The B. F. Goodrich Company And United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers Of America, Local No. 5 (cio), 1151 (1950)

Extract

---

The B. F. Goodrich Company And United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers Of America, Local No. 5 (cio), 1151 (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 Examiner at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.

The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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 negotiations. The Respondent takes exception to this finding on the ground that it offered the Union all that was reasonably necessary for its purpose.

1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].

89 NLRB No. 139.

As found by the Trial Examiner, on January 29, 1949, in the course of bargaining negotiations with the Respondent for a new contract,2 the Union requested that it be furnished with a list of all employees 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 employee 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 negotiations were adequate; (2...

See the full content of this document

---