Union Carbide Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

UNION CARBIDE CORP. 113
Union Carbide Corporation , Carbon Products Division
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local
749. Case 8-CA-5665
December 9, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 5, 1970, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer
issued his Decision 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
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Union filed an answering brief to the Respondent's
exceptions and brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.1
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon
Products Division, Fostoria, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
i Respondent urges the Board to reverse its decision in Pittsburgh Plate
Glase Company, Chemical Division , 177 NLRB No 114, enforcement denied
427 F 2d 936 (C A 6, 1970), in the light of the Court' s decision We
respectfully disagree with the Court for the reasons enunciated in our
decision and , accordingly , we reject Respondent 's contention in that
regard
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER , Trial Examiner : International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC,
and its Local 749, herein respectively called the Interna-
tional and the Local and collectively called the Union, on
November 13, 1969,1 filed the initial charge in this matter
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) against Union
Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, herein
called the Company or Respondent. Following two
amendments of the charge, the Director of Region 8, on
April 1, 1970, issued his Complaint and Notice of Hearing
which alleges, in addition to the normal paragraphs
concerning service of the charges, jurisdiction and union
status, that the Union since May 18, 1950, has been the
certified bargaining representative of the employees in a
production and maintenance (P and M) unit2 at Respon-
dent's Fostoria, Ohio, plant and that Respondent and the
Union have negotiated various pension agreements the
most recent of which was concluded on July 18, 1969,
effective until 1974. The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
bargain with the Union which is the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the P and M unit, including retired
employees, and that Respondent, since May 13, refused to
furnish certain information3 requested by the Union. The
complaint further alleges that this information is needed by
the Union to enable it to bargain effectively with
Respondent in regard to the necessity and/or feasibility of
future changes in, or modifications to, the existing pension
plans, or new pension plan as it affects employees in the
bargaining unit including both active and retired employ-
ees, and that the information is also necessary to enable the
Union to effectively police the pension agreements and
administer its contracts with Respondent.
In its April 14, 1970, answer, Respondent admitted the
service of the charges, the jurisdictional allegations, the
status of the Union, the certification, the appropriateness of
the P and M unit, and the fact that the Union is the certified
bargaining agent for the P and M unit employees and that
the parties have negotiated and concluded certain pension
agreements through the years. Respondent denied that the
Union is the bargaining representative for retired employ-
ees and that the requested information is needed by the
Union to bargain effectively. Respondent affirmatively
states that the Act does not accord a union a right to
bargain for retired employees since they are not employees
per se. Respondent also pleads that if there was such a duty,
the Union waived any right it had and that the Union
entered into a new 5-year agreement on July 18 following
the date of the alleged unfair labor practice. Respondent
alleges other acts as waivers and concludes by stating that
the addition of retired employees to the bargaining unit
would effect a change in the bargaining unit which has not
been authorized.
i Unless otherwise stated all dates herein occurred in 1969
2 The parties agree that the description of the certified unit is as follows
All hourly paid employees including all production and maintenance
employees at the Company's Fostoria, Ohio, Works, excluding all
salaried employees , office and clerical employees , bricklayers,
watchmen , guards, professional employees and supervisors
3 The Union orally and in writing requested Respondent to furnish it
with (a) the number of employees presently retired under the pension
plan, (b) the amount of benefits each retiree is receiving per payment
period, (c) the years of service of each retiree prior to retirement , (d) the
number, identity, and amount of payments to all persons receiving
disability benefits, and (e) the extent of disability for employees receiving
disability payments
187 NLRB No. 10
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The trial of this matter took place May 13, 1970, in
Fostoria, Ohio, and all parties were afforded full opportuni-
ty to participate in the proceeding and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses. All parties have filed briefs which
I have carefully considered. Respondent's motion to
dismiss the proceeding is disposed of by my decision.
The basic question here is whether the Union is entitled
to the information it seeks in order to administer the
contract or prepare for negotiations on the pension and
insurance (P and I) agreements. The General Counsel and
the Union assert that the Union is entitled to the
information since it has a duty and a right to bargain for
and to administer the contract as it applies to retired
employees and, in any event, that the Union is entitled to
the information to enable it to bargain effectively in any
negotiations concerning the P and I agreements.
Respondent asserts that the Union has no right, duty, or
authority to bargain for or administer the contract as it
applies to retired employees, but that the Union's sole area
of responsibility is to administer the contract for unit
employees up until the time they do retire. Secondly,
Respondent claims that the requested information is not
relevant or necessary for the Union's use in bargaining
about P and I agreements and, in any event, that the Union
has waived any purported right.
On the basis of the record in this case, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS
Respondent is a New York corporation engaged
primarily in the manufacture and sale of a variety of
chemical and other industrial products produced in various
plants in the United States. At its Fostoria, Ohio, plant, the
facility involved herein, Respondent produces a variety of
carbon products for industrial application and annually
ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from such plant
directly to points located outside the State of Ohio.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the International and
the Local are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
If. THE CASE
A. Background and Facts
The Union, in an election held in May 1950, succeeded
the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE) which had been the bargaining representa-
tive at this plant. The Union and Respondent have since
that time entered into separate collective-bargaining
contracts and P and I agreements. There have been a
succession of such P and I agreements with some being
negotiated at the conclusion of a 3-or 5-year term while
others have been negotiated during the contract term. Over
the years modifications have been made to both the pension
part and the insurance part. On most occasions Respondent
notified those who were retired that changes were to be
made regarding their programs before any changes were
negotiated with the Union for the current P and I
agreement.
Charles Gary was elected president of the Local in
December 1968 and by virtue of that office was also
chairman of the negotiating committee and a member of
the grievance committee. In February 1969 he attended a
union meeting of the Union Carbide Council of the
International in Washington, D.C., which was held to
discuss proposed pension changes which the Company was
proposing and preparing to discuss with the various local
unions throughout the country. Gary testified that during
this meeting he met a delegate from a New York plant of
the Respondent, who showed him information concerning
retirees that the individual said he had received from the
Company. Gary thought that similar information would be
helpful to him in negotiations for a P and I agreement.
On his return to work, Gary attempted to see J. C.
Honeycutt, manager of industrial relations at the Fostoria
plant, who was absent. Gary left a request for the
information at Honeycutt's office and later in February,
while in the plant, Honeycutt asked Gary why he needed
the requested information. Gary said that being a new
union officer, he thought the information was needed if
they were going to negotiate a P and I agreement.
Honeycutt said they might give that information out at
other company divisions but they would not do it at the
Fostoria plant then or in the future.
Gary discussed his request and the Company's denial of
the information with counsel for the Charging Party,
Ronald Janetzke. On April 10, Gary wrote Janetzke about
the matter, adding that some union members who had
retired or those nearing retirement would like to know how
the plan worked and that he would like the information so
that he could tell his members the amount of the payments
they should receive.
In late April, Janetzke wrote to Honeycutt specifying that
the information requested (fn. 3 above) was to enable the
Local to administer the current agreement and the
payments made to retired members under the current
pension plan. In a subsequent letter, Honeycutt refused to
supply the information with respect to those who had left
the bargaining unit because of retirement or total and
permanent disability.
On June 24, C. E. Medford, Fostoria plant manager,
wrote Gary noting that the P and I agreement was due to
expire October 28, 1971, and that the Company was willing
to enter into discussions concerning changes in the plan,
but that by entering into such discussions neither party
waived any of its rights or obligations under the current
agreement.
Following this letter, three meetings were held between
the Company and the Local concerning proposed modifica-
tions of the P and I agreement. At one of these meetings
Gary renewed his information request and remarked that if
the information was not provided, he could assume that the
Company did not want the Union to represent retired
employees and the Company would be faced with
answering the questions of those seeking information rather
UNION CARBIDE CORP.
than the Union sharing that burden by having information
available.
Respondent claimed that this statement by Gary
constituted a waiver by the Union of the information, but I
regard it as an argument for the information and not a
waiver.
At the last meeting, held July 17 or 18, a new P and I
agreement extending until 1974 was signed, following
agreement on the Company's proposed modifications.
Accordingly I must consider that the meetings were, in
effect ., negotiation sessions between the parties leading to a
new 5-year P and I agreement.
In the intenm, Attorney Janetzke again sought from
Honeycutt and later from Jack Simpson, counsel for
Respondent, the information which he had previously
requested. Respondent continued to refuse to make the
information available.
In a July 17 letter to Honeycutt, Janetzke confirmed his
previous request for the name of Respondent's counsel so
that Janetzke might pursue the information request with
him. The letter again requested the information sought for
the reasons previously outlined -"and for the additional
reason that your company has now requested meetings to
discuss modifications of the existing pension plan. As
previously indicated, we need the information requested to
administer the contract and now must have this informa-
tion in order to intelligently bargain concerning your
proposed modifications to the existing plan."
Honeycutt replied giving Jack Simpson's name to
Janetzke and adding that since the new 5-year P and I
agreement had been signed on July 18, he assumed the
request was dormant since there was to be no further
bargaining on pensions. Respondent additionally urges that
by consummating the 5-year agreement without insisting
on the information, the Union waived its rights to any
information.
In answer the Union states that Respondent offered the P
and I modifications on a "take it or leave it " basis stating
that the Union could either agree to the offered modifica-
tions or if they declined, they could wait until the P and I
agreement expired in 1971 and then would be offered the
same modifications which would only result in depriving
those who retired in the intenm of the proposed increased
benefits. The union members accepted the new agreement
over the recommendations of their negotiating committee.
In subsequent correspondence Janetzke expressed to
Simpson the Union's position that it was entitled to the
pension plan information "that we may administer the
current agreement and may secure detailed information
from those on pension concerning the adequacy of the
current benefits in order to be fully prepared when the next
negotiations on pensions commence." Simpson reiterated
that the 5-year P and I agreement had been concluded and
that the plan contains all the necessary language for its
administration. To a last request on August 27, Respondent
replied that it would not provide the information.
4 The P and I agreements specify mandatory retirement when an
employee becomes 65 years of age Some provisions are made for earlier
B. The P and I Agreements
115
It appears that the pension funding and management for
Respondent (and for all of Union Carbide) is handled by
Prudential Insurance Company on a premium leveling
basis . In essence Prudential , using its acturial tables, sets a
premium for each employee based on the number of
employees and the age and job (salary) of the employee and
Respondent pays the premium until the individual is
retired , so that funding for the individual 's retirement is
completed while he is an active employee which would have
the effect of stabilizing and setting the benefits. No
contributions are made by anyone to the retirement
program once the individual retires.
Although Honeycutt did not know how the Company
determined what modifications it could offer in the pension
program, it would appear under these circumstances that
this is a matter of negotiations between Prudential and the
Company as to what Prudential will provide for a certain
level of premiums. Similarly where increases or modifica-
tions are made to the programs of those already retired, this
would appear to be a matter of negotiations between the
Company and Prudential which resulted in the carrier
liberalizing the program for those already retired.
The P and I agreements contain an outline of the
determining factors for the pension plan and the insurance
program . The agreements have provided that if there is a
dispute between Respondent and a bargaining unit
employee under the pension plan as to ( 1) the calculation of
his company service credit, his age , or his average straight
time monthly earnings or (2) whether a person with
sufficient time and age has become totally and permanently
disabled, such disputes may be taken up under the
grievance procedure in the collective-bargaining contract.
The agreements also provide that if a dispute should apse
between Respondent and a bargaining unit employee as to
whether such employee "is , or continues to be, totally and
permanently disabled within the meaning of the pension
plan," the dispute is to be resolved by a panel of physicians
with the cost to be shared by the Company and the Union.
In a similar vein the group life insurance plan, which is
administered by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Compa-
ny, provides for coverage of active employees and those
who elect early retirement.4
This insurance plan contains a provision that if a factual
nonmedical dispute exists , such as disagreement over
earnings , group eligibility , employment status , etc., the
Union and the employee might process such dispute
through the grievance procedure which is contained in the
regular collective-bargaining contract . Such a provision
would seem to make early retirees eligible for representa-
tion by the Union in this particular.
Respondent states that the pension plan is susceptible to
the grievance procedure during the 2-to 4-months period
before the employee retires when the employee is called to
the personnel office and the necessary data of his age, years
of service credit, and average wage are determined and the
formula computations made . The employees ' monthly
pension payment is figured and he is informed of it. When
retirement
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he retires, the first check is sent by Prudential to the
Company which verifies the amount and hands the check to
the retiree. Thereafter the checks are sent to the retiree
directly from Prudential Insurance Company. Respon-
dent's contacts with the retiree are then limited to an
invitation to an annual banquet and when and if changes
are made in the retiree's pension program.
Respondent has consistently resisted any attempt by the
Union to bargain for retirees. In 1965 Respondent made a
change regarding the hospital surgical plan for total and
permanently disabled retirees. The Union filed a protest
and asked that the matter be considered under the contract
grievance procedure. Respondent took the position that
such retirees are not on the payroll and not part of the
bargaining unit for which the Union can bargain. The
matter was not pursued.
The pension plan provides that where an employee has 15
or more years of company service and is under 65 he may
be retired if he becomes so totally and permanently
disabled as a result of bodily injury or disease that he can
not engage in any work or occupation for profit, and the
disability is deemed by Respondent as permanent and has
continued for 26 weeks. This disability retirement continues
until the person becomes 65, ceases to be totally and
permanently disabled, or dies.
As noted earlier, if the person believes he is not
permanently and totally disabled he may seek a medical
determination of his status and the Union, under the P and
I agreement , has the duty of sharing the medical costs with
Respondent when the team of doctors makes the binding
determination.
In its information request, the Union has asked for the
number, identity, and amount of payments to all persons
receiving disability benefits and the extent of disability of
those receiving disability payments. It was not made clear
what knowledge the Union seeks in requesting information
on the extent of disability of those receiving payments,
since according to the agreement the recipients are totally
and permanently disabled.5 It is possible that the Union
here is seeking a better definition of what constitutes
permanent and total disability by illustrations of those who
have been so designated by Respondent and are now on
that program. In the light of Gary's statement that he knew
nothing about the disability retirees and was being
questioned about this feature by employees, such informa-
tion would provide some answers.
Analysis
The parties in this case all rely principally on Pittsburgh
Plate Glass, 177 NLRB No. 114, with Respondent stressing
the reversal of that decision by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 74 LRRM 2425. There is
however one important distinction. In the Pittsburgh Plate
case, the union sought to bargain on terms and conditions
which applied directly to retirees. In the present case the
Union seeks information about retirees for administering
the agreement and for preparation for future negotiations.
If, as the Board holds, and as I am bound to follow, retirees
are a part of the bargaining unit in which they worked for
the purposes of bargaining about their pension plans and
other benefits, or changes therein, then it follows that
information concerning those areas for retirees is presump-
tively relevant and germane and should be given unless a
company could rebut that presumption by convincing
evidence .6
If however retirees are not part of the appropriate unit
and a company has no obligation to bargain in regard to
them, as the Sixth Circuit held in Pittsburgh Plate, there is
no presumption of relevance and the General Counsel must
demonstrate by convincing evidence that the requested
information is relevant to the Union's needs.
Before reaching those questions we will first consider
Respondent's defense that the Union has waived any right
it had for the information. First Respondent says it has
unilaterally granted benefits to retirees on many occasions
over the years without consulting or negotiating with the
Union and has refused the Union's request to negotiate
concerning such actions. Respondent adds that the Union
did not pursue its request in the June-July negotiations but
signed a new P and I agreement extending until 1974. By
this course of action Respondent insists the Union has
waived any rights it had to the information.
If the Union is entitled to the information, then
Respondent is in the position of claiming it has previously
violated the Act by not giving the information to the Union
and that by virtue of such violations it is entitled to
continue to violate the Act and the Union is estopped from
seeking redress for continued unlawful Respondent acts.
Respondent also urges that Local President Gary's
comments (see Sec. A. Background and Facts, above)
constituted such a waiver. As stated above Gary's
statement was a part of an argument being urged on
Respondent to give the Union the requested information.
In any event, the Board has stated many times that in
order for a party to waive a right, the waiver must be plain
and unmistakable. Here there is no express waiver either in
the Union not going to impasse on Respondent's prior
actions or by Gary's statement.
With all due deference to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I am bound to follow Board
precedent, and must accept as the law of this case that the
Union is entitled to represent and bargain on behalf of
retirees concerning retirement benefits. With that estab-
lished, it follows that information about retirees and the
amount of benefits they receive is presumptively relevant,
and under the circumstances the relevance of its use to
administer the agreement and prepare for future negotia-
tions is plain and unmistakable.
As an example, the Union could spot check retirees'
payments, determine whether the amounts received by
retirees or their widows were ample for their needs or
whether they were receiving all they were entitled to
receive.
S Since the request deals with retirees , the possibility that the Union on its head to hold that his employer is free to deal with him unilaterally
may want information concerning persons partially disabled who may be and that the union may not represent him with respect to changes in the
receiving workmen's compensation or some other unmentioned type of very plan which it negotiated for him " As related to this ease, the Board
compensation , will not be considered here might reach such a conclusion were the Union not to have access to the
6 As the Board said in Pittsburgh Plate, "it would virtually stand the Act information concerning that plan and how it is working
UNION CARBIDE CORP. 117
Respondent did not seek to rebut the presumption except
insofar as it claimed the Union waived its rights.
Therefore under present Board law as established in
Pittsburgh Plate, I am bound to find that the requested
information is presumptively relevant and that Respondent
by not furnishing the requested information has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Under the present status of the law and considering
Respondent's geographical location, I deem it proper to
consider a second question. For the purposes of this
discussion we will assume that retirees are not members of
the bargaining unit, and that the consequent presumption
of relevancy is thus lost. The question then is whether the
requested information is sufficiently relevant to the Union's
needs that Respondent should make it available.
If we consider the information request solely in the light
that the information was to be used for administering the
agreement as it applies to present retirees or preparing a
grievance or preparing for negotiations to represent present
retirees, then the information would only be used for the
benefit of persons outside the unit and there would be no
relevance established. But the Union also said that it
wanted the information so that it could better understand
how the plan worked for the retirees and wanted the
information for upcoming negotiations. The Company
replied that no negotiations were contemplated, since the
parties to the June meetings understood that the meetings
did not bind the parties to open the agreement. Respondent
next says that the present agreement does not expire until
1974 and the information would not be needed this far in
advance, and consequently the information is not relevant
to any union need.
Respondent has conveniently jumped the fact that the P
and I agreement was negotiated by the parties in the June-
July meetings and that a new agreement was consummated
at a time when the Union's request for the information
which it said it needed for negotiations was before
Respondent.
In a July 24, 1969, letter to employees concerning
improvements in the just concluded P and I agreement
Respondent stated that it was "continuously studying and
carrying on research regarding benefit plans-and this
involves social trends, legislative benefits and changes in
the plans of other companies." The Union asserts that with
the requested information, it could survey the retirees and
disability retirees checking the amount of their benefits,
their disability, etc., and determine whether the P and I
plans have worked, whether the benefits are sufficient or
proper to the needs of retirees, and whether in the
experience of the retirees improvements are needed so that
new plans or demands may be suggested or formulated for
future negotiations.
In its brief the Union points out that it does not know
how the "surviving spouse option" has worked under the
plan or in the experience of those electing it whether it
should be increased, decreased, or eliminated and that it
has no means of getting information on the subject except
by obtaining such information first from the Company so
that it might make such a survey.
If the Union were armed with such information, it would
be in a position to offer constructive plans and alternatives
and not be in the position it was in 1969. Testimony
indicates that the June -July negotiations were on a "take it
or leave it" basis with the Union being told if it did not
accept the proffered benefits then, they would be offered
them in 1971 when the P and I agreement expired and
would only succeed in denying those benefits to employees
who retired in the interim.
With the requested data the Union could determine from
the retirees how the various P and I plans have worked in
this current inflationary period and could determine from
those who retire through 1974 , when the current plan
terminates , whether the current plan is meeting the needs of
employees. With such information the Union could
formulate recommendations for changes in the present plan
that would directly affect active unit employees as they
retired hereafter.
Thus, it appears that the Union 's requested information is
relevant to the bargaining situation of the Union and as
such should be given. The fact that the current agreement
extends until 1974 is no deterrent to forthwith giving the
Union the information it seeks. Experience here has
demonstrated that on a number of occasions the Union and
Respondent have renegotiated the P and I agreements in
midterm as indeed they did on the current agreement.
In Weber Veneer and Plywood Co., 161 NLRB 1054, the
Board adopted Trial Examiner Bott's statement that, "The
Union's right to relevant wage and fringe benefit informa-
tion is not dependent upon the existence of a particular
controversy or the processing of a specific grievance. As
stated, the right includes all information which appears
reasonably necessary to enable the Union to intelligently
and effectively administer or seek to modify its agreement."
In N.L.R.B. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 388 F .2d 673,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
affirmed and enforced a Board order requiring the
company to furnish the union with various types of
information concerning a group of employees who were not
in the bargaining unit , for the information of the union in
formulating bargaining demands or deciding whether to
process grievances.
There have been a number of other "information cases"
where it has been held that information concerning nonunit
employees was relevant and necessary for a bargaining
agent and that withholding of that information by an
employer violated the Act.
Were there no Board decision holding that retirees are a
part of the unit for bargaining purposes , which makes the
information presumptively relevant here , I would in the
circumstances here still find that the information requested
by the Union is sufficiently relevant to warrant ordering
Respondent to give it to the Union and would find that its
refusal to do so violated Section 8(aX5) of the Act.
Under all the circumstances present, I find and conclude
that Respondent, by refusing to produce the information
requested by the Union, has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
III. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
occuring in connection with Respondent 's business opera-
tions as set forth in section I, above, have a close , intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices as set forth above, I recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent refused to bargain with
the Union by refusing to give the Union information which
it requested for purposes of administering a contract and
enabling it to prepare itself for future negotiations, I
recommend that Respondent give the Union the informa-
tion which it has requested concerning retirees and
disability retirees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Union Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Divi-
sion, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers , AFL-CIO-CLC, and its Local 749 are each
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All hourly paid employees including all production
and maintenance employees at the Company's Fostoria,
Ohio, Works, excluding all salaried employees, office and
clerical employees, bricklayers, watchmen, guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since May 18, 1950, the Union has been
and is now the exclusive representative of the employees in
the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by refusing to bargain with the Union
by denying access of the Union to certain requested
information concerning retirees and disability retirees, has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5)
and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER?
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
considered as a whole , it is recommended that Union
Carbide Corporation, Carbon Products Division, of
Fostoria , Ohio, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall;
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively
with the Union by denying access by the Union to
information which it has requested concerning retirees and
disability retirees.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the appropriate unit and give the
Union the information concerning retirees and disability
retirees which it has requested.
(b) Post at its Fostoria, Ohio, plant, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith .9
I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
9 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
t, In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 8, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which the Company, the Union, and the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
participated and offered evidence , the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the Act and has
ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the
order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL make available to the Union the informa-
tion which it has requested concerning retirees and
disability retirees so that the Union may have the
information it needs for bargaining negotiations and
policing of the contract.
UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, CARBON
PRODUCTS DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
( Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
UNION CARBIDE CORP. 119
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room
or covered by any other matenal. 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street,
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Cleveland, Ohio 44199 , Telephone 216-522-3715.