Rockwell-Standard Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Rockwell -Standard Corporation , Transmission and
Axle Division , Forge Division and International
Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
"AFL--CIO. Case 7-CA-5558
June 28, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On March 28, 1967, Trial Examiner William F.
Scharnikow issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof, the Union filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
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
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and the entire record in
this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein.I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that the Respondent,
Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission and
Axle Division, Forge Division, Detroit, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified:
Reletter present paragraph 2 as paragraph 3,
and add the following as paragraph 2 to the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order:
"2. Post at its Clark Avenue facility in Detroit,
Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's represents
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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."
i Unlike the case cited by the Trial Examiner, where no exceptions
were filed to a Trial Examiner's failure to recommend the posting of a
notice, we here find meet in the General Counsel's exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's departure from our cutsomary practice of ordering the posting
of a notice as part of the remedy for the commission of unfair labor prac-
tices.
'- In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals En-
forcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, you are notified that:
WE WILL, upon request, furnish Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 174,
with the names, classifications, wage rates, and
job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical
and office employees and of service contract
office and clerical employees working in the
Bagley Building, Detroit, Michigan.
ROCKWELL STANDARD
CORPORATION TRANS-
MISSION AND AXLE DIVI-
SION, FORGE DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Bou-
levard, Detroit, Michigan, Telephone 226-3200.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F. SCHARNIKOW, Trial Examiner: The com-
plaint in the present case alleges, but the Respondent in
its answer denies, that the Respondent has refused to
166 NLRB No. 23
ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP.
furnish the Union with information necessary and rele-
vant to the Union's performance of its role as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of an appropriate bargain-
ing unit of the Respondent's employees and has thereby
committed an unfair labor practice affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et. seq., herein called the Act. The
Union's charge to this effect was filed and served by re-
gistered mail upon the Respondent on April 10, 1966.
The complaint was issued and served upon the Respon-
dent on September 13, 1966.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Detroit,
Michigan, on December 1 and 2, 1966. The General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union appeared by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issue. Since the hearing, I have
received and considered briefs from the General Counsel,
the Respondent, and the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Rockwell-Standard Corporation, a
Delaware corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of automobile and
motor vehicle parts and other products, in various States
of the United States, including the State of Michigan. Its
Transmission and Axle Division and its Forge Division,
both of which are located at 100-400 Clark Street,
Detroit, Michigan (herein called the Clark Street
buildings or place of business), and the Automotive Divi-
sion Headquarters which is located at 415 Clifford,
Detroit, Michigan (herein called the Bagley Building), are
the only facilities involved in this proceeding. During the
representative year ending on December 31, 1965,
Respondent purchased and caused to be transported and
delivered to it at its Clark Street place of business, ferrous
metals, parts and assemblies, and other goods and materi-
als of a value exceeding $50,000, which were transported
and delivered to it in Detroit, Michigan, directly from
points located outside the State of Michigan. During the
same year, the Respondent manufactured, sold, and dis-
tributed at and from its Clark Street place of business,
products of a value exceeding $50,000, which were
shipped directly to points located outside the State of
Michigan. I find and conclude that the Respondent is now
and has been at all material times an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to entertain jurisdiction
in this case.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No. 174 (herein collec-
tively referred to as the Union) are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
125
A. General Findings and the Issue
Since certification by the Board in Case 7-RC-1223 in
1952, the Union (i.e., the International and its Local 174)
has been the contractually recognized exclusive bargain-
ing representative of an office and clerical unit of em-
ployees of the Respondent and its predecessors' who
have worked in three buildings comprising the Respond-
ent's Clark Street, Detroit office and production facili-
ties. Originally, two of these three buildings housed only
the Respondent's Transmission and Axle Division and
the third, its Forge Division; and the employees in the of-
fice and clerical unit served only these two divisions. In
1958 or 1959, however, the Respondent moved its Au-
tomotive Sales Division into the Clark Street buildings
and, in the second quarter of 1964, it organized and
located in one of the same buildings, an Automotive Divi-
sion Headquarters through which it has since ad-
ministered all 35 of its domestic and foreign operations in
the automotive field. With these changes, the employees
in the Clark Street office and clerical unit have served not
only the Transmission and Axle and Forge Divisions, but
also the Respondent's Automotive Division as well.
On March 25, 1965, the Union and the Respondent ex-
ecuted their present contract which will expire on
December 1, 1967. The contract covers and describes
the existing Clark Street office and clerical unit, incor-
porating by general reference the inclusions specifically
set forth in the Board's 1951-52 finding of appropriate
unit, but specifically enumerating the exclusions agreed
upon by the parties in the contract.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed in the present
proceeding, and I find upon consolidating the language of
the two unit descriptions, that the Union (i.e., the Interna-
tional and its Local 174) is, and has been at all times
material in the present case, the exclusive bargaining
agent of the following appropriate bargaining unit of the
Respondent's employees within the meaning of Section
9(a) and (b) of the Act:
All office and clerical employees of the Respondent
at the Clark Street place of business, including the
employees of the following departments: Cost de-
partment, mail, file, stationery, telephone, teletype,
and receptionist department, stenographic and ex-
ecutive secretary department, accounts payable de-
partment, burner department, material record depart-
ment, receiving inspection department, purchasing
follow-up department, planning department, tool
design department, general factory department, plant
layout department, time-study department, time and
tabulating department, tool stores, inspection quality
control department, traffic department, service de-
partment, and forge office; and switchboard opera-
tors; follow-men in the plant engineering and sales
departments; and blueprint operators; but excluding
all detailers; all layout men; all checkers; all junior
engineers; all mathematicians; all product designers;
all nurses; all laboratory technicians; all officers of
the Company, all division heads; all plant managers;
all superintendents; all office managers and their
assistants; all department heads-and assistant depart
I Originally, Timken Detroit Axle Company, and then, in succession,
first the Standard Steel Spring Company, and then (upon a change in
name) the present Respondent.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment heads; all secretaries to officers of the Com-
pany; all secretaries to division heads; all secretaries
to superintendent; all secretaries to office manager;
all secretaries to department heads; all executive
assistants in the accounting and sales departments;
all employees of the Company's personnel and labor
relations departments; all time study men; all tool
progress engineers; all cost research analysts; all
plant protection employees; all sales account execu-
tives; all sales engineers; all employees included in
the production bargaining unit represented by Local
174, or another bargaining unit for which another
labor organization has been certified; and also all
guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
The parties have thus generally included in the unit all
the Respondent's office and clerical employees in the
various departments at its Clark Street place of business
and have excluded only specifically enumerated catego-
ries. In performing their work, included and excluded em-
ployees in the same department have shared space and in-
termingled, and there has therefore been no such physical
separation as might have indicated the parties' un-
derstanding as to which were in the unit and which were
outside. Furthermore, demarcation of the unit and the
work to be properly allocated to and performed by the
employees represented by the Union in the unit has de-
pended both upon the construction given by the parties to
the terms used to describe the excluded categories and
upon continuing agreement as to the work customarily
performed by these employees and therefore outside the
unit. In this situation, the very description of the unit was
likely to raise questions as to what work was in the unit
and, as the parties stipulated, grievances filed by the
Union over the years show that this was a continuing
problem.
Since World War II, there has been a substantial
decrease in the overall number of the Respondent's Clark
Street employees. The production force dropped from a
wartime high of approximately 4,000 to about 1,000,
mostly because of reduced peacetime production require-
ments but apparently also because of shifts of some
production operations to other plants and facilities of the
Respondent both in the Detroit area and in Ohio. A
roughly proportionate reduction in the number of em-
ployees whom the parties have recognized as being in the
Clark Street office and clerical unit also occurred from a
1954 Korean War high of 410 to a fluctuating number
between 89 and 93 in the 3 or 4 years preceding and in-
cluding 1965.
All this is undisputed background essential to an un-
derstanding of the issue in the present case. The instant
controversy between the Union and the Respondent is
the result of the Respondent's moving its Automotive
Division Headquarters on November 8, 1965, from the
Clark Street buildings to the Bagley Building, a new office
building in downtown Detroit. The Respondent had
discussed this possibility with the Union during their con-
tract negotiations early in 1965 and on September 2 of
that year, had notified the Union it intended to make the
move in November.
During the contract negotiations and in subsequent
meetings and letters to the Respondent (the last of which
was written on April 20, 1966), the Union expressed its
concern about the transfer of any office or clerical work
or workers to the new building with a consequent further
reduction or "erosion" of the Clark Street unit it
represented. It also asked the Respondent for information
as to the names, classifications, rates of pay, and job
descriptions of the Bagley Street office clerical em-
ployees, which it asserted was essential to the intelligent
performance of its function as bargaining representative
and protector of the interests of the Respondent's Clark
Street office and clerical employees. And it filed a
grievance protesting the Respondent's continued "tempo-
rary" employment of certain new office and clerical em-
ployees in the Bagley Street Building. The Respondent
refused to supply the requested information and rejected
the grievance.
The evidence as to all this, including the substance of
the exchanges between the parties and the circumstances
in which they occurred, is relevant to the issue in the
present case and must therefore be considered. But the
precise, limited issue presented by the complaint and the
Respondent's answer is whether the Respondent com-
mitted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act by its ultimate refusal on May 2,
1966, to give the information requested by the Union in
a letter dated April 20, 1966.
B. The 1965 Contract Negotiations
The 1965 contract negotiations began in December
1964 and continued until the new contract was executed
on March 25, 1965. In the course of these negotiations,
the Union submitted to the Respondent three successive
sets of detailed written proposals for changes in, or addi-
tions to, the provisions of their expiring contract. These
proposals and orally framed alternatives and additions
were discussed before they were either rejected or ac-
cepted by the Respondent. As executed on March 25,
1965, the contract (like the preceding contract) contained
a "Waiver" provision, according to which the Respond-
ent and the Union each "voluntarily and unqualifiedly
waive [d] the right ... to bargain collectively with respect
to any subject or matter referred to, or covered in this
Agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not
specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement,
even though such subject or matter may not have been
within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both
of the parties at the time that they negotiated or signed
this Agreement."
Early in the 1965 negotiations, the Union had heard
that the Respondent was considering moving the Au-
tomotive Division Headquarters to a downtown office
building. In anticipation of the possible effect of such a
move on the bargaining unit it represented, the Union
made a number of proposals which either would have ex-
tended the scope of the existing Clark Street unit to office
and clerical employees at the new location, or would have
recognized an existing "jurisdictional" basis for the
Union's negotiating with the Respondent concerning any
contemplated transfer to the new building of Clark Street
employees or the work which they were then doing for
the Automotive Division.
The Union's various proposals suggesting what would
have amounted to an agreed extension of the Clark Street
bargaining unit were submitted in writing. In the first two
sets of these proposals it asked that the Respondent
recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of
"all office and clerical employees of the Detroit City area
offices" of the Respondent, instead of merely as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of "all office and clerical em-
ployees of the Company at its offices at 100-400 Clark
ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 127
Street," as provided by the preceding contracts. And in
its third set of written proposals, the Union made an alter-
native suggestion that two other changes be made in the
language of the previous contract, the first by an amend-
ment of the language used to identify the Respondent as
party to the contract, and the second by the incorporation
of an entirely new clause with respect to the existing
separately defined "Jurisdictional Districts" within the
unit, in each of which "Districts" specially designated
union committeemen or stewards represented employees
in the handling of grievances.2 The first of these two
proposals was that the Respondent be identified in the
new contract as "the General Offices of the
Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Detroit, Michigan"
rather than, as theretofore, as "the Transmission and
Axle Division and Forge Division, Rockwell-Standard
Corporation, Detroit, Michigan." The companion change
requested by the Union was the addition of a new clause
providing that, "If any of the existing offices are moved
to a different location, the Union reserves the right to
rearrange the jurisdictional districts as set forth in the Ap-
pendix to this Agreement."
The Respondent rejected these proposals. Harold
Berg, the Respondent's director of industrial re atlons,
told the Union in substance that the contract was limited
to Clark Street employees, that the Union's proposals
would extend the bargaining unit to include not only such
office and clerical employees who might thereafter work
at any new Detroit location but also office and clerical
employees in several of the Respondent's other
long-established plants and offices in surburban Detroit,
and that in any event the Respondent would not agree to
expand the bargaining unit beyond the employees in the
Clark Street buildings. This was the substance of the
testimony of both Berg and Richard Hug, the Union's
unit chairman and one of its negotiators, who were the
only witnesses at the hearing.
Hug testified that during the negotiations the Union
also orally requested some provision in the contract
covering and permitting "the orderly transfer" of Clark
Street office and clerical employees should any of them
be moved to a new office downtown, but that Berg re-
jected this request, stating in substance that the proposal
was premature since there might be no move and that, if
there were, none of the Clark Street employees would be
moved. I credit Hug's testimony to this effect despite
Berg's denial in his testimony that there had been any
such union proposal during the negotiations.
Having thus rejected each of the Union's foregoing
proposals, the Respondent did accept a request by the
Union for an inversion of phrases in the preamble to the
contract, so that, as a result, the preamble to the current
1965 contract now refers to the Respondent as "The
Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission and Axle
Division and Forge Division, Detroit, Michigan," rather
than (as in the previous contracts) as "the Transmission
and Axle Division and Forge Division, Rockwell-Stan-
dard Corporation, Detroit, Michigan."
Berg did not testify as to why the Respondent agreed
to this change and certainly, on the face of it, its sig-
nificance is obscure. But Hug testified that he told Berg
the Union wanted the change in order "to maintain ju-
risdi;.ticn" over the "corporate" element of the unit's
work (i.e., the office and clerical work then being per-
formed at Clark Street for the Automotive Division), as
well as the unit's work for the Transmission and Axle
Division and the Forge Division.
In the light of subsequent events, however, it is of rela-
tively little importance to the exact issue presented to the
Board in the instant case, whether in the 1965 contract
negotiations the Respondent recognized the Union's "ju-
risdiction" over the work then being performed in the unit
for the Automotive Division at Clark Street or even
whether (as I have found) the Union then sought a provi-
sion in the contract relating to the possible future transfer
of some of the bargaining unit employees. For the
Union's position on these matters which furnished the
foundation and springboard for its later requests of the
Respondent for relevant bargaining information, was in
any event shortly thereafter fully stated in a letter written
by the Union's International Representative Edwin
Reno to Industrial Relations Director Berg on May 17,
1965. In this letter, the Union asserted its jurisdiction
over any office and clerical work which might be "trans-
ferred elsewhere in the Metropolitan Detroit vicinity,"
claimed that it had already proposed that there be some
contractual provision governing the transfer of unit per-
sonnel with all their existing benefits under the contract,
and, on these bases, made the following request:
We are therefore requesting that if any or part of the
work, now being performed by bargaining unit em-
ployees, is transferred to some other location within
the vicinity of Metropolitan Detroit, we immediately
sit down and negotiate some orderly procedure
covering this problem.
C. The Respondent's Notice of its Intended Transfer of
the Automotive Division and the Union's Original
Request for Information on November 4, 1965
On September 2, 1965, Industrial Relations Director
Berg called together Unit Chairman Hug and the rest of
the Union's bargaining committee whom he then told that
the Respondent would move the various departments
comprising the Automotive Division Headquarters from
the Clark Street building to the Bagley Building in
November. In answer to Hug's questions, Berg said that
the Respondent recognized the Union's jurisdiction only
at Clark Street; that none of the bargaining unit em-
ployees would be transferred or released but all would be
retained in their current assignments at Clark Street; that
the work which had been performed by them for the Au-
tomotive Division at Clark Street would be brought to
them by station wagon from the Bagley Building, a
distance of about 3-1/2 miles, and would still be per-
formed by them at Clark Street, except that the Respon-
dent would have to hire some "temporary" employees
(such as telephone operators, mailroom clerks, and tele-
type operators) for service jobs which by their nature had
to be performed with the Automotive Division in the
Bagley Building.3 Hug asked Berg for another meeting so
that the Union's International representative and his at-
torney might be present, and Berg agreed.
The meeting thus requested was held on November 4,
1965, 4 days before the Respondent moved into the
2 The Union made no request for a change in the language of the basic testimony given by Berg and Hug. Only Hug testified concerning Berg's
provisions of the expiring 1961-64 contract as "Jurisdictional Districts." statement about the Respondent's intention to hire "temporary" service
3 With one exception, these findings are made upon consistent employees at the Bagley Building I credit his testimony.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bagley Building.4 The Union's Attorney, Michael Fried-
man, expressed the Union's concern about the reduction
of the Clark Street bargaining unit, which he described as
an "erosion" of the unit, and stated that the Union be-
lieved the movement of employees "would have an ad-
verse effect on bargaining unit work." He asked Industri-
al Relations Director Berg to give the Union the names,
job descriptions, and titles of the employees who would
be working in the Clark Street building and also answers
to other questions which the Union would submit.5 He
said that this information was needed by the Union to
handle "past and future grievances" on behalf of "bar-
gaining unit personnel ," and that the law required the
Respondent to give the Union this information. Finally,
Attorney Friedman asked Berg to permit the Union to ex-
amine the new Bagley Building facilities.
Berg agreed to the Union's making a tour of the Bagley
Building "once the office was settled there. 116 He said that
if the Union still wanted the information Friedman had
requested, Berg would give the request further attention
but "indicated" (according to Hug's testimony which I
credit) that "if the Respondent were to give it . . . [the
Union] would have to wait a period of time before [it]
got it."7 At this meeting on November 4, Berg did not
promise to give the Union any of the information it had
then requested or which it might thereafter request.8
D. The Respondent's Transfer of the Automotive Divi-
sion on November 8, 1965
As noted, the Respondent moved its Automotive Divi-
sion Headquarters from the Clark Street buildings into
the Bagley Building on November 8, 1965. No, Clark
Street unit employees have been moved, and up to the
time of the hearing in the present case on December 1,
and 2, 1966, none were released. The number of the em-
ployees in the unit has not changed and all of them have
continued to perform essentially the same work at Clark
Street which they had previously performed there. As
Berg had told Hug and the Unit Committee, the Respon-
dent has in fact used a station wagon to bring back work
from the Bagley Building so that it could be performed by
the unit employees at Clark Street. Thus, for example,
dictation recorded in the Bagley Building has been trans-
cribed by the Clark Street operators, and tracings
4 As noted , only Berg and Hug testified at the hearing. Their testimony
as to the November 4 and another later meeting between the Respond-
ent's and the Union's representatives on December 10 was to a great ex-
tent consistent. There were a few square conflicts, but the differences for
the most part were differences in emphasis, coloration , omissions by one
of details as to which the other testified, and the order of their narration of
the elements of the November 4 conversation. It seems clear that both
men were attempting to give a truthful version in each case of what hap-
pened . Accordingly , except as noted in the margin , the following findings
as to the November 4 and another later meeting between the Respond-
ent's and the Union's representatives on December 10 was to a great ex-
of them on a point which was not expressly nor by reasonable implication
denied by the other Where there were differences in the testimony, they
are resolved by the findings in the text and the relevant differences, which
I have considered, are set forth in the footnotes.
5 Both Hug and Berg agreed in their testimony that Attorney Friedman
asked for job descriptions and titles. But only Berg testified that Friedman
said he would also submit further detailed questions I credit Berg on this.
8 The quotation is from Berg's testimony but both Hug and Berg agreed
that Berg had acquiesced to the Union 's request at the November 4 meet-
ing.
, This finding is made upon the substance of, and the quotation is taken
from, a portion of Hug's testimony on direct examination which I credit
At an earlier point in his direct testimony, Hug had stated that when asked
prepared by the professional employees in the Bagley,
Building have been blueprinted by unit employees on the
Clark Street blueprinting machine.
According to Berg, the Respondent transferred to the
agre-yBuilding only those owe and clerical services
(such as reception, switchboard desk, teletype, stationery
stock, filing and mail services) which by their nature
could not be performed for the Automotive Division
anywhere other than in the Bagley Building. And (still ac-
cording to Berg) these services (with the exception of
some filing done by secretaries) have since been per-
formed in the Bagley Building, not by employees of the
Respondent, but by employees of office-service contrac-
tors, upon whom the Respondent has relied for these par-
ticular services at the Bagley Building. Moreover, as Berg
stressed in his testimony, the unit employees who had
rendered this type of service for the Automotive Division
have been kept at their same or similar jobs in con-
tinuance of such service at Clark Street for the Axle and
Transmission Division and the Forge Division.9
The Union, however, still suspects that some of the
Clark Street unit work for the Automotive Division (in
addition to the "direct services" referred to by Berg) was
also transferred to the Bagley Building where it has been
performed by new employees or by continuing nonunit
employees (such as secretaries, for example) who were
transferred to the Bagley Building with the executives,
and the managerial, supervisory, and professional person-
nel. Indeed, this suspicion is the justification which the
Union and the General Counsel advance for the Union's
request for information. The Respondent denies that
there was any such transfer of unit work to the Bagley
Building, and for this reason Industrial Relations
Director Berg testified, and was cross-examined at some
length, on the subject.
But the issue in the present case is not whether the
Respondent actually did or did not transfer unit work to
the Bagley Building but whether, in 1965 and early 1966,
the Union requested the Respondent to furnish informa-
tion relevant to a suspected transfer of unit work and, if
so, whether the Respondent's replies to the request were
sufficient to satisfy its bargaining obligation under the
Act. And it is, therefore, in this light that Berg's
testimony must be considered.
at the November 4 meeting for a summary of the Bagley Building "job du-
ties, classifications or titles," Berg had said "it could be arranged, but that
it would be a while before he could get this information because of the
multitudeness of this." Despite this implication of a promise by Berg to
provide the requested information , I find upon the remainder of Hug's
testimony from which the quotations in the text have been taken that Berg
promised merely to give the request further attention if he were asked to
do so after the Union had made its tour of the Bagley Building.
8 Berg's testimony is credited on this point. See also the preceding foot-
note as to the related testimony of Hug.
8 Berg admitted only one other exception , which he in effect minimized
as a negligible, necessary adjustment of no substantial effect on the unit
work or the unit employees involved. Before the move to the Bagley
Building , Clerk Helen Beske had performed a number of duties including
checking invoices on certain scientific periodicals purchased by the
Respondent for the Automotive Division . According to Berg, despite a
somewhat ambiguous statement made by him in a pretrial statement given
to the General Counsel, this work did not amount to 80 percent of her
work but was in fact a relatively small part of it. Since the move to the
Bagley Building, the checking of these invoices has been done by one of
the secretaries, and Beske , in accordance with her classification as a
general clerk, has, to this extent, been assigned substitute work in addition
to the other work she has always performed at Clark Street
ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP.
On its face, Berg's testimony at the hearing in
December 1966 that there was no such transfer of unit
work as would actually have presented a bargainable
issue appears credible. But it was cursory and general,
and the Board is not called upon to decide this question
upon the present record, nor therefore to reach a conclu-
sion in the present case which might be regarded as bind-
ing upon the parties should the matter again come up in
the course of future bargaining negotiations between the
Union and the Respondent. Instead, the Board's proper
inquiry with respect to this portion of Berg's testimony is
whether its substance was disclosed by the Respondent's
replies to the Union in substantial and reasonable
satisfaction of the Union's request for information as to
relevant, underlying detail in 1965 and early 1966.
E. The Union's Further Requests For Information and
the Respondent's Replies
A week or so after the Automotive Division Headquar-
ters had been moved into the Bagley Building in
November 1965, Industrial Relations Director Berg and
another personnel man took Unit Chairman Hug and
several other union committeemen on the promised tour
of all eight floors of the new quarters. The tour took less
than an hour. Although the members of the union com-
mittee were shown and walked through the areas in which
employees were working in the different departments and
were not prevented from talking to employees or from
seeing whatever they wanted to see, it is evident that the
tour was too brief and the opportunity too limited for
them to determine whether there had been a transfer of
any of the details of the office and clerical work formerly
done in the bargaining unit at Clark Street, other than that
of the receptionist and switchboard operators. During the
tour, however, the union committee was told that the
Bagley Building receptionist, telephone operators, tele-
type operator, and mail service and stores attendant were
not employees of the Respondent but were employees of
a service contract agency.
Thereafter, in a letter to Industrial Relations Director
Berg dated November 23, 1965, the Union repeated At
torney Friedman's oral request of November 4 that the
Respondent "furnish the Union with a list of names, clas-
sifications, and a summary of job duties of all employees
at the new [Bagley Building] location" but limited the
request to "non-confidential employees."
In addition, on December 9, 1965, the Union filed a
"policy grievance," purportedly based upon article XIV
of the contract which limits the Respondent's hire of
"temporary employees ... through a service organiza-
tion" to a period not exceeding 30 calendar days. The
Union took this action apparently in the belief that at
least the Respondent's use of the "service" employees in
the Bagley Building for more than 30 days constituted a
breach of article XIV and therefore furnished the basis of
such a "complaint arising under the terms of this Agree-
ment" as to be "considered a grievance," settlement of
which should be attempted by resort to the 4-step
"Grievance Procedure" and ultimate arbitration under
io Section A, article VI, of the contract provides that:
Any complaint arising under the terms of this Agreement when
presented by a steward or other duly accredited Union representative
on behalf of an employee covered by this agreement to the em-
129
article VI of its contract with the Respondent.10 The full
text of the Union's grievance was the following:
Violation of Article 14, Section B.
Temporary employees working on the switchboard,
teletype machines, reception desk, stationery stock,
traffic reservations, and mail services at the new of-
fice location on Bagley Avenue have worked on
these jobs in excess of thirty (30) calendar days.
Request full time bargaining unit employees be hired
and placed on these jobs immediately.
On the next day, December 10, Industrial Relations
Director Berg delivered to the Union the Respondent's
written rejection of this grievance, thus complying with
the provision of article VI of the contract relating to the
third step of the four steps preceding mandatory arbitra-
tion. The Respondent's rejection was in the following lan-
guage:
Labor Relations Reply: Grievance dated 12/9/65
(Office Unit).
The subject matter of this complaint is not a
grievance within the meaning of Article VI, Section
A, of the Labor Agreement. Further, the terms and
conditions of the Labor Agreement are applicable
only to the Transmission and Axle and Forge Divi-
sion located at 100-400 Clark Avenue, Detroit,
Michigan, and does not extend to the new Automo-
tive Division Headquarters building in downtown
Detroit.
Lastly, none of the personnel performing the work in
question are employed by Rockwell-Standard Cor-
poration.
On December 10, 1965, the same day the Respondent
rejected the Union's grievance, Berg also met with Hug,
International Representative Edwin Reno, and the
Union's committee and told them that the Union was not
entitled to the information requested in the Union's letter
of November 23 with respect to the names, classifica-
tions, and duties of nonconfidential employees in the
Bagley Building since, in Berg's opinion, the Union was
the bargaining agent only for employees at Clark Street
and not for any of the employees in the Bagley Building.
When reminded by International Representative Reno of
Union Attorney Friedman's expression of concern about
"erosion" of the Clark Street unit, Berg replied that the
Union had not as yet submitted "specific questions"
relating to this matter.
On December 15, 1965, the Union informed the
Respondent in writing of its appeal of the Respondent's
rejection of the December 9 grievance "to the 4th step of
the grievance procedure." And, in a letter written by Unit
Chairman Hug to Industrial Relations Director Berg on
December 22, 1965, the Union repeated its general
ployee's supervisor shall be considered a grievance and an earnest ef-
fort shall be made to settle same by the following methods of
procedure:....
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request for information consisting of the "names, classifi-
cations, and a summary of job duties of all noncon-
fidential employees who are employed at the new office
location on Bagley Avenue," and further stated:
We cannot process the grievances that have accumu-
lated at the Fifth Step of the Grievance Procedure to
arbitration since we are unable to bargain intel-
ligently on these as well as other past and future
grievances until the information requested is
furnished.
On December 27, 1965, Berg answered this letter as
follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated
December 22, 1965.
Please be advised that our position regarding your
request for a list of names, classifications, and a sum-
mary of job duties is as stated to you during our
meeting of December 10, 1965.
On February 1, 1966, the Union filed an earlier charge
against the Respondent in Case 7-CA-5449, alleging that
the Respondent's refusal to supply the information
requested by the Union constituted a refusal to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
On March 7, 1966, while this earlier unfair labor prac-
tice charge was pending, the Respondent, either over-
looking or ignoring the Union's December 15, 1965,
notice of grievance appeal, informed the Union in writing:
Please be advised that based on the Union's failure
to appeal grievance 65-35 to the fourth step of the
Grievance Procedure in accordance with the provi-
sions of Article VI of the existing Labor Agreement,
the Company considers this particular grievance as
settled on the basis of the Company answer sub-
mitted to you on December 9, 1965.
In reply to this letter, Unit Chairman Hug informed
Berg by letter dated March 16, 1966, that the Union's
grievance of December 9, 1965, was one of the
grievances to which the Union had referred in its letter of
December 22, 1965, and that:
We are holding this and other pertinent grievances in
abeyance until our right to the requested information
is affirmed and therefore is not to be considered as a
withdrawal of these grievances.
Once again I wish to state that we are unable to bar-
gain intelligently on these and other past or future
grievances until such time as the requested informa-
tion is submitted.
On April 8 , 1966 , the Union withdrew its charge in
Case 7-CA-5449, and, in a telephone call on April 11,
1966 , Union Attorney Friedman notified Industrial Rela-
tions Director Berg of the withdrawal of the charge
because it was "too broad." Friedman asked Berg
whether in his opinion the Respondent would furnish the
Union with the names , pay rates, classifications, and job
descriptions of the nonconfidential employees who were
working in the Bagley Building. Berg asked Friedman to
put his request in writing.
Accordingly, on April 20, 1966 , Attorney Friedman
wrote Berg the following letter:
Since the opening of your new office building on
Bagley Avenue the UAW has been confronted with
a serious problem of preserving the integrity of its of-
fice unit at your Clark Street location. Although no
office employees represented by the UAW have
been transferred to the Bagley Avenue building, we
suspect that much of our bargaining unit work is
being performed at the new building.
As you know, prior to the move to Bagley the
UAW office unit performed various clerical services
for employees at Clark Street who were not
represented by the Union. Many of those un-
represented employees were transferred to the
Bagley office. The Union-represented employees
remained at Clark Street and have continued to do
some of the clerical work for the personnel at Bagley.
However, we are apprehensive that much of this
work, traditionally performed by UAW-represented
employees, is now being performed by newly hired
office clericals at the Bagley location.
We are also concerned that new classifications
may have been established for office clericals at
Bagley, and that employees in those classifications
may be performing work which is within the jurisdic-
tion of Clark Street bargaining unit employees. Also,
we are concerned with the possibility that other cleri-
cal work, which Clark Street employees have per-
formed in the past, has been shifted to the Bagley
Avenue clerical employees. In addition, it appears
that Rockwell-Standard has entered into contracts
with employment agencies for the furnishing of office
clerical employees at the Bagley office.
Our problem is that we are not aware of the scope
or content of all of the office operations being per-
formed at the new Bagley Avenue building. For this
reason the Union has been unable to determine
whether or not to process grievances over work as-
signments and related problems arising out of the
relocation. We cannot properly evaluate what course
of action to follow unless we receive certain relevant
data relating to the Bagley office clericals. We must
possess this information before we will be able to
determine whether to file grievances, undertake
further Labor Board proceedings, seek amendments
to the collective bargaining contract, or take other
appropriate action. Therefore, to facilitate the effec-
tive policing of the collective bargaining agreement,
we request the following information: names, clas-
sifications, rates of pay, and job descriptions of all of-
fice clerical employees at the Bagley Avenue build-
ing. This information should also include all office
clericals who have been supplied pursuant to con-
tracts with employment agencies such as Manpower,
Kelley Girls, etc. This request, of course, does not
cover any confidential or managerial employees as
defined by the National Labor Relations Act.
We wish to make it clear that we are not, in this
matter, seeking recognition as bargaining agent for all
the employees in the Bagley building. Our only con-
cern is to find out whether or not work from our ex-
isting clerical unit is being performed at the new loca-
tion. Your prompt compliance with this request will
be appreciated.
In reply to this, Berg wrote Friedman the following
letter on May 2, 1966:
This will acknowledge your letter of April 20, 1966.
As you are well aware, we do not agree with many of
the assertions contained in your letter.
ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 131
Since the present request for information is essen-
tially the same as your previous requests made in
November and December of last year, our position
remains the same.
F. Summary-Analysis of the Facts
From the foregoing facts, it appears that since early
1965, when the Union first learned that the Respondent
was considering moving its Automotive Division
Headquarters from the Clark Street Buildings, the Union
has repeatedly expressed concern to the Respondent that
such a move would continue the previous, substantial
"erosion" of the Clark Street unit of office and clerical
employees it represents, and has attempted to find a way
to enable it to preserve for these employees the work
which they had been doing at Clark Street for the Au-
tomotive Division. There have been two distinct, succes-
sive phases in this attempt.
At first. in the 1965 contract negotiations, the Union
submitted proposals which either would have extended
the scope of the existing Clark Street unit to office and
clerical employees at the new location, or would have
recognized an existing "jurisdictional" basis for the
Union's negotiating with the Respondent concerning any
contemplated transfer to the new building of Clark Street
employees or the work which they were then doing for
the Automotive Division. But the Respondent rejected
these proposals. It said that it would not agree to an ex-
pansion of the Clark unit described in the preceding con-
tract, particularly since the language suggested by the
Union would have included office and clerical employees
not only in the new Detroit Building but also in other
established Detroit plants or offices of the Respondent.
And it rejected the Union's anticipation of future negotia-
tions concerning the possible transfer of Clark Street of-
fice and clerical employees as being premature, since, it
said, there had as yet been no decision to move the Au-
tomotive Division, and, in any event, none of the Clark
Street unit employees would be moved. Furthermore, as
has been noted, the only contract change conceded to the
Union by the Respondent was an inversion of phrases in
the preamble to the contract- a change which can at
most be regarded as recognition of the fact that em-
ployees in the unit had been performing work at Clark
Street for the Automotive Division as well as for the two
production divisions.
After the Respondent notified the Union on September
2, 1965. that the Automotive Division Headquarters
would be moved to the Bagley Building in November, the
Union's objective was still the preservation of unit work
for the employees in the Clark Street unit. But, in the light
of intervening developments its approach to the problem
changed. It no longer sought the expansion of the Clark
Street unit, which the Respondent had rejected in the
contract negotiations and made this clear to the Respon-
dent in its letter dated April 20, 1966. Nor did it seek to
protect unit employees in possible transfers to the Bagley
Building, since the Respondent had notified it that no unit
employees would be transferred and, in fact, none were
transferred. Instead, it concentrated its attention upon
two other matters which, although they have not thus far
resulted in a reduction of the number of employees in the
Clark Street unit, may eventually have this effect. The
first of these matters was the admitted fact that some of
the work performed by unit employees at Clark Street
was transferred to the Bagley Building and is being done
there by employees of a contract service agency. And the
second matter was the possibility that additional unit
work may have been transferred and is being performed
by other transferred or new nonunit employees in the
Bagley Building.
To deal with these matters, the Union not only filed its
grievance of December 9, 1965, relating to the Respond-
ent's use of "temporary employees," but also repeatedly
requested information from the Respondent as to the
names, classifications, rates of pay, and job descriptions
of all the Respondent's nonconfidential office and clerical
employees in the Bagley Building. This request for infor-
mation was made by the Union, it will be recalled, at its
meeting with the Respondent on November 4, 1965, and
in its letters of November 23 and December 22, 1965„
and of March 16 and April 20, 1966.
On all of these occasions, until its letter of April 20,
1966. the Union referred simply to the necessity of hav-
ing the information so that it could handle and bargain in-
telligently on the "grievance" of December 9, 1965, and
other similar "grievances," and made no specific
reference to any broader purpose nor to its need for infor-
mation as to employees of office service contractors
working in the Bagley Building even though they might
not (strictly speaking) be "employees" of the Respon-
dent. In rejecting the "grievance" and refusing to supply
the requested information on and after December 10.
1965, the Respondent treated the "grievance" and the
request as being inseparable. It explained its action to the
Union on the grounds that the "temporary employees" to
which the "grievance" referred were not its employees,
and that, in any event, there was no "grievance" under
the contract (and therefore no related right to the informa-
tion sought) because the contract covered only Clark
Street and not Bagley Building personnel.
These were also the reasons which the Respondent
again gave to the Union when, on May 2. 1966, it refused
to supply the information requested by the Union in the
latter's letter of April 20, 1966. But, regardless of
whether the Respondent's position was justified before
April 20. 1966, the Union's letter of that date more
clearly spelled out both the scope and the broad basis for
its request for the information sought by it. Thus, in this
letter, the Union asked for the names, classifications.
wage rates, and job descriptions of all nonconfidential
clerical and office employees of the Respondent and ser-
vice contract employees who were working in the Bagley
Building as an aid in determining, first, whether and to
what extent any of the office or clerical work previously
done by unit employees in the Clark Street buildings had
been transferred to, and was being performed in. the
Bagley Building and, secondly, upon the basis of this in-
formation, what course it should take in the performance
of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
Clark Street unit employees under the contract to
preserve "the integrity" of the unit, i.e., whether it should
"file grievances, undertake further Labor Board
proceedings, seek amendments to the collective bargain-
ing contract, or take other appropriate action."
G. Conclusions
In an attempt to perform its duty as the representative
of the Clark Street unit employees, the Union thus sought
information from the Respondent preliminary to a deter-
mination by it of whether it should process grievances or
request the Respondent to bargain concerning the "ero-
sive" effect upon the Clark Street unit of the Respond-
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent's transfer of the Automotive Division to the Bagley
Building. Although the Respondent does not press the
point, it intimates in its brief (at pages 32-33) that the
Union had waived the right to bargain on this matter by
accepting the broad "Waiver" provision in its current
1965 contract with the Respondent. (See section III, B,
above.) But such an argument has no merit in the present
case. For, to be effective, a contractual waiver by a union
of the right to bargain about a particular matter must be
"clear and unmistakable." 11 Even when a "waiver" is ex-
pressed in a contract in such broad, sweeping terms as is
the "Waiver" in the present case, it must appear "from an
evaluation of the ... negotiations that the [particular]
matter was `fully discussed' or `consciously explored' and
the union `consciously yielded' or clearly and
unmistakably waived its interest in the matter." 12 In the
present case, it is clear that the Union and the Respond-
ent did not "fully discuss" the effect of the possible, fu-
ture transfer of the Automotive Division upon the Clark
Street barganing unit. Nor can 1t be said to have "con-
sciously yielded" or waived its interest in the effect of the
transfer when, and if, it should take place. Indeed, as I
have found, the Respondent refused to discuss the matter
in detail during the 1965 negotiations on the ground that
such a discussion would be premature since it had not yet
been decided whether or not the Automotive Division
would be transferred. Accordingly, I find that the Union
did not waive its right to bargain about the effect of the
transfer on the Clark Street bargaining unit.
The principles governing decision of the main
questions in the present case are well settled: The preser-
vation or diversion of work usually performed in a bar-
gaining unit represented by a duly constituted exclusive
bargaining agent is the subject matter of mandatory bar-
gaining under the Act. 13 Not only must the employer
generally bargain about such a matter, but his bargaining
obligation requires him "to provide information that is
needed by the bargaining representative for the proper
performance of its duties ... [even] beyond the period
of contract negotiation ... [and] during the term of an
agreement." (N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432; and see also N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 341 U.S.
149.) Moreover, the test of the bargaining representa-
tive's "need" for such information is satisfied by showing
in a case before the Board of "probability that the desired
information was relevant, and that it would be of use to
the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsi-
bilities." (Acme, supra, 385 U.S. 432 at 437, 64 LRRM at
2071). [Emphasis supplied.] For, whether the union's
request for information be made in its attempt to evaluate
a possible grievance under a contract (as in the Acme
case) 14 or in an attempt to formulate and evaluate a
possible general bargaining position extra the terms of an
existing contract,15 "this discovery-type standard
decide[s] nothing about the merits of the union's .. .
claims," since eventual orderly and proper resolution of
11 The Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. N L.R.B., 325 F 2d 746, 751
(C A. 6), cert denied 376 U.S. 971; N L.R.B. v Perkins Machine Com-
pany, 326 F.2d 488 (C A. 1), N.L.R.B. v. The Item Company, 220 F.2d
956, 958-959 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S 836
12 The Press Company, Inc., 121 NLRB 976; General Motors Corp.,
149 NLRB 396, 399-400; Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co., 147 NLRB 156, The
New York Mirror, 151 NLRB 834,837,839-840; 1 U.E. v. General Elec-
tric Co , 332 F.2d 485, 489 (C.A. 2)
13 Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v N.L.R.B., 379 U.S 203; Ohio
Valley Carpenters District Council (Cardinal Industries), 136 NLRB
977, 985-986; Service and Maintenance Employees' Union, etc. (Supert-
such claims against the union (whether by arbitrator's
decision or in the general bargaining process) "would
clearly not be precluded by the Board's threshold deter-
mination concerning the potential relevance of the
requested information." (Acme, supra, 385 U.S. 432 at
438, 64 LRRM at 2071). [Emphasis supplied.] Finally, it
is also clear under the decisions that, subject to this stan-
dard of "probable" or "potential" relevance, the em-
ployer is not relieved of his obligation to supply informa-
tion to the exclusive bargaining agent, even though it re-
lates to nonunit employees. 16
In the light of these principles, it is clear that the
Respondent in the present case was obligated under the
Act not only to bargain with the Union concerning its
transfer of any work out of the Clark Street office and
clerical unit to nonunit personnel in the Bagley Building,
but to furnish any information which the Union requested
and needed for grievance or general bargaining purposes,
provided the information had a "probable" or "potential"
relevance to the possibility that such a transfer had been
made. For the following reasons, I have concluded that,
under the circumstances shown by the evidence, the
stated purposes and scope of the Union's request of April
20, 1966, met this requirement of "need" and "proba-
ble" or "potential" relevance.
Certainly, it was not unreasonable for the Union to
suspect that more work may have been transferred to the
Bagley Building than the Respondent admitted, and the
Union had the right to know if, and to what extent, its
suspicion might have some foundation. On September 2,
1965, it was told by the Respondent that some "tempora-
ry" employees would be hired for the Bagley Building
anc\l, by December 10, 1965, it learned that these "tempo-
rary" employees were actually the employees of a service
contractor upon whom the Respondent was relying for
certain service jobs in the Bagley Building which had ad-
mittedly been performed by unit employees in the Clark
Street buildings. Moreover, in view of the previous min-
gling of the unit and nonunit employees in the Clark
Buildings and the parties' difficulties as to_what was, and
was not unit work when both groups had been performing
work there for the Automotive Division, it was not at all
clear after November 8, 1965, whether some of the work
previously done by unit employees at Clark Street was
being done in the Bagley Building as part of the jobs of
transferred nonunit employees or new employees. At
least in one instance , although perhaps in itself incon-
sequential , Industrial Relations Director Berg did testify
at the hearing that a secretary was in fact doing some
work in the Bagley Building which had previously been
performed by Clerk Beske , a unit employee at Clark
Street. 17
Nor did the Respondent ever reassure the Union that,
except for the service jobs, no office or clerical work
theretofore performed in the Clark Street unit had been
transferred to the Bagley Building, even though it was ap-
or Souvenir Book Company), 148 NLRB 1033.
14 See also Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L.R.B, 347 F 2d 61, 71-72
(C.A. 3), enfg 145 NLRB 152, N L.R.B v Otis Elevator Co., 208 F.2d
176, 180 (C.A. 2).
is Timken Roller Bearing Co . v. N.L.R.B., 325 F 2d 746, 750-754
(C.A. 6), enfg. 138 NLRB 15, cert. denied 376 U S. 971.
16 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. N.L R. B, supra , Goodyear Aerospace Cor-
poration, 157 NLRB 496; International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
159 NLRB 1757.
17 See fn. 9 , supra.
ROCKWELL-STANDARD CORP. 133
parent that the Union's concern was the loss of Clark
Street unit work as a result of the move of the Automo-
tive Division to the Bagley Building. It is true that, as In-
dustrial Relations Director Berg had promised the Union
on September 2, 1965, the Respondent has used a station
wagon to bring dictation and tracings from the Bagley
Building for completion by unit employees in the Clark
Street Building, but neither from the statements made by
the Respondent to the Union at the time nor even from
the general testimony given at the hearing, does it appear
clear that all the previous clerical and office unit work
was thus preserved for the Clark Street employees.
Under the circumstances, the Union reasonably sought
a basis for making its own determination. But the Union's
tour of the new office building in November certainly was
inadequate for the purpose. And so the Union, naturally
and sensibly interested in the basic work details rather
than such generalities as were eventually given by Indus-
trial Relations Director Berg at the hearing in the present
case, asked the Respondent who the Bagley Building non-
confidential, office and clerical employees were, and what
their job descriptions, classifications, and wage rates
were, all of which have given the Union some idea of
whether any of them were doing unit work and would
have enabled the Union to discuss the matter intelligently
with the Respondent-i.e., to bargain with the Respond-
ent on unit work either within the framework of the
grievance procedures or of general, contractual bargain-
ing. This is what the Union obviously attempted to do, as
it explained clearly and in detail in its final letter to the
Respondent on April 20, 1966.
Upon this view of the evidence, I conclude (1) that the
information requested by the Union in its letter of April
20, 1966, was needed by it in order to enable it to bargain
intelligently with the Respondent for the purpose of pro-
tecting the work of the bargaining unit it represented; (2)
that the information requested was "probably" or "poten-
tially" relevant to this matter; and (3) that, by refusing to
supply the information, Respondent committed an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(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 business
operations of the Respondent as 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by its refusal to furnish relevant infor-
mation to the Union for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from its continuance of the unfair labor
practice and furnish the information upon the Union's
request. No recommendation is made under the circum-
stances of this case for the Respondent's posting any
notice of its compliance with this recommendation
(Curtisss-Wright Corp., 145 NLRB 152. 157-158, enfd.
347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 376 U.S. 971).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL-CIO and its Local No. 174
(herein collectively referred to as the Union) are labor or-
ganizations within the meaning of the Act.
2. Under the provisions of Section 9(a) and (b) of the
Act, the Union has been at all material times, and is now,
the exclusive bargaining agent of all employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit of the Respondent's Clark
Street, Detroit, office and clerical employees, which has
been described at length in section III, A, above.
3. The Respondent has committed and is committing
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by its refusal on and since May
2, 1966, to furnish the Union, as the exclusive bargaining
agent aforesaid, with the names, classifications, wage
rates, and job descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical
and office employees of the Respondent and of service
contract office and clerical employees then working in the
Bagley Building, Detroit, Michigan.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case,
it is recommended that the Respondent , Rockwell-Stan-
dard Corporation , Transmission and Axle Division,
Forge Division , a Delaware corporation , its agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to furnish , and shall
upon request furnish , International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultrral Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, and its Local No.
174, with the names, classifications , wage rates , and job
descriptions of all nonconfidential clerical and office em-
ployees of the Respondent , and of service contract office
and clerical employees working in the Bagley Building,
Detroit , Michigan.
2. Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. is
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
308-926 0-70-10