The B. F. Goodrich Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1151 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5
(CIO)
Case No. 8-CA-209.Decided May 5, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On November 14, 1949, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled 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 copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief ;
the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Exam-
iner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent with this
Decision and Order.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8
(a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the Union
with certain information which it requested during bargaining nego-
tiations. The Respondent takes exception to this finding on the
ground that it offered the Union all that was reasonably necessary for
its purpose.
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the National Labor Relations
Board hasp delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
89 NLRB No. 139.
1151
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As found by the Trial Examiner, on January 29, 1949, in the
course of bargaining negotiations with the Respondent for a new con-
tract,2 the Union requested that it be furnished with a list of all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, identified by name, department, and
.payroll number, and showing (a) the salary of each employee before
and immediately subsequent to a horizontal salary increase put into
effect on July 1, 1948; (b) the present salary of each employee; and
(c) the number of performance rating points received by each em-
ployee in the last rating.. The Union claimed that it needed.
the foregoing information in order to determine : (1) whether the
salary ranges proposed by the Respondent during the bargaining nego-
tiations were adequate; (2) whether the general wage increase of
July 1, 1948, had been uniformly applied; (3) whether merit rating
points had been improperly withheld from employees; and (4) whether
the Respondent was paying the employees according to the plan
provided for in the basic contract.
The Respondent, in turn, proffered data as to the salaries, salary
-ranges, and merit ratings of the employees, and offered to make avail-
able its data on the job content of the various jobs. It refused, how-
ever, to provide the Union with the names of the employees in a
manner which would enable the Union to correlate the proffered data
with the particular employees in the unit. It offered merely to relate
the data to the department number of the employee concerned, tend-
ered a separate alphabetical listing of all the employees, and agreed
, to discuss the case of any employee shown by the information offered to
have received disparate treatment.
Like the Trial Examiner, we are satisfied that in this regard the
-Respondent failed in its duty to bargain collectively as required by
the Act. For example, the Respondent's offer to provide the Union
with its data relating to the job content of each job did not, as the
Respondent contends, reasonably satisfy the Union's need for infor-
mation which would have enabled it.to determine whether the salary
.ranges proposed by the Respondent . were adequate. The accuracy
or completeness of the job descriptions tendered by the Respondent
was of first importance to the Union. It could not, without first re-
lating the job description data to particular employees, ascertain
whether any of the descriptions were underwritten, a factor which
2 These negotiations were started in September 1948, after the Union had reopened its
contract , dated October 27, 1947 ; with the Respondent . As appears more fully in the
Intermediate Report, the basic contract set up a performance rating program under which
an employee ' s salary, within salary ranges fixed therein , was made dependent upon the
anumber of merit rating points received.
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1153
would unquestionably bear on the adequacy of the salary ranges
proposed by the Respondent for the job S.3
Nor did the data offered by the Respondent give the Union all that
was reasonably necessary for its study of whether the general wage
increase of July 1, 1948, had been uniformly applied. As to those who
did not receive the general wage increase, the Union would have to
have their names before it could ascertain from such individuals the
facts pertinent to the question of their eligibility for the wage adjust-
ment. Furthermore, possession of the requested information also
would have facilitated checking the accuracy of the information
offered in the cases of the employees alleged to have received the
increases.
Nor does it follow, as the Respondent claims, that the Union would
have found it necessary to conduct the same survey among the em-
ployees, with or without their names, to determine whether merit
rating points had been improperly withheld. Clearly, correlation of
the wage data with employees who were identified by name, rather
than by department number, would have put the Union in a position
where it could determine, from the information furnished, whether
there was reason to suspect a policy of disparate treatment in the
merit ratings given union and nonunion employees. Under these
circumstances, the necessity for any survey among employees might
have been wholly obviated.
Furthermore, it is clear that possession of the information requested
would have facilitated the Union's inquiry into the question of
whether the Respondent was converting merit rating points into pay
dollars according to the wage payment plan provided for in the con-
tract. This would have been particularly true with respect to the
employees whose wages were known to the Union.
Against these considerations, the Respondent contends that the
Union could readily identify its own members on the list as offered
by the Respondent for the "peculiar circumstances and earmarks of
each member." As to nonmembers, it says that the Union could in-
terrogate employees and thus build up a card index which would help
the Union identify the individuals on the list. Even if it were con-
ceded, however, that the Union could actually have obtained in the
manner suggested by the Respondent information necessary to corre-
3 Although the Union did not, on January 29, 1949, request that it be furnished data with
respect to the employees' job classifications or salary ranges, it did not thereby forfeit its
right to such information if it subsequently found it necessary for the purpose of determin-
ing the adequacy of the proposed salary ranges. Indeed, the fact that the Respondent
provided the Union with the salary ranges of the employees indicates that it anticipated
a request from the Union for that information.
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.late the wage data with particular employees in the unit, it is clear
that recourse to such an approach would certainly have been attended
with considerable difficulty and loss of time.4 In these circumstances,
full compliance with the duty to bargain required production of the
information requested. Nor can the Respondent's refusal to provide
this information be justified by its expressed concern over use by the
Union of the information to promote grievances. Apart from other
considerations, this defense must be rejected because of its wholly
speculative character.
From all the foregoing, and the entire record, we are convinced and
find that the information requested of the Respondent was needed by
the Union if it was to exercise effectively its legitimate function of
representing the employees in contract negotiations and of pro-
tecting its proper interest in the manner in which the Respondent
administered the existing contract.' The Respondent was under a duty
.to furnish this information "in a manner not so burdensome or time-
consuming as to impede the process of bargaining." 6 This it has
adamantly refused to do.' Nor was its duty in this case satisfied in
Whole or in part by its offer to discuss specifically any case where the
information tendered indicated some inconsistency in its dealing with
a particular employee. For the data offered the Union did not enable
it adequately to determine whether there was disparate treatment of
employees. Moreover, the offer by the Respondent to discuss the
inconsistencies of individual cases was, in effect, a move to substitute
the grievance procedure of the contract for its obligation to furnish
the Union with information it needed to perform its statutory func-
tion. We do not believe that that was collective bargaining as-re-
quired by the Act."
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent, by refusing and failing
to furnish the Union the information which it requested, has refused
to bargain collectively with the Union, and has thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a)',(5)
and (1) of the Acts
4 The appropriate unit consisted of 1154 employees located in 144 departments.
I See General Controls Co., 88 NLRB 1341, and the cases cited therein . The record
does not support the Respondent ' s claim that the Union requested the information for
general bargaining purposes only.
The Cincinnati Steel Casting Company, 86 NLRB 592.
° It is noteworthy in this connection that the Respondent even refused the Union ' s request
that it break down by departments the separate alphabetical list of employees which it
offered the Union.
I Aluminum Ore Company v . X. L. R. B ., 131 F. 2d 485 ( C. A. 7) ; General Controls Co.,
supra.
U Pool Manufacturing Co., 70 NLRB 540, and Crompton -Highland Mills , Inc., 70 NLRB
206, cited by the Respondent to support its position , involve facts which are clearly dis-
tinguishable from those herein.
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1155
The Remedy
We have found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union by refusing and failing to furnish the Union with a list of all
employees in the unit identified by name, department, and payroll
number, and showing (a) the salary of each employee before and im-
mediately subsequent to the horizontal salary increase of July 1, 1948;
(b) the present salary of each employee; and (c) the number of per-
formance rating points received by each employee in the last rating.
Accordingly, we will order the Respondent to supply such information
to the Union, upon request.
Because of the limited scope of the Respondent's refusal to bargain,
and because of the absence of any indication that danger of other
unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the Respondent's con-
duct in the past, we shall not order the Respondent to cease and desist
from the commission of any other unfair labor practices," as the Trial
Examiner has done.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The B. F. Goodrich Com-
pany, Akron, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5
(CIO), as the exclusive representative of all office and clerical em-
ployees employed at its Akron, Ohio, plants, excluding confidential,
technical and administrative (managerial) employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, by refusing and failing to furnish to said
labor organization, upon request, a list of all employees in the unit
identified by name, department, and payroll number, and showing
(a) the salary of each employee before and immediately subsequent
to the horizontal salary increase of July 1, 1948, (b) the present salary
of each employee, and (c) the number of performance rating points
received by each employee in the last rating.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment with
10 Aluminum Ore Company v. N. L. R. B., supra; N. L. R. B. v. J. H. Allison & Company,
165 F. 2d 766 (C. A. 6), cert. den. 335 U. S. 814, rehearing denied 335 U. S. 905; General
Controls Co., supra.
889227-51-vol. 89-74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local
No. 5 (CIO), as the exclusive representative of all its employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(b) Upon request, furnish to United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &
Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5 (CIO), a list of all employees
in the appropriate unit identified by name, department, and payroll
number, and showing (a) the salary of each employee before and
immediately subsequent to the horizontal increase of July 1, 1948, (b)
the present salary of each employee, and (c) the number of perform-
ance rating points received by each employee in the last rating;
(c) Post at its Akron, Ohio, plants copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." 11 Copies of , said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty (60) days thereafter in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, of the steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE-WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with UNITED RUBBER,
CORK, LINOLEUM & PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5
(CIO), as the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the bargaining unit described herein, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of em-
ployment, and furnish to said Union, upon request, a list of all
employees in the unit identified by name, department, and pay-
roll number, and showing (a) the salary of each employee before
and immediately subsequent to the horizontal salary increase of
July 1, 1948, (b) the present salary of each employee, and (c)
In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals
there shall be inserted in the notice before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER" the
words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1157
the number of performance rating points received by each em-
ployee in the last rating.
The bargaining unit is: All office and clerical employees em-
ployed at our Akron, Ohio, plants, excluding confidential, tech-
nical and administrative (managerial) employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By ------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for. 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Carroll L. Martin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Buckingham, Doolittle and Burroughs, by L. TV. Buckingham , and Dwight
Parsons, Esqs., of Akron, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Mr. Gideon C. Lowe, for the charging party.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Work-
ers of America, Local No. 5 (CIO), herein called the Union, the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, issued a complaint dated August 25, 1949, against The
B. F. Goodrich Company, herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleged
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 5), and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, Public
Law 101, 80th Congress, 1st Session, herein called the Act. Copies of the
charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing thereon, were duly served on the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that on or about January 29, 1949, and at various times thereafter, the
Union requested Respondent to furnish to the Union certain information
relating to pay rates, changes and adjustments for all employees in the appro-
priate unit described hereinbelow ; more specifically, a list of all employees in
the said unit by name, department, and payroll number showing (a) the salary
for each employee before and immediately subsequent to the horizontal increase
of July 1, 1948, (b) the present salary of each employee, and (c) the performance
rating point renewed in the last rating; that the Respondent, since on or about
January 29, 1949, has continuously refused and does now refuse to furnish the
information described above ; and that by such acts the Respondent is thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) of the Act. Respondent thereafter filed its answer in which it admitted
certain jurisdictional facts and that the Union has been designated and selected
as bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in an appropriate
unit, but denied it had refused to bargain with the Union, or that it had engaged
in any unfair labor practice. Respondent also set forth in its answer the history
of the bargaining negotiations between it and the Union insofar as they are
germane to the allegations set forth in the complaint.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on September 13, 1949, at Akron, Ohio,.
before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by coun-
sel, the Union by a lay representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties. The parties did not choose to avail themselves of this
opportunity but chose to stipulate the entire record herein. Though given an
opportunity to do so, the parties did not participate in oral argument before
the undersigned. At the request of counsel, the time to file briefs was extended
to October 19, 1949. They have been received and carefully considered by the
undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that The B. F. Goodrich Rubber
Company is and has been during all times material herein a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
The Respondent is engaged in' the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
rubber and related products. The Respondent in the course and conduct of its
business operations causes and has continuously caused annually raw materials
in excess of $1,000,000 to be purchased, delivered, and transported in interstate
commerce from and through the States of the United States other than the
State of Ohio to its Akron, Ohio, plants, and causes and has continuously caused
annually finished products in excess of $1,000,000 to be sold, transported, and
delivered in interstate commerce to and through the States of the United States
other than the State of Ohio from its Akron plants.
Upon the above facts the undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5
(CIO) is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of th e majority therein
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the undersigned finds that all
office and clerical employees of Respondent employed at its Akron, Ohio, plants,
exclusive of confidential, technical and administrative (managerial) employees,
and all persons having authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, pro-
mote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly
to direct them or adjust their grievances, or to effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The parties stipulated and the undersigned finds ". . . that at all times
since December 27, 1944, the Union has been the representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining of a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit"
described above.
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1159
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
The facts in the instant case were stipulated by the parties at the hearing,
which with the exhibits, all of which were admitted either without objection
or by stipulation, constitute the entire record herein.
On or about December 21, 1944, a majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit described above, by a secret election conducted under the supervision of
the Regional Director for the Eighth Region of the Board, designated or selected
the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and on December 27, 1944, it was so certified by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region. Since the latter date and up to and including
the time of the hearing herein the Union has been the representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining for the employees in the unit described above.
Following certification the parties herein entered into a collective bargaining
contract. The parties last executed a complete contract on October 27, 1947.
Incorporated in the contract was a plan for measuring the performance rating
of employees in the unit, established and agreed upon by the parties. Article
XII of the contract which sets forth the plan provides specifically as follows :
XII-SALARY ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1. The Company and the Union recognize the principle that an
employee's salary and his salary treatment within the salary ranges set
forth in Exhibit I is to be based upon the individual employee's perform-
ance of his or her job. It is therefore agreed that employee's job perform-
ance shall be measured according to the objective standards and principles
set forth in the "Performance Rating Program" attached hereto as Exhibit
II, and that the employee's salary within the appropriate salary range shall
be determined in accordance with said program.
SECTION 2. Employees are to be rated by the Company and individually
informed of their rating. If an employee believes that he is incorrectly
rated, the problem shall be handled in accordance with the grievance pro-
cedure as outlined in Article II.
Exhibit I in Section 1 contains job titles and salary ranges for jobs within
the unit. The salary range sets forth the minimum, normal, and maximum rates
for each job in the group. There are groups of jobs. Under Group I, there are
approximately 50 jobs; in Group II, there are approximately 40 jobs ; and in
Group III, there are incentive jobs which do not have any salary ranges
attached.
Exhibit 2 sets forth the performance rating program and describes the stand-
ards of measurements to measure objectively an employee's performance of his
job. There are five factors considered: (1) quality of work, (2) quantity of
work, (3) freedom from supervision, (4) ability to get along with others, and
(5) length of job service. As to each factor a worker is rated as being excel-
lent, high, satisfactory, fair, low, or unsatisfactory. Each rating carries a
certain point value which may vary in connection with the various factors.
Employees in the unit are thus rated and salaries adjusted semiannually. After
the employee is rated on each factor, his total score is the sum of all factors and
from this total he is placed in the appropriate salary grade in accordance with
the tables set forth in the exhibit.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract entered into on October 27, 1947, was supplemented by agreement
on July 2 and 9, 1948. The supplemental agreements provided inter alia for $20
per month salary increase for the salaried employees, and the incentive workers
were likewise granted an increase which would average them an increase of
$20 per month.
In September 1948, the Union gave notice to the Respondent of its desire
to reopen the contract. Thereafter numerous meetings were held between the
parties in an attempt to reach a new agreement, and negotiations in this regard
were held between the parties in September and October 1948, and continued
through February, March, April, and May, 1949.
On January 29, 1949, the Union in the course of the discussions between the
parties as regards wages, requested that Respondent furnish it with certain
information relating to pay rates, changes, and adjustments for all employees
in the unit. The information requested was as follows : A list of all employees
in the unit by name, department, and payroll number showing (a) the salary
of each employee before and immediately after the horizontal salary increase
on July 1, 1948; (b) the present salary of each employee; and (c) the per-
formance rating points received in the last rating. The Union claimed that it
needed the information in order to determine: (1) whether the salary ranges
as proposed were adequate; (2) whether the general wage increase of $20
per month, granted July 1, 1948, had been uniformly applied; (3) whether
merit increases had been improperly withheld; and (4) whether the Respondent
was actually converting merit points into dollars and paying wages according
to the basic plan previously agreed upon in the basic contract.
In answer to the Union's request the Respondent suggested to the Union: (a)
that to determine whether the proposed salary ranges were adequate would
require a study of the content of each job and offered to make available to the
Union all of the Respondent's data on that subject; (b) that without furnishing
the employee's name, but identifying him by the department number in which
he worked, the Respondent offered to furnish the Union, as to each employee
in the unit; the present salary range for his classification; his base salary as
of January 1, 1945, or as of his date of hire, if hired after January 1, 1948; any
adjustments in salary since January 1, 1948; the date on which the general
increase of $20 per month was actually given the employee; his present base
salary ; the number of merit rating points credited to him ; and any increase in
his pay resulting from merit point rating. In addition, the Respondent offered
to give the Union an alphabetical list of all employees in the unit, and their
hiring date, and offered to discuss and examine specifically any case where the
record offered might indicate some inconsistency in dealing with a particular
employee. At the hearing herein the General Counsel offered in evidence a
representative sample of the information which the Respondent offered the Union.
It was admitted in evidence without objection.' Due to the importance that the
undersigned places on this document, it is attached hereto as Appendix A.
As of August 1, 1949, there were 144 departments in the unit with 1,154 em-
ployees therein. There was an average of 8 employees per department and the
number of employees in the individual departments averaged from a low of
1 to a high of 122. While the figures vary somewhat on various dates, they are
a fair representation from January 1, 1949, to the date of the hearing.
' See Appendix A attached hereto.
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1161
C. Concluding findings
The sole question involved herein is a legal issue. The facts were stipulated
at the hearing. As the undersigned views the issue presented it may be sum-
marized as follows : Was the refusal of the Respondent to furnish to the Union a
list of its employees identifying them by name, payroll number, departmental
number, and various other information as regards wages and merit increases, a
refusal to furnish information that the Union was entitled to, and hence a refusal
to bargain in good faith?
The record is clear that the Respondent offered to the Union, and in fact gave
it, all the information requested except the names of the employees in the unit
in a manner that would identify them with his particular job. Moreover the
Respondent was adamant in this regard throughout the negotiations. In the
main it is the contention of the Respondent that the furnishing of the information
in the manner and form as requested by the Union is irrelevant and is an unrea-
sonable request; and that under the Act as interpreted by the Board and courts
it is not required to do so. In support of its contention the Respondent relies
primarily on the Board's Decisions and Orders in Pool Manufacturing Com-
pany, 70 NLRB 41, and Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 70 NLRB 206.2 In
further support of its position the Respondent in its brief distinguishes the
instant case from the Aluminum Ore, J. H. Allison, and National Grinding Wheel
Company cases' on the theory that the factual issues involved in those cases
were different from those involved in the instant case. In substance the Respond-
ent contends that in the cases cited above the Respondent's refusal to give any
information requested by the Union in its effort to intelligently police the con-
tract and negotiate on matters relating to wages and hours, particularly merit
increases , while in the instant case the Respondent did in fact give the Union all
of the requested information it was reasonably entitled to under the contract,
and thus there was no refusal to bargain in good faith.
The General Counsel contends in substance that it was necessary for the Union
to have the names of the individuals in the unit identified with their jobs so that
it could properly police the administration of the contract as to the granting of
the horizontal increase of July 1, 1948, and the granting of merit wage increases-
and the point rating assigned to individual employees by the Respondent in its
last review. He also contends that it was necessary for the Union to have the
requested information in order that it could intelligently negotiate a new rate
range for the contract then being negotiated. The General Counsel's theory in
this regard is that without the requested information, particularly identifying
individuals to their individual jobs, the Union would be forced to work in the dark
in this regard because it would be impossible for it to interview individual em-
ployees in order to secure information as to the content of the various job classi-
fications ; and that by its refusal to give to or make available to the statutory
bargaining representative the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith.
As indicated above fhe principal cases involving issues similar to that involved
herein are Aluminum Ore, J. H. Allison, and National Grinding Wheel Com-
pany' on the one hand and on the other, Pool Manufacturing Company, and
Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc.'
2 The Respondent also relies in part on a recent Intermediate Report, General Controls
Company, Case No. 21-CA-256, issued August 8, 1949, by Trial Examiner David London.
3 For citations see footnote 7 infra.
4 See footnote 7 for citation.
5 See Pool Manufacturing Company and United Garment Workers of America, A. F. L.,
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It has been well said that "hard cases make bad law." The issue involved
herein concededly is narrow. At first blush it would appear that the Decision
of the Board in the Crompton-Highland case is controlling, and that the doctrine
laid down in the Aluminum Ore and Allison cases are not applicable to the issue
involved herein. On the other hand, however, there is a difference in the factual
situations involved in the instant case and the Crompton-Highland case. In the
latter case the parties were thoroughly familiar with the schedule of rates and
current payments under the point system then in effect. Such is not the situation
herein. In the instant case the Union was for all practical purposes working in
the dark as far as the application of the $20 horizontal raise of July 1, 1948,
and the method of arriving at and payment of merit raises to individual em-
ployees.' Under the contract the Union was not entitled to this information
until a grievance was filed. Hence it was impossible for the Union to intelligently
advise an individual employee as to whether or not he had a meritorious griev-
ance unless it had information as to not only the aggrieved employee's job,
salary, etc., but as to other employees doing similar work in the same job clas-
sification. In other words, without the names of all employees and their job clas-
sifications how could the Union evaluate an employee's grievance without inter-
viewing other employees doing like work, and investigating the job content of
each? True the Union might have interviewed each and every member of the
Union, but it must be remembered that the Union was the statutory bargaining
representative for all employees in the unit and owed a duty to each regardless
of whether they were members or nonmembers.
In the considered opinion of the undersigned the controlling factor in the
instant case is the reasonableness of the Union's request. A recent Decision by
the Board, The Cincinnati Steel Company, 86 NLRB 592, would so indicate. In
that case the Board said :
As we have frequently held, an employer's refusal during bargaining nego-
tiations, to furnish necessary information to the representative of his em-
ployees shows a lack of good faith in bargaining, and constitutes in itself,
a violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.' However, we have not held,
nor do we now hold, that the employer is obligated to furnish such informa-
tion in the exact form requested by the representative. It is sufficient if the
information is made available in a manner not so burdensome or time-con -
suming as to impede the process of bargaining . [ Emphasis supplied.]
We agree, as the General Counsel contends, that it was necessary for
the Union in this case to have full information as to the names of the em-
ployees in the unit, their wage rates , and.their classifications in order for
it intelligently to represent the employees in the contract negotiations. How-
ever, the Union already had a list of the employees in the unit, and on and
70 NLRB 540; Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., and Textile Workers Union of America,
V. I. 0., 70 NLRB 206. -
6 While it is true the contract sets forth in clear and concise language the method to be
used in merit rating of employees, there was no way for the Union to know whether the
Respondent properly exercised its prerogative in this regard until a grievance was filed.
7 Aluminum Ore Company , 39 NLRB 1286 , enf'd , 131 F. 2d 485 ( C. A. 7) ; J. H. Allison c^
Company, 70 NLRB 377, enf'd 165 F. 2d 766 (C. A. 6), cert. denied, 335 U. S. 905; Vanette
Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116; Dixie Manufacturing Company, 79 NLRB 645; National
Grinding Wheel Company, 75 NLRB 905; Sherwin-Williams Company, 34 NLRB 651.
0
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1 163
after September 7, could have obtained the rest of the information. it desired
in the manner suggested by the Respondent. As there were only 98 em-
ployees in the unit, we do not regard the Respondent's insistence on furnishing
this information orally, rather than by a written list, as evidence of bad
faith. [Emphasis supplied.]
It is to be noted that in the above-cited case there were only 98 employees
in the unit, while in the instant case there are 1,154 employees in 144 depart-
ments. In such a state of the record the undersigned is convinced and finds
that the Union's request for a list of the employees in the unit identifying them
with their jobs along with other information was a reasonable request, and
that the Respondent's refusal to furnish such a list resulted in a situation "so
burdensome or time-consuming as to impede the process of bargaining." Indeed,
the record indicates that bargaining was impeded by the Respondent's refusal to,
furnish the requested list since the bargaining conferences between the parties
ended in May of 1949.
In view of his above findings the undersigned is convinced and finds that the
Respondent by refusing to furnish the Union a list of the names of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit identifying each employee with his job classifica-
tion failed in its statutory duty to bargain collectively with the Union in respect
to wages and other conditions of employment, and by such conduct violated Sec-
tions 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in:
connection with the operations of the Respondent as described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, trafc, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening.
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union
as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, by refusing and
failing to give to the Union a list containing the names of individual employees
identifying them by their job classification, department, and payroll number,
showing (a) the salary for each employee before and immediately subsequent to
the horizontal increase of July 1, 1948, (b) the present salary of each employee,
and (c) the performance rating points received in the last rating. In order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that, upon
request, the Respondent perform its obligation to bargain collectively with the
Union, as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, in
respect to wages and other terms and conditions of employment by supplying
said information to the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
0
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5
(CIO) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All office and clerical employees of Respondent employed at its Akron, Ohio,
plants, exclusive of confidential, technical and administrative (managerial)
employees, and all persons having authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees or
responsibly to direct them or adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5
(CIO) was on January 29, 1949, and at all times thereafter has been the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in,said appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing and failing to give to the Union a list containing the names of
individual employees, identifying them by their job classification, department,
and payroll number, showing (a) the salary for each employee before and imme-
diately subsequent to the horizontal increases of July 1, 1948, (b) the present
salary of each employee, and (c) the performance rating points received in
the last rating, Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the conduct described above, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed such in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act,
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that The B. F. Goodrich Company, its officers, agents,
,successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, &
Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5 (CIO), as the exclusive representative
of Respondent's office and clerical employees employed at its Akron, Ohio, plants,
exclusive of confidential, technical and administrative (managerial) employees,
and all persons having authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees or responsibly to direct
them or adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend such action ; by failing
and refusing to furnish to the Union a list of all employees in the said unit by
name, department, and payroll number, showing (a) the salary for each employee
before and immediately subsequent to the horizontal increase of July 1, 1948,
(b) the present salary of each employee, and (c) the performance rating points
received in the last rating ;
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to assist the
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers Union of America, Local No.
5 (CIO) or any other labor organization, to ba;gain collectively through repre-
THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1165
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) In further performance of its duty to bargain collectively with United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 5 (CIO) as
the exclusive representative of all clerical employees of Respondent's employees at
its Akron, Ohio, plants, exclusive of confidential, technical, technical and ad-
ministrative (managerial) employees, and all persons having authority to hire,
transfer, suspend , lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
other employees or responsibly to direct them or adjust their grievances, or
effectively to recommend such action, furnish to said Union a list of all employees
in said unit described above by name, department, and payroll number, showing
(a) the salary for each employee before and immediately subsequent to the hori-
zontal increase of July 1, 1945, (b) the present salary of each employee, and (c)
the performance rating points received in the last rating ;
(b) Post at its Akron, Ohio, plants copies of the notice attached hereto
marked Appendix B. Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director.of the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the El ighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio)
in writing, within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter-
mediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from
the receipt of the Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (in-
cluding rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with
the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof; and any party may,
within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of
the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of excep-
tions and/or brief, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate
by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly
printed or mimeographed, and, if mimeographed, shall be double spaced. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in Section 203.46,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid-
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations herein
contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be-
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and an,
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 14th day of November 1949.
JAMES A. SHAW,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A.
SAMPLE OF SALARY INFORMATION OFFERED TO UNION 5-3-49
p, i n w
Adjustments
m 0 ^-
o
po •
a 4
Depart-
meet no o °;, ^^
yN
pp' m0.
° "
^^
y;W
^
$ o Ri d o -n io
ŷ
mgpq
a ^ A A C x A C x 0 a Z
6002_____ $105-$135-$165 $100 2-2.3-48 6- 1-48 $10 M _ $130 $130 180 ------
6002 --- -- 105- 135- 165 100 8-11-48 1-16-49 10 M _ 125 159 $15
6570 _____ 125- 155- 190 155 _________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 175 160 220 ______
6565-____ 125- 155- 190 180 _________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 200 170 200 ______
6535 _____ 125- 155- 190 145 10.6-48 _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ ____ 145 140 145 ______
6535 ___-_ 125- 155- 190 152 _________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 172 145 159 _____-
6535 _____ 12:5- 155- 190 130 3-24-48 _________ ____ ____ ________ __^_ ____ 20 150 155 210 5
6535_ ___- 125- 155- 190 150 --------- --------- ---- ---- -------- ---- ---- 20 170 140 152 ___-__
6520 -____ 125- 155- 190 135 _______- 7- 1-48 10 M ________ ____ ____ 20 165 160 230 ______
6520 _____ 125- 155 - 190 170 _________ ______ ____ ____ ______ ____ ____ 20 190 160 230 ______
6510 _____ 125- 155- 190 150 _________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 170 160 220 _.__-_
6510 _____ 125- 1 55- 190 150 6-14-48 _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 170 135 124
6506___-_ 125- 155- 190 195 _________ ______ 45 D ________ ____ _-__ 20 170 160 230 ______
6140_____ 125- 155- 190 120 ____-____ 4- 1-48 5 M ______ ____ ____ 20 145 135 131 _-____
6010_____ 125- 155- 190 150 10-6-48 -_- ____ _- 50 135 134
6010_____ 125- 155- 190 177 _ ______
6010_ ____ 125- 155- 190 150 _________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 170 150 190 ______
6602-____ 125- 155- 190 115 6-18-48 _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 135 140 145 5
6002_____ 125- 155- 190 130 9-29-48 _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ ___ 130 150 186 20
6002_____ 125- 155- 190 100 1-2C-48 3- 1-48 5 P 6-1-48 $10 P 20 135 155 200 20
6002_____ 125- 155- 190 100 _________ 1-16-48 10 M 3-1-48 5 P 20 135 140 140 6
6141 _____ 135- 165- 200 155 _________ ______-- ____ ____ -------- ____ ____ 20 175 180 250 5
6140 _____ 135- 165- 200 120 --------- 10 M ________ ____ ____ 20 150 155 159 5
6125 _____ 135- 165- 200 135 --------- 4- 1-48 10 M _ 20 165 160 190 ------
6123 ----- 135-- 165- 200 140 -- ------- 5- 1-48 10 M _ 20 170 165 210 ------
6010----- 135- 165- 200 160 _ ________ ________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 180 170 230 ------
6G02 ------ 135- 165- 200 180 _ ________ _________ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ 20 200 170 220 _
6002---_ 135- 165- 200 145 _ 20 165 155 166 ------
6010 ----- 145- 180- 215 197 _ 20 217 175 213 ______
6040 ____- 15.5- 190- 230 217 --------- -------- ---- ---- -------- ---- --- 20 237 195 230 -_____
-
6010_____ 155- 190 - 230 160 ______ __- 3-16-4 10 M ------ __ 20 190 170
-
152 ------
6002 155- 190- 230 172 _________ 3- 1-48 8 P ------ ____ ____ 20 200 180 180 ------
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
. Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rig'it to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM & PLASTIC
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5 (CIO) or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own chaosing, and to
THE B . F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1167
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection . All our employees are free to become or
remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above -named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described herein with respect to rates of pay , hours of employment , or other
conditions of employment , and furnish to said Union a list of all employees
in the unit described below by name , department, and payroll number
showing ( a) the salary for each employee before and immediately subsequent
to the horizontal increase of July 1, 1948 , ( b) the present salary of each
employee , and (c ) the performance rating points received in the last rating.
The bargaining unit is :
All office and clerical employees employed at our Akron , Ohio, plants,
exclusive of confidential , technical , and administrative ( managerial) em-
ployees, and all persons having autliority to hire, transfer , suspend, lay off,
recall, promote , discharge , assign , reward or discipline other employees or
responsibly to direct them or adjust their grievances , or effectively to
recommend such action.
THE B . F. GOODRICH COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------------------ By--------- ---------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.