E. I. du Pont & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

E. I. DU PONT & CO.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. and
Martinsville Nylon Employees' Council Corpo-
ration. Case 5-CA-14823
22 February 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
Upon a charge filed by the Union 29 October
1982, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of
hearing 30 November 1982 against the Company,
the Respondent, alleging that it violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act. On 13 December 1982 the Respondent filed
its answer admitting in part and denying in part the
allegations in the complaint. On 19 January 1983
the General Counsel issued an amendment to the
complaint and notice of hearing. On 20 January
1983 the Respondent filed an answer to the amend-
ment to the complaint admitting in part and deny-
ing in part the allegations in the amendment to the
complaint.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation
of facts and jointly moved to transfer the proceed-
ing directly to the Board for findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and an order. On 28 July 1983 the
Board issued its order accepting the stipulation and
transferring the proceedings to the Board. Thereaf-
ter, the General Counsel filed a memorandum to
the Board, and the Respondent filed a brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record stip-
ulated by the parties and their briefs and hereby
makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with an office and place of
business in Martinsville, Virginia, and is engaged in
the manufacture of continuous filament nylon yarns
at its Martinsville, Virginia plant. During the past
year, it has purchased and received products in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located
outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. We find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
268 NLRB No. 137
11. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulation Facts
The Respondent has recognized the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following unit at all times rele-
vant to these proceedings:
All employees at Respondent's Martinsville
plant, Textile Fibers Department, located at
Martinsville, Virginia; excluding confidential
clerks and stenographers, graduate trainees,
co-op and summer students, engineers and
chemists in training, nurses, guards, Limited
Service employees, employees designated as
relief supervisors, employees classified as
exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action.
The Respondent's recognition of the Union re-
garding this unit is embodied in the current collec-
tive-bargaining agreement effective 6 August 1981
to 30 August 1983 and at all times material to these
proceedings. On 1 October 1982' Union President
Harold Dean Goad, acting on behalf of the Union,
mailed and hand delivered a letter to the Respond-
ent at its Martinsville facility requesting informa-
tion on the hourly wages and nonexempt salary
paid to employees at the following named plants in
the Respondent's textile fibers department: Rich-
mond, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Seaford,
Delaware; Kinston, North Carolina; Camden,
South Carolina; Cooper River (Charleston, South
Carolina); Cape Fear (Wilmington, North Caroli-
na); Waynesboro, Virginia; and Old Hickory, Ten-
nessee. The letter informed the Respondent that
the request was in preparation for negotiation of
wages and that the Union needed the information
so it would know what similarly skilled employees
were being paid at other Du Pont plants.2
i All dates are 1982 unless other indicated.
' Each of the Respondent's above-listed Textile Fibers manufacturing
plants is engaged in the production of synthetic fibers having steps of
product manufacture similar or identical to Martinsville's. These manu-
facturing processes require a significant number of production, mainte-
nance, and nonexempt salary employees who perform substantially the
same duties as employees represented by the Union at Martinsville. Each
of these comparison facilities is engaged in the production of either nylon
or dacron products or both. Some of these plants also produce other syn-
thetic fibers or products used in the production of synthetic fibers. In ad-
dition, two of the plants produce synthetic fiber products.
The Respondent contends that the information concerning the nine
comparison plants is not available at the Martinsville, Virginia plant but
concedes that it would not be unduly burdensome to provide such infor-
mation to the Union if so ordered by the Board.
1031
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties met 14 October to discuss the
Union's I October request for information. At that
meeting, the Respondent's representatives asserted
that the Respondent's wage proposals were based
on the wages paid by other companies in the local
labor supply area. The Respondent also stated that
it was management's policy to maintain wages at
Martinsville in the upper bracket of the scale in the
plant's labor supply area in order to compete effec-
tively for skilled employees in the local labor
market. The Respondent's representatives stated
that, since wages paid outside the local employ-
ment are not considered by the Respondent in
reaching a wage proposal, the Respondent needed
further explanation of why the Union needed the
requested information. The union representatives
stated that they needed the information to formu-
late the union wage proposal for pending negotia-
tions, explaining that they wanted to know where
the wages of employees they represented stood in
relation to employees performing similar work at
the Respondent's plants in the Textile Fibers De-
partment. The Union asserted that it disagreed with
the method the Respondent used to formulate
wage proposals and further explained that it would
use the information it had requested along with the
national Consumer Price Index (CPI) and informa-
tion it could obtain from other local plants in order
to formulate its own wage proposals. At a later
meeting the Union asserted that Martinsville em-
ployees performed as well as employees at the Re-
spondent's other plants and that they should be
paid accordingly. It referred specifically to wages
paid at the Richmond, Virginia plant.
On 25 October the Respondent's and the Union's
representatives met again to discuss the request for
information. The Respondent's representatives in-
formed the Union that had reviewed the request
and had decided to deny it on the grounds that
they had stated at the previous meeting. Specifical-
ly, they stated they did not consider the requested
information relevant.
By 10 November letter to the Union, the Re-
spondent requested a 12 November meeting to dis-
cuss wages and thereby reopened the parties' wage
negotiations. At that meeting the Union informed
the Respondent that they would have difficulty
analyzing the Respondent's proposals and making
counterproposals without the wage information
they had requested. The Respondent declined and
has not since supplied the requested information.
The Union and the Respondent's officials held
further wage negotiation meetings on 17 and 23
November and 3, 6, and 10 December. During
these meetings, the Union requested and received
information regarding unit employees such as hours
worked and paid overtime, as well as information
pertaining to the local comparison companies des-
ignated by the Respondent. These comparison
companies are all in the local labor supply area for
the Martinsville plant and are engaged in a variety
of business operations such as food, tobacco, wood,
furniture, rubber, glass production, and truck fabri-
cation. Although some textile companies were in-
cluded, these companies do not engage in the pro-
duction of synthetic fibers. Nor do any of the local
comparison companies perform steps of product
manufacture similar to those performed by unit em-
ployees at Martinsville.
During the November and December meetings
the Union made an additional request: information
tending to show where the above-listed Textile
Fibers Department plants stood in relation to com-
panies within the respective local labor markets
designated by the Respondent. The Union ex-
plained that this information was also necessary to
ensure that unit employees were treated fairly in
relation to employees at other Textile Fibers De-
partment plants. The Respondent denied this infor-
mation request, explaining that it does not have
such information and does not use it in formulating
a wage proposal. The Respondent has not since
supplied this information.
At the 12 and 23 November meetings the Re-
spondent discussed the relevance of the national
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Respondent pre-
sented revised information on the estimated nation-
al CPI for 1983, referring to a chart comparing
unit employees' group 4 wage rate-the rate used
for comparison with companies in the local labor
supply area-with the CPI. The Respondent ex-
plained that, while it does not use the national CPI
in formulating wage proposals, some of the Mar-
tinsville area comparison companies used it to com-
pute cost-of-living wage increases.
At the 10 December wage negotiation session,
the Union agreed to accept the Respondent's wage
offer despite its dissatisfaction with it.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
In defining an employer's obligation to furnish
information about nonbargaining unit employees,
the Board seeks to establish "the probability that
the desired information was relevant, and that it
would be of use to the union in carrying out its
statutory duties." NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.,
385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967). Applying this standard,
the Board has required employers to supply bar-
gaining representatives seeking to negotiate wages
information pertaining to the pay of nonunit per-
sonnel whose work is similar to that of unit em-
ployees. See, e.g., Press Democrat Publishing Co.,
1032
E. 1. DUPONT & CO.
237 NLRB 1335 (1978), enfd. 629 F.2d 1320 (9th
Cir. 1980); Northwest Publications, 211 NLRB 464
(1974); Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 157 NLRB 496,
503 (1966), enfd. 388 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1968). An
employer's subjective belief that its own method of
devising a wage proposal renders information
sought irrelevant is not adequate grounds for
denial. See Amphlett Publishing Co., 237 NLRB
955, 956 (1978).
The parties have stipulated that on 1 October
1982 the Union requested information regarding
hourly wages and nonexempt salary paid employ-
ees at each of the nine other plants where the Re-
spondent manufactures textile fibers and where
manufacturing processes are similar or identical to
those at the Martinsville, Virginia plant. The par-
ties have also agreed in the stipulation of facts that
the steps of production at these nine facilities "by
their very nature require significant numbers of
production, maintenance and non-exempt salary
employees to perform substantially the same duties
as those possessed by employees represented by the
Union at the Respondent's Martinsville, Virginia
plant and to possess skills and experience which are
similar and comparable to those possessed by em-
ployees represented by the Union at the Respond-
ent's Martinsville, Virginia plant." The information
request regarding wages and nonexempt salary at
these plants was made in preparation for a reopen-
ing of wage negotiations pursuant to the parties
collective-bargaining agreement.
We find this case to be indistinguishable from E.
I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 264 NLRB 235
(1982), where the Board ordered the Respondent to
supply data virtually identical to that sought here
to a bargaining representative of one of the Re-
spondent's other Textile Fibers Department plants.
Accordingly, we find that the information request-
ed by the Union in its I October letter is relevant
to its bargaining obligation and that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to furnish it upon request.3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Martinsville Nylon Employees' Council Cor-
poration is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I The General Counsel argues that the Respondent has also violated
Sec. 8(aX5) and (I) of the Act by refusing to comply with the Union's
subsequent information request for comparison data of wages and em-
ployers in the local labor markets of the above-listed Dupont Textile
Fibers Department plants. We decline to find a violation on this basis
since the allegation is not contained in the complaint or the amendment
to the complaint.
3. The following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All employees at the Respondent's Martinsville
plant, Textile Fibers Department, located at
Martinsville, Virginia; excluding confidential
clerks and stenographers, graduate trainees,
co-op and summer students, engineers and
chemists in training, nurses, guards, Limited
Service employees, employees designated as
relief supervisors, employees classified as
exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action.
4. At all times material to these proceedings,
Martinsville Nylon Employees' Council Corpora-
tion has been the exclusive representative of em-
ployees in the unit described above for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing to furnish Martinsville
Nylon Employees' Council Corporation informa-
tion pertaining to hourly wages and nonexempt
salary paid to similarly skilled employees at the
below listed plants in Dupont's Textile Fibers De-
partment, the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
Richmond, Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Seaford, Delaware
Kinston, North Carolina
Camden, South Carolina
Cooper River (Charleston, South Carolina)
Cape Fear (Wilmington, North Carolina)
Waynesboro, Virginia
Old Hickory, Tennessee
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to
cease and desist therefore and to provide the
Union, on request, information necessary for col-
lective bargaining.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the the Respondent, E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to provide the Union information
necessary for the purposes of collective bargaining.
1033
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide the Union, upon request, information
necessary for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(b) Post at its facility in Martinsville, Virginia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
4 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al 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 provide Martinsville
Nylon Employees' Council Corporation, on re-
quest, information necessary for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish the Union with
the information it requested by letter 1 October
1982, which information is relevant and necessary
to the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the bargaining unit
consisting of:
All employees at Respondent's Martinsville
plant, Textile Fibers Department, located at
Martinsville, Virginia; excluding confidential
clerks and stenographers, graduate trainees,
co-op and summer students, engineers and
chemists in training, nurses, guards, Limited
Service employees, employees designated as
relief supervisor, employees classified as
exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COM-
PANY, INC.
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
1034