General Teamsters Local 959

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

GENERAL ITEAMSTERS L.OCAL( 959
General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Frontier Transportation Co.) and Charles E. Sykes.
Case 19-CB 3254
August 9. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESI)AE-
On May 7. 1979, Administrative Law Judge Gerald
A. Wacknov issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter. Respondent and the Charging
Party filed exceptions and supporting brielf. and the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(hb) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative L.aw Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National abor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, General
Teamsters Local 959. State of Alaska. affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Anchorage.
Alaska, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph 1:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with employ-
ers with whom Respondent maintains a collective-
bargaining relationship by refusing to furnish infor-
mation relevant to the bargaining process.
"(b) Engaging in any like or related conduct in
derogation of its statutory duty to bargain."
i In his recommended Order the Administrative Law Judge failed to in-
clude a provision to the effect that Respondent wou!d not engage in an) like
or related conduct in derogation of its statutory duty to bargain This omis-
sion was obviously inadvertent inasmuch as the provision is warranted. and
the Administrative Law Judge in fact included such a provision in his notice
to members. We shall therelore modify the recommended Order accordingly
DUl ;ISION
SIAIIMINI ()F i ('\I
(GI:;R I) A. W CKNt()., Administrative l.aw Judge: Pur-
suant to notice a hearing with respect to this matter was
held before me in Anchorage. Alaska, on Februarx 8. 1979.
The charge was filed on August 11. 1978. b (harles E.
Sskes. attorney. On September 26. 1978 a complaint and
notice of hearing was issued alleging a iolatiorn hb\ eneral
Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, attfiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. ('hautffeurs. are-
houseimen and Helpers of America (herein called Respon-
dent) of Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act. as amended (herein called the Act). Respondent's an-
swer to the complaint. dul 3 filed, denies the commission of'
any untf'lilr labor practices.'
The parties were afforded full opportuniit? to e h heard. lo
call. examine, and cross-examitne witnesses, and to intro-
duce relevant evidence. Post-hcaring briefs have been filed
on hbehalf of the General Counsel. (Charging Part!. .ind Re-
spondent.
IUpon the entire record and hased upon ni obherxation
of the ,a itnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted. I
make the follosing:
INI)IN(,s (1 I \ I
1. J RISIl( ()N
I rntlier rllrnsportatllin (Co. is an Ala;ska corporatiotl op-
erating a truck line engaged in the business of lransporllng
goods and materials principall\ within the Statte ol Al;ska.
In the course and con1duct of its business operations :rotn-
tier aiulllIal purchases or c;luses to be ranstlrred to its
Anchorage. Alaska;. fcilit' from points outside the Slate of
Alaska goods andl m;lterials alued in excess of' $50).t,(H
Further. rontier annuall, sells and or ships goods or pro-
vides ser% ices vtalued in excess of $50.000 to customerrs out-
side the State of Alaska. It is admitled and I find that Frton-
tier has been at all times material herein an ncmploer
engaged it commerce within the mnanlig of Section ()
and (7) of the Act.
11. ti I ABO()R 0)R(iIs/,sAll(t IN\t)I\ iI)
It is admitted and I find that Respondent is now. and at
all times material herein has heen a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I On Octobher 31, 1978. petition lor injunction under Sec I 1I 1ot the Act
was filed in the United Statcs [)Isrict ('Cour t r Ihe I)isitri ,I .' Alik. On
Nos ember 17. 1978. the colurt issued .1an Order granting Ihe cimporar) in-
junction and ordered Respondent Ito furnlsh the intormatlon requested
herein. Respondent's request for a stay of the injunction as, denied h) the
court on D)ecember 20, 1978. and Respondent's motion lor a suspension olI
the injunction pending appeal with the nited Siales ('ourt o1 Appeals Irot
the Ninth Circuit was denied hb the Ninth ('Circut on Fehruiar 14. 1979.
Respondent's appeal o1f the Injunctinl is no longer pending. Respondent
having agreed to "disnsnlss" it, appeal as oI I ehruar 27. 1979 On March 8.
1978, the Ninth Circuit issued an enirt ol dsmissal whereh the nlattcr was
closed
244 NLRB No. 3
19
DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
111. 111t UNI:AIR I.ABOR R'KA( II(
A. The Ivssue
The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by fail-
ing and refusing to furnish requested information relevant
to certain fringe benefit proposals made by Respondent
during the course of collective-hargaining negotiations.
B. The Facr
The facts are not in material dispute. Respondent has
maintained a collective-bargaining relationship with Fron-
tier Transportation Co. for several years, the last collective-
bargaining agreement having expired on June 30, 1978. Ne-
gotiations ensued, and during a bargaining session on Au-
gust 4. 1978, Charles E. Sykes, attorney and chief negotia-
tor for Frontier and various other employers, asked
Respondent's negotiators, principally Frank Yarnot, pres-
ident of Respondent, why the Union was seeking an in-
crease of $1.38 per hour per employee in health and welfare
contributions.2 Yarnot mentioned the spiraling increase in
health and wellare costs and stated according to Sykes,
"Our consultant told us we have to have that" in order to
merely maintain the existing level of benefits. Sykes replied
that he wanted a copy of the actuarial study or studies upon
which Yarnot indicated that the Union had relied in mak-
ing its proposal. and during the course of negotiations
Sykes handed Yarnot the following written request for ad-
ditional information:
Frontier Transportation and Weaver Bros. demand
that they be given within seven (7) days of delivery of
this letter the following current financial statements:
1. Alaska Teamster Employer Welfare Trust
2. Alaska Teamster Employer Prepaid l.egal Services
Trust
3. Alaska Teamster Employer Pension Trust, includ-
ing Desert Horizons, Inc.
We demand that the current financial statements to be
tendered contain a listing of all assets and liabilities.
The information demanded above is absolutely neces-
sary to us for collective-bargaining purposes.
Sykes, as justification for his request for the information,
explained to Yarnot that Frontier and other employers he
represented were considering alternative types of health
and welfare coverage: he implied that he disbelieved that
the welfare trust needed an additional $1.38 per hour
merely to maintain the existing level of benefits; and he
stated that he had information that the pension trust was
2 Under the prior contract employees contributed $3 per hour to the
Alaska Teamsters-Employer Pension Trust. 20 cents per hour to the Alaska
Teamsters-Employer Prepaid Legal Services Trust. and 80 cents per hour to
the Alaska Teamsters-Employer Welfare Trust. Respondent's new proposal
would raise the employers' contributions to the welfare trust bh $1.38 per
hour, to the sum of $2.18 per hour. Sykes estimated that the proposed fringe
benefit package would amount to an employer contribution of about $11.000
per year for each employee and testified further that Frontier sometimes
employed as many as 40 employees during a portion of the year.
overfunded, thus creating adverse tax implications for his
clients, and that alternative pension funding, under the cir-
cumstances, should be explored. Further, Sykes stated his
belief that the legal trust also had severe financial problems,
owing several millions of dollars to the pension trust, and
that repayment of this loan would perhaps result in greatly
diminished legal benefits to the employees.
On August 10, 1978. Sykes asked James A. Witt, attorney
for Respondent, whether Respondent intended to furnish
the requested information, including the aforementioned
actuarial study or studies. Witt replied that Respondent
had referred the request to the administrator of the arious
trust funds, John W. Real. A meeting between Sykes and
Real was arranged, and at the outset of the meeting Real
handed Sykes the following letter:
Our office received an oral request from you to)day, in
behalf of your clients who you represent to be contrib-
uting employers to the joint Trusts, for financial intfor-
mation regarding the Alaska Teamster-Employer joint
Trusts.
As I understand the provisions of our rust docu-
ments. any contributing employer has the right to in-
spect the last audited financial statement of the Trust
at the office of the Trust at all reasonable times. Our
interpretation of reasonable times means upon reason-
able notice during business hours. We need this notice
to extract the statements from our files or locate same
if they are elsewhere in our accounting system and to
arrange for a responsible member of our staff to he
present during the inspection. I'm not sure that our
documents provide for inspection of audited state-
ments from Trust subsidiaries; however, I shall make
them available to you today without prejudice to a
future declination or the same material.
We are making the audited statements available to you
today on your oral request with only a e, hours no-
tice in order to cooperate with you. However anv fu-
ture requests of this type should be addressed to us in
writing and a mutually convenient time should be es-
tablished for such inspection.
Yours very truly,
J(OINI 'IRt 'SI
By: /s/ John W. Real
John W. Real
Administrator
Thereupon Real handed Sykes various documents, appar-
ently constituting the most recent audited financial state-
ments of the three trust funds, two financial statements
being dated July 31. 1977. and the prepaid legal services
trust fund document bearing the date of June 30, 1977. In
addition, Real furnished audited financial documents of
various subsidiaries of the trust funds. Real permitted Sykes
to take notes. but he refused to furnish him with a copy of
the aformentioned documents.
20
(N1il:RAI. I EAtMSTERS I.O'AI. 959
Upon perusing the documents S kes stated that thile inlor-
mation was not current information but was over I ear
old. hereupon Skes requested the current inancial infor-
mation he had pres iously requested. Real refused to furnish
other information and read a provision from one trust
document which, according to Real. limited his authorit to
furnish current unaudited financial inlormation, and the
meeting was concluded.
Thereafter Sykes made another request that Witt, on be-
half of Respondent. furnish the requested current inforina-
tion. Witt replied, in effect. that Respondent did not have
acess to the infbrmation. Respondent has not withdrawn its
fringe benefit proposal to date.'
A current addendum to collective-bargaining agreements
between Respondent and more than 100 employers within
the State of Alaska was negotiated in 1978. he addendum.
executed by the various employers, the administrator of the
trusts, and Respondent. provides as follows:
A(;RIFINMI.I effective this Ist day of April. 1978. by,
between and among - - -- (hereinafter referred to
as Employer), Teamster Union Local =959 (hereinaf-
ter referred to as Local 959), Alaska Teamster-Em-
ployer Service Corp. (hereinafter referred to as Service
Corp.), Alaska Teamster-Employer Welfare Trust.
Alaska Teamster-Employer Pension Trust and Alaska
Teamster-Employer Prepaid l egal Services Trust.
A' IN SSI I ll:
WittI:RAS. Employer and Local 959 have entered
into one or more Collective Bargaining Agreements
which provide for varying contributions to the three
Trusts which are parties hereto, and
Wil RIAS, the Service Corp. is a wholly owned sub-
sidiar) of the Pension Trust and is the administrative
entity for all three Trusts, and
WHRIAs, the members of Local 959 have voted to
empower the said Local to amend any existing Collec-
tive Bargaining Agreements from April 1i 1978 to real-
locate the contributions among the three Trusts for a
period of one year.
Nowv, IIttlIRRI-, in consideration of the terms.
convenants and conditions set forth herein. the parties
agree as follows:
I. The Collective Bargaining Agreements to be
amended by this Agreement are enumerated as fol-
lo s:
* * . * *
2. Employer hereby appoints Service Corp. as its
Trustee to receive all contributions provided for in
the Agreements set forth in paragraph I above.
3. Service Corp. agrees to receive said contributions
and to allocate same in accordance with written in-
structions from Local 959 among the Pension. Wel-
fare and Prepaid Legal Trusts.
4. Such allocations are to be effective for hours
worked on or after April 1I 1978.
' General ('ounsel's brief indicates that at least some of the information
has been provided pursuant to the court's Order in the aforementioned in-
junction proceeding.
5. ocal 959. Service Corp. and the three referenced
Trusts agree to indemnify and hold harmless Fm-
ployer from any legal or contractual liabilit result-
ing from this Agreement or the perform;ance thereof.
Both Jesse Carr, secretary-treasurer of Respondent. and
Yarnot, president of Respondent, are union representatives
on the board of trustees of each of the three trusts: ('arr is
the chairman of each board. Real. a salaried administrator
fi)r the trusts, is hired by and reports to the respective
boards of trustees. Real testified that Respondent is the
sponsoring entity" of the trusts. and that representatises of
Respondent. apparently Carr and Yarnot consult with
Real for the purpose of formulating collectie-bargaining
proposals involving employer contributions to the trusts.
Further. Real testified that audited financial statements
must he submitted to the Department of ILabor and perhaps
to the Department of the Treasury on an annual basis. Ac-
cording to Real, current unaudited financial statements are
prepared on a regular basis and are distributed to the trust-
ees at trust meetings which occur on a monthls basis)
C. ,41nal'vsis and Colnclusio.s
It is well established that a union's dutd to bargain in
good faith by furnishing requested information to an em-
ployer for the purpose of collective bargaining is commen-
surate with the similar duty imposed b the Act upon em-
ployers. See Tool and Die Makers' l.odge No. '8 of Districl
No. 10 of the International ,4ssociation of :fachinot.i and(
Aerospace Workers, A FL CIO (Square D (oipanv, 224
N LRB I II (1976): Local 13, Detroit Newspaper Printling and
Graphic (Comnmunications Union. Internaltional Printing and
Graphic Comunications nilon.4 FL-(IO (The Oak land
Press Co., a shsidian of Capital Cities oninnocatlion.
Inc.), 233 NL RB 994 (1977).
The information requested herein concerns matters of the
utmost importance to employers and emploees alike and is
vital to the consummation of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Respondent does not contend that the Charging
Partsy on behalf of Frontier Transportation Co. and other
similarly situated employers is not entitled to the requested
financial information and actuarial studies. nor does Re-
spondent maintain that its agents. officers, and representa-
tives do not have access to the information. Rather. Re-
spondent argues that the requested information is not in the
possession or control of Respondent. and that for Respon-
dent to obtain the information from the administrator of
the trusts and. in turn, furnish it to the Charging Part.
would constitute an act of domination and control of the
trusts and a breach of the fiduciary obligation of the trust-
ees. For the reasons stated below I find both arguments to
be without merit.
Clearly, the representatives of Respondent. in their role
as trustees of the various trusts, have possession and control
of the requested information. Indeed. the trust instruments
require that they hae such possession and control. includ-
Carr testified that he formulated the proposal for a $1.38-per-hour in-
crease in the health and eltare fund upon Inquiring of Real he amolunt
necessary to bring he health and ellare plan on a more than break-e en
plane"
21
I)I('ISIO)NS ()I NATIONAI. I.ABOR RL.ATlIONS BOARD
ing the right "to obtain and evaluate all statistical and atu-
arial data . hich mas be reasonably required with respect to
the administraition of the Plan." and without which the
trustees could not perform their prescribed obligations. I[o
this end the trust administrator regularly furnishes the
trustees with such fihnancial informiation upon request. Nor
do the trust instruments place any restrictions upon the
purposes for which such inlormation may be used or limit a
trustee in urnishinlg the information to others provided
that, according to common language in the various trusts.
"in acquiring. investing, reinvesting. exchanging and selling
aind managing the property of the Trust und. the Trustees
shall exercise the judgment and care under the circuim-
stances then prevailing, which men of prudence. discretion
and intelligence exercise in the management of their own
affairs."
Respondent's representatives are not in a tenable position
to argue that the inflrmation they possess as trustees is not
information possessed by Respondent as collective-hargain-
ing representatives of employees. for they actively occupy
both positions and. in their capacity as union representa-
tives and negotiators. rely upon the information they have
obtained as trustees in order to "acquire" funds from em-
ployers for the purpose of perpetuating the trusts. Thus. the
positions occupied by the union representatives are not only
not mutually exclusive but, rather, are dependent one upon
the other for the purposes of furthering the ends of' each.
Moreover, it would be clearly inequitable to permit "in-
fbrmed" bargaining to occur between only Respondent and
employer-trustees. while employers who do not also happen
to be trustees and therefore would have no access to admit-
tedly relevant information must bargain from a position of
total ignorance. It defies credulity to conclude. as Respon-
dent implicitly suggests. that this was the intention of the
Union and employer-trustees who formulated and executed
the initial trust agreement.
Respondent makes the argument that Respondent would
be unlawfully dominating the trusts should it make the re-
quested information available. Thus, Respondent maintains
that should it furnish this information, it would thereby by
usurping the function of the boards of trustees who are
charged with the administration of the trusts, to make such
policy decisions regarding the furnishing of information
and would, therefore. in effect. be dominating the trusts. In
support of this contention, Respondent further argues that
the trust agreements themselves at least arguably limit the
furnishing of such information to "audited" financial inf'or-
mation.'
Such an argument must be examined in light of the inter-
pretation placed upon the trust instruments by the trustees
themselves. Thus. in April 1978. prior to the contract nego-
tiations involved herein, some 100 employers agreed with
Respondent and the trust administrator to entrust Respon-
'The trust agreements provide as follows:
[The Trustees shall Keep true and accurate hooks of accounts and
records of all their transactions which shall be {open to the inspection of
any Trustee at all times and which shall he audited at least annuall b,
a certified public accountant selected by the Trustees. Such audits shall
he aailable ai all reasonable times for inspection by an)y nion or an)
Employer at the principal office of the I rust Fund
lent with the duty and responsibility of allocating employer
contributions among the various trust funds: the trust funds
agreed to receive and distribute such contributions "in ac-
cordance with written instructions from Local 959." I:ur-
ther. Respondent agreed to hold harmless the employers
from any legal or contractual liability resulting from the
agreement or the performance thereof.'
It must be presumed, and there is no evidence to the
contrary, that this matter was considered and approved by
the various boards of trustees, as the administrator would
not have executed such a document absent appropriate au-
thority. Tlhe conclusion is therefore mandated that the
boards of trustees of the arious trusts must have agreed. at
least implicitly, for reasons unexamined and unexplained in
the record, that the trusts would provide or at least make
available upon request financial information not merely to
the trustees but to Respondent for the purpose of pernmit-
ting Respondent to allocate employer's contributions
among the various trusts. I so find. Obviously. as General
Counsel abundantly points out. Respondent would not
have committed itself to undertake the weighty responsibil-
ity of allocating virtually millions of dollars of employer
contributions and assume liability therefore absent access
to such detailed and current financial and related informa-
tion which would enable it to appropriately allocate these
large sums of money.
Respondent attempts to minimize the import of the
aforementioned undertaking, stating in its brief that such
reallocation decisions can be made by a .ocal 959 repre-
sentative discussing with the trusts' administrator what con-
tribution rate is needed for each trust to maintain its exist-
ing level of benefits. Assuming. rguendo, that the
interchange between the trust administrator and represen-
tatives of Respondent is customarily minimal and perfunc-
tory, this does not lessen the salient fact that Respondent.
being given the authority to allocate the monies and assum-
ing liability therefore. may choose to carefully examine the
trusts' financial records to assure itself that the administra-
tor's recommendations are financially sound.
In summary, Respondent cannot rely upon any implied
limitations in the trust agreements when, as I found. the
trustees themselves have interpreted the agreements to per-
mit disclosure of detailed and current financial infbrmatitln
to nontrustees; namely. Respondent. Further. there is no
record evidence that the trustees have imposed any limita-
tions upon Respondent's disclosure of such information to
others, including Frontier or other nontrustee employers.
There is no contention that the requested information
need not be furnished on grounds of confidentiality.'
Rather, it is clear that had an audit been completed imme-
diately prior to the request of the Charging Party for such
I Respondent maintains in its brief that b agreeing to indemnify employ-
ers "from ans legal or contractual liability resulting I'rrm this Agreement or
the perlirmance thereof." it has only agreed to indemnify employers "lor the
procedure o and not the effects of reallocatlion." Respondent does nt claril'
or elaborate upon this contention which I refrain rom discussing because iof
Vagueness
tl'he rusts invtlved herein made ni ntllon t intervene In this prlteed-
ing to make such a contention or raise other issues, and there is no cnten-
lion by Respondent that actuarial studies or unaudited financial records ale
confidential
GENEfRAL I'fAMS'lfRS I.()('AI. 959
information. the audit, apparentl\ containing the financial
informatlion requested. wkould ha;ve been made available
forthwith.'
Accordingls from the loregoing I ind that Respondent's
access to the requested informtion is not imited b the
trust documents themselves. that the trust agreements do(
not preclude the union trustees from disclosing to emplo_-
ers with whom Respondent has a collective-bargaining rela-
tionship inancial informnation to which the union trustees
have access, and that. moreover, Respondent has been con-
tracluall granted access to the inftormation bh the trustees.
I therefore find that by ailing and refusing to t'urnish such
relevant information to the Charging Parts Respondent has
siolated Section 8(h)(3) of the Act as alleged.
(Ct )N(I It SlONS Of LA
I. Frontier Transportation Co. is an emplo'er engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to furnish relevant collective-
bargaining information to Frontier Transportation Co. and
other similarly situated emplosers Respondent has refused
to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8 b)(3) of' the
Act.
1'tt1i Rl sitlv)
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, including the furnishing of the information initiall
requested together with similar current information and the
posting of an appropriate notice to its members.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case. and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent. General Teamsters Local 959. State of
Alaska, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from failing and refusing to furnish
relevant collective-bargaining information to employers
with whom Respondent maintains a collective-ba;rgaining
relationship.
'The record herein discloses that he audit for the tiscal 1977 78 ear.
which ended June 30. 1978. has not been prepared to date
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as pro ided bh Sec. 102 46 the
Rules and Regulations of the National L.abor Relations Board. the findings,.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as proided n Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted b the Board and becme its
findings. conclusions. and Order. and a1ll ohecions hereio shall he deemed
walved for all purposes.
2. ake the tollowing affirmative action which I find will
etlectuate the policies of' the Act:
(a) urnish to Frontier Transportatilon ('o. atnd other
similarly situated employers. upon request. copies of the
following intormation relevant lor the purposes of collectoi e
ba rga in ing:
I ) All financial reports. since June 30. 1977. audited or
unalldilted. of the Ali.skal T'eamsters-lrmphploer Prep.aid l.e-
gal Services 'Irust. including subsidiaries thereof. it an!.
(2) All tinancial reports. since June 30. 1977. audited or
unaudited. of' the Alaska TIeamsters- lmploecr lealth and
Welfare Trust, including subsidiaries thereof. if' an.
(3) All financial reports since June 3(). 1977. audited or
unaudited. oft' the Alaska Teamsters-Elnplo\er Pension
'rust, including subsidiaries thereof.
(4) All actuarial studies or reports ins oling each of the
above trusts or their subsidiaries undertaken or issued i-
mediatel\ prior to or subsequent to June 3). 1977.
(b) Post at its oflices and meeting halls copies of' the at-
tached notice marked "Appendi.''" ' ('opies oft said notice.
on forms provided hb the Regional Director tor Region 19,
after being dul5 signed bh Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative. shall be posted b Respondent immediatels upon
receipt thereoft and be maintained by it tor 6h() consecutive
days thereafter. in conspicuous places. including all places
where notices to emplo, ees are customl;aril\ posted. Reason-
able steps shall he taken bh Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered. defaced. or covered bh an other
material.
(c) Notif: the Regional Director for Region 19. in writ-
ing. ithin 20 days from the dale of' this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to complI herew ith.
r In the eent that his ()rder s enforced bs a Judgment ,If a United
States court of appeals. the t ords n the notice reading "Posted b Order of
the Natonal .ll tbor Relllons Board" shall read "'Poied Pursuant to a Judg-
ment o the nited States Court .4 Appeals tntforclng an Order of the Na-
tional I.abor Relaiins Board
APPEN I)X
Noti(l- ITo MIMBI:RS
P(sil t) By ()R)IR O Il
NAII)ONM LABOR() RI:I.AI()Ns BOARD
An Agencs of the United States Government
Wt l itI Not refuse to bargain collectively with
Frontier Transportation Co. or other employers b re-
fusing to supply information relevant and necessary for
the bargaining process.
Wi: uIti Not engage in any like or related conduct
in derogation of our statutory duty to hargain.
WtI t11 furnish Frontier Transportation Co. or
other similarly situated employers. upon request. with
the following infiormation:
i. All financial reports. since June 30. 1977. au-
dited or unaudited, of' the Alaska Teamster-Fm-
ploer Prepaid l.egal Services rust, including suh-
sidiaries thereof if an.
2. All financial reports. since June 30. 1977. au-
dited or unaudited. of the Alaska Teamster-Em-
23
DECISIONS O() NA] IONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARI)
ploser ealth and Welfare Trust, including subsid-
iaries thereof. il any.
3. All financial reports since June 30() 1977. au-
dited or unaudited. of the Alaska Teamster-Em-
ployer Pension ITrust, including subsidiaries thereof.
4. All actuarial studies or reports involving each
of the above trusts, or their subsidiaries, undertaken
or issued immediately prior to or subsequent to June
30, 1977.
GENERAIL TFAMSHI}RS L()(AI. 959. SIAII ()1
AI.ASKA, A:FII lIAI I) W I IN I RNA I()NAI.
BRO[()IHIR())0 ()F TEAMSI IRS, (CIIAUHtlE RS.
WARI:IIOUSl MIN AND) HEl PIERS () AMiRI( A
24