General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Electric Company and International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-
CLC. Case 19-CA-4458
March 9, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JEN KIN S
On June 3, 1970, Trial Examiner George H. O'Brien
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that Respondent had not engaged in a certain
other alleged unfair labor practice and recommended
dismissal of that allegation. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner' s Decision and supporting brief
and an answering brief to exceptions and briefs of the
General Counsel and the Charging Party.'
Thereafter, this matter was consolidated for pur-
poses of oral argument with two other cases involving
the same or related issues, General Electric Co., 10-
CA-7668, and General Electric Co., Case 8-CA-5418,
and the three were heard on oral argument on Octo-
ber 5, 1970.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel
who heard oral argument.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions
and briefs, the oral argument, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as mod-
ified herein.
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to provide the
Union with a copy of a certain area wage survey
conducted by Respondent.
Approximately 100 production and maintenance
employees at Respondent's Apparatus Service Shop
i The Charging Party also filed a motion to strike portions of Respondent's
answering brief We have reviewed Respondent 's brief and find that it is in
substantial compliance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8 , as amended, Section 102 46(d) Therefore , the motion
is hereby denied
and Aircraft Service Shop in Seattle are represented
by the Charging Party, IUE, and its Local 1002, and
covered by the National Agreement between Respon-
dent and IUE. Under the National Agreement, local
wage rates are the subject of local negotiations at each
of Respondent's plants.
The record shows that in 1968 there was considera-
ble discussion in the shop relating to dissatisfaction
with rates of pay then in effect for machinists. Some-
time in October 1968, Respondent, at its own initia-
tive, called a "round table meeting" of the employees
of the Aircraft Service Shop, in which the machinists
were employed. At that time no grievance had been
filed regarding machinists' rates, although one had
been filed regarding the rates for welders. Apparently
in response to the well-known dissension about ma-
chinists' rates, the manager of the shop announced at
this meeting that an area wage survey had been con-
ducted and that the survey disclosed that
Respondent's rates were below the area scale. He also
stated "that he felt a raise would come out of this area
wage survey and that it would be retroactive to Sep-
tember 1968."
For reasons not explained in the record, this survey
did not lead Respondent to make any adjustment in
rates, and instead in March 1969 Respondent con-
ducted a second survey of wage rates in the Seattle
area. In April 1969, in an informal conversation pre-
ceding a grievance meeting (which apparently related
to grievances foreign to any issue in this proceeding),
Respondent's Aircraft Service Shop manager advised
the Union's chief steward and its International repre-
sentative that this second wage survey had been con-
ducted. The International representative of the Union
immediately requested a copy of this survey.
Respondent's representative gave a seemingly favora-
ble, but inconclusive, reply to the request. Shortly
thereafter, Respondent wrote to the local union deny-
ing the oral request. A grievance was filed protesting
this denial and seeking the desired information.
Thereafter, the charge giving rise to the instant pro-
ceeding was filed with the Board's Regional Office,
alleging that Respondent's refusal to disclose the sur-
vey data violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Respondent's written denial of the request for the
information was based on the sole ground that Re-
spondent had never used area wage surveys to defend
or support rates of pay. This reply was given little
credence by the Union in view of previous statements
by the Respondent to the effect that it had a consist-
ent policy of meeting competitive local wage rates.
The record in this proceeding, Respondent's brief,
and statements made by counsel for Respondent in
the course of oral argument on this case and the other
consolidated cases demonstrate that Respondent does
indeed rely on local wage surveys to establish rates
188 NLRB No. 107
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 921
both when it opens a new plant and thereafter as may
be necessary to maintain its competitive position in
the local labor market.
It is clear under established precedent that the duty
to bargain in good faith includes an obligation to
provide the employees' exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative with requested information that is necessary
and relevant to the proper performance of its duties.
N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); N.L.
R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). In
accordance with this principle, we have decided that,
when Respondent relies on an area wage survey in
bargaining or dealing with grievances, an obligation
exists to furnish the Union with all the information
requested upon which Respondent has relied. We
have also rejected the defense of confidentiality which
Respondent has urged in this and related cases. Gen-
eral Electric Co. (Rome, Ga.), 188 NLRB No. 106;
General Electric Co. (Dover), 188 NLRB No. 105.
This case is unlike the Rome and Dover cases to the
extent that this record does not disclose that Respon-
dent and the Union were, during the time period in
which these events occurred, immediately engaged in
processing a wage grievance or in bargaining over
local wages. Upon close examination, however, this
record compels the conclusion that no formal griev-
ance or formal local negotiations were instituted as a
result of the discontent with respect to machinists'
rates only because Respondent forestalled such a
grievance or request for negotiations by announcing
its apparent awareness of an inequitable local wage
situation. Specifically, Respondent advised the affect-
ed employees that a wage survey had already been
made at Respondent's initiative which, according to
the shop manager, seemed most likely to produce a
wage increase which he further predicted would be
retroactive in application. When time went by and the
increase failed to materialize, Respondent again in-
formally advised the union representatives that a sec-
ond wage survey had been conducted.
In this factual context, the Union's request for a
copy of the second survey must be deemed a request
for information necessary and relevant to the proper
performance of its duties. Having been lulled once
into what must have seemed in retrospect a false sense
of security by generalized information concerning the
first survey and predictions of increases which were
not realized, the Union would have been very nearly
derelict in its duties to represent the affected employ-
ees had it not sought disclosure of the second survey.
This conclusion is further fortified by Respondent's
announced general policy of relying substantially on
just this type of wage survey in establishing and ad-
justing local rates.
We therefore conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in this case by re-
fusing to furnish the requested information.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent Gen-
eral Electric Company, Seattle, Washington, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-
CLC, and its Local 1002, as the exclusive bargaining
representatives of all production and maintenance
employees of General Electric Company at its Appa-
ratus and Aircraft Service Shops in Seattle, Washing-
ton, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, by refusing to furnish the Union with all data
derived from 'a wage survey conducted by Respon-
dent in the Seattle, Washington, area, in March 1969.
(b) In any like or related manner refusing to bar-
gain with the Union or interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request furnish to the Union correlated
information concerning Respondent's area wage sur-
vey and other information necessary to enable the
Union to bargain intelligently on rates of pay at the
Seattle, Washington, plant.
(b) Post at its office and plant at Seattle, Washing-
ton, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix ."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
21n the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NPTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Ageticy of the United States Government
After a trial in which both sides had the opportuni-
ty to present their evidence , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law and
has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to
carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Lo-
cal 1002 by refusing to furnish the Union with
correlated information concerning our March
1969 area wage survey and other information
necessary to enable the Union to bargain intelli-
gently on rates of pay for the production and
maintenance employees in our Seattle , Washing-
ton, plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
fuse to bargain with the Union , or interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Republic Building, 10th Floor, 1511
Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone
206-583-4532.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner: On April 7, 1970 a
hearing was held in the above-entitled matter in Seattle,
Washington. The complaint issued September 19, 1969, is
based on a charge filed August 1, 1969, and alleges
violations of Sections 8(a)(l) and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act. Upon the entire record I in this proceeding,
including my observation of the witnesses and after due
consideration of the post-hearing briefs, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
General Electric Company, herein called Respondent, is
a New York State corporation engaged in the several States
of the United States in diversified electrical product manu-
facture and sale, mcidental to which it operates an aircraft
apparatus and service shop in Seattle, Washington. In the
course and conduct of its said business operations, Respon-
dent annually sells goods and services valued in excess of
$500,000, and purchases and cases to be transported direct-
1 across state lines, goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues and Procedures
1. Is it a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act for Respon-
dent to refuse to furnish the Union, upon request, data
derived from an area wage survey in uncorrelated form, so
that the identity of the particular employers who furnished
the specific information cannot be determined?
2. Assuming that question I is answered in the affirma-
tive, is it a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act for the
Respondent to refuse to furnish the data in correlated form
so that the particular information furnished by each em-
ployer can be identified?
The original complaint issued September 19, 1969 alleg-
ed:
9. On or about April 4, 1969 the Union requested of
Respondent all data derived from a wage survey con-
ducted by Respondent in the Seattle area for work
comparable to that performed by the employees in the
[bargaining unit represented by the Union].
10. Commencing on or about April 4, 1969, and at all
times since Respondent has refused the Union's re-
quests for information described above in paragraph 9.
In its answer filed October 13, Respondent admitted all
the factual allegations of the complaint including those
numbered 9 and 10, supra, but denied that its conduct con-
stituted an unfair labor practice. Thereupon the General
Counsel filed a motion for j udgment on the pleadings and
the Respondent filed a reply and a counter motion to dis-
miss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Trial Examiner Miller, by telegraphic Order on November
4, 1969, ruled:
(2) RE COMPLAINT PARAGRAPH 9 RESPONDENT DECLARES
WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE DATA DERIVED FROM SEATTLE AREA
WAGE SURVEY TOGETHER WITH NAMES OF FIRMS PROVIDING
SUCH DATA, BUT REJECTS CLAIMED UNION DEMANDS THAT PAR-
TICULAR EMPLOYER SOURCE BE DESIGNATED FOR EACH SEG-
MENT OF WAGE DATA SUPPLIED RESPONDENT CONTENDS NO
1 Post-hearing motions to correct the stenographic transcript are granted.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 923
RELEVANT BOARD OR COURT PRECEDENT REQUIRES CORRELA-
TION BETWEEN WAGE DATA SUPPLIED AND PARTICULAR DATA'S
SOURCE FURTHER NOTES NO CONTENTION MADE AND NO PROOF
SUPPLIED THAT UNION WILL NEED SUCH CORRELATION TO BAR-
GAIN INTELLIGENTLY RESPONDENT THEREFORE , MOVES FOR DIS-
MISSAL WITH RESPECT TO FURNISHING OF WAGE DATA DERIVED
FROM AREA SURVEY GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION AND
RESPONDENT 'S CROSS-MOTION HEREBY DENIED ON FOLLOWING
GROUNDS (2) SHOULD GENERAL COUNSEL UNDER CIRCUM-
STANCES OF THIS CASE, CONSIDER RESPONDENTS WILLINGNESS
TO PROVIDE AREA SURVEY WAGE DATA PLUS UNCORRELATED
NAMES OF EMPLOYERS WHO SUPPLIED DATA , INSUFFICIENT TO
SATISFY RESPONDENTS STATUTORY OBLIGATION , HEARING WILL
BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH FACTUAL BASIS , IF ANY , FOR CLAIM
THAT CORRELATION IS NECESSARY FOR UNION TO BARGAIN IN-
TELLIGENTLY
On January 28, 1970 the complaint was amended by sub-
stituting for its original paragraph 10 the following:
10. Commencing on or about April 4, 1969 and at all
times since , Respondent has refused the Union's re-
quests for information described ab=anaragraph 9,
including Respondent's continued d failure
to furnish the Union with the complete results of the
area survey described above in paragraph 9, including
the names of all companies surveyed and the identifica-
tion of each wage rate and j ob classification with the
particular company from which the information was
obtained, said information being necessary and rele-
vant to the Union 's function as exclusive bargaining
representative.
Respondent answered on February 9, 1970:
(b) Respondent denies the allegation of amended para-
graph 10 that Respondent has refused to furnish the
Union with the results of the area wage survey de-
scribed in paragraph 9, including the names of the r
companies surveyed.
(c) Respondent admits as alleged in amended para-
graph 10 , that Respondent has refused to identify each
wage rate and job classification with the particular
company from which the information was obtained,
but denies that said identification is necessary to the
Union's function as exclusive bargaining representa-
tive.
At the opening of the hearing before me on April 7, 1970,
counsel for Respondent withdrew its offer to supply to the
Union uncorrelated data and the issues first above -stated
were joined.
B. Factual Evidence
The working conditions and wages generally of employ-
ees of Respondent represented by the Union are governed
by a National Agreement. Wages of employees in individual
plants and facilities are set by local negotiations and incor-
porated in Supplemental Agreements. The National Agree-
ment effective from October 3, 1966, through October 26,
1969, lists 67 local unions at 107 locations as bound thereby.
Local 1002 represents the approximately 100 production
and maintenance employees at Respondent's Apparatus
Service Shop and Aircraft Service Shop in Seattle and is
party to a upplemental Agreement with Respondent.
In 1968 there was general dissatisfaction among the ap-
proximately 15 machinists in the Aircraft Service Shop
grounded in the belief that their wages were lower than
those of other machinists doing comparable work in the
area. This dissatisfaction was made known to their union
representatives and to local management . In late October
1968 the manager of the Aircraft Service Shop, Mr. Jurrens,
met with his employees. Charles Callow, manager of ac-
counting operations, was present. Mr. Jurrens announced
that he had conducted an area wage survey which showed
that the aircraft machinists were below the area scale and
had sent the survey "back East" for evaluation. Jurrens was
sure that a raise would come out of this survey, that the raise
would be retroactive to September 30, 1969, and that if the
raise was not forthcoming Jurrens would leave General
Electric. Mr. Callow questioned the date of September 30,
and Jurrens replied: "I said September 30th and that's what
I mean."
In March 1969 Aris Modon, employed by Respondent as
employee relations representative in the aviation service de-
partment in Ontario, California, was instructed by his supe-
nor, Mike Moore, in Ohio, to make a wage survey in the
Seattle area. Modon was furnished by Moore with a list of
the names of approximately 10 companies, a list of classifi-
cations, ob descriptions, and forms. Modon on his arrival
in Seattle obtained from local management the current
wage scales for machinists and laborers. He did not consult
with the people in the shop to determine whether the job
descriptions supplied by Moore were accurate or to ascer-
tain the local interpretation of the words used in the descrip-
tions. Modon describing his procedure testified:
[Moore] had given me a list of companies in the Seattle
area and I used the list and obtained the telephone
numbers and started to call them ... I called them and
told them by name, I told them where I was from, that
I was with General Electric Company and that I would
like to talk to them concerning a wage sruvey .... Some
people did not want to give me the information so I
would simply go to the next one.
When I called every company to start with, I would say
something like, "My name is Ans Modon. I am with
General Electric in Ontario, but I am here in Seattle on
an area survey. I would like to chat with you concern-
ing some jobs you have and I will keep the information
confidential and we will use it for our own purposes."
This is about what I told all of them.
Five companies agreed to supply information. These were
Stetson Ross Machine Company, Marine Systems Center of
Honeywell Inc., a .k.a. Minneapolis Honeywell, John Fluke
Manufacturing Company, United Control Corporation,
and Smith Williston. Each was told that the information
would be kept confidential. When Modon was asked by
these companies to state the purpose of the survey his only
reply was, "It was for our own use." The purpose was never
stated to Modon by any of his superiors. Modon then called
personally on the individuals who had agreed to supply
information. Modon testified:
I had a form with many blanks on it and it described
or namedjobs such as janitor or maintenancemen, ma-
chine operators in the various types such as lathe, mill-
ing machine, boring machine et cetera. In addition to
that, I had a set of job descriptions and what I did was
explain to the individual I was talking with , "Here's a
job description," I would read it to them, and then he
would explain how he had a job that maybe wasn't the
same name, but it was the same work. For instance, on
a janitor, he might have called him a laborer or some-
thing like that so we made sure we had what both of
us felt was a proper fit, one job matched the other.
Then I would ask him what the rates of pay were.
Upon completing this survey, Modon sent one copy to
Mike Moore in Ohio and one copy to the office of Respon-
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent on Lexington Avenue in New York City . Respondent
sent the results of this survey to Washington Employers
Inc., which represents employers (not including Respon-
dent) in collective bargaining with unions in the Seattle
Area . Respondent placed no restriction on the use or dis-
semination of this material by Washington Employers Inc.
At a grievance meeting on April 4, 1969, Jurrens an-
nounced-that the public relations people out of Schenectady
had conducted an area wage survey . Charles Pearce, the
Union's International representative , asked for a copy. Jur-
rens looked at John Billings , manager of Respondent's Se-
attle Apparatus Service Shop , and replied that he did not see
any problem , but they would have to check with Mr. Eaken,
Respondent's public relations man in Schenectady.
Under date of April 29 , Billings wrote to the Union:
Mr. Douglas Lochrie , President
I.U.E.-Local 1022
Re: Verbal Request April 4 for copy of survey
Dear Sir:
We have never used wage survey data to defend or
support our rates of pay. - Therefore, the request is de-
nied.
On May 1, 1969, the Union filed a formal grievance recit-
ing:
NATURE OF GRIEVANCE: Violation of GE-IUE
National
Agreement 1966-1969
Under the provisions of Article I the Local has request-
ed that they be furnished a copy of the area wage
survey that has been conducted which we feel would be
necessary for the purpose of collective bargaining for
the people in the Local with respect to their rates of
pay.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
That the company furnish the Local with a copy of the
survey within a reasonable length of time.
"WRITTEN REPLY REQUESTED"
The written reply of Billings dated May 15, 1969,was:
Dear Sir: Ile : Second Step Grievance B-3-69 dated
5-1-69
We have never used wage survey data to defend or
support our rates of pay. Therefore , the request is de-
nied
Negotiations for a new National Agreement began in
May 1969, and were concluded in February, 1970, being
punctuated by a nationwide strike called October 27, 1969.
C. Arguments of Counsel and Opinion
Testimony in Support Thereof
1. Argument of the General Counsel
a. The issue of Respondent's obligation to provide the
Union with uncorrelated wage survey information has been
resolved by the Board in General Electric Company (Hicko-
ry, N.C.) 173 NLRB 164, enfd. 414 F.2d 918 (C.A. 4). "The
Hickory case involved the filing of a wage grievance by the
Union, claiming that certain unit employees were under-
paid. The instant fact situation involves the Union's attempt
to prepare itself for local negotiations on a similar issue. If
the company is obligated to furnish the survey data along
with a separate list of employers surveyed in the grievance
situation , a fortiori, it has the same , if not greater , obligation
to furnish the Union with the uncorrelated survey data for
contract negotiation purposes . Whitin Machine Works, 108
NLRB 1537, enfd . 217 F.2d 593 (C.A. 5); Avco Mfg. Corp.,
Ill NLRB 729."
General Electric conducts area surveys to determine
whether its local wage structure is in line with community
standards . "The position General Electric would take at the
local negotiations in Seattle (whether to adjust the wage rate
and, if so , how much) would be determined , to a large
extent , by the data derived from its Seattle area survey. In
order for the Local to intelligently assess General Electric's
position , it has to be able to study the survey to determine
if the data Respondent relied on were correct and valid
indices of the community standards ." Thus , insofar as un-
correlated date is concerned , the need is obvious , the obliga-
tion is plain and the violation of Section 8(a)(5) is clear.
b. "General Electric makes area surveys in order for it to
set the wage scales in the community where the survey is
taken ... in other cases involving the same parties the
established evidence showed that the area wage survey is a
determinant in the company 's establishing and adjusting
local wage scales .General Electric Company, Battery Prod-
ucts, Capacitator Department, 163 NLRB 198, 212. Because
of Respondent 's reliance on the contents of its area wage
survey in determining what its local wage scales will be, or,
whether it will offer to adjust allegedly low wage scales will
be, or whether it will ol'lfer to adjust allegedly low wage
scales , it is imperative that the company relied on . Without
being able to do so , the Union is at an unjustifiable disad-
vantage . Its ability to protect the interests of the unit em-
ployees and bargain intelligent ly on their behalf is
immeasurably thwarted." The need for correlation is dem-
onstrated by the following testimony:
Douglas Lochrie, president of Local 1002.
Q. (By Mr. Janowitz) If the information from this
survey was given to you in such a form that you could
not identify which information came from which sur-
veyed employer ... would this be of any use to the
Union?
A. No, it wouldn 't because if it wasn 't correlated it
wouldn 't tell us what job qualifications [these employ-
ees] were in . Some employees have a job classification
for one type of work or another type and we would
have to know.
Charles Pearce, International representative , I.U.E.
Q. (By Mr. Janowitz) Why is it necessary that this
area wage survey information be correlated?
A. First it has to be made sure that we have the
correct job classification in relationship to the Local
1002's jobs , to see if it is correct, the job classifications,
titles , work loads and what have you.
s
A. Well, I can't intelligently take a piece of paper
that shows $2.90 an hour, $3 an hour, and $4 an hour
without knowing what classification, what shop that
comes from, because it varies when you are trying to
get an intelligent approach on your job data to know
exactly what these jobs were doing and the relationship
to it. I had to have this to make sure it was correct to
determine that these wage rates at General Electric
were correct.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 925
Austin Brewin, consultant with I.U.E. conference
board, and member of the national negotiating com-
mittee.
A....The uncorrelated information is absolutely no
use .... It is an exercise in futility, it is valueless, it just
doesn't have any value.
s s s s
Q. (By Mr. Janowitz) Now getting back to this opin-
ion of yours as to why this noncorrelated information
is of limited value to the union, could you explain in
greater detail why?
A. Unless you know exactly what the job you are
talking about that you are using for a comparison to
establish the equity of the rate is on a community basis,
unless you know that, there isn't any way you can use
the information effectively. Unless you know, for ex-
ample, in a community where you have a very high
paying employer because he is in that kind of business,
or he is paying high rates because they have a national
rate agreement in his industry and they pay the same
rates, unless you know these things there isn't any way
that you can be sure that the person who conducted the
survey for General Electric Company wasn't selective
in the comparisons he used. There isn't any way that
anybody with any expertise in the wage rate business,
including myself, couldn't go out and make a survey
that would bring home to me exactly the goals that I
set for myself before I started it. To effectively repre-
sent people as the union does, you have to make sure
that this hasn't been done. You might want to make
sure for example that in this area Boeing hasn't been
overlooked in a great many of its classifcations.
Q. So if a separate list of employers was given to the
union with the name "Boeing" on it, and separate
sheets of paper including, say, classifications and
average rates without knowing which one came from
Boeing, would this be of any use?
A. No. it wouldn't.
Q. That would be of no use to the Local?
A. No use at all. Furthermore, information from
Boeing, for example, on the machinists, if Boeing pro-
vided General Electric with that information, it is val-
ueless for them unless they know exactly what that
machinist's operation is. There are a variety of machin-
ists operations, I am sure, at Boeing. There are proba-
N a hundred who have different fob requirements
who are called "machinists", as there are in the General
Electric Company. This information wouldn't be val-
uable to them unless they knew exactly what the job
requirements are, how heavy or how dangerous, how
good the working conditions are, all the things that will
go into making up a rate. There may be 20 factors and
without that information and without being able to
check that information accurately, you can't accurate-
ly, you can't effectively do the job that somebody in the
company did with all the information that they get, all
the information that is used. They may have eliminated
a lot of information that came in to them, but for the
information they used, they had it all, and I can't, or
any other IUE representative can't effectively compete
with them in setting rate equities without the same
knowledge that produced that rate.
Salvator Ciciarelli, manager of employee relations,
Manufacturers Association of Syracuse, New York.
Q. (By Mr. Mackenzie) Would you describe the steps
that are taken in order to make these evaluations?
A. Well, first, you have to carefully review the de-
scri tions as a starting point, and then to make the final
test think you have to actually review the jobs and the
companies to be sure that they actually match the de-
scription. The reason I say this, if I may, no two people
interpret descriptions exactly the same . There has to be
a complete meeting of the minds and often it has to be
determined on the job through actual inspection.
Q. Then, it's determined solely from comparison of
job descriptions?
A. I do not think so.
Q. What are the sources of information to make
accurate evaluations?
A. I think you have to go directly to the employers.
H. G. Hailey, president of Washington Employers, Inc.
Q. (By Mr. Mackenzie) How do you make sure when
you are making wage surveys that the information you
receive from different employers is given on a compa-
rable basis?
A. Most surveys, and all surveys in our own instance
are based upon job descriptions to which we expect and
so far as we know the companies that participate do
adhere to job descriptions and it is important that they
must be in accordance with certain job descriptions,
otherwise you might be comparing apples with oranges
rather than apples with apples.
Q. If you suspect that a company is not giving you
information that's accurate in this respect, what means
are available to you to check and find out whether
that's so?
A. Ask the company.
Q. Is there any other wa to find out?
A. Practically speaking, from our point of view, no.
You could check with the employees, but that's not a
practical procedure.
c. General Counsel does not believe that the testimony
establishes that at the time the survey was taken, the firms
surveyed entered into any agreement with Respondent that
that data would be kept confidential." Billings made no
such claim in his two replies to the Union. The information
was not in fact confidential. "Respondent made this survey
available to an employer association in Seattle without men-
tioning a word about its confidential status." Confidentiali-
ty is not a defense to the Union's right to relevant
information. Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation, 110
NLRB 2097, enfd. 223 F.2d 55 (C.A. 1); Curtiss-Wright
Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152,
enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3). "Respondent has the correlated
information. It knows the job classifications, job descri -
tions and wage scales of each surveyed firm. In this case the
Union is merely requesting the same information received
by Respondent." The McCulloch case (132 NLRB 201) sus-
tains the General Counsel's position that the Union has a
right to the correlated survey information.
2. Argument of counsel for Respondent
a. "It is not an unfair labor practice to refuse to furnish
a local union information derived from a wage survey, when
that information has not been used to set rates or to justify
or defend the employer's position in any local negotiations
. Here, the survey was not used to set rates or to defend
them. There is nothing about the survey which the Union
needs to refute. There is no testimony that it was ever used
by the company in setting local wage rates or in justifying
them or to support any company position in any negotia-
tions or in the grievance procedure..... It was an abbreviat-
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed survey of five companies requested by the company's
public relations people , and not by any-
one having responsibility for wage matters at the Seattle
shop .... The company in some cases uses area wage
surveys to set and adjust rates , but it should be emphasized
that there is no evidence that this survey was so used , or that
any Seattle survey was so used.
`It would be a new principle to hold that information not
related to the employees in the bargaining unit and not used
in negotiations must be disclosed to the union sim .ply be-
cause the employer possesses it. If this were the ru, then
a union could properly demand of an employer in advance
of negotiations all information possessed by the employ-
er which might conceivably relate to any bargainable issue
. Such a rule would be unworkable and undesirable and
it certainly would go beyond any current holding of the
Board or of the courts."
b. "In order to obtain the cooperation of the five employ-
ers who participated in the survey of March , 1969, the Res-
gondent promised each of them that its information would
be held confidential . This promise was not made to thwart
Local 1002's efforts to obtain the information , but was an
essential condition to the Company's obtaining it. Some
participants carefully insisted that this pledge be made and
it is clear that most of them , if not all , would have refused
to participate had the promise not been made . Representa-
tives of four of the companies surveyed ... testified ... that
in the future they would not give the Company any wage
information if it is not to be held in confidence . Organiza-
tions engaged in obtaining wage information uniformly as-
sure their informants that its confidential nature will be
respected . The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics assures its
informants:
Information reported on this form is strictly confiden-
tial, and will be seen only by sworn employees of the
Bureau .... It will not be revealed to any other person
or agency nor published in such a manner that data
relating to an individual company can be identified.
Mr. Ciciarelli and Mr . Hailey described the elaborate pre-
cautions taken by their organizations to ensure that data
relating to an individual company could not be identified in
any of their wage surveys and Ciciarelli testified that in his
opinion he would be out of the survey business if the specific
information were not kept confidential.
"These instances show the essential nature of the pledge
of confidentiality in wage survey cases . To force the Com-
pany to disregard its pledge will unquestionably foreclose
this source of information to both the company and Local
1002 for the future ... both unions and employers find wage
survey information extremely helpful . The president of Lo-
cal 1002 testified that the union occasionally makes surveys
for its own information , and the testimony of Mr . Ciciarelli
and Mr. Hailey shows that employer representatives find
wage survey data a helpful and sometimes indispensable aid
to intelligent collective bargaining . While the wage survey
in the present case was not used by the Company in negotia-
tions, it has done so in other cases , and it is clear that many
other companies do so. Any ruling in the present case which
has an adverse effect on the availability of such information
will impede intelligent collective bargaining , and will in-
crease the uncertainty and difficulty of the negotiating proc-
ess. It will increase the opportunity for disagreements and
strikes based on incomplete information or misunderstand-
ing, and will thwart the purposes of the National Labor
Relations Act having to do with stability in industrial rela-
tions."
c. "The union does not need `correlated' information in
order to use wage survey data intelligently ... the union
witnesses admitted that it is necessary to compare work
loads, type of work , responsibility , hazards and working
conditions in general , in order to determine whether two
jobs have been properly compared .... These factors, and
particularly the skill required , are far more significant than
the particular company or the particular industry in which
a man works ... to evaluate information obtained in a wage
survey it is necessary to talk to people, either employers or
employees having knowledge of the above factors . . . a
union can make this kind of a check if it knows simply the
names of the companies surveyed and the classifications of
employees from those companies included in the survey.
With that information alone , discussions with management
representatives or with employees who know the job con-
tents and job rates (if such discussions can be arranged) will
permit the union to determine the accuracy of the informa-
tion obtained and whether or not various job classifications
have been properly compared . On the other hand , if such
discussions cannot be arranged or if this kind of checking
is not actually made by the union , furnishing of correlated
information will not in itself disclose either the accuracy or
inaccuracy of the information . Nor will it disclose proper or
improper comparison of various job classifications. In
short, correlation really isn't needed."
d. "There is no [Court or Board] precedent for requiring
correlation of wage survey information , where the informa-
tion has been obtained under a promise of confidence. The
cases all require , and particularly so in a case where the facts
are similar to this one , [Montgomery Ward & Co., 39 NLRB
2291 a holding that correlation is not required."
D. Conclusions
"There can be no question of the general obligation of an
employer to provide information that is needed by the bar-
gainin^ representative for the proper performance of its
duties.' N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co ., 385 U.S. 432,435-
436. The sole criterion for determining whether information
must be produced is its relevance , or reasonable necessity,
for the union 's proper performance of its representative
role. This is true whatever the nature of the material sought.
Information directly related to wages , hours, or other terms
and conditions of employment is 'presum lively relevant"
to the union 's representative duties : such information is
prima facie, required to be produced ; "the employer bears
the burden of showing lack of relevance." The Prudential
Insurance Co. v. N.LR.B., 412 F .2d 77, 84 (C.A. 2), cert.
den. 396 U .S. 928.
Here relevance is demonstrated by the circumstances that
negotiations for a new contract were about to begin, that
wages paid to comparable employees of other employers in
the area are a factor in determining bargaining unit wages,
and that wage surveys are a customary , if not an indispensi-
ble, tool of the bargainers.
The defense of confidentiality cannot prevail against the
obligation of the employer to reveal relevant information.
The Ingalls Shipbuilding Co oration 143 NLRB 712, 717;
California Portland Cement Co., 101 NLRB 1436. There is
no evidence that Modon was authorized or instructed to
make any pledge of confidence . There is no evidence that
Modon informed his superiors that any such pledge had
been given . Respondent's conduct in sending a copy of the
survey to Washington Employers , Inc., raises a strong infer-
ence that Respondent was unaware of the promises made by
Modon, and did not regard the information as being in any
sense confidential . Billings ' denial of the union 's request, on
the sole ground that "we have never used wage survey data
to defend or support our rates of pay ," is wholly consistent
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 927
with this inference . Revelation of these data to Washington
Employers Inc. was not, so far as appears in this record,
regarded as any breach of confidence by Respondent's in-
formants . I find that the uncorrelated data supplied to
Washington Employers Inc. by Respondent is not confiden-
tial information and there is no excuse in law or in morals
for Respondent's refusal to give the Union the same mfor-
mation . I further find that on this record , the necessity for
correlation has not been shown.
Respondent's primary reason for refusal of information,
i.e., that the data-had not been used in collective bargaining,
is not persuasive . The information is presumptively and
demonstratably relevant and the Union 's right to obtain this
information is settled by decisions of the United States Su-
preme Court.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above , occur-
ring in connection with the operations of Respondent de-
scnlied above , have a close , intimate and substantial
relation to trade , traffic and commerce among the several
States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices. It will therefore be recommended
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the Recommended Order below,
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Electric Company is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act enaped in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of General
Electric Company at its Apparatus and Aircraft Service
Shops in Seattle, Washington, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC has been at all times material
herein and is now the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after April 29, 1969, to furnish to
the Union data derived from a wage survey conducted by
Respondent in the Seattle area, Respondent has engaged in
and is engagin in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section aging and (1) of the Act.