Local 851, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 922 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

922 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America
Local 295, International Brotherhood of, Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Northern Air Freight, Inc. Cases
29-CB-6277 and 29-CB-6278
7 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On 14 January 1987 Administrative Law Judge
David L. Evans issued the attached decision. The
Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, the Charging Party filed a brief in opposition,
and the General Counsel filed a cross-exception
and supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions' and briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondents, Local 851,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and
Local 295, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.
' We deny as unnecessary the General Counsel 's request for a visita-
tonal provision.
a We do not rely on the judge's finding that because the Respondents
permitted the Charging Party to review the contracts, they had admitted
the relevancy of the documents.
We need not decide whether the information requested is presumptively
relevant, because the evidence here establishes the information is rele-
vant.
Elliot J. Mandel, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephen H. Kahn, Esq., of New York, New York, for the
Respondents.
Bonnie Glatzer and Eric Rosenfeld, Esqs., of New York,
New York, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID L. EVANS, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was tried before me on 15 September 1986 in
Brooklyn, New York. On 4 April 1986 Northern Air
Freight, Inc. (Northern, the Employer, or Charging
Party), filed the charge in Case 29-CB-6277 against
Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Local 851). Also on 4 April Northern .filed the charge
in Case 29-CB-6278 against Local 295, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (Local 295) (collectively the Re-
spondents). On 21 May, the Regional Director issued an
order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint, and
notice of hearing (the complaint). The complaint alleges
that Respondents have refused to furnish the Employer
with information necessary for the defense against griev-
ances in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondents filed an
answer that, as amended, admits jurisdiction but denies
the commission of any unfair labor practices. On the
entire record and careful consideration of the briefs filed
by Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Charging
Party, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material, the Employer has been, and is, a
corporation whose principal office and place of business
is in Seattle, Washington. It has also maintained offices
and facilities throughout New Jersey, New York, and
Connecticut, including a facility at Inwood, New York,
where it has been engaged in the business of providing
air freight services at John F. Kennedy Airport. During
the year preceding issuance of the complaint, the Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its New York met-
ropolitan area operations, performed services valued in
excess of $50,000, which services were the transportation
of goods across state lines and, as such, is an instrumen-
tality or link of interstate commerce. Therefore, the Em-
ployer is now, and has been at all times material, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Locals 851 and 295 are now, and have been at all
times material, labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
The ultimate legal issue in this case is whether Re-
spondents must provide photocopies (or allow photoco-
pying) of certain documents that were requested by the
Employer. The facts are not in dispute.
Northern and Local 295 were parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement that was, by its terms, effective
from 2 April 1984 through 31 August 1985; that agree-
ment covered "all truckdrivers, helpers, switcher," etc.,
employed by Northern in the New York City area.
Northern and Local 851 were parties to another collec-
tive-bargaining agreement that was, by its terms, effec-
283 NLRB No. 145
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 851 (NORTHERN AIR)
tive from 1 November 1984 through 31 August 1985;
that agreement covered Northern's office clerical em-
ployees in the New York area. Both of these agreements
were drafted by completing form agreements entitled
"1982-1985 Master Agreement," and were referred to by
the parties as the "1982-1985 Agreements," even though
they were not actually effective until 1984. Both of those
agreements had "guaranteed work force" provisions that
required the Employer, throughout each contract's effec-
tive period, "maintain the existing number of employees"
employed at the beginning of each contract's effective
term.
In July 1985 both Respondents sent Northern notices
of contract termination together with a complete set of
contract proposals for new agreements. The letter incor-
porated separate proposals, which provided:
2. The undersigned employer, in lieu of engaging
in protracted negotiations with the Union, does
hereby agree that it will accept uniform terms and
conditions of employment which may hereafter be
negotiated with other firms in the Air Freight In-
dustry.
4. The Employer agrees immediately to sign to
the attached copy of the [Local 295 or Local 851]
Joint Grievance Settlement Board Agreement and
agrees to be bound by its terms.
5. The agreement between the parties effective
from September 1, 1982 to August 31, 1985 shall
remain in force and effect until the execution of the
succeeding agreement which shall commence on
September 1, 1985.
These proposals were referred to at the hearing as "me
too" proposals or agreements. The Joint Grievance Set-
tlement Board agreements provided for a panel, which
was composed of an equal number of employer and
union representatives, to hear and decide disputes and
further provided, in the event of a tie vote by those rep-
resentatives, for binding arbitration by a named perma-
nent umpire.
Charles Nelson, vice president of operations' at North-
ern, testified that at a negotiation session on 29 August
1985 representatives of Respondents presented the "me
too" proposals as quoted above. The representatives told
Nelson that, among the organized air freight services at
JFK airport, only Emery Air Freight was then negotiat-
ing for a new agreement and that Northern could sign
the "me too" proposals as presented or be struck. After
receiving this threat, Nelson signed the "me too" agree-
ments with Locals 851 and 295 on behalf of Northern.l
By letters dated 24 December 1985 Nelson notified
representatives of both Respondents: "This is to advise
you that Northern Air Freight, Inc., will close' our New
York (JKF) office effective January 15, 1986. Let us
know if you wish to discuss this."
By letters dated 16 January 1986, by their attorney,
Stephen H. Kahn, both Respondents notified Nelson 'that
' There is no testimony that either 8(b)(1)B ) or 8(b)(3) charges were
filed over this incident
923
A dispute has' arisen under the terms of the 1985-
1988 [sic] collective bargaining agreement between
your company and the Union. That dispute con-
cerns your company's termination of its operations
at Kennedy Airport. The Union contends that such
termination violates, inter alia, [section numbers] of
the collective-bargaining agreement, including the
guaranteed work force provisions.
The letter further stated that the disputes were being si••
multaneously submitted to the Joint Grievance Settle-
ment Board for resolution and that body was being asked
to convene promptly to resolve the dispute. By the date
of Kahn's letter, and continuing to the date of the hear-
ing, there has been no document purporting to be the
"1985-1988 collective-bargaining agreement" between
Northern and either of the Unions. As will be discussed,
infra, Kahn later informed Northern that the reference to
the "1985-1988 collective-bargaining agreement" was an
error and that Respondents were actually referring to the
agreements, which expire 31 August 1985 but were ex-
tended by the `,`me too" agreements.
On,28, February an article appeared in the Journal of
Commerce that recited that Local 295 and, Emery Air
Freight had reached a contract, which settled a long
strike. By letters dated 7 March, Northern, by its Attor-
ney Eric Rosenfeld, notified the Unions that dates previ-
ously requested by Kahn for a meeting before the Joint
Grievance Settlement Board were unacceptable and pro-
posed other dates. Rosenfeld's letters concluded: "By
copy of this letter to Mr. Kahn I am requesting him to
furnish me, with a copy of the 1986 Emery Agreement,
in advance of the hearing to be scheduled in this case."
On 8 March Kahn and Rosenfeld had a telephone con-
versation in which, according to Rosenfeld:
We discussed two subjects. One, the rescheduling
or the scheduling of the Joint Grievance Settlement
Board proceeding and, two, at my insistence of
course, the company's need to have a copy of the
[Emery] agreement since I told Mr. Kahn in this
conversation, and have said it more than once,
[that] Northern understood that it was "me too" in
regard to Emery and that's why it needed and was
demanding that the Emery agreement. It needed it
in advance of the arbitration of the Joint Grievance
Settlement Board proceeding whenever they were
going to be held in order to prepare for those hear-
ings.
Further, according to Rosenfeld, Kahn refused to supply
the agreements, citing as the reason the insistence of his
clients . Kahn did not testify.
On 11 April Kahn sent Rosenfeld a draft agreement,
which he proposed as a settlement of the 16 January
grievances.
By letter dated 15 April Rosenfeld replied with coun-
terproposals' stating that the counterproposals assumed
no change in guaranteed work force or other perti-
nent provisions of 1986 Emery Agreement. You
must give us that Agreement, so we can assess the
924 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
situation before we can either sign the settlement
agreement, or, of course, proceed before the Joint
Boards.
At the bottom of the letter Rosenfeld subscripted:
I am using the term "1986 Emery Agreement" to
refer to whatever agreement(s) is (are) comprehend-
ed by the term "the 1985-1988 collective bargaining
agreement" in the two 1/16/86 notices of disputes,
and by -the term "uniform terms and conditions of
employment which may hereafter may be negotiat-
ed with other firms" in the 8/29/85 "me too" agree-
ments (par. 2) and by the term "succeeding agree-
ment" in para. 4 [sic] of said agreements.
(As quoted above, the term "succeeding agreement" ap-
pears in par. 5, not 4, of the "me too" agreement; no'
issue was made of this error.)
On 29 April Rosenfeld sent another letter to Kahn,
copies to members of the Joint Grievance Settlement
Board, asking for a postponement of the grievance hear-
ings pending disposition of the- NLRB charges filed
herein, pending suit in Federal court for injunctive relief
against the Joint Board Grievance proceedings, and fur-
ther
pending Northern's timely receipt and review of all -
agreements negotiated by Locals 295 and 851 with
Emery and other employers in the air freight indus-
try since August 29, 1985 (the date of the "me-too"
agreements between Northern and Local 295 and
-851) and of all agreements comprising the "1985-
1988 collective bargaining agreement" referenced in
the January 16, 1986 notices of dispute.
Rosenfeld testified that several times he repeated his
request for these contractual agreements to Kahn in tele-
phone conversations. In addition, on 8 May, Rosenfeld
wrote Kahn:
In [sic] behalf of Northern Air Freight, we re-
quest, again, copies of the Emery and all other
agreements negotiated by Locals 295 and/or 851
after August 29, 1985 (the date of the "me-too"
agreements with Northern) "with other firms in the
Air Freight industry," and of all agreements- and/or
other documents constituting "the 1985-1988 collec-
tive bargaining agreement between your company
and the Union" referenced in the Local 851 and
Local 295 notices of dispute dated January 16, 1986.
On 12 May Kahn replied to Rosenfeld by letter stat-
ing:
As I advised you the last time that we met, the
Unions are willing to permit your client to inspect
the Airbone agreements. The Unions will not vol-
untarily permit inspection of other collective bar-
gaining agreement [s]. It is the Union's position that
these agreements are irrelevant both because North-
ern's "me-too" agreements relate to Airborne and
because Northern closed its business prior to the ne-
gottations of any master collective bargaining agree-
ment for the 1985-1988 term.
By letter dated 19 May, Kahn further advised Rosenfeld:
I have previously advised you that the January
16, 1986 demands for arbitration from both Locals
were in error' insofar as they referred to the "1985-
1988 Collective Bargaining Agreement ...."' Of
course, there never was such an agreement. The
Unions' claims arise under the "me-too" agreements
and the 1982-1985 Collective Bargaining Agree-
ments insofar as they were extended by the "me-
too" agreements. Please correct both arbitration no-
tices accordingly.
By letter dated 2 June, Kahn notified Rosenfeld that
Respondents "will consent to the inspection of all docu-
ments which you have- requested." Kahn further indicat-
edthe places where such inspections could be conducted
and asked Rosenfeld to contact Kahn to set up a time for
the-inspections.
By letter dated 11 June Kahn reaffirmed that he was
willing to arrange for inspection of the requested'docu-
ments and added:
My clients will also provide - you with blank
copies of the 1985-88 Master Collective Bargaining
Agreement[s] for both unions. The vast majority of
air freight employers under contract with Locals
295 and 851 have signed the Master without modifi-
cation. Any addendum or modifications tend to re-
flect particular. company-specific issues. Such
changes from the Master Agreements are uncom-
mon, not voluminous and not relevant to the dis-
pute between our clients. You inspect such modifi-
cations, but the unions will not provide photo-
copies.
By letter dated 16 June, Attorney Bonnie Glatzer, an
associate of Rosenfeld's replied to Kahn's 11 June letter,
accepting the offer to inspect whatever contracts Re-
spondents would produce, but stated that she was doing
so without waiving the right to make copies of the docu-
ments. On 18 June Attorney Glatzer went to the office
of Local 851 where she was presented with the contracts
that Union had negotiated with 10, air freight employers
in the area and was further presented with a blank
"1985-1988 Master Agreement" for the employers in the
area. On 19- June Glatzer was presented with 130 collec-
tive-bargaining agreements and another blank "1985-
1988 Master Agreement" by Local 295. ,
By letter dated 23 June, Glatzer notified Kahn:
Following my review last week at the Union's of-
fices of certain contracts with employers in the air
freight industry entered into since August- 20, 1985
by Local 295 and 851,. LB.T., we must again request
copies of the non-printed provisions of these con-
tracts, ,,i.e., all, side letters and/or addenda, which
modify the printed 1985-1988 master agreements, as
well as complete copies of all Emery contracts, side
letters and addenda entered into since January 1,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 851 (NORTHERN AIR) 925
1979, which together constitute the Emery agree-
ment.
The reason for this request is that, in light of the
size and complexity of these various agreements, my
two-day-review was inadequate for the thorough
analysis of these documents needed to prepare our
position for the arbitration and to evaluate the
Company's and Unions' respective rights and obli-
gations during the 1985-1988 period. Moreover,
there was insufficient time to hand copy many rele-
vant provisions, let alone discuss those provisions in
confidence with my associates and our client.
As discussed in my letter to you on June 16,
1986, we stand ready and willing to provide the
confidentiality assurances outlined therein.
Each "Master Agreement" consists of 12 pages of
small type and 4 pages of addenda that were composed
on a standard typewriter. Both contain "guaranteed
work force" provision identical to those in the 1982-1985
agreements. No other 1985-1988 contracts were received
by the Employer, and the precise volume of documents
reviewed by Glatzer on 18 and 19 June is not in evi-
dence.
Respondents presented no evidence. How Respondents
determined that for the 1985-1988 period that Northern
was "me too" to Airborne, and not Emery (or "me too"
to Airborne and not any other employer in the New
York area) is not suggested-by the record.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The complaint, paragraphs 9, 10, and 11, alleges as
violations of Section $(b)(3) of the Act:
9. On or about March 7, 1986, March 8, 1986,
April 15, 1986 and May 8, 1986 and at all times ma-
terial herein since said dates, Northern, by its attor-
neys, agents and representatives has requested Re-
spondent Local 851 and Respondent Local 295, re-
spectively, to furnish Northern with the following
information:
Copies of the Emery Air Freight agreement, and
all other agreements with other firms in the air
freight industry, negotiated by Local 295 and/or
851 after August 29, 1985, and all agreements
and/or other documents constituting the 1985-88
collective bargaining agreement between the Em-
ployer and Locals 295 and 851.
10. The information requested by Northern, as
described above in paragraph 9,is necessary for and
relevant to Northern's ability to administer the col-
lective bargaining agreements with Respondent
Local 295 and Respondent Local 851, respectively,
and to determine which collective bargaining agree-
ments, if any, it is bound by, and to prepare its de-
fenses to the grievances filed by Respondent Local
295 and Respondent Local 851, respectively, on
January 16, 1986.
11. Since on or about March 8, 1986, Respond-
ents have failed and refused to furnish to Northern
the information requested by it, as described above
in paragraphs 9 and 10.
Respondents admit the refusals to furnish copies of the
specified2 information or to allow Northern to copy it.
Respondents defend their refusals to furnish copies, or
permit making of copies, of the contracts on the follow-
ing bases:
The Consolidated Complaint should be dismissed
because: (1) the documents are not relevant; (2)
Northern has already inspected all of the docu-
ments : and (3) there has been no showing that the
documents were so voluminous as to give Northern
the legal right to copies of the documents. (Br. p.
2.)
Under Section 8(b)(3) of the, Act the duty of labor or-
ganizations to bargain collectively, in good faith, is equal
in scope to that of employers under Section 8(a)(5) of the
-Act. Carpenters of Will County (Mid America Bargaining
Assn.), 225 NLRB 530 (1981). Specifically, a labor orga-
nization's duty to furnish relevant information is parallel
to that of an employer's. Plasterers Local 346 (Brawner
Plastering), 273 NLRB 1143 (1984).' Therefore, the first
defense to be addressed is Respondents' assertion that the
requested 1985-1988 collective-bargaining agreements
are not relevant.
The law on the issue is plainly stated in Westinghouse
Electric Corp., 239 NLRB-106, 107 (1978):
The test of the [requesting party's] need for such in-
formation is simply a showing of "probability that
the desired information was relevant, and that it
would be of use to the [requesting party] in carry-
ing out its statutory duties and responsibilities.8 The
[requesting party] need not demonstrate that the in-
formation sought is certainly relevant or clearly dia-
positive of the basic negotiation or arbitration issues
between the parties. The fact that the information is
of probable or potential relevance -is sufficient to
give rise to an obligation on the part of [in this case,
the Unions] 'to provide it.9 The appropriate stand-
ard in determining the potential relevance:' of infor-
mation sought in aid of the bargaining agent's re-
sponsibility is a liberal discovery-type standard.10
8 N.LR.B v Acme Industrial Co., 285 U.S. 432, 4437 (1967)
9 The Brooklyn Union Gas Company'220 NLRB 189 (1975).
10 Acme Industrial Co, supra `
Respondents argue that because as amended by Kahn's
letter of 19 May, the grievances were filed under the
1982-1985 Northern contracts, the 1985-1988 contracts
with other employers are not relevant to the processing
of those grievances, even under the liberal discovery
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
2 Not specified in the complaint were the Emery agreement "entered
into since January 1, 1979" as additionally requested in Glatzer's letter of
23 June Neither the relevance of the materials encompassed in the ex-
panded request, nor the legality of Respondents' refusals to provide those
materials, was litigated.
926 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
answer-to this argument is that the "me too" agreements
provide for retroactive application (to 1 September 1985)
of the terms of the 1985-1988 agreements that were ne-
gotiated by other area employers; Respondents may
argue before an- arbitrator, and an arbitrator may. con-
clude, that Northern is bound by the terms of the 1985-
1988 agreements, just if it had executed agreements for
that period, as it had promised to do in the "me too"
agreements. The effect would be, of course, that North-
ern would be liable, under the guaranteed work force
provisions, to make whole the employees who were em-
ployed between 1 September 1985 and, at least, the date
when Northern closed its JFK terminal operations; and
the "make whole" remedy would be under the terms and
conditions of employment contained in the 1985-1988
agreements with the other area employers.
Respondents, in effect, have conceded the validity of
this reasoning by their actions by permitting visual in-
spection and handcopying of the 1985-1988 agreements
negotiated with other employers, the Unions necessarily
were admitting that they intend to contend that North-
ern is to be held liable under those agreements in the
grievance/arbitration process that Respondents had in-
voked. There could have been no other reason for pre-
senting them for Northern's inspection on 18 and 19
June. Because this is -Respondents' claim (or potential
claim) in the grievance/arbitration process, they cannot
simultaneously argue that Northern has no right to exam-
ine and photocopy the contracts.
Also, Respondents' production of the documents on 18
and 19 June is the answer to Respondents' second argu-
ment, that the documents need not be produced for re-
production because they have already been seen. As
stated by the Third Circuit in Communications Workers
Local 1051 v. NLRB, 644 F.2d 923 (1981), a case in
which the employer had produced documents for review
and handcopying, but would not allow photocopies:
"[T]he Company, having provided for handcopying all
of the information requested by the Union, may not now
argue that it had no duty at all to disclose the requested
material."
That is, rather than weigh against ordering production
for copying, Respondents' production for visual inspec-
tion and note-taking by hand is further compelling evi-
dence that production for duplication should be ordered.
I further find unpersuasive Respondents' third argu-
ment, that there has been no showing that the documents
are voluminous enough to require Respondents to
produce them for photocopying. In making this argu-
ment, Respondents rely on cases involving only the pro-
duction of one page, Roadway Express, 275 NLRB 1107
(1985), or just a few pages and notes, 'Abercrombie &
Fitch Co., 206 NLRB 464 (1973). In both cases the Board
noted that there was no claim of difficulty in handcopy-
ing or ,understanding and held that there was no necessi-
ty for production of photocopies. Here, there is such a
claim of difficulty in handcopying, and, although Re-
spondents did not produce the contracts to demonstrate
just how voluminous they were, it is safe to say that the
documents that were produced are quite voluminous.
For example, the expiring 1982-1985 agreements each
were 12 pages long; the 1985-1988 Master Agreements
given to the Company on 18 and 19 June (and placed in
evidence) were each 16 pages long; and it is safe to
assume that the other 140 contracts furnished on 18 and
19 June are of similar length. Therefore, even without a
counting of the pages of the documents, which I have
not seen, I find no difficulty in concluding that-there are
enough of them, and that they are assuredly long enough
to justify requiring Respondents to produce them for the
purposes of photocopying.
Finally, although not mentioned in their brief, in their
answer Respondents claim that this matter should be de-
ferred to arbitration. Such contention was rejected in
General Dynamics Corp., 268 NLRB 1432 (1984), in
-which the Board held that it will not require the party
seeking relevant information to invoke separate arbitra-
tions, one for the purposes of production of relevant in-
formation and another for the disposition of the sub-
stance of a grievance.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that by refusing to
provide photocopies, or by refusing to permit photoco-
pying, of information relevant and necessary to the proc-
essing of grievances filed by Respondents, Respondents
have violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Northern Air Freight, Inc. is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
3. (a) The following employees of Northern Air
Freight, Inc. have at all times material constituted a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All office clerical employees, including lead agents,
dispatchers, agents, entry clerks and clerks of
Northern employed in. the New York, metropolitan
area, exclusive of all other employees, and guards,
and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act.
(b) The following employees of Northern Air Freight,
Inc. have at all times material constituted a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All truckdrivers, helpers, switchers, platform men,
motor lift truck operators, mechanics, garage em-
ployees and fuelers of Northern employed in the
New York metropolitan area, exclusive of all office
clerical employees, and guards, - and supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
4. At all times material to this proceeding Respondent
Local 851 and Respondent Local 295 have been the ex-
clusive representatives of the employees in the appropri-
ate units described, in paragraphs 3(a) and (b), above for
the purpose of collective bargaining' within, the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondents have violated Section 8(bx3) of the
Act by failing and refusing to supply, pursuant to de-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 851 (NORTHERN AIR) 927
mands by Northern Air Freight, Inc. photocopies of in-
formation relevant, or presumptively relevant, and neces-
sary to the processing of grievances filed on behalf of
employees.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The actions of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with their relationship
with Northern Air Freight, Inc., have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce or the free
flow of commerce.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed 3
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
29, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representatives, shall be posted by them for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.'
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director for
Region 29 sufficient copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A" in the case of the Respondent Local 851,
or sufficient copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix B" in the case of Respondent Local 295, for post-
ing by Northern Air Freight, Inc. if willing, in conspicu-
ous places at the New York City area facilities, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondents has taken to comply.
ORDER
The Respondents, Local 851, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, and Local 295, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, their officers, agents, and represent-
atives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Northern Air
Freight, Inc. by refusing to furnish that Employer with
photocopies of information relevant,' or presumptively
relevant, and necessary to the processing of grievances
filed on behalf of its employees.
(b) Engaging in any like or related conduct in deroga-
tion of Respondent's statutory duties to bargain.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) ' Furnish, on request by Northern Air Freight, Inc.,
photocopies of Respondents' 1985-1988 contracts with
other New York City area employers in the air freight
industry, which information is relevant, or presumptively
relevant, and necessary to the processing of grievances
filed on behalf of employees. Respondents shall provide,
or allow Northern Air Freight,' Inc. to make, the photo-
copies, and shall bargain over the reasonable additional
costs for furnishing the requested information, which
costs shall be assumed by Northern Air Freight, Inc.
(b) Post at their, 'business offices and meeting places
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" in
the case of Respondent Local 851, or "Appendix B" in
the case of Respondent Local 295.4 Copies of the notice,
a If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses-
4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Laboi Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the' National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively by refus-
ing requests by Northern Air Freights, Inc. for photo-
copies of our 1985-1988 contracts with other New York
area employers in the air freight industry, which infor-
mation is relevant, or presumptively relevant, and neces-
sary to the processing of grievances filed on behalf of
employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct in
derogation of our statutory duty to bargain.
WE WILL furnish, on request by Northern Air Freight,
Inc., photocopies of our 1985-1988 contracts with other
New York area employers in the air freight industry,
which information is relevant, or presumptively relevant,
and necessary in the, processing of grievances filed on
behalf of employees; we shall provide, or allow Northern
Air Freight, Inc. to make, the photocopies, and shall bar-
gain over the reasonable additional costs for furnishing
the requested information, which costs shall be assumed
by Northern Air Freight, Inc.
LOCAL 851, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse , to bargain collectively by refus-
ing requests by Northern Air Freight, Inc. for photocop-
928 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ies of our 1985-1988 contracts with other New York
City area employers in the air freight industry, which in-
formation is relevant, or presumptively relevant, and
necessary in the processing of grievances filed on behalf
of employees.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct in
derogation of our statutory duty to bargain.
WE WILL furnish , on request by Northern Air
Freights, Inc., photocopies of our 1985-1988 contracts
with other New York City area employers in the air
freight industry, which information is relevant, or pre-
sumptively relevant, and necessary in the processing of
grievances filed- on behalf of employees; we shall pro-
vide, or allow Northern Air Freight, Inc. to make, the
photocopies, and shall bargain over the reasonable addi-
tional costs for furnishing the requested information,
which costs shall be assumed by Northern Air Freight,
Inc.
LOCAL 295 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA