Procter & Gamble Mfg.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

PROCTER & GAMBLE MAN UFA(CLIRING
The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company and
Association of Employees of the Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing Company's St. Iouis Plant. Case
14-CA-10636
August 22. 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNIN(; AND) MI MBHIRS JilNKINS
ANI) PtlNl It.I )
On Mav 18, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Al-
mira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Diecision
in this proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed ex-
ceptions 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-
thorit) in this proceeding to a three-menlber painel.
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 Lawe Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National L.abor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent. The Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing Company, St. Louis. Missouri. its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Conralrr to the finding of the Adminiltratlie laiu Judge, the tr.nscripts
from the 1958 negotiations reseal that. during these negost ins. the nmon
was solel) Interested in defining the role of the joh esaluation representa-
tise. and not in the broader question of the acceiblhlts ,tf sich informil-
tion to oiher persons The transcript indicates that referente, to, the Asscl-
allon" ere expressle clarified to relate stoleIs to the lih ex .luatlon
representative
DECISION
SIATEMFNT OF 1it CASI
AilMIRA ABBOT S1EX ENSON Administrative Law, Judge: A
hearing was conducted in this proceeding at St. Louis. Mis-
souri, February 15, 1978. The charge was filed and served
on the Respondent August 25, 1977. The complaint was
issued December 27, 1977, and duly answered by the Re-
spondent. The complaint and answer were amended at the
hearing.
The issue is whether or not the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(S) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, hb refusing to furnish certain detailed informa-
tion about its job evaluation plan to the Charging Parts
Union for its use in deciding whether or not to take a job
evaluation grievance to arbitration. For the reasons fully
set forth below. I conclude that the Respondent violated
the Act as alleged.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due con-
sideration of the briefs filed by the Respondent. the Gener-
al Counsel. and the Charging Party, I make the following:
.INDIN(iS oi FX( I AND CONC I SIONS OF LAW
I iJ RIsDICTION
The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale.
and distribution of soap, synthetic detergents, food, house-
hold. and related products. Its principal office and place of
business is in Cincinnati. Ohio. and it maintains other busi-
ness facilities in several States including the one located in
St. Louis. Missouri, involved herein. During a recent repre-
sentative 12-month period the Respondent manufactured.
sold, and distributed at its St. Louis. Missouri plant, prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from
St. Louis directly to points located outside Missouri. I find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2,) (6), and (7) of the Act.
11 IABOR OR(i&NtZII()ON
The Charging Parts Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111 I N SIR I HO()R PRA(1ICLES
A. Background
IThe Union has for mans svears been the exclusive con-
tract representative of a unit of all employees at the Re-
spondent's St. I ouis plant, including salaried office clerical
employees with whom we are here concerned.'
The Respondent and the Union have always been in
agreement that job evaluations and reevaluations are the
sole responsibility and prerogative of management. The
Respondent's job esaluation plan has never been incorpo-
rated, or proposed for incorporation, in a collective-bar-
gaining agreement. The plan is described in a job evalua-
tion manual. All clerical positions are classified for salars
purposes into lettered categories beginning with A, the low-
est paid categorY. and ending with G, the highest paid.
Within each lettered category there are nine salary grades.
It is the task of an evaluation committee, or rating team, to
determine the salarn range for each clerical position by
placing each position in a category (promotion through the
I finid oil tihe hi1, efI hrjdJlninl historY. and igreenrent of the pariles
th it fli II llo u i Lunfit i- pproprIlte n11 emplo ces al the Respondent' , St
I.lIls plallt. e' dltlillt ii shier nurse persrinel mana ger's se reiart. plant
fl.illgCeI'\ SC .ICIrI Ir, -rsfC ilp rltl c lpl !ee La uards anid uplperxls-rs as de-
filledl in Ihre \l
237 NLRB No. 110
747
I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
grades within a category is achieved by an incumbent on
the basis of merit).
The personnel manager is in charge of the job evaluation
program. He trains all group managers in the procedures
and appoints the committees, which consist of four divi-
sion managers and himself. In evaluating clerical positions,
each member of the committee is provided with a copy of
the job description, which is discussed with the manager of
the division and the immediate supervisor of the position
being evaluated. Each member is also provided with a
sheet listing eight weighted factors (complexity. experience
and training, contact with others, dexterity. concentration,
accuracy, working conditions, responsibility) with a defini-
tion of each, and a ladder chart or printout of all job rat-
ings. Each member of the committee then assigns a num-
ber of points from I to 10 on each of the eight factors. The
points assigned by the five members are then averaged on
a summary sheet and multiplied by the weight percentage,
and the results added to achieve a three-figure total rating.
The job is then given a letter A to G according to its total
rating (e.g., between 500 and 599, 600 and 699, etc.). When
additional duties are added to a job which has been rated
near the top of its point spread, or when an incumbent
requests reevaluation, a job is usually reevaluated to see
whether it falls within the next higher letter category for
salary purposes.
The current bargaining agreement. effective from 1976
until 1979, contains, in article VIII, a four-step grievance
procedure covering "any matter involving the interpreta-
tion or application of any provision of this Agreement, or
any matter affecting the employee in respect to hours of
work, wages or working conditions," with final and bind-
ing arbitration for "any grievance involving the application
or interpretation of the provisions of this agreement", and
a provision governing merit increases. Article III, section 6.
provides as follows:
6. Job Evaluation. It is agreed that the Job Evalua-
tion and Time Bonus Representative, Steward of the
Department, and the Employee involved shall be noti-
fied by the Department Manager or Supervisor of the
Department, at least two days in advance of the evalu-
ation of a new job or a reevaluation of a job, and be
permitted to be heard before and after the evaluation
or reevaluation of a job, but not to sit in on the evalua-
tion itself. New jobs shall be evaluated as soon as pos-
sible after they are established.
The Employer will train an employee agreed upon
by the Union and the Employer in theories and prac-
tices of job evaluation to sit in as an observer in the
reevlauation of any job questioned by the Union. It is
understood that this employee representative will have
full right to present his views concerning the job de-
scriptions and concerning the evaluation but that he
will not participate in the actual rating.
The above provisions also apply to the Job Ranking
Procedure.
This job evaluation provision had its genesis in section
I I of the 1946 contract, which provided as follows:
It is agreed that the union steward shall be notified of
the evaluation of a new job or of any reevalued job
and be given a chance to be heard before and after the
evaluation. but not to sit in on the evaluation itself.
There was no further discussion of job evaluations until a
regular monthl? meeting between management and union
representatives held in December 1953, when the Union
requested copies of all job descriptions; management re-
served its answer, and at the January 1954 meeting man-
agement, pointing out that job descriptions could be in-
spected by employees through their foreman who could
obtain copies when needed from the personnel manager's
office, denied the request.
During the negotiations for the 1958 agreement, the
Union requested copies of the job evaluation manual and
all records pertaining to all job evaluations. This request
was turned down. The Union then proposed to appoint a
job evaluation representative to be trained by the Respon-
dent who would sit in on job evaluations and have access
to all records pertinent thereto. The Respondent agreed,
and the following provision was incorporated in the 1958
contract:
6. Job Evaluation. It is agreed that the Chairman of
the Grievance Committee, Steward of the Depart-
ment. and the Employee involved shall be notified by
the Department Manager or Foreman of the Depart-
ment at least two days in advance of the evaluation of
a new job or a re-evaluation of a job, and be permitted
to be heard before and after the evaluation or reevalu-
ation of a job, but not to sit in on the evaluation itself.
New jobs shall be evaluated as soon as possible after
they are established.
The Employer will train an employee agreed upon
by the Union and the Employer in the theories and
practices of job evaluation to sit in as an observer in
the re-evaluation of any job questioned by the Union.
It is understood that this employee representative will
have full right to present his views concerning the job
descriptions and concerning the evaluation but that he
will not participate in the actual rating.
There were no additional requests for job evaluation in-
formation until the January 1965 monthly meeting, when
the Union requested that management furnish copies of all
job descriptions to its job evaluation representative. At the
February 1966 meeting, the request was tabled for lack of
agreement. The next change in the contract provision was
made in 1967 when, at the request of the Union, the job
evaluation representative was substituted for the chairman
of the grievance committee in the first paragraph of section
6. 1'he last time this issue was raised between the parties
was at their December 1972 monthly meeting when the
Union again asked for, and the Respondent refused, copies
of all job descriptions for the Union files.
B. Immediate Events
Management conducts from 10 to 30 evaluations and
reevaluations a year, affecting the approximately 300 pro-
duction and 25 clerical jobs in the plant.
Robert Inlow is currently the job evaluation representa-
748
PROCTER & GAMNBLE MANUFACTI'RING
tive elected by the employees.' He is not a member of the
grievance committee. As provided in article 11. Section 6.
of the contract, he has been trained by the personnel matn-
ager in the theories and practices of job evaluation. He is
permitted to examine the job evaluation manual in the per-
sonnel manager's office but not to make copies or notes.
The job evaluation representative is notified in advance of
all job evaluation meetings and of the results of the meet-
ings. He attends meetings of the evaluation committee onl'
when specifically requested by the Union. At such meet-
ings the only document he is given is a cop' of the job
description of the position being evaluated. fie is permitted
to look at (but not copy) any documents in possession of
the committee, which consists of each member's eight-fac-
tor sheet, the.ladder chart, and the summary sheet. and to
ask questions and make any comments he wishes and to
enter fully into the discussion. He does not take part in the
rating, and he is not allowed to take notes or to disvulge to
anyone the point value of an's of the eight factors or the
total rating of an) job, information which the Respondent
considers confidential.3
This dispute began June 15. 1976. when employee I on's
Striblin filed a written grievance alleging discrimination iin
the evaluation of his clerical position of process depart-
mental clerk.4 As a result. Striblin's job was reevaluated.
with Job Evaluation Representative Inlow present at the
evaluation-committee meeting and participating as de-
scribed above. On July 1. 1976. Process Operations Manag-
er Hovis informed the Union that upon reevaluation. no
change was made in the classification of Striblin's job.
Upon Striblin's appeal to step three, a hearing was held
August 19, 1976. Striblin's main contention was that his
duties and job description were basically the same as those
of the MSG clerk job and yet was classified at a lower
salary range. After the hearing. Plant Manager Grindstaff
ordered all departmental clerks jobs reevaluated. As a re-
sult, the evaluation committee, with the job evaluation rep-
resentative present, reduced two other jobs but determined
that Striblin's job was properly rated for salary purposes.
Striblin appealed his grievance to the fourth level, and
the Respondent's president appointed P. J. Moore to con-
duct another hearing February 15, 1977. Present were
Moore, Personnel Manager Demey, and the three union
grievance-committee members including LeRo) Hicks its
chairman, Job-Evaluation Representative Inlow, and the
two grievants and their steward. On March 4. 1977. Moore
denied the grievance.
Upon receipt of the fourth-step answer. the union gries-
ance committee was unable to decide upon an arbitration
' intlow also holds the title of time-hbonus repreenla.ile. referrled It n .ar
Ill sec 6. of the collectise-bargaining agreement
Al this hearing, neither Inlo' nor Personnel Ma;nager Dent ,si, aihle at
name the eight factors from memor.
4A written grievance filed h, emploee Mairlene Brooks aIholll the s.lalC
time alleged discrimination in the evaluallon of her clerical postiloll :.,
Comet materials clerk below that of PSG suppls clerk The procesmll[g Of
this grievance paralleled that of Striblin' griesance throuch the fouIrth sep
with the same results. Although the t nion's requels for ilrnformatin l rpon
which this complaint is based, omitted ans reference to Brooks' grle ance. for
the purpose of simplifying the issues. i[ has remained in the same slati ias
Striblin's ever since both grievances were denied at the lfourth step. I'he
information requested would appls equalls to Brooks' griexance
recommendation, so it took the information it had on file
to the linion's attorne,. Charles Werner.' After reviewing
the file arid discussilng the grievance with Hicks. Werner
asked him for a cops of the applicable job evaluation man-
ual. prior job descriptions, rating sheets. summary sheets.
points spread. definition of the factors, and other docu-
ments he considered necessars in order to advise the griev-
ance committee as to whether in his opinion the grievance
had merit. Hicks informed Werner that the Union did not
have copies of the documents requested. Werner then
drafted the follows ing letter which was sent to Plant Manag-
er Grindstaff over the signature of LeRoy Hicks, chairman
of the union gric's.tilce conllllittee:
the Associ;ltion of F-mplo'sees of the Procter &
Ciamble Manufacturing Company's St. Louis Plant is
in the process of en alua;ting the grievance of T. Striblin
to decide whether or not to process the grievance to
Arbitration in accordance with Article A VIII of the
C(ollectixe Bargaining Agreement between the Compa-
n's and the Association. We have requested profes-
sionral and technicail assistance to aid us in our evalua-
tion of the grieance.
In order for the Association and its representatives
to full's and adequately evaluate Striblin's grievance.,
and to decide whether or not to process it to arbitra-
tion, it is essential that the Company furnish the Asso-
ciation the folloswing information which is solely in its
possession:
I. Cop' of the Procter & Gamble Job Evaluation
Manual showing the Job Evaluation Plan, including
the factors. factor definitions, weights, forms, and
all other aspects of the Plan.
2. Current copies of the Job Descriptions for the
Departmental Clerks positions.
A. If there have been any changes in the job de-
scriptioir s for the l)epartmental Clerk positions dur-
ing the last fire Nears. copies of positions during the
last five sears. copies of such revised or different job
descriptions.
4. The original evaluation sheets for the Depart-
mental Clerks positions for the past five years.
5. The Re-Esaluation comparison sheets for the
Departmental Clerks positions for the past five
years.
6. Summar', Sheets for the Departmental Clerks
shovwing the positions and factor breakdown for the
past three years.
7. Copies of the most recent rating sheets used by
the Evaluators in Re-Evaluating the Departmental
Clerks positions.
8. 'The point spread for each rate group.
If \ou have an! questions concerning the above re-
quested information, please let me know.
Hicks and Werner testified that the requested documents
were necessar' to make a determination as to whether or
' Cetrir Is tll Ilid lrsi.al entgilteer , well ;its an attorneS. a senior member
of the tltitCiit- Inllt ltCe of lnidustirial tingineers. with extensive experience
i, Iobh es.i, tt.o, i itS,> platiuce iltistlesd scriceitice processng. arbilrations.
and cttlrl prt eted ill
749
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not to take the grievance to arbitration. They explained
that they needed the manual for knowledge of the method
used to evaluate jobs; needed the current job descriptions
for comparison purposes; changes, to determine whether
duties have been added and how reevaluations are arrived
at; original evaluation sheets, reevaluation comparison
sheets, summary sheets, and most recent rating sheets, to
determine possible discrepancies and for comparison and
rating appraisal; and the point spread, to assess whether
the job is so near the breakpoint that one factor might
throw it into a higher salary range.
Grindstaff responded to Hick's request in the following
letter dated May 24, 1977:
This letter is in response to your letter concerning
the grievance of T. P. Striblin.
This request for information is governed by Article
III, Section 6, of the working agreement. We will be
happy to meet with the Job Evaluation Representative
and answer questions pursuant to this provision.
Please have Mr. Inlow contact Mr. H. K. Demey to
arrange a time for this meeting.
Neither Job Evaluation Representative Inlow nor any
member of the union grievance committee has followed up
on Grindstaff's letter. Although all employees are permit-
ted to see their own job descriptions on request to their
foreman, the grievance committee is permitted to see the
job descriptions of grievants, and Inlow has been or will be
permitted to see virtually all the documents requested in
the Union's letter, copies are not allowed. The grievance
committee is not permitted to see the job evaluation manu-
al, the ladder chart, nor any of the other requested docu-
ments. None of the requested documents is in Inlow's or
the grievance committee's possession, or in the possession
of any other union member. The personnel manager con-
ceded that copies of them can be obtained only from the
Respondent.
C. Contentions
The General Counsel and the Charging Party Union
contend that each requested document is integral to the job
evaluation scheme which concerns the status of compensa-
tion of bargaining-unit employees and is necessary to the
Union in the performance of its role as bargaining repre-
sentative in determining whether to take the grievance to
arbitration; that the Union thus has a statutory right to the
information requested; that it never waived this right; that
the Union is not seeking to change the extent of the role of
job evaluation representative in the evaluation and reevalu-
ation procedure; and that Respondent has not fulfilled its
obligation by virtue of the information in the possession of
or available to the job evaluation representative or by its
agreement, in Grindstaff's May 24. 1977. letter, to answer
Inlow's questions pursuant to article III, section 6, of the
contract, as Inlow is not a member of the grievance com-
mittee and has no responsibility with respect to arbitration
proceedings, and is not adequate because it is not in writ-
ten form and available for study and analysis by the griev-
ance committee, which is responsible.
The Respondent does not contend that it would be bur-
densome to furnish the information requested. The Re-
spondent does contend that it did not refuse the Union's
request for information, because its letter of May 24 made
all the information available to the Union's job evaluation
representative established by the contract, who was in a
position to evaluate and advise the Union as to whether or
not to take the grievance to arbitration, and that the Union
failed to avail itself of the Respondent's offer and thereby
"neither tested the Respondent's good faith nor brought its
alleged bad faith into focus": that the Union expressly
waived whatever right it may have had to the requested
information: and that the Respondent has no obligation to
furnish the information to the Union for the purpose re-
quested because job evaluation is, by contract and by
agreement of the parties, within the sole province of man-
agement. the point values alloted to jobs confidential, 6 and
the results of job evaluations are not subject to arbitration
under the contract.
D. Conclusions
It is well established that a union is charged with the
statutory duty of representing employees in a bargaining
unit, and in the exercise of that duty it is entitled, by opera-
tion of the statute, upon appropriate request, to such infor-
mation as may be relevant or reasonably necessary to the
proper performance of that duty.7 Job evaluation infor-
mation of the kind requested is presumptively relevant and
reasonably necessary to a union in the performance of its
duty to evaluate the merits of a greivance and decide
whether it should be taken to arbitration.8
The request in this case was that the Respondent furnish
copies of the designated documents to the Union in the
person of the chairman of its grievance committee. It is
clear that the Respondent refused to do this. The Board has
held that a mere offer to meet and answer questions, of the
kind made here, does not fulfill an employer's obligation to
supply such information. In this connection, the Board and
courts have said: 9
Merely meeting and conferring without a prior ex-
change of a requested data, where such is relevant,
does not facilitate effective collective bargaining and,
therefore, does not meet the requirements of Section
8(a)(l) and (5).
This is particularly true where, as here, extensive analysis
and comparison of fairly intricate and voluminous material
will be required."' Merely permitting the job evaluation
representative to look at the requested documents and then
report to the grievance committee whatever he can remember
I' he record does not support the Respondent's cniention Ihat ihe
n lon a;Idnlts the confidentialit) of the information: it sho's on1i that
mIlanrgcenlnt prohibits the job evaluation representative from resealing the
llforltillOIn.
7h I)trDeirml rdlon (ornlpani 218 NLRB 1024, 1033 {(1975, enfd. 560
I.2d 722 1(.'A 6, 1977)\ Outl Elevator (Compani, 170 NLRB 395. 397 (1968)
,,t oel-( arr Fennesusee,4 ADivsiotn of IRI+, In,. 202 NLRB 729 (1973)
(lurtiss-ltright (Corporationl, WIrigh A4cronauttica Dvision s. .'LR.B.
47 F?12d h, 68 (( A 3. 1965. (,rienrai Elelttri ('tnpiam. 199 NLRB 286,
288(1972).
!I tricd ,itatc, Poril Serv ie, 203 NL.RB 916. 921 I1973.
750
PROCTER & GA2MBILE MANE FA(1 t..RING7
in a haphazard manner is not enough.' It is the Union which
is entitled to the information and for the Union, not the
Respondent, to decide who in its organization is to receive
the documents, who is to be consulted, and who is to decide
whether to take the grievance to arbitration.i 2 Moreover, the
law is clear that a refusal by an employer to provide a
bargaining agent with information relevant to its task of
representing its constituency is a per .,c violation of the Act.
and it is no defense that the emplo,,er has in good faith
withheld the information sought.'
The Respondent further contends that the Union ex-
pressly waived its statutory right to this information bh
unsuccessfully negotiating demands that the information
be made available to the Union generally. and accepting the
compromise provision in article Ill. section 6, making the
information available. on a limited basis, to the job evalua-
tion representative only. This contention has no merit. The
Respondent points to no provision in the contract, and I
have found none. which deals with I:nion access to infor-
mation. and article III. section 6. contains no clear and
unmistakable language waiving the Union's right to infor-
mation relating to job evaluations. T4 Nor does the Ulnion's
failure to secure agreement to the furnishing of all or part
of this job evaluation information to it during contract ne-
gotiations or monthly meetings of the Union with managc-
ment constitute such a waiver.' s
That the evaluation of jobs is a prerogative within the
sole province of management does not iprso facto deprive
the Union of the right to information thereon or on the
impact of Respondent's action on unit employees: as the
employees' bargaining representative, the Union is entitled
to the information in order to make a judgment as to
whether the Respondent's exercise of its prerogative result-
ed in discrimination in job evaluation as alleged by the
grievant. 6
The Respondent offered no explanation for its claim
that the number of points assigned to a particular job bh
the evaluation committee is confidential, but the Board
has, in any event, ruled that alleged confidentiality is not a
defense to a refusal to furnish information bearing on wag-
es. 7 The Respondent's final argumer.;. raised in its brief
for the first time, is that it is not obliged to furnish job
I nnio (' rp 206 NI RB 48. 5) 119731
L7h Detroit d l,,ln ( [n lleel 22pt2/22 r' ili/2'2ll
Ihe 82 ro, /in I nln (, i ( G t iptm 220 I RB IS [ 2 :'2 2 ( .2I)
relied on hb [he Respondent 4 ak17atmita ( I /2,lni [.2,{A . ! It2 .l.l
.4l.( 1() v 1 R / /Bh. 1 , Jen ( rp,-,J,2n cr ,./ 412 1 2d 1141
,( tJ) ( 197(0. and ( PI-,ren, I',erltind (tm nr ( ..a. tr.. 1I 1 NI R1i
1436 119521. are not appsace h e em th plose re hed ad e Lc c 2 1 1,h,
the union all the documcnte s ill I sueC
5i See it n er P/lth, S n, itil, 211 NI RH 7'i 1 S 1t 9 { 4 1941 ,
(Iare I t'ne c ,t Iupra
2 (lhoe I ni,,n, In, 223 N1 RB 14'S2 19'): 2,m'r2l' ,th, i. (,2,m/2.
[Ohio 1, l2a r Plani, 179 NI RB 162. 67 1 19691 l I Int 1(4 NI RHt x
39 I1968) Accord ( Iilton Pr,,,%lp Pm- ,i 2l [12),2 l,22 1i,2 .l22 , Ip2 l2 . l%12
i2 In2 , I St, NI RB 5 ' 56 (JI19 6j, ( f l{ r, 52 ah , 12!2 ( 17I
NI RB 532 1968) Ih, Brhne ( orp-atl. i 121 NI RB 0n8 lq91 and
Internatwinal ¥ce- Scepic D)i .,.t1 fi, 1he Ct i ar2/ (orpra2t2 Ii S N RH
11}67 I955). cited hs the Respondent il which there ie leldten c Of alB
express oral abandonment hb the l nion of it. right 1, informatin or a
specfic. conlract pro2 sion to hat effect
o \ 1 IR I t, 17c I tc I , /i nl22. 22'1 2d2 21' 9 59( , \ 5. i 1u'
)
t 2a,,
S.trt, P-r2al S2 r2,, 2l2/2 .(it, 2 :lli, ( 1( ,,I222 l2 . 22/2.2
I (I, 2he 2 t1i22. I i b 2/ irt, l. /Ia, I 1 [,teni l I d,-nt ( r2 212/!22 . /Ir (, 2 '2 2.
( al2ll ,t 2 , ,ll2i22 In . I 7 2 N I R B 191, ( 1968 k
evaluation information to aid the Union in deciding wheth-
er to take Striblin's grievance to arbitration because the
job evaluation procedure is not incorporated in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and only grievances involving
application or interpretation of provisions of the agreement
are arhitrable under article VIII, and because the Respon-
dent has the exclusive right to evaluate jobs unilaterally.
However, the Union is not challenging the Respondent's
prerogative of evaluating jobs. Moreover, at this point the
Union has not decided to take the grievance to arbitration.
Indeed, the reason the Union needs the information is as
an aid in deciding that question. After examining the docu-
ments, it may decide not to proceed. The information can-
not be withheld on the possibility that if the Union does
decide to proceed, the grievance would not be arbitrable.
The Respondent's failure to raise the issue of arbitration
until now indicates that it has been willing to have the
dispute resolved by that method. However, in the event
arbitration is sought bh the Union, the Respondent can
present this. and any other argument it feels called upon to
present, to the arbitrator.i
Accordingly. I conclude that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(s) and (I) of the Act. as alleged in the com-
plaint.
IV RI:MI D)Y
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from infringing
in an) like or related manner on its employees' rights guar-
anteed by the Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
81a)(5) and II I of the Act. I recommend that it be required
to furnish the Union with the information requested in its
letter to Plant Manager Grindstaff and to post appropriate
notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER "'
i'he Respondent. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
('ompany, St. I ouis. Missouri. its officers. agents. succes-
sors. and assigns. shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with As-
sociation of Emplo)ees of the Procter & Gamble Manufac-
turing (Compans's St. l.ouis Plant, ias the exclusive repre-
sentatie of its employees in the appropriate unit by failing
and refusing upon request to furnish it with information
.Sec 1I, H ,2A, 2 ,I2,,, (2,; ( ,nltl/n,. 'If/r 12t2l2n2,2 (-tt , mpqr.i
Iltlt !,Il /lt 52. ',tl,' 12 /~l, 22 2 l22 /. t }/ il.' ( t2tr 22/222 c c.2 2 u/2r2 ( f 8i.2,2lo
ttlt .1.ill /22ti,, I t, ( 2-222 .22 I1'( N1 RB 16i 2 (196Fa2 l d l2 1 lr2h2o222r2
SIrt 2 ( 2,2l2/2;2 121 Ni RB (2)) (19(1i., 1i,2,h.h .are faltuaJll.2I dltllt u, hhible
lIn the cen2 n22. exciepti ons 2lle i f .lel prm.cii2 ed h, Se. 102 4h .-f Ihe
Ru 2 2 2le, lnd Rc .ul, illn, 2f the N.t.nal ah .rh Rela.tons B.oard the finings
.dllctltlll% itll Ic 2.2o2[ll 2 2. ()rctl i} crci l e h. lli .ai , prot ided in Set
Il' 4X ,.1 the Rule.a2nd Reulctin. 2lx J .dpiled hb the Board and beconme
it finre.ll . 2.2.2l21 l, l .l2, ( i)rdl r ,r,! ,1 , h[etilo.l, therete, s1a.ll he
,Iccttcd 22,2C. d tI,, , r 2 IpUr.PC2
751
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relevant and reasonably necessary to the performance by
the Union of its obligations as bargaining representative.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, coerc-
ing, or restraining employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Furnish Association of Employees of the Procter &
Gamble Manufacturing Company's St. Louis Plant, as ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit, with the following information heretofore requested
by the Union:
1. Copy of the Procter & Gamble job evaluation
manual showing the job evaluation plan, including the
factors, factor definitions, weights, forms, and all
other aspects of the plan.
2. Current copies of the job descriptions for the de-
partmental clerk positions.
3. If there have been any changes in the job de-
scriptions for the departmental clerk positions during
the last five years, copies of positions during the last
five years, copies of such revised or different job de-
scriptions.
4. The original evaluation sheets for the departmen-
tal clerk positions for the past five years.
5. The reevaluation comparison sheets for the de-
partmental clerk positions for the past five years.
6. Summary sheets for the departmental clerks
showing the positions and factor breakdown for the
past three years.
7. Copies of the most recent rating sheets used by
the evaluators in reevaluating the departmental clerk
positions.
8. The point spread for each rate group.
(b) Post at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of Region
14, after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to plant employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced. or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
:' Ii the eeni thlt Ihi, O(rder i, enforcd bh, .ilud l ient of a I nited
St.les ( ourl of Appeals. the Wsords in the notice reading "Posted b) Order
of the NIat(I II ahi Relationl Board" hall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Juadnien,. o the niited Staites C(art of Appeals rEnforcing an Order of the
N it.nal L.abohr Rclalions io.ard.
APPENDIX
NolicFt To EMPLOYEES
PosI DI BY ORDER OF IHE
NAtIONAI LABOR RiE.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Wt wil.l. No refuse to bargain collectively with As-
sociation of Employees of the Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing Company's St. Louis Plant. as the ex-
clusive representative of our employees in the appro-
priate unit. hby failing and refusing upon request to
furnish it with information relevant and reasonably
necessary to the performance by the Union of its obli-
gations as bargaining representative.
WE, Xti.L NOt in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
Wi[ wIol. furnish Association of Employees of the
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company's St.
Louis Plant, as exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, with informa-
tion heretofore requested by the Union pertaining to
the job evaluation program of the salaried clerical em-
ployees which is necessary and relevant to the perfor-
mance by the Union of its obligations as bargaining
representative.
PROC( ER & GAMNBLE MANUFACT URING COMPANY
752