Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc.
and Carpenters Local Union 1780, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-13111
26 February 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 4 November 1983 Administrative Law Judge
William L. Schmidt issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering
brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
While we agree with the judge that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to furnish the Union a roster of those
builder members that are or have been bound to
either a master or memorandum agreement with
the Union, we do not agree it violated the Act by
refusing to furnish the names and addresses of its
remaining builder members.
The Respondent and the Union have been party
to a series of collective-bargaining (master) agree-
ments. The Respondent represents only construc-
tion industry members who have authorized it in
writing to negotiate with the Union. The members
are at liberty to grant and withdraw at will an au-
thorization to bargain. The Respondent has not
always been diligent in notifying the Union when a
member has executed or withdrawn a bargaining
authorization. After a member has withdrawn its
bargaining authorization from the Respondent, it is
still bound to the terms of a memorandum agree-
ment appended to the master collective-bargaining
agreement. The memorandum agreement deletes
the no-strike, no-lockout, and grievance provisions
of the master agreement but it adheres to all other
provisions, including those for fringe benefit trust
funds. The memorandum agreement also contains
an automatic renewal clause binding a contractor
for the term of any successor contract negotiated
between the Union and the Respondent, unless the
contractor gives timely notice of cancellation.
' In the absence of exceptions, the Board pro forma adopts the judge's
refusal to defer the dispute to arbitration
2 We find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's speculation that the Re-
spondent's membership list could be useful to the Union in referring car-
penters or in formulating future collective-bargaining strategy and pro-
posals
In 1976, 12 of the Respondent's members were
bound to the master agreement. The number of
members bound to the succeeding agreement
dropped to 10 and the Respondent claimed that
only 3 of its members were bound to the current
1982-1984 master agreement. There is no conten-
tion that the Respondent promoted open shops or
double-breasted operations during this time.
On 7 January 1983,3 the Union's business repre-
sentative Laub wrote the Respondent's executive
director Porter requesting the most current list of
companies that were signatories to the agreement
through the Respondent. (The current master
agreement does not list individual contractor signa-
tories. It has signature lines only for representatives
of the Union and of the Respondent association.)
Receiving no response, the Union mailed a follow-
up request on 8 February. On 22 February Porter
sent the Union the names, addresses, and telephone
numbers of the three contractors that were signato-
ries to the master agreement. On 19 April the
Union's attorney wrote the Respondent asking for
the names and addresses of all the Respondent's
members, including those that the Respondent con-
tended were not bound by the negotiations. The
Union stated that the information was necessary
with respect to the Union's obligation to fulfill its
contractual commitments and determine whether
there had been any violations of the agreement. On
29 April the Respondent's attorney wrote the
Union stating that it had met its legal obligation by
furnishing the Union with the names of members
who were signatories to the contract.
Laub testified that the Union had requested the
Respondent's membership roster because of the
severe drop in the number of contractors bound to
the master agreement, and that several of those
who had formerly been bound to the agreement
had not given any indication that they were adher-
ing to the memorandum agreement. Laub further
testified that he was suspicious that some of the
contractors were unlawfully engaged in double-
breasted operations. He explained that the Re-
spondent had given him conflicting information
concerning the status of a contractor named Car-
illo, that he had seen signs at jobsites reflecting
contractor names which were similar to those who
were formerly bound to an agreement with the
Union, and that a nonunion subcontractor had
some type of an association with a contractor who
had been a signatory to an agreement with the
Union. (The master and memorandum contracts re-
quire subcontracting with unionized firms.) Laub
also asserted that a contractor who the Respondent
a All dates hereafter refer to 1983
274 NLRB No. 48
SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN
did not identify as bound to the agreement was an
employer trustee on the pension trust fund, in al-
leged violation of the trust and collective-bargain-
ing agreements. The master agreement, however,
has no signatory requirement for trustees. The trust
agreement is not in evidence.
The judge specified five reasons that the mem-
bership list was relevant to contract administration
and enforcement purposes: (1) The Union needed
the information to ascertain whether former signa-
tories of the master agreement were still active and
should be bound by the memorandum. (2) The
Union needed to investigate the possibility of sub-
contracting procedures in violation of the contract
limitations. (3) The Union could use the informa-
tion to investigate its suspicions about double-
breasting. (4) The Union could ascertain whether
certain contractors were qualified to serve as bene-
fit fund trustees. (5) The information would assist
the Union in identifying job opportunities for its
hiring hall referral system. The judge also noted
that the membership list was relevant to the formu-
lation of future bargaining proposals. Consequently,
the judge found that the General Counsel had dem-
onstrated that the Union's request for the roster of
names and addresses of all the Respondent's builder
members was necessary and relevant for the
Union's performance of its collective-bargaining
representative duties. Accordingly, he concluded
that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the request-
ed information violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, under NLRB v. AGC of California, 633
F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 452 U.S. 915
(1981), and ordered the membership roster of all
the builder members be furnished to the Union.
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act obligates an
employer to provide a union requested information
if there is a probability that such data is relevant
and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statu-
tory duties as the employees' exclusive bargaining
representative. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967). Because the Union's 19
April 1983 letter requested "the names and
address[es] of all members [of Respondent], includ-
ing those members . . . not bound by the Master
Labor Agreement negotiations," the Union had to
demonstrate the reasonable and probable relevance
of the requested information. NLRB v. Leonard B.
Hebert, Jr. & Co., 696 F.2d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir.
1983), cert. denied 114 LRRM 2567 (1983); NLRB
v. AGC of California, supra at 770;4 San Diego
4 In joining with his colleagues , Member Hunter would necessarily
overrule AGC of California, 242 NLRB 891 (1979), and Leonard B
Hebert, Jr & Co, 259 NLRB 881 (1981), to the extent that they imply
that information the Union sought in this case would be presumptively
relevant
351
Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 867-868
(9th Cir. 1977). To satisfy its burden, a union "must
offer more than mere `suspicion or surmise' for it
to be entitled to the information." The "showing
by the union must be more than a mere concoction
of some general theory which explains how the in-
formation would be useful to the union in deter-
mining if the employer has committed some un-
known contract violation." Otherwise, the union
would have "unlimited access to any and all data
which the employer had." San Diego Newspaper
Guild, supra at 868. Accord: NLRB v. Temple-
Eastex, 579 F.2d 932, 937-938 (5th Cir. 1978).
The Union sought to justify its request by rely-
ing on Business Representative Laub's testimony
that, since 1976, the number of builder members
bound by the master agreement dropped from 12
to 3 and that none of those formerly bound had
signed the memorandum agreement; 5 that the Re-
spondent had given Laub conflicting information
about the membership status of one company
named Carillo;6 and that two former signatories-
Ernie Becker Jr. and Stan Jones-were using "non-
union" subcontractors in violation of the subcon-
tracting provisions of the master and memorandum
agreement.7 Laub further testified that if he had a
roster of all Association members he would be able
to check names, addresses, telephone numbers, and
business license numbers to determine if former sig-
natories were circumventing the bargaining agree-
ment by operating double-breasted companies or
by using unlawful subcontracting practices.
5 The parties disagree whether a builder member has to actually sign
the memorandum agreement to be bound by its terms after withdrawing
its bargaining authorization from the Respondent The Respondent argues
that a builder member does not have to sign because the master agree-
ment states that a builder member "who has resigned from the Asso-
ciation agrees to be fully bound by the terms and conditions of the
Memorandum Agreement with the [Ulmon " From the Respond-
ent's viewpoint, it would not matter if none of the nine builder members,
formerly bound by the master agreement, had signed the memorandum
agreement , because all would still be bound by it
8 Laub testified that 2 years earlier the Respondent mistakenly in-
formed him that Carillo had signed the master agreement , but that 1
month later the Respondent informed him voluntarily that Carillo had in
fact not signed the agreement While also testifying about "suspicions"
concerning whether Wood Brothers had signed , Laub later admitted that
the Respondent's 23 February 1983 letter listed Wood Brothers as one of
three signatories to the then current master agreement
7 We find Laub's testimony about Ernie Becker Jr vague because
Laub testified that Becker had "associations" with a person named Rich-
ards or Richardson who was not signatory to the agreement , and that the
agreement may have been violated "if Richardson was a subcontractor to
Ernie Becker, Jr "
Laub did testify that Stan Jones still performed contracting work, but
without members of the Union While this testimony appears to demon-
strate that Stan Jones was using nonbargaimng unit employees to perform
bargaining unit work, Irene Porter, the Respondent's executive director,
testified without contradiction that Stan Jones notified Laub before the
1982 contract negotiations began that he no longer employed any carpen-
ters, and that he would resume a bargaining relationship with the Union
if he employed carpenters in the future
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In our view, the Union has not shown that it is
entitled to anything more than a roster of those
builder members that were or had been bound to
either a master or memorandum agreement with
the Union. Such a roster would enable the Union
to determine whether the nine builder members,
formerly bound to the master agreement, currently
adhere to the memorandum agreement, including
the subcontracting provisions, or otherwise have
satisfied, their bargaining obligation with the Union.
We cannot agree with the judge that the Union is
also entitled to a roster of those builder members
that never were bound to a master or memoran-
dum, agreement with the Union.
We recognize that Business Representative Laub
testified that, with a roster of all builder members,
the Union "might associate" one signatory builder
member with another nonsignatory member
"through some rumor or through some document,"
and then demonstrate that both have "the same
president, the same vice-president, the same record-
ing secretary, right down the line." At best, Laub's
testimony offers nothing more than "suspicion or
surmise,"8 especially since there is no record evi-
dence or even an allegation that any builder
member engaged in alter ego or double-breasted
operations, that the Respondent encouraged builder
members to engage in alter ego or double-breasted
operations, or even that any of the Respondent's
builder members were not making the trust fund
contributions required under the master or memo-
randum agreement. Without such evidence, we
cannot find that the Union has sustained its burden
of demonstrating a probability that a roster of all
the Respondent's builder members is relevant and
will be of use in fulfilling its statutory duties.9 Ac-
cordingly, we shall order the Respondent to fur-
nish the Union with a roster showing the names
and addresses only of those builder members that
were or had been bound to either a master or
memorandum agreement with the Union.
8 San Diego Newspaper Guild, supra at 868
e The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in NLRB v Lumber & Mill Em-
ployers Assn., 736 F 2d 507 ( 1984), is distinguishable In that case, the
court did require production of the full list of association members after
the union noticed a substantial drop in the number of firms bound by the
association agreement Unlike the instant case , that case involved a spe-
cial situation where "[t]he [a]ssociation was the sole negotiator for
member firms, and its members were bound to its agreements by virtue of
its bylaws " Id at 508-509 Consequently , the union members became
bound by the new association contract Here, however , the Respondent
could bind a builder member to the master agreement only if that
member specifically authorized the Respondent to bargain on its behalf
Moreover, unlike here , there was evidence that some member employers
might be operating nonunion shops at secondary locations in violation of
the agreement
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Southern Nevada Home Builders Asso-
ciation, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(a) Forthwith furnish Carpenters Local Union
1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, with a roster showing
the names and addresses of those builder members
that are or have been bound to either a master or
memorandum agreement with the Union and peri-
odically supplement that roster in the manner spec-
ified in the remedy section of this decision."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Carpenters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,
by refusing to furnish information necessary and
relevant for the Union 's use in policing , administer-
ing, and negotiating collective-bargaining agree-
ments between us or our builder members and the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL forthwith furnish Carpenters Local
Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, with a roster con-
taining the names and addresses of our builder
members who are or have been bound to either a
master or memorandum agreement with the Union.
SOUTHERN NEVADA HOME BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.
SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN. 353
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM L. SCHIMDT, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was heard in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Sep-
tember 21, 1983 It is based on a charge filed by Carpen-
ters Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Union), against
Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Inc. (Re-
spondent or Association) on May 12 1 The Regional Di-
rector for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB or Board) issued a complaint and notice
of hearing on behalf of the Board's General Counsel on
June 28 alleging that the Association violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act
(Act), since April 29 by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with a list specifying the names and addresses
of the Association's employer-members. The Association
filed a timely answer to the complaint dated July 8 (sub-
sequently amended on September 9) denying that it en-
gaged in the alleged unfair labor practice and alleging af-
firmatively that: (1) the complaint failed to state a "cause
of action upon which relief can be granted," and (2) the
dispute should be deferred to arbitration under the
Board's decision in Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB
837 (1971).
On the basis of the entire record in this matter, my ob-
servation of the witnesses as they testified at the hearing,
and my careful consideration of the oral argument of the
General Counsel and the posthearing briefs of the Asso-
ciation and the Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At relevant times, the Association has been an organi-
zation composed of employers engaged in the building
and construction industry. One of its purposes is to rep-
resent its employer-members in negotiating and adminis-
tering collective-bargaining agreements with labor orga-
nizations, including the Union.
Collectively, the Association's employer-members an-
nually purchase and receive goods or services valued in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside Nevada,
or from suppliers located in Nevada who received the
goods subsequently obtained by the Association's em-
ployer-members in substantially the same form directly
from outside Nevada. The Association is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged
in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Evidence
For a number of years the Association and the Union
have maintained a collective-bargaining relationship.
They have entered into several successive collective-bar-
gaining agreements (master agreements), the most recent
being effective by its terms from July 1, 1982, through
June 30, 1984. By its own rules, and the terms of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement , the Association represents
and is authorized to bind its employer-members who
have authorized it in writing to negotiate with the
Union.2 It is undisputed that, insofar as the Association's
rules are concerned, its members are at liberty to grant
and withdraw an authorization to bargain at will. On
some occasions, the Association has been diligent in noti-
fying the Union when a member has executed or with-
drawn a bargaining authorization. On other occasions, no
notice has been provided to the Union for extended peri-
ods. Although there is a difference of opinion about the
formal procedure for continuing the binding obligation
of an employer-member after it withdraws its authoriza-
tion for bargaining from the Association, there is agree-
ment that there is an obligation to adhere to the terms of
the memorandum agreement attached to the master
agreement . The memorandum agreement abrogates the
no-strike, no-lockout, and grievance procedure provi-
sions of the master agreement but otherwise obligates
those to it to adhere to the master agreement, including
the provision related to the fringe benefit trust funds.
Since 1976, there has been a strong propensity by the
area contractors to withdraw authorizations from the As-
sociation to negotiate and enter into collective agree-
ments with the Union. The Association claims that only
three contractors are bound to the present agreement,
whereas 10 were bound to the predecessor agreement
and 12 were bound to the prior agreement. The Associa-
tion feels that this tendency is product of the bad eco-
nomic times in the area home building industry. There is
no evidence that the Association promotes so-called
open shop groups, the practice of double-breasted oper-
ations, or other tactics which labor organization partisans
regard as union busting . Instead, the Association's activi-
ties, apart from collective bargaining, appear to be cen-
tered around industry promotion programs, lobbying at
the state and local level, and performing clearinghouse
type activities with respect to local building work.
On January 7, the Union's business representative
Elmer Laub wrote to Irene Porter, the Association's ex-
ecutive director, requesting the "most current list of the
Companies who are signatory to our agreement through
your Association " When no response was received by
February 8, the Union's attorney sent a followup request.
Porter finally responded by a letter dated February 22.3
The Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at the relevant times.
i If the calendar year is not specified, it is 1983
2 The Association has several classes of members which include banks,
savings and loan associations, suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors
The Contracters are denoted builder members and this is the only group
the Association represents in collective bargaining
9 The General Counsel does not allege this delay as being unlawful
Porter attributed it to her attendance at conferences and the performance
of her lobbying duties
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
She listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers
of three contractors "who are signatory" to the agree-
ment between the Association and the Union.
After receiving the information in the February 22
letter, the Union's attorney wrote to the Association on
April 19 asking for the names and addresses of all of the
Association's members, "including those members whom
you contend are not bound by the [Association-Union]
negotiations."4 The Union's attorney stated that the in-
formation was "necessary with respect to the obligation
of the [Union] to fulfill its contractual commitments and
determine whether there have been any violations of the
[Association agreement]." According to the Laub, there
were several circumstances which caused him to have
suspicions especially about unlawful double-breasted op-
erations which he intended to investigate. Laub ex-
plained that he had received conflicting information from
the Association concerning the status of a contractor
named Carillo and that he had observed jobsite contrac-
tor signs which reflected names which were similar to
those who were formerly bound to an agreement with
the Union. Laub said that several of those formerly
bound had given no indication they were adhering to the
memorandum agreement. Laub articulated other reasons:
A. Well, Ernie Becker, Jr. was the president of
the Home Builders Association, to the best of my
knowledge. During the time that he was the presi-
dent of the Home Builders Association he was sig-
natory to the agreement.
He had associations with a person named Rich-
ards or Richardson who wasn't signatory to the
agreement , who I believe it was a partnership or an
association and maybe even a violation of the con-
tract if Richardson was a subcontractor to Ernie
Becker, Jr. And that raises my doubts.
All the time that Ernie Becker, Jr. was the presi-
dent of the Association he was bound to the agree-
ment and now I understand he's not the president of
the Association and he's not bound to the agree-
ment.
You have a fellow by the name of Stan Jones,
who I understand is the president of the Association
now, and prior to him being president of the Asso-
ciation, he was signatory to the agreement. Now I
understand he's not signatory to the agreement, but
he's the president of the Association.
Q. When you testified that you understand that
they are not signatory to the agreement anymore,
are these gentlemen , Mr. Becker and Mr. Jones, are
they still doing contracting work in Las Vegas?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are they employing your members?
A Stan Jones isn't.
Q. Are either of these men paying into trust
funds for your members?
A. No, sir, but Ernie Becker, Jr., in violation of
the trust fund documents and in violation of the
i At the hearing , Union 's counsel clarified this request to limit it to the
Association 's builder-members and not the banks or others which are not
normally represented by the Association in collective bargaining
contract that was negotiated, is sitting on the pen-
sion trust, and that's a violation of the contract.
Q Would you explain why you believe it's a vio-
lation of the contract for Mr. Becker to sit on the
trust funds?
A. Because there is an article in the contract that
says that you have to be a party to the agreement in
order to sit on the trust fund.
Q. So would that then mean that either he is a
signatory and is obligated to the contract and there-
fore can sit on the trust, or he is not a signatory as
he says and he is violating the agreement by being
on the trust?
A. Yes, Sir.
By letter dated April 29, the Respondent's attorney re-
plied to the April 19 request saying that "[a]fter careful
review, the Association asserts that it has met its legal
obligation by furnishing the previously requested infor-
mation to [the Union]." Porter refused a similar oral re-
quest in 1982 on the ground that its membership list was
"proprietary information." Porter asserted that the names
and addresses of contractors, including the names of the
principal owners and officers, could be obtained from
publicly available building permit documents, contractor
licensing agencies, and the Nevada Secretary of State's
office. According to Porter, a large number of the con-
tractors who had authorized the Association to bargain
in past years has resigned their membership in the Asso-
ciation altogether. The Association's membership lists do
not indicate which of the individual contractors normally
employ union members.
B. Applicable Legal Principles
The duty to bargain in good faith under Sections
8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act, obligates an employer to fur-
nish its employees' bargaining representative with rele-
vant information necessary for it to perform its duties as
a bargaining representative. NLRB v. Acme Industries
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351
U S. 149 (1956). Information about wages and other re-
lated matters is presumed to be relevant so that a labor
organization normally is not required to demonstrate the
precise relevance of such information in order to estab-
lish its right to the information on request. Curtiss-Wright
Corp. v. NLRB, 347 F 2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). If the request
for information concerns matters other than those which
are presumptively relevant to the bargaining process,
then the relevance of the requested information must be
demonstrated. Press Democrat Publishing Co. v. NLRB,
629 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1980); San Diego Newspaper
Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863 (9th Cir 1977). The Ninth
Circuit does not consider union requests for the names
and addresses of the members of an employer association
to be presumptively relevant. NLRB v. Associated Gener-
al Contractors, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), 242 NLRB
891 (1979). However, even if the requested information is
not presumptively relevant, a labor organization need not
show that there has been an actual contract violation or
that the information sought would fully resolve the ques-
SOUTHERN NEVADA BUILDERS ASSN
tion as to whether there had been a contract violation.
Instead, it only need be shown that the membership
name and address information is "relevant to investiga-
tions of contract violations, and that there is a reasonable
basis for further investigation." Id. at 771.
C The Contentions
In his oral argument, the General Counsel asserted
that the outcome here was controlled by the Board's de-
cision in the Associated General Contractors case as, in his
view, there were no significant differences in the two
cases. In its brief, the Union argued that the two cases
were "identical." In addition, both the General Counsel
and the Union argue that the Respondent's affirmative
defense seeking deferral under the Collyer doctrine
should be rejected on the basis of United-Carr of Tennes-
see, 202 NLRB 729 (1983), where the Board adopted,
without comment, Judge Lipton's finding that-
. . where the employer withholds requested in-
formation which is potentially relevant in assisting a
union intelligently to evaluate or process a griev-
ance-unless the statutory right to such information
is effectively waived in the contract-the Board's
Collyer doctrine is not applicable to such an issue
The Respondent argues at length that this case is fac-
tually distinguishable from the Associated General Con-
tractors case and that the evidence here was not sufficient
to demonstrate that the name and address information
sought was necessary and relevant to the Union's per-
formance of its duties as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative. In effect, the Association argues that a ruling
in the Union's favor would be tantamount to holding
that the Association would be obligated to turn over its
proprietary membership list "simply because the Union
stated it wanted it." The Association observed that there
was an apparent difference of opinion between the Board
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Asscociated
General Contractors as to whether the name and address
information similar to that sought here was presumptive-
ly relevant and averred that "if necessary, the Associa-
tion is willing to appeal [an adverse decision] to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." Finally, the Respond-
ent renewed its argument in its brief that this entire
matter should be deferred to the arbitration process
under the Board's Collyer doctrine The Association's
brief made no attempt to distinguish or explain the
United-Carr decision.
D. Conclusions
Although it is true as the Association claims that this
case is factually distinguishable from the Associated Gen-
eral Contractors case, there is no indication that the out-
come in cases of this nature turns on a showing that the
employer-association was actively promoting defections
from the ranks of union contractors as the Respondent's
argument suggest. Clearly the relevance of the type of
name and address information sought here can be dem-
onstrated on the basis of a myriad of other fact patterns
completely unrelated to the question of whether or not
there is some scheme to promote open shops or double-
355
breasted operations. In my judgment, the circumstances
show here through Laub's testimony is sufficient to dem-
onstrate that the information sought by the Union in the
April 19 letter of its counsel is necessary and relevant for
it to perform its bargaining representative functions
It is axiomatic that a bargaining representative is enti-
tled to judge for itself whether to press potential claims
before one or another of several available forums. Tor-
rington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976). The
name and address information sought here appears to
have elementary significance for contract administration
and enforcement purposes. Thus, according to Laub,
none of the firms which bound to the last master agree-
ment have signified that they are adhering to the memo-
randum agreement . At the very least , the information
sought by the Union would indicate the current location
of those firms and whether or not they are sufficiently
active in the industry to remain members of the local in-
dustry association. In addition, it is not unreasonable to
assume that contractors other than the one already un-
covered by Laub may have altered their operations by
means of the subcontracting device and the roster sought
by the Union would likely provide significant informa-
tion pertinent to whether or not there was compliance
with the subcontracting provisions of the master agree-
ment. Moreover, the information sought is very likely to
be useful for confirming or allaying Laub 's suspicions
that some of the Association's members are engaged in
illicit double-breasted operations. The Association's dec-
laration that a particular contractor is or is not currently
bound to the master agreement would likewise be perti-
nent to the administration of the trust fund if Laub's as-
sertion about the qualifications for trustee positions is ac-
curate. Finally Laub's testimony that there has been a
large influx of carpenters into the area as a result of the
rumors concerning the construction of an MX missile
system places an added burden on the Union to secure
employment opportunities for persons utilizing the hiring
hall. The information sought here has obvious uses in
that regard.
Entirely apart from contract administration or enforce-
ment purposes, the Board's decision in Associated General
Contractors calls attention to the fact that name and ad-
dress information can also be useful in formulating pro-
posals for future collective-bargaining negotiations.
Where, as here, there has been a dramatic drop in the
number of contractors who have agreed to be bound to
the master agreement and may no longer be adhering to
the memorandum agreement , the Union may be desirous
of formulating proposals other than the current mecha-
nism to assure a more stable bargaining relationship and
funding for the trust funds. Or, after assessing the Asso-
ciation's membership roster and other informa'ion, the
Union may very well desire to shift its emphasis away
from negotiating its area pattern agreement with the As-
sociation altogether in view of the apparent lack of alle-
giance by the local contractors to that organization as
their bargaining agency.
Accordingly, without regard to whether or not the
name and address information sought is or is not pre-
sumptively relevant, I find that the General Counsel has
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstrated that it is necessary and relevant in this spe-
cific circumstance in order for the Union to perform its
duties as a collective-bargaining representative. It follows
that the Association's refusal to furnish the information
was unlawful. NLRB v. Associated General Contractors,
supra. I further find on the basis of the Board's decision
in United-Carr, supra, that it would be inappropriate to
defer this dispute to the arbitration process.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practice set forth above, occurring in
connection with operations of the Association's mem-
bers, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead of labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Association has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, it will be recommended that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act. More specifically, it is reco-
niended that the Association be ordered to furnish the
Union with a roster containing the names and addresses
,of its builder members which has been found to be rele-
vant and necessary for purposes of negotiating and ad-
ministering agreements with the Association and its
members, and that the Association periodically supple-
ment that roster by notifying the Union of the additions
and deletions to the roster with the same frequency the
Association has followed in notifying the Union of the
additions or deletions to the roster of its members who
have executed or withdrawn authorizations for bargain-
ing. Finally, it is recommended that the Association be
ordered to post the notice attached hereto as the appen-
dix and to furnish signed copies of notice for posting by
the Union if it so desires.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all relevant times the Union has been the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the journey-
men and apprentice carpenter employees employed by
certain of the Respondent's builder-members in units
which are appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to furnish information requested by the
Union which is necessary and relevant for purposes of
collective bargaining in the above units, or the adminis-
tration of collective-bargaining agreements applicable to
said units, the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed5
ORDER
The Respondent, Southern Nevada Home Builders As-
sociation, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters
Local Union 1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO by refusing to supply
relevant information on request.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Forthwith furnish Carpenters Local Union 1780,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO with a roster showing the names and ad-
dresses of its builder members and periodically supple-
ment that roster in the manner specified in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Post at the Respondent's business offices and meet-
ing halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to its members and
others are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director for
Region 31 sufficient copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix" for posting by Carpenters Local Union
1780, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, if willing, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to its member and others
are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
8 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "