Hatch, Horace F., an Individual, d/b/a East Texas Fire Protection Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1982

265 N.L.R.B. 173 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

EAST TEXAS FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY
Horace F. Hatch, an Individual, d/b/a East Texas
Fire Protection Company and Road Sprinkler
Fitters Local Union No. 669. Case 16-CA-
10095
October 20, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMAN
On August 13, 1982, Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by its failure to provide certain requested
information, as reflected in his Conclusion of Law
3. However, we do not agree with his failure to
order Respondent to post an appropriate notice to
employees. We find it necessary and appropriate
that, in order to remedy fully the violation herein,
Respondent be ordered to post an appropriate
notice.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied and set forth in full below, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Horace F. Hatch, an Individ-
ual, d/b/a East Texas Fire Protection Company,
Longview, Texas, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to make available for inspection by
representatives of Road Sprinkler Fitters Local
Union No. 669 the purchase orders and/or invoices
for the last 3 years and the register summarizing
these documents.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Administra-
tive Law Judge to find that the failure to produce documentation consti-
tutes a violation Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act. Respondent filed no exceptions.
265 NLRB No. 18
ercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request of the above-named labor orga-
nization, produce and make available for inspection
by its representatives the purchase orders and/or
invoices for the last 3 years and the register sum-
marizing these documents.
(b) Post at its place of business in Longview,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 16, after
being duly signed by its representatives, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
2 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 read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to make available for
inspection by representatives of Road Sprin-
kler Fitters Local Union No. 669 the purchase
orders and/or invoices for the last 3 years and
the register summarizing these documents.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
under Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the above-named
labor organization, produce and make availa-
ble for inspection by its representatives the
purchase orders and/or invoices for the last 3
years and the register summarizing these docu-
ments.
HORACE F. HATCH, AN INDIVIDUAL,
D/B/A EAST TEXAS FIRE PROTEC-
TION COMPANY
173
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge:
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 (the Union),
filed a charge against Horace F. Hatch d/b/a East Texas
Fire Protection Company (Respondent), on September
28, 1981. A complaint issued on January 26, 1982, alleg-
ing that refusal of Respondent to furnish certain informa-
tion requested by the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act. The hearing was held before me on these
matters at Marshall, Texas, on February 11, 1982.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent engages in the service, installation, and
distribution of automatic fire protection systems and re-
lated products and during the past 12-month period has
purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Texas. I
find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 (the
Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
II1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The facts necessary to a decision in this case are undis-
puted. There is pending between Respondent and the
Union an arbitration proceeding over a dispute as to
whether Respondent complied with the collective-bar-
gaining agreement in the payment of wages for certain
work performed in the past. In order to prepare for its
presentation of this case to the arbitrator, the Union has
requested a number of documents which it believes will
show that certain members of the involved local were
underpaid for work performed for Respondent. The
merits of the dispute before the arbitrator are not before
the Board.
At the hearing, Respondent voluntarily produced to
the satisfaction of the Union and the General Counsel all
documentation sought except Respondent's purchase
orders and/or invoices for the last 3 years and a register,
which Respondent keeps, summarizing these documents.
With respect to these documents, the Union contends
that by a study of the documents it can determine the lo-
cation, size, and cost of the jobs, and through a study of
these factors perhaps determine whether there is a basis
for the allegations before the arbitrator. Respondent ob-
jects to the production of these documents because they
would describe virtually every detail of the Company's
business. It was not articulated by Respondent in what
manner making this information known would in any
way harm its business.
I believe that the law requires that the documentation
sought be produced. See Designcraft Jewel Industries,
Inc., 254 NLRB 791 (1981); Grand Islander Health Care
Center, Inc., 256 NLRB 1255 (1981). The failure to pro-
duce such documentation constitutes a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. Both the Union and the General
Counsel agree that they are willing to agree with Re-
spondent for reasonable limitations on the publicity and
distribution given the documents when produced. To the
extent consistent with the use of the documents by the
Union to complete its investigation, I direct that such
limitations be afforded Respondent for the protection of
his business.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failure to produce for study
by the Union its purchase orders and/or invoices for the
last 3 years and a register kept by Respondent summariz-
ing these documents, I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to produce said documents and make them
available for inspection by the Union's representatives,
subject to any reasonable limitations on their reproduc-
tion and distribution found necessary by counsel for the
General Counsel to ensure the integrity of the business of
Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Horace F. Hatch, an Individual d/b/a East Texas
Fire Protection Company, is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By refusal to make available for inspection by the
Union Respondent's purchase orders and/or invoices for
the last 3 years and the register kept by Respondent sum-
marizing these documents Respondent is engaging in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
174