E. I. du Pont & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 1153 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

E. I. DU PONT & CO.
E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company and Martins-
ville Nylon Employees' Council Corporation.'
Cases 5-CA-15243 and 5-CA-15359
22 August 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 20 December 1983 Administrative Law
Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and counsel for the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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, 2 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company,
Martinsville, Virginia, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(a) Furnish the Union, on request, with the fol-
lowing: (1) information concerning asbestos remov-
al procedures at the Respondent's Seaford, Chatta-
nooga, Old Hickory, Richmond, Waynesboro, and
Chambers-Works facilities, and (2) information of
other plants that have the phase 30 windups (doff-
paks) or something similar relating to doff-paks,
and rates of pay and job descriptions (working con-
ditions) of employees at other plants assigned to
doff-pak operations, including pre- and post-assign-
ment pay rates."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
I The complaint was amended at hearing to delete from the name of
the labor organization the affiliation with International Brotherhood of
DuPont Workers. The case caption is modified accordingly.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
271 NLRB No. 186
APPENDIX
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Martinsville Nylon Employees' Council Corpora-
tion, by refusing on request to supply relevant in-
formation needed by said Union to represent the
employees it represents employed by us at the Mar-
tinsville plant.
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, on request, furnish the Union with the
following: (1) information concerning asbestos re-
moval procedures at our Seaford, Chattanooga,
Old Hickory, Richmond, Waynesboro, and Cham-
bers-Works facilities, and (2) information of other
plants that have the phase 30 windups (doff-paks)
or something similar relating to doff-paks and rates
of pay and job descriptions (working conditions) of
employees at other plants assigned to doff-pak op-
erations, including the employees' rates of pay
before their assignment to doff-pak operations and
their rates of pay after assignment to doff-pak oper-
ations.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COM-
PANY
DECISION
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case, involving two consolidated complaints, was
tried on July 6, 1983, in Martinsville, Virginia. In Case
5-CA-15243, the charge was filed by the Martinsville
Nylon Employees' Council Corporation (the Union) on
March 25, 1983, and the complaint issued May 5, 1983. It
charged that Respondent E. I. Dupont de Nemours &
Company (Respondent, the Company, or Management)
had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
1153
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Relations Act by refusing in the course of a griev-
ance proceeding concerning asbestos removal procedures
at the plant to provide the Union with information about
other Dupont plants.
The Union filed the charge in Case 5-CA-15359 on
April 26, 1983, and the complaint issued on June 3, 1983.
This complaint alleged that the Company violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing, in the course
of negotiations about a bargainable issue, to provide the
Union with information concerning "doff-pak" proce-
dures at other of the Company's plants. The jurisdiction-
al allegations' in the complaint were admitted by Re-
spondent in its answer and at the hearing, but it denied
that its refusals to furnish the information violated the
Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Compa-
ny, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. ASBESTOS
Dupont's Martinsville, Virginia manufacturing facility
is engaged in the production of continuous filament
yarns. Like many manufacturing plants, its machinery
and pipes have hot surfaces which require insulation. As-
bestos has been the primary insulating material at Mar-
tinsville, and most of it was installed some 30 or 40 years
ago. It now covers about 70 or 80 percent of the hot sur-
face equipment at Martinsville. It was stipulated that the
use of asbestos at Martinsville is similar to that at other
Dupont plants.
In recognition of the increasingly apparent dangers of
asbestos, Dupont issued a set of guidelines to all affected
plants regarding the exposure of employees to asbestos.
Employees are exposed when the asbestos insulation re-
quires repair or removal. Martinsville's industrial hygien-
ist, Joseph Fields, testified that these guidelines exceed
the requirements mandated by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. He stated that it was Du-
pont's policy to use OSHA standards as a minimum and
to go beyond OSHA whenever possible. The extent to
which each plant's safety requirements comply with
OSHA, however, is within the discretion of each plant.
In conformity with this policy, Martinsville developed its
own procedure for the removal of asbestos insulation.
The events leading to the filing of the complaint in
this case began in the latter part of 1982. Harold Dean
Goad, the union president, and Sterling Belcher, the rep-
resentative of the plant's sheet metal workers, insulators,
and machinists, attended a seminar on asbestos in Rich-
mond, Virginia, conducted by an attorney specializing in
asbestos-related claims. Goad and Belcher also discussed
asbestos procedures with a union official at Dupont's
Richmond facility. They gathered from this conversation
that Richmond's standard of protection was significantly
higher than Martinsville's, especially regarding respira-
tors, protective clothing, and the exclusion of employees
from dangerous areas. Moreover, the attorney conduct-
I This includes the identity of Respondent and the Union.
ing the seminar stated that the respirator currently in use
at Martinsville was inadequate. There also had been an
incident at Martinsville somewhat earlier where an auto-
clave had exploded, requiring removal of asbestos. An
examination of one employee's air mask revealed that the
device had failed to filter out the asbestos. In addition,
there had been complaints from insulators, who install
and remove the asbestos, that the equipment they were
using was inferior to other equipment then available. Fi-
nally, the Union questioned the results of some of the as-
bestos air sampling conducted on a regular basis at the
plant. An employee had apparently taken some asbestos
and crumpled it directly in front of the sampling equip-
ment, but the machine failed to record any unusually
high levels of asbestos. The asbestos samples were cus-
tomarily sent by Martinsville to Haskell Laboratory, a
subsidiary of Dupont, for analysis.
On November 18, 1982, representatives of Martinsville
management met with union officials in the plant. The
union expressed its concern and made three requests.
First, it wanted a determination by OSHA that the respi-
rator used at Martinsville, the model 3M-8710, was in
fact acceptable. Second, the Union wanted to have a
conference call set up among the Union, Martinsville
management, the Richmond union official with whom
Goad and Belcher had spoken, and Richmond manage-
ment. Third, the Union wanted to send a pair of cover-
alls and a used respirator to an outside expert in New
York for analysis.
Bruce Cloud, the plant engineering superintendent, re-
fused to participate in a conference call or to have the
respirator and coveralls examined. However, he agreed
to set up an independent testing procedure and to pro-
vide the Union with both the OSHA asbestos procedure
and the plant's own procedure for asbestos. He would
also find out about the 3M-8710 respirator and the ex-
pertise of technicians who studied the X-rays taken of
plant personnel.
In the meantime, Belcher filed two identical griev-
ances on November 22 with Jimmy Cobler, an insulator
supervisor, and B. A. Moore, a sheet metal supervisor.
The grievances complained about the inadequacies of
safety precautions at Martinsville as compared to the
other Dupont plants regarding the removal of asbestos.
On November 30, the Company responded to several
of the Union's grievance requests, offering for example
to provide the Union with a copy of the OSHA asbestos
standard and with Martinsville's own procedure for as-
bestos removal, as well as the results of the last six asbes-
tos samplings performed at the plant. However, Re-
spondent did not satisfy all of the Union's demands and
the Union asked to have OSHA representatives come
into the plant and test for asbestos concentration levels.
This request was denied. When the Union stated that it
could ask OSHA to come to the plant, the Company re-
sponded that it was understood that any collection of
data would be performed by a third party chosen by
both the Union and Respondent.
On December 1, 1982, the Company denied the first-
step grievances and informed the Union that the 3M-
8710 respirators had been approved for asbestos work by
1154
E. I. DU PONT & CO.
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,
and that the plant's safety and environmental group had
approved its use for up to five times the permissible ex-
posure limit. Management also refused the Union's re-
quest to postpone any insulation work.
The Union presented the grievances in identical form
at the second step on December 8 to management and
also reserved the right to request additional information
in the future.
The grievance was denied on December 16. Manage-
ment, however, offered a more sophisticated respirator,
the Norton 7500, as an alternative and agreed to hold up
any asbestos related work which might exceed the capa-
bilities of either respirator. The Union was provided with
certain information relating to the plant's sampling and
testing procedures.
At the third grievance step, the Union again voiced its
concern about the adequacy of the respirators; it de-
manded the same respirators used by the Richmond em-
ployees as well as throwaway coveralls. The grievance
was denied on January 13, although the request for the
throwaway coveralls for use under special circumstances
was formally considered.
The Union continued the grievance to the fourth and
final step on February 3, 1983, by presenting it to Ken-
neth Stueber, the plant manager. He and Goad, the union
president, became personally involved in the controversy
for the first time. Added to the grievance was the
Union's request for asbestos removal procedures at other
Dupont plants, specifically Seaford, Delaware; Chatta-
nooga and Old Hickory, Tennessee; Richmond and
Waynesboro, Virginia; and Chambers-Works, New
Jersey. These plants, the Union believed, had equipment
similar to Martinsville's, which would make their remov-
al procedures pertinent to the grievance. Stueber imme-
diately responded that he did not have that information
and furthermore did not intend to get it. The Union also
wanted the Norton 7500 respirators issued and asked for
the so-called Type C maximum protection forced air res-
pirators rated to 100 times the permissible exposure limit
for use when needed. Finally, the Union wanted the
ABC television movie, "Caring about Asbestos," shown
to all Dupont workers.
Except for the one regarding the Norton 7500, Re-
spondent denied the Union's requests on the ground that
the equipment it provided met OSHA standards and that
certain jobs with high exposure to asbestos would be de-
layed. Having exhausted the grievance procedure, the
Union brought the charges in this matter before the
Board.
Discussion
The Company contends with some justification that
the Union's grievances presented different elements at
each successive step. According to Respondent, changes
in the Union's demands, after the Company had met
many of the Union's requests, were an indication that the
Union failed to act in good faith.
Yet a recurring theme that appears throughout the ne-
gotiations is the Union's desire to obtain information
about the employees' safety from asbestos exposure at
Martinsville by a comparison with practices at other
Dupont plants, notably Richmond. For example, at the
November 18 meeting, the Union had asked for a confer-
ence call among Richmond union officials, Martinsville's
management, and union officials at Martinsville. This
was summarily rejected by Respondent.
The two grievances filed on November 22 expressed
the Union's concern that the asbestos safety precautions
at Martinsville were not as sound as those at other
Dupont plants. Furthermore, it was felt that the Compa-
ny was not providing a safe working environment. The
second-step grievance expressed the same concerns. At
the third grievance level, the Union again addressed the
issue of the respirators available to Richmond employees.
At the fourth step, Goad and the Union asked for asbes-
tos removal procedures at various of Dupont's plants. In
short, although the Union made a number of requests,
many of which were met by management, the Union's
intentions were clear at all stages of the proceeding.
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, 241 NLRB 1016, 1018-
19 (1979), enfd. 615 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir. 1980).
Respondent has also suggested that the Union's filing
of the grievance before management could respond to
the concerns raised by the Union on November 18 indi-
cated a lack of good faith. Yet it is clear that three items
requested by the Union were rejected: the conference
call, submitting coveralls to testing, and a satisfactory ex-
amination for the apparent insufficiencies of the sampling
procedure. When these concerns were left unanswered it
was unnecessary to require the Union to wait for a writ-
ten refusal. While the Company ultimately agreed to sev-
eral of the Union's demands, it was obviously unable to
assuage the Union's safety concerns.
The Company has clearly failed to meet all of the
Union's requests for information. Dupont's justification is
basically that its practices complied with and actually ex-
ceeded OSHA standards and that it is immaterial what
precautions are taken in other plants so long as the safety
standards at Martinsville satisfied Federal standards and
the strict procedures required by Dupont itself.
It has long been established that an employer's refusal
to furnish to a union information which is relevant to the
Union's proper performance of its collective-bargaining
responsibilities is an unfair labor practice under Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.,
385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,
351 U.S. 149, 151-154 (1956). What is "relevant" largely
depends on the nature of the information sought. Infor-
mation about the wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of unit employees is considered to
be presumptively relevant, as it is vital to the employer-
employee relationship. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. NLRB,
347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d Cir. 1965). The precise relevance of
such information need not be demonstrated unless effec-
tively rebutted by the employer. Id. However, no such
presumption attaches to information concerning employ-
ees outside the bargaining unit. Instead, the burden is on
the Union to demonstrate the relevance of the informa-
tion. San Diego Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863,
866 (9th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Rockwell-Standard Corp.,
410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969); Brown Newspaper Pub-
lishing Co., 238 NLRB 1334, 1337 (1978). This standard
1155
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has been characterized as "a special showing of perti-
nence." Prudential Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 77,
84 (2d Cir. 1969). However, it is clear that the Union
need not prove the actual relevance of the information
sought, but merely the probability that the data is impor-
tant in order to represent its members. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., supra; E. I. du Pont & Co., 264 NLRB 48
(1982).
The Union has made more than a general showing that
the information it requested was generally relevant. As a
result of a meeting with the Richmond union representa-
tive and the asbestos lawyer, the Martinsville Union was
rightfully concerned that Richmond took greater precau-
tions than Martinsville, and also that the 3M-8710 mask
was not a sufficient protective device. Moreover, if Rich-
mond's standards were higher than Martinsville's, it may
be an indication that Martinsville lagged behind other
Dupont plants as a whole in providing a safe working
environment. Even if Martinsville met all the OSHA
standards, other plant information might disclose that
special circumstances exist at Dupont's plants which per-
haps prevent those standards from being effective. Re-
spondent's reluctance to send coveralls to outside experts
for analysis may have contributed to the Union's doubts
about Respondent's commitment to a safe environment.
All testing of samples was performed by Haskell Labora-
tory, Dupont's subsidiary. The Union may have felt that
assurances based on data obtained under these circum-
stances may not have been entirely trustworthy, especial-
ly when Martinsville's asbestos sampling device had ap-
parently failed to record large amounts of asbestos dust
crumpled directly in front of it by an employee.
The request for asbestos information from other plants
is particularly relevant, because it is clear that Martins-
ville management has frequent contact with its counter-
parts at other plants on a regular basis. 2 Significantly,
Dupont admitted that workers were exposed to asbestos.
While Respondent may be seriously concerned with the
asbestos problem and attempting to provide the safest
possible working environment by meeting or exceeding
OSHA standards, it must recognize that the workers in
the plant, as represented by the Union, should have an
equal voice in the proposals for plant safety.
Respondent's belief that its asbestos removal proce-
dures exceeded the standards required by OSHA is an in-
sufficient basis for its refusal to furnish that information.
This is especially true when all the information is avail-
able to the Respondent and not to the Union. Amphlett
Printing Co., 237 NLRB 955, 956 (1978). The Respondent
unfairly characterizes the Union's requests as nothing
more than "suspicion or surmise" of inadequate asbestos
procedures. The information which the Union had man-
aged to obtain on its own was enough to raise the basis
of its request above a mere suspicion. It is well settled
that plant safety is a condition of employment. Gulf
2 Bruce Cloud, the Martinsville engineering superintendent, testified to
this effect, although he denied ever discussing protective equipment with
management at other plants. I do not credit Cloud's testimony in this
regard. During cross-examination, he appeared to be evasive and incon-
sistent in his testimony. It also strains credulity to believe that he never
discussed such an important issue with other Dupont engineering superin-
tendents, especially in light of Dupont's commitment to safety.
Power Co., 156 NLRB 622 (1966), enfd. 384 F.2d 822 (5th
Cir. 1967). The asbestos information is necessary to the
Union so that it is not "forced to grope blindly through
the very stages of the grievance procedure." Curtiss-
Wright Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F.2d at 71.
II. DOFF-PAK
In early 1983, Martinsville management wanted to in-
stitute a more efficient system for packaging the nylon
yarn produced by the plant. It decided to increase the
size of the yarn packages, which also required a more
automated process for removing bobbins of yarn from
the spinning machines (doffing), inspecting the spools,
and packing them. This new procedure was referred to
as the "doff-pak" system. By late March 1983, Martins-
ville management sought to discuss these developments
with the Union.
The parties met informally about doff-pak on March
22, 1983, primarily to inform the Union of management's
intent to implement the procedure, and to explain how it
would affect the employees' jobs. One of Respondent's
representatives, Irwin Holly, a supervisor in Martins-
ville's multiproducts spinning department, the area which
would be affected, stated that he had been to Dupont's
Kinston, North Carolina plant to observe a similar doff-
pak operation and that the new system at Kinston was
much like the one proposed for Martinsville.
The first formal negotiation session concerning doff-
pak was held on March 30. Two alternative doff-pak
concepts were proposed: one was the "doff-pak only"
system, which required spinning machine operators to
doff, inspect, and pack the spools of yarn. It was regard-
ed as a short-range concept. The other alternative was a
long range or "total team" concept which would add
some minor mechanical, administrative, and process
work to the doff-pak only duties. The Union proposed a
5-percent increase over the present group 4 wage level
for the spinning machine operators who would be en-
gaged in the total team test to compensate them for the
additional duties they would be performing.
At the second meeting on April 6, management dis-
cussed the specific tasks which would be required of the
spinning machine operators in the total team plan. But no
agreement was reached about the 5-percent increase. The
Company came into the third meeting on April 13 with a
decision to institute the doff-pak only plan instead of the
total team concept. The Union responded by requesting
information in order to formulate a counterproposal. The
Union requested information as to which other Dupont
plants had a doff-pak or similar windup system, what the
working conditions were at those plants, and the opera-
tor's pay rate at those plants before and after instituting
the doff-pak system.
Harold Reid, the supervisor of the multiproducts spin-
ning area, said he would look into the requests; however,
he stated that some of the requested information would
not be given since he felt it was not relevant to what
Martinsville paid. 3
3 There is some dispute as to the extent of the requests. The Union's
witnesses testified that Dean Goad. the union representative, made the re-
Continued
1156
E. I. DU PONT & CO.
At the fourth negotiation session on April 18, manage-
ment informed the Union that Martinsville was the only
plant using the phase 30 windup, but that a similar doff-
pak system was in use at the Kinston, North Carolina
plant, and that those spinning machine operators working
with the doff-pak system at Kinston were paid at a group
4 rate before and after doff-pak was instituted. Manage-
ment insisted that the rate of pay at each Dupont plant
was different, as it was formulated according to the pre-
vailing local wage, and that information concerning
other plants' wages was, therefore, irrelevant. In any
case, management was unwilling to reveal its pay deter-
mination system because it was already the subject of
other litigation.
Following another negotiation session April 20, the
doff-pak only test was implemented about June 1, 1983,
without resolving the issues dealing with the rate of pay
for spinning operators participating in the test and the re-
quest for information.
Discussion
The requests by the Union dealt with information out-
side the bargaining unit. As explained above, the Union
must, therefore, demonstrate its relevance.
Respondent has shown that the rates of pay at each of
its plants depend on a comparison with rates paid by
other companies in the local area. As such, it maintains
that the actual wage of the spinning machine operators at
Kinston and other plants is irrelevant. The General
Counsel has cited the recent Board decision in E. I. du
Pont & Co., 264 NLRB 48 (1982), as refuting the irrele-
vancy of nonunion wage information when each plant's
pay scale depends on local rates: "The data is especially
pertinent here because without it [the Union] cannot in-
telligently formulate its desired approach to a wage
policy different from that adhered to by DuPont." How-
ever, the Union here is not negotiating an entire wage
policy for the plant but merely a possible pay increase
for certain of its members. Respondent accordingly
argues that, given Dupont's locally based wage structure,
the actual wages of the Kinston and other spinning ma-
chine operators are not relevant. Since the Union was in-
formed by management that the Kinston employees
working on doff-pak were classified in group 4 before
and after doff-pak had been instituted, it, according to
Respondent, is really the only wage data that is relevant
to the Union's ability to effectively represent its mem-
bers. 4 Respondent, however, ignores the possibility that
there may well be other plants besides Kinston with simi-
lar doff-pak operations, and that operators at other loca-
tions had indeed received a pay increase. Moreover, tes-
quest regarding working conditions (actually meaning job descriptions) at
the other plants, while none of the management witnesses recalled this
request. Bobby Young, a union representative present at the meeting who
took notes which were introduced into evidence (G.C. Exh. 21), stated
that Goad had indeed made such a request and that his notes reflected
this. I find Young testified credibly that he made no changes on his notes
after the fact. Furthermore, I find that the testimony of union representa-
tives Goad. who should remember what he had said, and Ramsey was
credible.
4 The record is not clear whether a 5-percent pay incease would have
removed the operators from classification group 4 and placed them into a
higher group.
timony reveals that the Company made use of Kinston's
wage classifications in deciding what increase, in any,
should apply to the Martinsville doff-pak group. Irvin
Holley, Martinsville's first-line supervisor in multipro-
duce spinning, testified that when he went to Kinston to
look at the doff-pak operation there he inquired about
the group rate of the doff-pak spinning machine opera-
tors. Holley further testified that spinning machine oper-
ators are not necessarily paid in group 4 companywide
and that he knew some Dupont manufacturing areas
where employees are not paid on a group rate system.
Without information on the similarities and differences of
the Martinsville and other doff-pak systems, the Union's
knowledge of wage classification is useless. In other
words, the wage information is not truly meaningful
unless it can be seen what the duties of similarly situated
employees at other plants are.
The phase 30 system at Martinsville may differ from
the system at Kinston in enough respects to warrant
paying the Martinsville people more, or another plant
may pay its doff-pak workers at a higher level because of
the complexity of the system. Even where jobs and
working conditions may be quite dissimilar, such infor-
mation must be provided even if only potentially rele-
vant. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437.
While management provided operators at Martinsville
with Kinston instruction manuals, it failed to provide the
requested information. Without such information the
Union cannot fairly evaluate its position and is in no po-
sition to "intelligently discuss the issues raised in bargain-
ing permitted by the collective-bargaining contract." San
Diego Newspaper Guild, 548 F.2d at 866. To be sure, "the
showing by the Union must be more than a mere con-
coction of some general theory which explains how the
information would be useful to the Union" in bargaining
on behalf of its members. San Diego Newspaper Guild,
supra. But the Union has based its request on more than
a theory. The Union was initially informed that the Kin-
ston system was similar to that proposed in Martinsville.
However, management never represented that Kinston
was the only Dupont plant with doff-pak. Having been
told about Kinston, the Union could reasonably infer that
data from other plants would be equally as pertinent if
those plants also had a doff-pak system. The Union
should certainly be informed whether operators of doff-
pak systems at Kinston or other plants have comparable
job descriptions and whether they received increased
pay as a result of the change to the new system. The
Union was thus entitled to the information.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Company
is admittedly an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Martinsville Nylon Employees' Council
Corporation, is admittedly a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent and the Union have been parties to
a series of collective-bargaining agreements (the one in-
volved here was effective from August 6, 1981, through
April 30, 1983) in which the Union was recognized as
1157
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in
an appropriate unit described in article I of that agree-
ment.
4. Respondent, by refusing to provide the Union with
information concerning asbestos removal procedures at
Respondent's Seaford, Chattanooga, Old Hickory, Rich-
mond, Waynesboro, and Chambers-Work facilities, has
failed to bargain in good faith with the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by refusing to provide the Union with
the following information, has failed to bargain in good
faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act:
Other plants that have the phase 30 windups (doff-
paks) or something similar relating to doff-paks, and
rates of pay and job descriptions (working condi-
tions) of employees at other plants assigned to doff-
pak operations.
6. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Compa-
ny, Martinsville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
I. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Martinsville
Nylon Employees' Council Corporation by refusing on
request to supply relevant information needed by said
Union to represent the employees.
(b) 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 which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish the Union, on request, with the following:
(1) information concerning asbestos removal procedures
at Respondent's Seaford, Chattanooga, Old Hickory,
Richmond, Waynesboro, and Chambers-Work facilities,
and (2) information of other plants that have the phase
30 windups (doff-paks) or something similar relating to
doff-paks, and rates of pay and job descriptions (working
conditions) of employees at other plants assigned to doff-
pak operations.
(b) Post at its plant in Martinsville, Virginia, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt 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 Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
s 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."
1158