General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 911 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (DOVER WIRE)
General Electric Company (Dover Wire and Fabrica-
tion Operation) and International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 705 . Case 8-CA-
5418
March 9, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
JENKINS
On March 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Wellington A.
Gillis issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro=
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged
in the alleged unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
The General Counsel and Charging Party filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs and Respondent filed an
answering brief. Thereafter, the Board consolidated
this matter for purposes of oral argument with two
other cases involving the same issues-General Elec-
tric Co. (Rome), 10-CA-7668,' and General Electric
(Seattle), Case 19-CA-4458.12 The three were heard
for oral argument on October 5, 1970.
Pursuant to the provisions of 3(b) this case was
delegated to a three-member panel which 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 and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner finds Respondent did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when, while furnishing the
Charging Party with certain wage information
compiled in a wage survey, it refused to correlate such
data with the specific companies used in the survey.
We do not agree. The facts are fully set forth by the
Trial Examiner and are not in dispute. Briefly summa-
rized the facts are as follows. Respondent's employees
at all pertinent times have been covered by a National
Agreement between Respondent and the Internation-
al providing that wage rates are subject to local nego-
tiations and that local conditions are to be considered.
In September 1968, the Charging Party filed a griev-
ance in which it stated it "protests the improper wages
1 184 NLRB No 45, before the Board on a motion for reconsideration,
dismissed this date . 188 NLRB No. 106.
2 Decision issued this date , 188 NLRB No 107
911
paid by the Company to the area wages." As part of
its grievance the Charging Party requested the Com-
pany to make an area wage survey and supply the
material to the Union. Respondent initially refused to
make such a survey, contending there was nothing to
indicate its rates were not competitive. The Union
then made its own survey. This survey indicated the
Respondent was competitive in certain areas, but that
in the middle and bottom layers the Respondent was
not competitive. Thereafter, the Respondent agreed
to, and did, make a survey with respect to the rates of
pay at the lower end of the structure, specifically light
assembly and janitorial jobs. The Respondent, over a
period of time, supplied the Charging Party with most
of the information it had gathered in that survey,
including the names of the companies surveyed, the
average wage for each job for all companies surveyed,
the high and low average for each job, the average at
Respondent's plant, and the total number of light
assembly employees surveyed? Finally, Respondent
also produced a list of the individual averages for the
plants surveyed, but refused to correlate the average
with the plant it applied to on the grounds that the
information was obtained in confidence. It is this re-
fusal with which we are concerned herein.
The Trial Examiner finds that the General Counsel
has failed to show that such a correlation was relevant
or necessary to the Union's intelligent processing of
its grievance and on that basis recommended that this
allegation of the complaint be dismissed. We disagree.
One of the functions of a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative is the intelligent evaluation of the employer's
collective-bargaining positions. Employers, in assert-
ing their position, frequently rely on data in their
possession. The ability of the collective-bargain-
ing representative to evaluate the position taken in
those cases is dependent on its ability to evaluate that
data." Thus, this supporting data is clearly relevant.
Therefore, the employer is obligated, upon request, to
furnish this data. In this case the Respondent relied
on wage survey information in its possession as one
of the bases for rejecting the Charging Party's griev-
ance. Having done so, it was obligated to comply with
the Charging Party's requests for such data.
Respondent's failure to supply part of the data, name-
ly the correlation of the specific plant surveyed with
the specific average, constitutes an unlawful refusal to
supply relevant data in violation of that obligation.
The Respondent urged with considerable force,
both in its brief and at oral argument, that notwith-
standing well-established precedents which would re-
quire disclosure, the Board should here permit
3 The Union, although initially claiming the janitors were not being proper-
ly paid, later limited its protests to the light assembly employees , apparently
abandoning any claims with respect to the janitorial employees.
N L R B v True Manufacturing Co, 351 U S. 149
188 NLRB No. 105
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nondisclosure because the subject wage data were se-
cured from other employers under pledge that they
would be kept confidential. We considered and reject-
ed that assertion in our earlier decision in General
Electric Co., 184 NLRB No. 45, a closely similar case
which arose at Respondent's Rome, Georgia, plant.
We are unpersuaded by Respondent's argument and
the arguments advanced by amici curiae' that disclo-
sure of the data here at issue will inhibit future collec-
tion of such data and deprive employers generally of
access to accurate information concerning local wage
standards.
First, it should be noted that our Order requires
disclosure only of such data as may be in
Respondent's possession . That is, if Respondent had
here relied, or should hereafter rely, on area wage data
which does not disclose to Respondent the identity of
other employers surveyed, Respondent would be un-
der no duty to determine questions of identity, or to
furnish such identifications to the representative of its
employees.
Secondly, we are not here interpreting the Act to
require all employers in all factual situations to dis-
close correlated wage survey data. Our decision is
limited to the facts here present, where the Respon-
dent has acknowledged a well-established policy of
relying on such surveys, and where it conducted the
survey pursuant to that policy. Thus, in the bargaining
context here presented, Respondent has demon-
strated without question its own reliance on the data.
Under these circumstances, the Act does not counte-
nance the failure to disclose a relevant part of the
information upon which Respondent itself conceded-
ly relied as to the matter at issue between the parties.
Accordingly we here find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to fur-
nish to the Union the area wage survey information
which it possessed and upon which it relied, and we
shall order the Respondent to furnish that informa-
tion.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, General Electric Company
(Dover Wire and Fabrication Operation), is engaged
in 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, and its Local 705
s In General Electric Co. (Rome), Case 10-CA-7668.
6 Respondent has stated in its beef to the Board and in its oral argument,
in the presence of and without challenge from counsel for General Counsel
or the Charging Party, that Respondent has supplied the names and address-
es of all unit personnel to the Charging Party . We find , therefore, that no
useful purpose would be served by passing on the allegations that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) by fading to. supply these names and
addresses
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing the Union's request for correlated
information concerning its area wage survey, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent, General Elec-
tric Company, has engaged in violations of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease
and desist from such unfair labor practices and to
take certain affirmative action necessary to remove
the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
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, Dover, Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 705, as the
statutory bargaining representative of the production
and maintenance employees at its plant at Dover,
Ohio, by refusing to furnish the Union with correlated
information concerning the Respondent's area wage
surveys.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with
the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it
in behalf of the production and maintenance employ-
ees at the Dover, Ohio, plant.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request furnish to the Union correlated
information concerning the Respondent 's area wage
surveys and other information necessary to enable the
Union to bargain intelligently on rates of pay at the
Dover, Ohio, plant.
(b) Post at its office and plant at Dover, Ohio, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by
r In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall 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 "
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (DOVER WIRE)
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be post-
ed by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency 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 705 by refusing to furnish the Union with
correlated information concerning our wage sur-
veys.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with the efforts of the Union to bargain
collectively with it in behalf of the production
and maintenance employees at the Dover, Ohio,
plant.
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, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240
913
East Ninth Street , Cleveland , Ohio 44199 , Telephone
216-522-3715.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS. Trial Examiner: This case was
heard by me at New Philadelphia, Ohio, and is based on a
charge filed on April 7, 1969, by International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC
and its Local 705, hereinafter referred to jointly as the Un-
ion, upon a complaint, issued on May 20, 1969, by the
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter referred to as the Board, and amended at the
hearing, against General Electric Company (Dover Wire
and Fabrication Operation) hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent or the Company, alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), and upon
an answer timely filed by the Respondent denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues and to engage in oral argument. Subsequent to the
close of the hearing, timely briefs were filed by all parties.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from myy observa-
tion of the witnesses , and their demeanor on the witness
stand, and upon substantial, reliable evidence "considered
along with the consistency and inherent probability of testi-
mony" (Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.)?.B., 340 U.S. 474,
496), I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, operates a
plant at Dover, Ohio, known as the Dover Wire and Fab-
rication Operation, where it is engaged in the manufacture
of molybdenum and fabricated molybdenum parts for lamp
and electronic industries. During the course of such bus-
iness, the Respondent annually ships from its plant in Do-
ver, Ohio, directly to oints located outside the State of
Ohio, products valuedpin excess of $50,000. The parties
admit and I find that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I find , that International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC,
and Local 705 of International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Issues
1. Whether, in furnishing the Union with certain wage
information compiled in a spot wage survey but refusing to
correlate such data with specific companies used in the
survey, the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
2. Whether, in refusing to furnish the Union with the
addresses of certain employees, the Respondent engaged in
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act.
Facts
A. Wage Survey
Since April 1967, and continuing to date , the Union has
been the exclusive bargaining representative for the
Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its
Dover Wire plant in Dover, Ohio , representing odappproxi-
mately 180 employees in the unit . During this these
employees , all of whom are hourly rated , have been covered
by a National Agreement previously executed on October
28, 1966 between the International Union and the Respon-
dent . This agreement , which contains a checkoff clause but
no union-security provisions, provides under article VI that:
1. Any question which affects hourly rates , piece-work
rates or salary rates of individuals or groups shall be
subject to negotiation between the Local and the local
Management.
5. The Union and the Locals recognize that starting
rates and job rates for hourly rated and salaried em-
ployees vary , depending on the job , its location and its
surrounding circumstances.
Following a meeting of union officials in mid -September
1968,1 wherein the subject of area wages was discussed, the
Union filed with the
subject
on September 20 a griev-
ance in which it "protests the improper wages paid by the
Company to the area wages ." The Union, as part of the
grievance , requested that a survey be taken by the Company
and that the material be made available to the Union. Pur-
suant to this , representatives of the Union and the Respon-
dent met briefly on September 30, during which Emmett
Schide , president of Local 705 , asked Harold Ramsey,
Respondent 's employee-company relations supervisor,
whether the Company had considered making an area wage
survey . Ramsey stated that nothing had been done on it and
agreed to look into the matter.
At a scheduled meeting on October 15 at the Company
plant, held to consider a second step grievance on the sub-
ject , with Ramsey and company official Lawrence Dingle
present for the Respondent and Schide , Paul Rinaldi, Lola
Shear, Robert Mears , and Mel Hart representing the Uni-
on,2 the Company was asked by Hart what it had decided
about making a wage survey . Dingle , who was the chief
spokesman for the Company , replied that the Dover Wire
plant was competitive and that they were not going to make
a survey unless the Union showed them that the Company
was not competitive . Dingle noted ' that the Union had not
given the Company any information to show that they were
not competitive , and asked the Union committee on what
it based its opinion that the Company rates were too low.
Rinaldi commented that new industry in the area and other
local wage adjustments caused the Company to be low.
Dingle pointed to the fact that the Company had no prob-
lem hiring employees , that its employee turnover was small,
and that wages at other plants as listed by emplo ee appli-
cants on their application forms supported the Company's
position that it was competitive .3 At this, Rinaldi told Din-
1 Unless otherwise noted, all dates hereinafter set forth refer to the fall of
1968 or to early 1969.
2 Rrnaldi is an International representative for the Union, and Shear and
Hart are Local 705's recording secretary and vice president, respectively
Robert Mears is chief steward for the Local
3 Dingle testified that he had several employee applications with him on
this occasion to which he made some reference . Rinaldi testified that, al-
though he did not know what Dmgle had on his desk, Dingle did not allude
to the fact that he had employee applications in front of him.
gle that the Union had planned to have such information at
that meeting , which information was based upon a recent
wage survey taken by the Union , but that the data had
mistakenly been left at home . When Rinaldi indicated that,
because of this , the Union was not prepared to discuss area
wages, it was agreed that another meeting would be sched-
uled.
At the next meeting, held on November I in' the plant
manager's office , with the same representatives present, the
Union provided the Company with certain information ob-
tained through its wage survey , specifically two or three
pages containing charts indicating the area companies used
with rates of pay for various jobs in each of the plants.4
According to the Union 's survey , which was based upon
plants within a 25-mile radius of Dover , the Company's
wages for certain skilled classifications at the top of the
ladder , such as maintenance people and electricians, were
competitive , but that in the middle and bottom layers of the
ladder the Company was not paying wages comparable to
other companies in the area.' Rinaldi testified that much of
the information was obtained from union contracts with the
companies , contracts which Rinaldi had with him at the
meeting, and which , inadvertently , he left behind . In reply
to the Union's request that the Company make a survey
with respect to rates of pa at the lower end of the structure,
such as assembly jobs and janitorial jobs , Dingle agreed that
the Company would make a spot check in this regard.
The wage survey issue was next discussed at a meeting
held on December 6, with much the same people present.
In reply to Schide's query as to whether the Cbmpany had
its wage survey completed , Ramsey replied in the affirma-
tive , with Dingle then giving the union the information.
Dine told the Union committee that compared with $2.64
per our for custodians at Dover , the average custodian
hourly rate at the other plants surveyed was $2 .69; that
compared with a $2.55 per hour average rate for light assem-
bly at Dover , the average light assembly hourly rate at the
other plants surveyed was $2.06. In reply to Rinaldi's ques-
tion as to what plants were surveyed , Ramsey replied, Joy
Manufacturing Company , Timken Bearing, Snyder , Sparta,
Miller and ALSCO. Then , in reply to Rinaldi as to what jobs
were used to determine light assembly , Ramsey replied, wire
drawing, winders , the magnet test job , cleaner job , machine
operator jobs , tungsten wire drawing jobs, quality control,
shag and weight , plating, and die repair . When Shears point-
ed out that t ese jobs were higher paying than light assem-
bly, particularly the die repair job, Ramsey replied that the
average rate was based upon the rates of all employees in
the classification.
At this point , when Rinaldi asked how many employees
were used in surveying the Joy Manufacturing plant, Dingle
replied that they were not going to tell him because that
information was confidential . Rinaldi then asked Dingle
what jobs at Joy were considered and what were the rates
of pay for the jobs . Dingle refused to give the information.
Similarly, Dingle refused to give an answer to Rinaldi's
question of how many employees and what jobs they per-
formed at what rates of pay for the other plants surveyed.
Dingle maintained that such information was confidential.
° Contrary to the testimony of Rinaldi, who was "sure we gave them
copies," Dingle testified that in discussing the union survey Rinaldi merely
read from papers he had and that Rinaldi gave the Company no papers of
an , kind
Companies used in the Union survey, in addition to the General Electric
Dover plant, were the IF. Manufacturing Company, the Joy Manufacturing
Company, Greer Company, the Marhte Company, all located in New Phila-
delphia , Ohio, the Warner-Swasey Company, and Reeves and Republic Steel
of Massillon , Ohio , all of which were under local union contract.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (DOVER WIRE)
When Rinaldi indicated that the Union wanted all of the
information the Company had gathered to determine the
rates in its survey in order that the Union could bargain
intelligently , and Dingle refused to give it to him, Rinaldi
replied that he had no choice but to file an unfair labor
practice charge . Dingle told him to go ahead , and that con-
cluded the meeting.
Dingle , in referring to this meeting , testified that this
survey was the result of a spot telephone check, and that
with respect to janitorial type employees , he presented to the
Union the names of 10 companies , gave the average rate
paid for all 10 companies forjamtorial employees, and then
gave the high and low rates for the 10 companies.6 With
respect to light assembly , according to Dingle , he gave the
Union the average rate for the seven companies used, in-
cluding the Dover GE plant , the high and the low rate for
the seven , and the approximate total number of employees
in the spot check . Dingle testified that the Union told him
that if he did not provide them with information as to the
average rate at each individual plant , it would file an unfair
labor practice charge.7
On January 14, 1969 , prior to another meeting with the
915
Company concerning the wage survey, the Union delivered
to Ramsey, who was in conference, a letter from Rinaldi
requesting, in order that the Union might intelligently pro-
cess its grievance on area wages , additional information
concerning the Company's wage survey.8 Within a half
hour, the Company and the Union committee met for a
meeting, which apparentl was cut short when Rinaldi
asked Ramsey if he had the information requested in his
letter of that date, and was told by Ramsey that he did not
have it at that time.
By letter to Rinaldi dated January 22, as corrected by
letter dated January 24, the Company stated that it did not
have all the information requested by the Union's letter of
January 14, but noted that it had already supplied the Un-
ion with the names of companies used in the survey with
respect to janitors and light assembly. Reiterating the fact
that it had given the Union the average rate for its own plant
for each group, the average for all the other companies
combined, the high and low for the other companies, and
roughly the number of employees in light assembly at the
other plants, the Company correspondence again set out the
figures as follows:
Janitor Light Assembly
Average at G. E.-Dover $2.64 $2.55
Average at other companies $2.59 (10) $2.06 (17)
Low $2.29 $1.85
High $2.85 $2.79
Number of ersons 630 640p --
The Company letter continued by stating the following:
While we do not think we are in any way obligated to
do so, the Company nevertheless is willing, entirely
without prejudice to its position with respect to the
charge or otherwise, to furnish you with average rates
its check disclosed for light assembly on plant basis
without disclosing which of the companies the rates
belonged to. If you are genuinely interested in pro-
cessingour grievance , we feel sure this will prove more
than adequate for your purposes.
On January 29, Rinaldi wrote to the Company complain-
ing that the Company's letter did not provide the Union
with the necessary information to process its grievance on
area wages, and specifically apprising the Company that its
offer to supply the Union with the average rate at each plant
without revealing which plant matched which average also
was unacceptable. After reiterating the seven items listed in
its earlier request for information , the letter concluded by
asking whether, if the Company were still unwilling to sup-
ply the information, the Company would agree to a joint
survey, with the Local 705 president and his chief steward
and two members of management delegated to resolve the
issue.
The Company replied to the letter on February 3, indica-
ting that much of the information requested had already
been supplied and that much the Company did not have.
6 According to Dingle , that was the last discussion ever had with the Union
concerning janitorial rates.
7 As Dingle testified that he assumed that the Union was satisfied with
his survey data concerning janitorial employees , it would follow that Dingle's
testimony as to the Union's threat here was confined to its request for greater
specificity as to light assembly information only.
8 The Union request asked for • ( 1) the number of employees in each plant
After making reference to the fact that the Regional Direc-
tor of the National Labor Relations Board had recently
dismissed the Union's unfair labor practice charge against
the Company, the letter noted that the Union' s letter was
being forwarded to the Company' s union relations section
at Nela Park, and that personnel there would be willing to
discuss the matter further at Dover if the Union so request-
ed.
By letter dated February 6, Rinaldi again informed the
Company that it had not supplied the data requested, again
asked for certain information concerning the Company's
Dover area wage survey, and threatened again to go to the
Labor Board unless the Company complied with the Union
request.
Subsequently, on February 18, the Company replied to
Rinaldi's February 6 letter , repeating that information
which the Company had already supplied, stating that, as
the Company survey was merely a telephone check with
little detail, the Company had no information on job titles
or specific assignments . In referring to the Company's let-
ters of January 22 and 24, and that portion where the Com-
pany offered to furnish the average rate disclosed by the
survey for light assembly for each plant without disclosing
the name of the plant the rate belongs to, the letter conclud-
ed by stating that the Company was still ready to furnish
this information and would be prepared to do so at the next
meeting in Dover if the Union desired.
used ; (2) the rate of pay and the plant worked in for each employee used,
(3) the job title, work assignment , and plant worked in for each employee
used, (4) the category each employee was placed in, (5) the status of each
employee used , i e, day work or piece work; (6) information as to how
employees in the surveyed plants were compared to employees in the General
Electric Dover plant, and (7) any other information used to establish area
rates for the Dover plant
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter the parties again met , on March 7, which
meeting was the last at which the wage survey matter was
discussed . After the meeting opened, and Rinaldi made
reference to the Company's offer to provide further infor-
mation, Dingle proceeded to furnish the Union with seven
individual rates representing the averages for light assembly
for each of the seven companies in the area , specifically
identifying which average was the Dover rate , and specifi-
cally naming each of the other six companies but without
identifying the other averages with the other companies in
the survey . When Rinaldi asked Dingle to identify each
average with a company , Dingle replied that he was not in
a position to do that since the data had been obtained under
confidential circumstances and was regarded as confiden-
tial information . Dingle continued by stating that if the
Company were to release such information it would not be
able to obtain this data in the future , thus preventing the
Company from making surveys or checks of this kind. After
it appeared that the Union was still dissatisfied with the
Company's refusal to release the information tying up the
average with the company for the other six companies, the
meeting ended on a rather discordant note.
B. Employee Addresses
At a meeting between the Union and Company repre-
sentatives on January 10, Schide asked Ramsey for a list of
names and addresses of all the employees in the bargaining
unit . Ramsey replied that the only access that the Company
had to these names was by way of an addressograph, and
that it would be a lot of extra work , that he did not think
it was necessary because the Union had a seniority list of
all employees . Schide , by letter dated February 6, requested
Ramsey to supply the Union with a list of addresses of all
production and maintenance employees covered by the
IUE contract , indicating therein that the last employee list
furnished the Union predated the April , 1967 election and
certification.
Finally , at a union management meeting held on March
18, Schide again asked the Company for a list of employee
names and addresses and was told that the Company did
not think it was necessary to show them this . Schide cited
for Ramsey's benefit a case in Indiana where , after repeated
requests for this information were turned down , the Union
filed charges with the Labor Board.
The above recitation comprises the sum total of the facts
concerning the Union's request for employee addresses. The
record evidence pertaining to the January 10 and March 18
verbal requests by Schide is based solely upon the testimony
of Shear , Local 705 's recording secretary, for Schide,
strangely enough , was not questioned concerning these two
incidents, nor was Ramsey or anyone from the Res pondent.
In an attempt to justify the charge in this regard, Rinaldi
on direct examination testified that of approximately 180
production and maintenance employees employed by the
Respondent , some 22 were not union members . In his at-
tempt , made after the filing of the charge herein , to locate
the addresses of these 22 employees , Rinaldi testified that
he checked three telephone books covering some 11 or 12
towns and three counties within a 25-mile radius of the plant
and could not find approximately 9 or 13 (Rinaldi could not
remember which) .9
Ramsey, while at no time questioned as to the Union's
request , testified that the Union initially , at the time of the
9Rinaldi's attempt to locate in this regard was made at the request of
counsel for the General Counsel, and was made a week before the hearing
in this matter
1967 election , had a list of all unit employees with addresses,
and that in May 1968 , he gave to thel.Jnion's chief steward,
Mears , a list of all new hires with addresses , bringing the list
up to date . Ramsey, shortly thereafter , told Mears that
thereafter the Company would not be furnishing the Union
with employee names and addresses , with which Mears
raised no objection.
Ramsey testified that as of April, 1969, 36 employees had
been hired since the April 1968 list was compiled , of which
number only 8 were not on dues checkoff with the Union.
The unrefuted testimony of Ramsey on this point further
indicates that Local 705 has an executive committee made
up of five officers , plus six union stewards , among the
Respondent 's employees , that all employees enter the
Company's plant through one entrance , that at no time
since the Union organized the plant had Ramsey observed
any handbills being passed out to employees , at the gate or
anywhere else, and that the Union 's stewards and commit-
tee officials are free to discuss union matters with employ-
ees, including new employees , during morning and
afternoon break periods and at lunch time.
Analysis and Conclusions
With respect to the wage survey issue , the amended com-
plaint alleges that since December 6, 1968 , the Respondent
has refused to bargain with the Union by failing to ' correla-
te information that has been supplied to the Umon pertain-
ing to a wage survey with the identity of the employers
surveyed" notwithstanding that such information is neces-
sary and relevant to the Union in its performance as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's
employees . While the complaint also asserted in this regard
the Respondent's refusal to inform the Union as to the
number of employees used in the survey with respect to each
employer surveyed, little if any mention was made of this
at the heanng , as pointed out by the Respondent in its brief,
this was never specifically demanded and, as posed to the
parties by the Trial Examiner at the commencement of the
heanng and conceded by the parties, the sum total of the
issue presented involved the Respondent 's refusal to correl-
ate the named employer with the named wage rate. Thus,
notwithstanding that the General Counsel and the Chargin g
Party in their respective briefs alluded to the number of
employees used , f find that matter was not litigated and
therefore the allegation to be without merit.
A discussion of the issue must be predicated upon the
recognition of certain established principles . Thus, the
Board and the courts have held that wage data and many
other types of economic information relating to wage rates
must be given by an employer to a union bargaining repre-
sentative in order to render collective bargaining effect-
ive.10 It is equally clear that a union 's request for wage data
is presumptively lawful and that the requesting union need
not revealthe precise relevancy of the data sought to specif-
ic bargaining issues being considered unless the employer
offers effective rebuttal on the matter.11
It has also been held that the argument that the data
sought is confidential cannot serve as a shield to protect an
employer from the consequences of his refusal to divulge
10 N L R B v Yawman & Erbe Mfg Co., 187 F 2d 947 (C.A 2); N.LR.B
v Northwestern Publishing Company, 343 F.2d 521 (C.A 7); N L R.B v
Western Wire Bound Box Co , 356 F 2d 88 (C A. 9), N. LR B. v . Truitt
Manufacturing Co, 351 U.S 149 , N L R B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 217
F.2d 593 (C.A. 4).
11 Boston Herald- Traveler Corp, 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).
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (DOVER WIRE)
such relevant information.12 However, the question is some-
what open as to whether these principles apply in a situation
such as is presented here where the data sought is not that
pertaining to the employer's own operations, but rather is
information obtained from other employers on the agree-
ment that such data will be kept confidential. In three paral-
lel decisions , but under circumstances differing somewhat
from those presented herem, the Board has dealt with the
question here presented. In General Electric, Batter Prod-
ucts Capacitator Department,13 where the Board found a
refusal to bargain violation, the employer, although relying
thereon, refused to give any information based upon its
wage survey, the employer made no claim that the informa-
tion was given in confidence, and the refusal to furnish such
information was a part of extensive unfair labor practices,
including an overall refusal to bargain in good faith on
wages . In General Electric Company, (Hickory, N. C.),14 in
finding unlawful other refusal to bargain conduct of the
employer, the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's finding
that the company violated Section 8(a)(5) "by refusing to
furnish the union with the names and jobs of area compa-
nies it had surveyed."'s
The precise correlation question with which we are here
confronted was left unanswered in General Electric Cot pa-
ny (Hickory) for, as noted by the Trial Examiner there, `the
record does not contain sufficient information for a deter-
mination whether the Company would satisfy its statutory
obligation by supplying the union with the names of the
companies surveyed and a list of the jobs compared, but not
correlating a job to a particular company." The Trial Exam-
iner, as dicta, added that "should such correlated informa-
tion be necessary for the intelligent processing of grievances
by the Union, the Company would not be warranted in
withholding it from the Union because it may have been
given such information on the understanding that it would
not be disclosed." Nor did the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals' amended decision, dated August 28, 1969, enforc-
ing the Board's decision in General Electric Company (Hick-
ory) require correlation of information pertaining to the
em loyer's job survey.
In another case , McCulloch Corporation,16 the employer
had presented to the union a wage proposal which was
based upon a survey of 29 companies, and thereafter re-
fused to correlate the rates paid by each of the companies
on the ground that the employer had promised that the
information would be kept confidential. The Board adopted
without discussion the finding of the Trial Examiner, which
finding had been based in part on the fact that such would
have involved a breach of confidence, that by refusing to so
identify the surveyed companies who paid identified wages
the employer "did not withhold information necessary for
the purposes of intelligently bargaining ... ," and accord-
ingly, did not engage in a refusal to bargain.
It would seem to me that one would be hard pressed to
find a violation on the facts of this case. Unlike other cases
where the company's wage survey was used as a basis for
setting its own wage rates, Respondent's action in making
a survey was prompted solely by the Union's request in
conjunction with the Union's grievance concerning wages.
12 Boston Herald-Traveler Corporation, Curtiss-Wright Corporation, supra
13 163 NLRB 198, enfd 400 F 2d 713 (C A. 5)
14 173 NLRB 164 , enfd . June 12, 1969, 71 LRRM 2562
15 Such finding was based upon the fact that the Company used the infor-
mation in setting its range of hourly rates and that the data had been a factor
in the Company decision to exclude certain employees from a general wage,
thus revealing the relevancy of such data to the Union's intelligent processing
of
1
grievances over wage rates
132 NLRB 201
917
The survey took the form of a spot telephone check, was
confined to a small number of area companies within a
25-mile radius , and was limited to data relating to janitorial
jobs and light assembly . The Respondent gave to the Union,
as far as can be determined , just about every piece of infor-
mation it had obtained through its limited survey , except
that revealing which rate was paid by which company, in-
formation which had been secured in confidence .' I am of
the opinion , and so find , that the General Counsel has not
shown that such correlation was relevant or necessary to the
Union's intelligent processing of its grievances.'s
As to the amended complaint allegation that since Janu-
ary 10, 1969 , the Respondent has refused the Union's re-
quest to be provided with the addresses of all unit
employees , the General Counsel contends that, because of
the difficulty in obtaining employees ' addresses through
normal channels , the Respondent's refusal to comply with
the Union's request violates Section 8(a)(5). The Respon-
dent , conceding that it did not accede to the Union 's request
in this regard , takes the position that no showing was made
that the addresses were in any way related to any matter of
representing the small unit or that they were in any way
needed in order for the Union to communicate with the
employees-that there was no showing of inadequacy of
existing avenues of communication.
It must be recognized that, under the Act, the Respon-
dent has a duty, upon request, to furnish the bargaining
agent all information that is relevant to a union 's perform-
ance of its statutory functions , and that this duty extends to
information which the bargaining representative needs to
administer its collective-bargaining contract, including the
processing of grievances . 19 Applying this mandate to the
issue at hand , the Board , in several recent cases, has found
a refusal-to-bargain violation in instances where a union's
request for employees' addresses was turned down by the
employer.20
in holding in Standard Oil that "once the relevance of the
information is established , the employer's good faith refusal
to supply it is not a defense," and applying the relevance test
to determine whether employers should be directed to make
available to unions the addresses of unit employees, the
Board observed that:
In this case the relevance of the unit employees' ad-
dress list is apparent from a comparison of the Union's
statutory duty of fair representation with the difficul-
ties it faced in attempting to reach those to whom it
owed such a duty . The Union's duty extends to non-
union unit employees as well as to union members.
Because of the relatively low union membership in the
unit , the absence of a union security clause in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement , the residential disper-
sion of unit employees over a five or six county area,
the apparent ineffectiveness of the steward system, the
lack of adequate exposure of unit employees to union
17 See Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, 96 NLRB 407 , wherein the
Board found an employer to have committed a refusal to bargain violation
in refusing to show the union a chart tabulating the results of an area wage
survey without identifying any of the employers , which "chart could have
been shown to the union without disclosing confidential data "
18 For a scholarly discussion of the precise issue here involved, ansing in
a case strikingly similar, see Trial Examiner George Bott's Decision in Gener-
al Electric Company (Rome, Ga) issued on October 16, 1969.
19 N L R B v Whitin Machine Works, supra, N L R. B. v. Yawman & Erbe
Mfg Co, supra, N L R B. v Truitt Manufacturing Co, supra; General Electric
Company, Battery Products Company, Capacitator Department, supra
20 Standard Oil Company of California, Western Operations, Inc, 166 NLRB
343, enfd 399 F 2d 639 (C A. 9), Prudential Insurance Company, 173 NLRB
792, Southern Counties Gas Co, 174 NLRB No 11; and General Electric
Company, 176 NLRB No 84
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bulletin boards , and the ineffiency of handbilling ef-
forts , the union could not in any effective manner com-
municate with the beneficiaries of its statutory
obligation.
In Standard Oil the "difficulties" the union faced in at-
tempting to reach the employees involved the fact that there
were some 1,500 unit employees , only 50 percent of whom
belonged to the Union , a 20-employee monthly turnover,
with employees living in a highly populated six-county area,
all reporting to work at a sprawling d-mile employer refinery
complex, reporting to work through four gates . These diffi-
culties, coupled with a union expressed need to counter
company material relating to contract changes , warranted
the Board in concluding that "as the full information thus
required lay exclusive ly in Respondent 's possession, and
was not otherwise available to the union ... the union had
a right to demand this information from the Respondent,
and Respondent , we hold , had a correlative obligation to
furnish it."
Similarly, in the Prudential case , with 16,000 employees
located at approximately 900 locations and less than 60
percent union members ; in Southern Counties Gas, with
1,000 of 2,600 unit employees nonunion ; and in General
Electric Co., with 20 percent of some 6,000 employees em-
ployed at three plant locations and three warehouses, and
residing in 50 to 75 towns in some 15 counties , the Board
was confronted with situations of great magnitude in which
the collective-bargainmg representative truly had problems
communicating with a large number of nonunion employ-
ees which it represented.
Such , however, is not the situation with respect to the
Respondent at its Dover , Ohio , plant here involved. Thus,
the Respondent operates but the one plant which is located
in one of three sparsely poppulated counties from which it
draws its labor supply . Of the 180 employees employed at
the time of the Union 's request , all but 22 were members of
the Union . The record shows that the Union was supplied
with an updated and complete list of employee addresses in
May 1968 , and that of the 36 employees hired since that
time , all but 8 had signed dues checkoff for the Union.
While , according to the Union , the addresses of some 22
employees were unknown at the time of the request to the
Respondent, there is no evidence nor does the Union assert
that, at any time prior to the week before the hearing herein
and then only at the request of the General Counsel, the
Union attempted to locate the addresses of these 22 known
employees . And when , at that time , it made such an attempt,
solely through the use of telephone books , the Union was
able to locate the addresses of all but 9 employees 2' Also
distinguishable from the cited cases is the fact that the Un-
ion here at no time prior to the hearing apprised the Respon-
dent of why it was requesting or needed the employee
addresses,22 or of the fact that it was unable to obtain the
address information in any other way.
There is no evidence, nor assertion, that the 11 union
officials employed in the Respondent's plant were ineffec-
tive in securing these few addresses, either during break
periods at the plant or otherwise, or that the Union at any
time even attempted to reach Respondent's employees
through handbilling at the one plant entrance used- pby the
employees. In fact, it would appear to the contrary, that, in
having organized all but 22 of Respondent's 180 employees,
including all but 8 of the 36 recent hires, the Union was
quite successful in reaching the Respondent's employees.
Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion, and so
find, that the factors upon which the Board relied in Stand-
ard Oil and subsequent cited cases, in holding that "the
Union could not in any effective manner communicate with
the beneficiaries of its statutory obligation," and thus that
the Respondent committed a statutory refusal to bargain
violation in refusing to provide the union with employee
addresses, are not present in the instant case . Accordingly,
I find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that, by
such conduct, the Respondent has engaged in conduct vio-
lative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, General Electric Company (Dover
Wire and Fabrication Operations), is engaged in 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, and its Local 705 , are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint, as amended,
herein, be dismissed in its entirety.
21 This fact alone refutes the inference to be drawn from the General
Counsel's assertion that the Union had difficulty in obtaining the employee
addresses through normal channels
22 The request for employee addresses, coming months after the filing of
the grievance pertaining to wages, appears to have been unrelated to the
Union's request for the correlated wage survey information