Opinion ID: 392028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Request and the Company's Response

Text: 108 By letter of November 23, 1976, attorney Cohen described the information requested at the previous day's bargaining session as follows. For all auto glass workers, inside glass workers, helpers and glaziers of SGI, SGG, SGR, and Presque Isle Glass d/b/a Soule Glass and Glazing: 109 (1) the employee's name, (2) classification, job description, title or the like, (3) his or her hourly wage and average number of hours worked weekly as of February 21, 1976 and April 22, 1976, (4) any change in hourly wage or average number of hours worked weekly at any time since April 12, 1976 specifying the date(s) of such change(s), the amount(s) of change(s) in hourly wage and/or average hours worked weekly, and (5) any changes since April 12, 1976 in any and all benefits specifying all particulars of and relating to such changes. 110 As to the reason for the request and the relevance of the requested information, the letter stated: 111 The purpose of this information request and the need for such information is to permit the Union to bargain intelligently with the Company as to wages and benefits and, with respect to same, to understand, evaluate and discuss with the Company at ... further negotiations its wage and benefit position as explained by you at yesterday's negotiating session. 112 Attorney Levenson delivered the company's written response at the bargaining session on December 9. Levenson's letter first recounted that the information requested was prompted by his statement that SGG 113 during the strike had been able to hire better men for less money and that, from a strictly economic point of view ..., it did not make sense to pay more than our last offer when, in fact, we had found that it was possible to acquire a better labor force for even less than the current rate ... in regard to spirit and productivity if not necessarily glazing expertise. 114 As noted above, the company on December 9 furnished two lists: a weekly listing of the aggregate overtime hours worked by nonsupervisory SGG employees and the number of men working each week, without any names; and another list, without names, of the then-current wage rates of SGG employees, numbered one through thirty-four. In addition, Levenson's December 9 letter stated that during the strike the company had not classified any new employees, except as strike replacements, and had made no changes in benefits. 115 Levenson's letter characterized this disclosure as a preliminary step which at this stage of the proceedings ... should be sufficient for you to bargain intelligently, and offered to submit the employees' names and substantiating material to a third party for verification. Levenson gave the following reasons for the company's refusal to provide further requested information: (1) the company's doubts as to the union's motivation for making the request at the sixteenth bargaining session, eight months into the strike, given the numerous unfair labor practice charges the union had filed against the company, and the company's desire to avoid giving the union ammunition for indeed another unfair labor charge; (2) the company's great obligation to protect the new men hired from coercive conduct and harassing tactics such as the union agreed not to further continue in its posting notice in case number 1-CB-3412; (3) the hour information requested would require an individual analysis for each employee and involve a great deal of difficulty in time and effort in preparing such a list; and (4) regarding non-SGG employees we do not understand that the law requires any disclosure of information concerning these companies ..., since the SGI employees had voted to decertify the union prior to the strike. 116 The record contains no evidence of any response by the union, at the final bargaining session on December 9 or otherwise. Attorney Cohen did not testify. On December 17, 1976, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the company's failure and refusal to supply sufficient requested information. 117 The validity of the ALJ's conclusions with respect to the information disclosure issue, in this factual context, presents a close and complex question. The company's positions regarding the bargaining unit and non-unit information require separate analysis, and the ALJ's failure to distinguish legally and factually between these distinct types of information complicates our task. 118