-
cember 14, 2001, with the Union’s designated represen-
tative Steven Parks to discuss the grievances.
The judge dismissed the complaint allegations that the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by fail-
ing to attend the scheduled grievance hearings. The
judge found that the Respondents’ presence was not nec-
essary for the grievances to be heard by the contractual
review boards, and that the Union, although it chose not
339 NLRB No. 103
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 852
to, could have pursued the grievances to arbitration with-
out the Respondents’ participation in the hearings. The
judge also noted that there was no evidence that the Re-
spondents’ refusal to attend the scheduled hearings
prejudiced or precluded the Union from processing the
grievances. The General Counsel excepts, arguing that
the Respondents’ refusal to meet with the Union to dis-
cuss grievances concerning the terms and conditions of
employment violated Section 8(a)(5).
Contrary to the judge and our dissenting colleague, we
find merit in the General Counsel’s exceptions. The Re-
spondents’ failure to attend any of the five scheduled
grievance hearings, spanning a 5-month period, occurred
in the context of related unfair labor practices clearly
intended to frustrate the operation of the grievance proc-
ess. The Respondents unlawfully refused to supply the
Union with information relevant to the grievances, which
the Union had requested. It also unlawfully refused to
meet and deal with the Union’s designated agent regard-
ing the grievances. In these circumstances at least, the
Respondents’ failure to attend the grievance hearings
violated their duty under Section 8(d) of the Act to “meet
at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect
to . . . any question arising” under the collective-
bargaining agreements.
“It is well settled that an employer is obligated . . . to
meet with the employees’ bargaining representative to
discuss its grievances and to do so in a sincere effort to
resolve them.” Hoffman Air & Filtration Systems, 316
NLRB 353, 356 (1995). A pattern of conduct that frus-
trates the intended operation of the grievance procedure
violates this obligation. See id. at 357 (describing limita-
tions regularly imposed by employer on its representa-
tives in early steps of grievance procedure, as well as
employer’s rote responses to grievances, designed to
forestall agreement and regularly force union into arbitra-
tion). See also Riverside Cement Co., 305 NLRB 815,
820 (1991) (refusal to meet with union unless written
summary of concerns was first presented violated Sec.
8(a)(5), where refusal was “part of a consistent unlawful
strategy” not to deal with union), enfd. mem. 976 F.2d
731 (5th Cir. 1992).
Our dissenting colleague finds that the Respondents’
failure to attend the scheduled grievance hearings did not
prejudice the Union because the hearings could have
proceeded in the absence of the Respondents, and from
the standpoint of the grievant and the Union, “a victory is
better than a compromise settlement.” In so finding, our
colleague ignores the importance to constructive dispute
resolution, and thus the importance to labor peace and
industrial stability, of meetings between representatives
of the parties in a collective-bargaining relationship. The
Act encourages parties to meet face-to-face and engage
in dialogue in order to mutually resolve differences. The
point is that mutual communication enhances the pros-
pects for labor and management to work out better solu-
tions to problems facing them and thereby achieve more
stable relations. The need for face-to-face communica-
tion regarding disputes between the parties is heightened
where, as in this case, written requests for information
have been ignored by one of the parties. We find that in
the circumstances of this case, the Respondents’ failure
to participate in the agreed-upon grievance procedures
and attend the grievance hearings, particularly in light of
the refusals to provide information and deal with the Un-
ion’s designated representative, hindered the constructive
resolution of the parties’ dispute. Thus, we find that the
Respondents’ conduct frustrated the collective-bargain-
ing process itself and therefore violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondents’ refusal to
attend the grievance hearings violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Contract Carriers Corporation, Gary, Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with in-
formation necessary for, and relevant to, its ability to
properly administer its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Respondent, including the information requested
in the Union’s letters, dated November 14 and 15, 2001.
(b) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local Union
142, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO, by refusing to meet and bargain
with the Union’s designated representatives, including
Steven Parks, for the processing of grievances.
(c) Refusing, during the period of November 2001
through April 2002, to participate in scheduled grievance
meetings as provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union all of the information re-
quested in the Union’s letters, dated November 14 and
15, 2001.
(b) Meet and bargain, on request of the above-named
Union, with the Union’s designated representatives, in-
cluding Steven Parks, for the processing of grievances.
CONTRACT CARRIERS CORP. 853
(c) On request, participate in scheduled grievance
meetings as provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Gary, Indiana, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix A.”1 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail at its own expense a copy of the attached
notice marked “Appendix A” to all current and former
employees employed by the Respondent covered by the
2000–2003 collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union, who were employed by the Respondent at is
Walnut Street at any time since November 14, 2001. The
notice shall be mailed to the last known address of each
of the employees after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Vector Transport Corporation, Gary Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local Union
142, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO by refusing to meet and bargain
with the Union’s designated representatives, including
Steven Parks, for processing grievances.
(b) Refusing, during the period of November 2001
through April 2002, to participate in scheduled grievance
meetings as provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
1 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(a) Meet and bargain, on request of the above-named
Union, with the Union’s designated representatives, in-
cluding Steven Parks, for the processing of grievances.
(b) On request, participate in scheduled grievance
meetings as provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Gary, Indiana, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail. At its own expense, a copy of the attached
notice “Appendix B” to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since December 4, 2001. The notice shall be mailed to
the last known address of each of the employees after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

CHAIRMAN BATTISTA, dissenting in part.
I agree with my colleagues that the judge properly
found that the Respondents unlawfully refused to provide
relevant requested information to the Union and unlaw-
fully refused to meet and deal with the Union’s desig-
nated agent. Contrary to my colleagues, however, I
agree with the judge that the Respondents’ refusal to
attend the scheduled grievance hearings was not unlaw-
ful.
The Union has separate contracts with the Respondents
Contract Carriers and Vector Transport. Article 6, sec-
tion 2, of the contract between Contract Carriers and the
Union states that if the parties cannot settle a grievance,
it is referred to a grievance board, consisting of three
employer members and three union members.1 In the
event that one of the parties fails to appear and fails to
give appropriate notice of such a nonappearance to one
2 See fn. 1.
1 The grievance board is step two of the grievance procedure. There
is no allegation that the Respondent failed to process the grievances
through step 1.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 854
of the cochairs, the board shall hear the case and make a
decision based upon the evidence presented. According
to the Contract Carriers’ contract and past practice, the
Respondent is not required to attend the grievance hear-
ings before the board. In fact, the Union’s business
agent, Steven Parks, testified that the practice under the
contract with Contract Carriers was that if a party refuses
to participate, the grievance board would nevertheless
proceed to hear the grievances. The board would make
its decision based upon the evidence presented. Of
course, in the absence of Employer opposition, there is a
significant chance that the Union would prevail. And,
even if it did not, the Union could go to the next step,
i.e., arbitration.
Although the contract between Vector Transport and
the Union states that their representatives would present
their positions before the executive board, in fact the
only requirement in the contract is that Vector Transport
be notified in writing of the date and time of the hearing.2
This is reinforced by Parks’ credited testimony that the
same grievance procedure for Contract Carriers could be
utilized under the contract with Vector Transport. Con-
sequently, even accepting the Union’s testimony, the
Respondents did nothing more than avail themselves of
their right not to participate in this step of the grievance
process. Further, the only consequence of the Respon-
dents’ failure to attend would be that the Union’s posi-
tion would be unopposed. In that posture, there is a sig-
nificant chance that the Union’s unopposed position
would prevail. This is particularly so inasmuch as the
executive board is an all-union body. And, even if the
Union did not prevail, there was no evidence that the
Union was prejudiced or precluded from taking the
grievances to the next step which was arbitration.
My colleagues say that the Respondent’s failure to at-
tend the hearings is unlawful because it impedes con-
structive dispute resolution. I disagree. In the first place,
as discussed supra, there is a significant chance that the
Union’s unopposed position would be accepted by the
grievance board/executive board. From a grievant and
union standpoint, a victory is better than a compromise
settlement. Further, there is a basis for settlement. The
grievance board is made up of an equal member of Re-
spondent and union representatives. There is nothing to
preclude these representatives from reaching a compro-
mise solution. And, the Union’s executive board is free
to adopt some middle ground between the Respondent’s
position and the grievant’s position.

2 The executive board is step two of the grievance procedure. There
is no allegation that the Respondent failed to process the grievance
through step one.
Nor do I agree with my colleagues that the Respon-
dent’s exercise of its right not to attend the hearings is
rendered unlawful because, in their view, the purposes of
the Act are better served by “face to face . . . dialogue.”
Where, as here, the parties through contract and practice
have developed procedures for the resolution of contrac-
tual grievances they, and not the Board, have determined
how to best resolve their labor disputes.
Finally, my colleagues assert that the Respondent’s
failure to supply information and to meet with the Un-
ion’s designated agent is further evidence that its refusal
to attend the grievance hearings must be unlawful. How-
ever, as stated above the Respondent’s other unlawful
actions would not hinder the Union from obtaining a
favorable resolution of the grievances. Further those
Respondent actions are themselves separate violations.
They cannot be used to render unlawful a privileged re-
fusal to attend the hearings.
Based on all of the above, I agree with the judge’s rec-
ommendation to dismiss this allegation of the complaint.

APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide Teamsters Lo-
cal Union 142, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO with information neces-
sary for, and relevant to, its ability to properly administer
its collective-bargaining agreement with us, including the
information requested by the Union in order to process
grievances concerning the Walnut Street job, in
Hammond, Indiana, and other similar digout jobs.
CONTRACT CARRIERS CORP. 855
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Teamsters Local
Union 142 by refusing to meet and bargain with the Un-
ion’s designated representatives, including Business
Agent Steven Parks, for the processing of grievances.
WE WILL NOT refuse to participate in scheduled griev-
ance meetings as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement.
WE WILL, on request, promptly furnish to Teamsters
Local Union 142 all of the information requested by the
Union in its letters, dated November 14 and 15, 2001,
concerning hours worked and rates of pay on the Walnut
Street job, in Hammond, Indiana, and other similar
digout jobs.
WE WILL meet and bargain, on request, with Teamsters
Local Union 142 and its designated representatives, in-
cluding Business Agent Steven Parks for the processing
of grievances.
WE WILL, on request, participate in scheduled griev-
ance meetings as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement.
CONTRACT CARRIERS CORPORATION
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Teamsters Lo-
cal Union 142, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO by refusing to meet and
bargain with the Union’s designated representatives, in-
cluding Business Agent Steven Parks, for the processing
of grievances.
WE WILL NOT refuse to participate in scheduled griev-
ance meetings as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement.
WE WILL meet and bargain, on request, with Teamsters
Local Union 142, and its designated representatives, in-
cluding Business Agent Steven Parks for the processing
of grievances.
WE WILL, on request, participate in the scheduled
grievance meetings as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement.
VECTOR TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Friedheim Weis, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Steve Johnson, Esq., of Merrillville, Indiana, for the Respon-
dent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
C. RICHARD MISERENDINO, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Chicago, Illinois, on May 20, 2002. The
charge in Case 13–CA–39900 was filed on January 3, 2002,1 by
the Teamster Local Union 142, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Union), and was amended on
February 5, 2002. The charge in Case 13–CA–39932 was filed
by the Union on January 18, 2002, and was amended on March
19, 2002. The complaint issued on March 25, 2002, and was
amended on April 5. An order consolidating cases and consoli-
dated complaint was issued on May 2, 2002. The consolidated
complaint alleges that since November 14, 2001, the Respon-
dent Contract Carriers Corporation (Contract Carriers) has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unlawfully refusing and
failing to provide the names of all union members, along with
copies of their daily timesheets and payroll records, who
worked the Walnut Street job in 2001, as well as the payroll
records of all other drivers who worked on digouts or similar
work for the past 2 years. The complaint further alleges that
since December 4, 2001, the Respondents Contract Carriers and
Vector Tranportation Corporation (Vector Transport) have
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing to
meet with the Union to process grievances and by failing and
refusing to meet and confer with the Union’s designated repre-
sentative, Steven Parks.
The Respondents’ timely answer denied the material allega-
tions of the consolidated complaint. The parties have been af-
forded a full opportunity to appear, present evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and argue orally in lieu of filing
briefs.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after oral argument made by
counsel for both parties in lieu of filing briefs,2 I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent Contract Carriers, a corporation, is engaged
in the business of providing drivers and trucks to construction
companies from its facility in Gary, Indiana, where it annually
purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-

1 All dates are 2001, unless otherwise indicated.
2 See Sec. 102.42 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 856
rectly to and from points outside of the State of Indiana. The
Respondent Contract Carriers admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent Bucko Construction, a corporation, is en-
gaged in the business of heavy highway construction from its
facility in Gary, Indiana, where it annually purchases and re-
ceives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to and from
points outside of the State of Indiana. The Respondent Contract
Carriers admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
The Respondent Vector Transport, a corporation, is engaged
in the business of providing drivers and trucks to construction
companies from its facility in Gary, Indiana, where it annually
purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly to and from points outside of the State of Indiana. The
Respondent Contract Carriers admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondents admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Background
Contract Carriers is a trucking company that hauls construc-
tion materials for construction companies. Approximately 60
percent of its work is performed for Bucko Construction Com-
pany, a heavy highway contractor. Contract Carriers is a signa-
tory to a collective-bargaining agreement between Local 142
and the Industrial Contractors and Builders Association of Indi-
ana, Inc. (Association) (GC Exh. 4). The collective-bargaining
agreement contains a grievance procedure. Section 1 of article
6, adjustment of disputes, states the Association shall be the
sole interpreter of the agreement and that all signatory employ-
ers are bound its interpretations of the agreement. Section 1
also provides that any difference or controversy between an
employee and an employer shall be addressed at once by the
Union and the employer, who shall endeavor to satisfactorily
settle the matter. If the matter is not settled, then section 2
states that the controversy shall be reduced to writing within 7
days of the alleged occurrence and referred to a six member
Board made up of three signatory employers and three union
officials. The Board is authorized to hear and render a final and
binding decision on the parties. Notably, section 2 provides that
“[i]n the event one party fails to appear without an appropriate
notice to one of the co-chairs, the Board shall hear the case and
make a decision based upon the evidence presented.” In the
event of a deadlock, section 3 states that the matter may be
referred to final and binding arbitration.
Vector Transport is also a trucking service company that
hauls construction materials for construction companies. Ap-
proximately 65 percent of its work is performed for Bucko
Construction Company. Vector Transport and Local 142 have a
collective-bargaining agreement which contains a grievance
procedure. (GC Exh. 6.) Step 1 of article 16, Grievance Proce-
dure, allows an aggrieved employee or his union representative
to file a written grievance within 15 days of the occurrence or
his awareness of the occurrence to the employee’s Foreman or
immediate Supervisor. If satisfactory settlement is not reached
at step 1, the union representative can pursue the matter with
upper management, and then onto a hearing before an executive
board hearing committee. If the decision of the executive board
hearing committee does not resolve the grievance, the Union
may pursue the matter to final and binding arbitration.
Robert J. Bucko is the general manger, co-owner, and secre-
tary treasurer of Bucko Construction Company. He is also a co-
owner of Contract Carriers. Vector Transport is owned by
Robert Bucko’s mother, Joan Y. Bucko. Robert Bucko is the
general manager of the Company.
2. The Vector Transport grievance
On September 20, 2001, the Union filed grievance 8398
against Vector Transport asserting that Vector had underpaid
drivers working on the “Gary Baseball Field,” in Gary, Indiana.
The remedy sought was payment at 100 percent of the A rate
for all hours worked. (GC Exh. 7.)
On November 16, 2001, the Union sent a letter to Robert
Bucko advising him that a hearing would be held on December
12, 2001, before the union executive board concerning griev-
ance no. 8398, and requesting that he or an authorized represen-
tative of the Company attend the hearing.3 (GC Exh. 21.)
By letter, dated December 4, 2001, Vector Transport advised
the Union that it would not attend the December 12 meeting
because it believed the grievance was without merit. Specifi-
cally, the letter stated “we feel that the grievance filed has not
met the criteria for hearing. The grievance was not filed in a
timely manner nor did it abide by the dispute procedures nor
was Vector Transport informed of any pre-job conditions that
existed on the Gary baseball stadium.” (GC Exh. 22; Tr. 122,
129.) Parks testified that the hearing was continued in order to
give the Company another opportunity to participate. (Tr. 81.)
Although the hearing was subsequently rescheduled several
times, the Company repeatedly declined to attend. (GC Exhs.
25, 27, 29, 31.) Parks testified that after the ULP charge was
filed, the Union decided to hold the grievance in abeyance
pending the outcome of the ULP charge. Thus, a hearing on the
grievance 8398 has never been held nor has Bucko ever met
with Parks to discuss the grievance. (Tr. 40, 51.)
3. The Contract Carriers’ grievances
On November 13, 2001, some union members working on
the “Walnut Street” job in Hammond, Indiana, complained to
Business Agent Steven Parks that they were not being paid the
proper contract rate. (Tr. 72.) Parks phoned Chuck Lawrence, a
dispatcher for Contract Carrier, complaining that the Company
was paying the drivers at 80 percent of the A rate, rather than at
100 percent of that rate. Unable to resolve the issue, Parks
stated that he was going to file a grievance on the matter.
Later that day, the Union filed grievance 8538 against Con-
tract Carriers asserting that Contract Carriers had underpaid the
drivers working on the “Walnut Street” job. The remedy sought

3 The evidence shows that the members of this contractual board are
all employees or representatives of the Union. (Tr. 80.)
CONTRACT CARRIERS CORP. 857
was to make the drivers whole for wages and benefits. (GC
Exh. 13.) By letter, dated November 14, 2001, the Union
sought the following information in order to prepare for the
processing of grievance 8538:

1. Name of all members who worked Walnut St. job in
2001.
2. Daily time sheets of all members who worked Wal-
nut St. job for 2001.
3. Payroll records of all members who worked Walnut
St. job in 2001. [GC Exh. 15.]

On the same day, Parks discussed with Union President
Mitch Sawochka the possibility that the Company might be
underpaying drivers on other similar jobs. They therefore de-
cided to challenge the Company’s pay practice by filing another
grievance. According to Parks, he phoned company dispatcher
Chuck Lawrence again to advise him that in light of the other
pay disputes, the Union was going to file another grievance.
The next day, November 15, the Union filed grievance 8545
asserting that the Company had changed the method of paying
drivers for “digouts” and seeking as a remedy all backpay from
January 1, 2001, to the present. (GC Exh. 18.)
By letter, dated November 15, 2001, the Union filed an in-
formation request seeking:

1. Copy of all payroll records for the past 2 years for
all work for all drivers that were on digouts or similar
work. [GC Exh. 20.]

The letter requested that the information be provided by No-
vember 25, 2001. The Company did not respond in writing to
the request nor did it provide any of the requested information.
(Tr. 51.)
On December 12, 2001, a facilitator for contractual board of
adjustment advised Contract Carriers that a grievance hearing
would be held on December 28, 2001, concerning grievance
8545 and other grievances against the Company that were
pending before the adjustment board. (GC Exh. 24.)
In the meantime, Bucko phoned Union Officer Richard
Kenny seeking to arrange a meeting with him to discuss the
grievances filed against Contract Carriers and Vector Trans-
port. (Tr. 101.) Bucko told Kenny that he did not like dealing
with Sawochka because he “had no brains” or Parks because of
personal issues that he had with him.4 Kenny testified that he
told Bucko that he would have to deal with the union desig-
nated representatives. He nevertheless agreed to meet with
Robert Bucko on December 14, in order to discuss grievance
no. 8545, as well as other outstanding grievances. (Tr. 102.)

4 Bucko and Parks are contemporaries, who have known each other
all their lives. Bucko Construction was founded by Bucko’s grandfather
in the 1920s. It was taken over and run by Bucko’s father, and eventu-
ally was taken over by Bucko. Parks’ grandfather worked as a truck-
driver for the Company when it was founded. Parks’ father worked for
the Company as a truckdriver, and Parks himself was employed by the
Company before he became a union business agent. Over the years, a
great deal of hostility and resentment developed between Parks and
Bucko that has had nothing to do with union/management relations.
(Tr. 92.)
Kenny asked Parks to attend the meeting. (Tr. 44–45.) On
December 14, shortly before the meeting was scheduled to
begin, Parks received a phone call from Kenny stating that he
was running late because of an unexpected problem with an-
other company. He told Parks to start the meeting with Bucko
without him. According to Parks, Bucko’s secretary told him
that Bucko preferred to wait for Kenny. (Tr. 45.) When Kenny
phoned again stating that he would not be able to make the
meeting, Bucko declined to meet with Parks alone. According
to Parks’ unrebutted testimony, Bucko would not meet with
him to discuss the grievances. (Tr. 41, 132.)
By letter, dated December 21, 2001, Bucko advised the ad-
justment board facilitator that the Company would not attend
the scheduled hearing because “proper protocol was not fol-
lowed.” (GC Exh. 26.) Parks testified that the hearing was con-
tinued in order to give the Company the opportunity to partici-
pate. Although it was subsequently rescheduled, the Company
declined to attend. (GC Exh. 30.) A hearing on grievance 8545
was never held nor did Bucko ever meet with Parks to discuss
the grievance. (Tr. 40, 51.)
4. The April/May meetings
In late March-early April 2002, union official Kenny and
Robert Bucko met for breakfast. The two agreed not to discuss
the specific grievances, but instead spoke generally about the
relationship between the Union and the Companies. (Tr. 104.)
In the course of the conversation, however, Bucko opined that a
grievance is without merit unless there is an identifiable griev-
ant. Kenny replied that the Union often filed grievances on
behalf of its members without identify the individual member.
(Tr. 104.) Toward the end of the meeting, Bucko reiterated that
he did not want to deal with Sawochka and Parks on any griev-
ances. Kenny reiterated that they were the designated union
representatives.
On April 23, Bucko wrote to Kenny stating that he would
like to settle the grievances and that he would be willing to
allow the Union to examine 1 week’s worth of drivers’ payroll
records. (GC Exh. 33.) A meeting was eventually scheduled for
May 9, 2002, to discuss all the pending grievances outstanding
against Contract Carriers and Vector Transport. (GC Exhs. 35–
39.) Basically none of the issues was resolved and none of the
requested information was provided. (Tr. 58–59.)
On April 24, Bucko sent a letter to the Union stating “[I]t has
come to my attention this afternoon that Teamsters Union Local
142 has communicated to the National Labor Relations Board
that we have been unwilling to have a sit down to discuss out-
standing issues.”5 (GC Exh. 34.) Bucko pointed out that he had
unsuccessfully tried to set up a meeting by telephone the previ-
ous day. In his letter, he requested that the Union advise him in
writing of the dates and times that they would be available to
meet. On May 7, the Union wrote back advising that they could
meet on May 9, to discuss all outstanding grievance pertaining
to Vector Transport and Contract Carriers and asking that all
5 The evidence shows that the Union had deferred processing a ulp
charge on February 5, 2002, while attempting to use the grievance
procedures to resolve the pending pay disputes. When the Company
repeatedly refused to attend the grievance hearings, the Union withdrew
the deferral thereby prompting Bucko’s letter.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 858
request information be provided at that time. (GC Exh. 38.)
Little was resolved at the May 9 meeting and none of the re-
quested information was provided. (Tr. 58–59.)
On May 9, Kenny, Sawochka, Parks, Bucko, and Bucko’s
secretary met at the union hall. Bucko did not provide any pay-
roll records. Instead, he again asked the Union to provide him
with the names of the individuals who had complained about
being paid at the wrong rate. The Union refuse to provide him
with this information because of concerns that the members
would be laid off. (Tr. 115.)
B. Analysis and Findings
1. The unlawful refusal to provide relevant information
Paragraphs X(a)—(c) of the complaint alleges that since No-
vember 14, 2001, the Respondent Contract Carriers has failed
and refused to provide the Union with specified information
concerning the names, hours worked, and payroll records of
members who worked on the Walnut Street job in 2001 and
other digout jobs.
a. The legal standard
In A-Plus Roofing, Inc., 295 NLRB 967, 970 (1989), the fol-
lowing applicable principles concerning requests for informa-
tion were stated:

An employer, pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, has an
obligation to provide requested information needed by the
bargaining representative of its employees for the effective
performance of the Respondent’s duties and responsibilities.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967).
The employer’s obligation includes the duty to supply infor-
mation necessary to administer and police an existing collec-
tive-bargaining agreement (Id. at 435–438), and, if the re-
quested information relates to an existing contract provision it
thus is “information that is demonstrably necessary to the un-
ion if it is to perform its duty to enforce the agreement. . . .”
A.S. Abell Co., 230 NLRB 1112, 1113 (1977). Where the re-
quested information concerns employees . . . within the bar-
gaining unit covered by the agreement, this information is
presumptively relevant and the employer has the burden of
proving lack of relevance. With respect to such information,
“the union is not required to show the precise relevance of the
requested information to particular bargaining unit issues.”
Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir.
1979) at 1315. Where the request is for information concern-
ing employees outside the bargaining unit, the Union must
show that the information is relevant. Brooklyn Union Gas
Co., 220 NLRB 189 (1975); Curtiss-Wright Corp., 145
NLRB 152 (1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1965). In
either situation, however, the standard for discovery is the
same: “a liberal discovery-type standard.” Loral Electronic
Systems, 253 NLRB 851, 853 (1980); Acme Industrial, supra
at 432, 437. This information need not necessarily be disposi-
tive of the issue between the parties, it need only have some
bearing on it. . . . [footnote omitted.]
. . . .
Once the initial showing of relevance has been made, “the
employer has the burden to prove a lack of relevance . . . or to
provide adequate reasons as to why he cannot, in good faith,
supply such information.” San Diego Newspaper Guild [Lo-
cal 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1977)] at 863, 867.

Finally, in Island Creek Coal, Co., 292 NLRB 480, 487
(1989), the Board stated that in assessing the relevance of the
information, it will not pass on the merits of the union’s claim
that the employer breached the collective-bargaining contract or
committed an unfair labor practice; thus, the union need not
demonstrate that the contract has been violated in order to ob-
tain the desired information.
b. The General Counsel’s evidence
The evidence shows that in November 2001, some union
members complained to the Union that they were not being
paid the proper contractual rate by Contract Carriers on the
Walnut Street job in Hammond, Indiana. The evidence further
shows that Union Business Agent Steve Parks brought the mat-
ter to the attention of the Company’s dispatcher, Chuck Law-
rence, who was his contact person at the Company. Lawrence
disputed the underpayment claim and therefore the Union filed
a grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement. The
following day, the Union sent the Company a written request
for information seeking the names of all members who worked
on the Walnut Street job in 2001, their daily timesheets and
payroll records. The undisputed evidence shows that the infor-
mation pertained to bargaining unit members and that it was
necessary for the processing of the grievance. (Tr. 59–60.)
Thus, I find that the General Counsel has shown that the infor-
mation is presumptively relevant and therefore the Respondent
Contract Carriers has the burden of proving lack of relevance.
The evidence further shows that because the Company dis-
puted that the employees were underpaid, Parks and Union
President Mitch Sawochka filed a second grievance on Novem-
ber 15, on behalf of all drivers working on other similar
“digout” jobs conducted by the Respondent. On the same day,
the Union filed a written request for information seeking
“[c]opies of all payroll records for the past 2 years for all work
for all drivers that were on digouts or similar work.” Again the
undisputed evidence shows that the information pertained to
bargaining unit members and that it was necessary for the proc-
essing of the grievance. Thus, I find that the General Counsel
has shown that the information is presumptively relevant and
therefore the Respondent Contract Carriers has the burden of
proving lack of relevance.
c. The Respondent’s defense
It should be noted at the outset that the Respondent never re-
sponded in writing to the Union’s November 14 or November
15 request for information. Rather, at trial the Respondent at-
tempted to show that the underlying grievances were without
merit, that the Company had acted “reasonably” by asking the
Union to provide the names of the members who had com-
plained, and that it sought to settle the grievances by paying
any member, who was paid at the incorrect rate, at the higher
contractual rate. However, as the Board stated in Island Creek
Coal Co., supra, 292 NLRB at 487, the issue here is not
whether the Union’s grievances have merit. Nor is it whether
the Respondent acted reasonably in attempting to settle the
CONTRACT CARRIERS CORP. 859
grievances. The issue is whether the Respondent has proven
that the information is not relevant to the processing of the two
grievances or whether it has explained why it could not in good
faith supply the information requested. I find that the Respon-
dent has not proven the former and has not explained the latter.
Rather, the evidence shows that the information sought is nec-
essary and relevant to support the grievances and to administer
and enforce the collective-bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing to provide the infor-
mation requested in the Union’s letters, dated November 14 and
15, 2001.
2. The refusal to attend the grievance hearings.
Paragraphs X(d) and (e) of the complaint allege that the Re-
spondents Contract Carriers and Vector Transport violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing to meet with
the Union for the purposes of processing several grievances.
Specifically the General Counsel asserts that the Respondents
violated the Act by repeatedly refusing and failing to attend the
grievance hearings.
It is well settled that grievances concerning the terms and
conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining
even in the absence of a collective-bargaining agreement. In-
abon Asphalt, Inc., 325 NLRB No. 50 (1998) (not reported in
Board volume); Riverside Cement Co., 305 NLRB 815, 820
(1991). The evidence shows that the Union filed separate griev-
ances against Contract Carriers and Vector Transport and that
the Respondents responded orally and in writing to the griev-
ances stating their reasons for denying each grievance at the
initial steps. When the Union pursued the matter to the next
step, i.e., a grievance hearing, the Respondents refused to par-
ticipate. However, the evidence also shows that the Respon-
dent’s presence was not necessary for the grievances to be
heard and decided by the contractual review boards. The undis-
puted evidence shows that the Union could have pursued the
grievances to arbitration even without the Respondent. There is
no evidence that the Respondents’ absence or refusal to partici-
pate in the hearings prejudiced or precluded the Union from
processing the grievances. Rather, the evidence shows that the
Union voluntarily chose to continue the hearing because it
sought to resolve the grievances and because the Respondent
had not provided the information that the Union needed to pur-
sue the grievances.
Under these circumstances, I find that the Respondents did
not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to attend the
grievance hearings. Atwood & Morrill Co., 289 NLRB 794, 880
(1988). Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegations of
paragraphs X(d) and (e) of the complaint be dismissed.
3. The unlawful refusal to meet with Union Business Agent
Steve Parks
Paragraph X(g) of the complaint alleges that the Respon-
dents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing
to meet with Business Agent Steve Parks. The undisputed evi-
dence shows that Bucko refused to meet alone with Parks be-
cause of their longstanding personal relationship, which was
totally unrelated to labor-management relations dealings.
Bucko told union official Kenny that he did not want to deal
with Parks (or Sawochka).
It is axiomatic that a Union has the right to select the persons
who will represent it members, unless it clearly and unmistaka-
bly waives that right. United Parcel Service, 330 NLRB 1020,
1022 (2000). See also Leigh Portland Cement, 287 NLRB 978,
983–984 (1988). There is no evidence of a waiver here. There
is no evidence that Bucko and Parks had a hostile or antagonist
past labor relations history, which might have interfered or
impeded the effective resolution of the grievances. Rather,
Bucko refused to meet with Parks simply because they did not
like each other. Accordingly, I find that by refusing to meet and
deal with Business Agent Steve Parks concerning the griev-
ances, the Respondents, by and through Bucko, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Since June 1, 2000, based on Section 8(f) of the Act, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the truck drivers employed by Respondent Contract
Carriers Corporation and has had a valid and enforceable col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Respondent.
4. Since June 1, 2001, based on Section 8(f) of the Act, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the truck drivers employed by Respondent Vector
Transport Corporation and has had a valid and enforceable
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent.
5. By failing and refusing to provide the information re-
quested in the Union’s letters, dated November 14 and 15,
2001, the Respondent Contract Carriers Corporation has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing to meet with union Business Agent
Steven Parks as the Union’s designated representative for proc-
essing grievances, the Respondents Contract Carriers Corpora-
tion and Vector Transport Corporation, by their agent, Robert J.
Bucko, has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]