Court Opinion

ID: 9466514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:18:17.432841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:46.841492
License: Public Domain

FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent.
The record indicates that the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative (Brazos) employs both union and non-union employees. In past years, the union, Local 346 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, has negotiated and contracted for the employees it represents. The employer, Brazos, has given its non-union employees the same wage increase granted to the union employees. In 1976, a six percent per annum wage increase was negotiated for the union employees; the increase was to cover the years 1977 and 1978. A similar wage increase was given to the non-union employees.
In January, 1978, during the second year of the union contract, employer Brazos gave its non-union employees a wage increase of more than six percent. In response to this action, Mr. T. R. Shelton, business manager of the union, wrote a “mad letter”1 to the general manager of Brazos requesting all information pertaining to the non-union employees’ wage increase. The letter neither gave nor attempted to give any justification whatsoever for its demand for information. Brazos refused to furnish the information requested and subsequently *1103found itself charged with an unfair labor practice in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5).
The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint against Brazos and found that the union had failed to justify its data request. The Board reversed this dismissal and found that Brazos was guilty of violating sections 8(a)(1) and (5). The core of the Board’s opinion is that Brazos should have “guessed” that a reasonable need for such information existed. In my opinion, this is both shocking and unfounded in the law. The record shows that the first instance of the union making known any reason for its request came at the hearing held on August 22,1978. At that time counsel for employer Brazos immediately responded with an unconditional 2 offer to provide the requested information.
The court has now been advised that all such information was indeed furnished. Under these circumstances, holding the employer guilty of an unfair labor practice is, in my opinion, a manifest injustice.

. The majority opinion finds Brazos’ offer to supply the requested information to be less than “unconditional” because Brazos was unwilling to admit to any violation of law. I disagree with the majority’s interpretation; I find Brazos’ statement that “[t]he company will now furnish [all information requested]” to be completely unconditional. Record, vol. II, at 12.

. The “mad letter” of January 30, 1978, reads:
“Dear Mr. Monahan:
It has been brought to my attention that Brazos Electric Power Cooperative has recently granted a larger pay increase to non-bargaining unit employees than was granted to bargaining unit employees.
As Bargaining Agent, I am requesting all information pertaining to this increase, pay scales for all classifications and the amount of increase granted to all employees not within the bargaining unit. The only exception would be those employees classified as supervisors, watchmen or guards. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, this Local Union is entitled to this information. I will expect it to be in this office by close of business on Friday, February 10th, or I will be compelled to take legal action.
I regret that the Cooperative has seen fit not to grant bargaining unit employees this increase, and I hope you will reconsider this decision for it is a clear violation of 8A 3 of the National Labor Relations Act. And, you will leave us no alternative but to pursue this matter by all legal means.
Best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ T. R. Shelton
T. R. Shelton
Business Manager”