Pic Walsh Freight Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 627 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PIC WALSH FREIGHT COMPANY
Pic Walsh Freight Company and Teamsters Local
Union No. 688, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America. Case 14-CA-7844
February 18, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
On October 24, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Pic Walsh
Freight Company, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR , Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed on March 11, 1974, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued a complaint on
July 31, 1974, against Pic Walsh Freight Company, herein
called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that it had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act, in that it refused to
furnish the Union with certain relevant information. The
Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations of
unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on
September 9, 1974. Briefs were received from the General
Counsel and the Respondent on October 2, 1974, and they
have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the
following:
I Without further identification , Blumhoff merely testified that the
216 NLRB No. 121
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
627
Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the
interstate transportation of freight and other commodities.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1973,
Respondent performed services valued in excess of
$50,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were
performed in and for various enterprises located in States
other than the State of Missouri.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Pursuant to the
Union's winning, by one vote, a non-Board conducted
election, the Respondent in 1972 recognized it as the
collective-bargaining agent for a unit of office and clerical
employees at its St. Louis, Missouri, facility. On September
29, 1972, the parties executed a collective-bargaining
agreement, the relevant portion of which provided for the
continuation of Respondent's existing pension and profit
sharing plans until June 30, 1973, at which time Respond-
ent would, insofar as these subjects are concerned,
"commence participation in the normal Contract provi-
sions." Upon expiration of this agreement, Respondent
became party to a master agreement designated as Saint
Louis Office Employees Rider to the Central States Area
Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement, which by its
terms is effective from July 1, 1973, through March 31,
1976.
Article 55 of the above contract provides for and sets
forth the terms of a pension plan for the employees covered
by this agreement. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent and
the Union submitted a joint application for coverage of
Respondent's employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
In the early part of January 1974, Ira Levy, the business
representative of Local 688, was advised, apparently by an
administrative official of the Union, that further informa-
tion would be needed in order to process the application
and make the plan effective.' The information requested
consisted of the names of the employees in the aforenoted
unit and the amount that each such employee received
under Respondent's profit-sharing plan which, pursuant to
the initial contract, was to terminate on June 30, 1973. It is
undisputed that the Union, on several occasions in January
and February 1974, requested Respondent to provide it
with the aforesaid information. It is further undisputed that
request for this information came in a letter he received from Central States
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
although Respondent did provide the Union with the
names of the employees, it refused and still refuses to
submit the lump sums which each employee received as his
share under the profit-sharing plan upon the termination
thereof which occurred on or about June 30, 1973 2 When
queried as to the reason for refusing to furnish this
information, Julius Blumhoff, Respondent's president,
testified as follows:
Well, my reason for refusal to supply, I just believe this
was employer-employee relationship, it was something
inaugurated by the company for the benefit of the
employees for doing a job and doing a better job and
helping the company make money. I just honestly don't
believe that the Central States should have any access
to this fund, this was money that these people actually
earned before they were propositioned to go into the
union , and I believe that this information had been
submitted to the employees that their profit-sharing
funds were going to go in there , or I don't think they
would have ever got it. They only won by one vote.
Blumhoff further testified that on an occasion in
February when Levy came to his office to request the
information, he told the business representative, "You have
your steward here and yourself and you have my
permission to go out into the office, take your time and ask
each and every employee to give you that information if
they so desire." The record reflects that there are about 26
to 30 employees in the unit. Although the record does not
reflect Levy's response to this offer, Levy did say that the
steward attempted but failed to obtain this information
from the employees.
Conclusions
I do not deem it necessary to cite case authority
governing the controlling principle herein, for in its brief
Respondent recognizes the well established rule of law that
an employer has an obligation to furnish the collective-
bargaining agent with information which is relevant to the
proper performance of its duties, including information
relevant to the administration of the collective-bargaining
agreement . Respondent's sole defense in this case is that
the information sought by the Union (i.e., the amounts
paid to the employees upon termination of the Company's
profit-sharing plan) is not relevant. In finding no merit to
this defense , as I do, some further facts are here in order.
Thus, article 55 of the 1973 collective-bargaining agree-
ment provides as follows:
By the execution of this Agreement, the Employer
authorizes the Employer's Associations which are
parties hereto to enter into appropriate trust agree-
ments necessary for the administration of such Fund,
and to designate the Employer Trustees under such
agreement , hereby waiving all notice thereof and
2 Respondent 's profit-sharing plan was instituted in 1966 . The parties
stipulated that under the plan the unit employees received a lump sum upon
termination of their coverage . Although the record reflects that Respondent
also had a pension plan, it appears that the Union did not request similar
ratifying all actions already taken or to be taken by
such Trustees within the scope of their authority.
Herman Lucking, Jr., is an employer trustee of the
Central States Pension Plan. Lucking testified that on May
5, 1970, the Board of Trustees of the Central States
Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Plan passed the
following resolution:
Where a cash payment is made to a member under a
company pension plan, or under a profit sharing plan, it
will be the Central States Policy to deduct from the
Central States benefit 20% per month of that amount
until the cash amount has been absorbed. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Lucking further testified, "At the time a new group
applies for coverage, we request the local union to have the
company provide us with a certified copy of the cash paid
to the account of each person." He said an application for
coverage would not be accepted unless this information
were provided.
As set forth in the provision cited above, Respondent, as
party to the contract, has agreed to ratify all actions taken
by the trustees. There is no contention that by adopting the
resolution of May 5, 1970, the trustees acted beyond the
scope of their authority. From all the foregoing, therefore,
it is crystal clear that under the terms of the contract,
including the action taken by the trustees pursuant thereto,
Respondent was bound to furnish the Union with the
profit-sharing data requested by it in January and
February 1974.3 There can be, accordingly, no question
but that the information sought is relevant to the
administration of the collective-bargaining agreement. By
refusing to furnish this information to the Union, I find
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5), and derivatively,
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
data relative to this plan. The record is silent as to why it did not.
3 There is, of course, no question before me as to the merits of the
Union's pension plan, including that aspect of the plan covered by the May
5 resolution as adopted by the trustees
PIC WALSH FREIGHT COMPANY
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
information relevant and necessary to the performance by
it of its obligations as bargaining representative of the
office-clerical employees of the Respondent , Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the
following:
ORDER4
Respondent , Pic Walsh Freight Company, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to supply Teamsters Local Union
No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, with information relevant and necessary to the
performance of its obligations as the collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent 's employees in the appropri-
ate unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
bargaining rights through the above-named Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, furnish to the above-named Union
information concerning the amount of vested interest paid
by Respondent to each employee in the office-clerical unit
who had previously participated in Respondent's profit-
sharing plan.
(b) Post at its facility in St . Louis, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said
629
notices on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative , shall be posted by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
3 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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.""
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request by Teamsters Local Union
No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, provide it with information concerning the
amount of vested interest paid by us to each employee
in the office-clerical unit who has previously participat-
ed in our profit-sharing plan.
PIC WALSH FREIGHT
COMPANY