Extract
Ormet Aluminum Mill Products Corp., 788 (2001)
Ormet Aluminum Mill Products Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 5760, AFL-CIO, CLC
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation1 and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 5724, AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 8-CA-28811 and 8-CA- 30299 August 27, 2001DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS TRUESDALE AND WALSH On June 24, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Eric M. Fine issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions with a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended Order.2 Our dissenting colleague joins us in adopting the judge's findings that Ormet Aluminum Mill Products Corporation (Ormet Mill) and Ormet Primary Aluminum Products Corporation (Ormet Primary) constitute a single employer (the Respondent) and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act through Ormet Mill's failure to furnish certain information to Steel-workers Local Union 5760 and the Steelworkers International Union.3 Our colleague, however, does not join us in adopting the judge's further finding that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) through Ormet Primary's failure to furnish Steelworkers Local Union 5724 and the Steelworkers International Union (the Union) information the Union requested in its August 28, 1998 letter and attached questionnaires relating to certain contracting out notifications. Citing California Nurses Assn., 326 NLRB 1362 (1998), for the proposition that "Section 8(a)(5) is not to be used as a device to secure pre-trial discovery in arbitration proceedings," our col-league claims that by its August 28, 1998 information request, the Union is seeking "to draw the Board into what is, in effect, pretrial discovery" and that therefore these 8(a)(5) allegations must be dismissed. We disagree. The facts, in brief, are as follows. In response to certain contracting out notifications, the Union filed eight grievances between April 6 and August 17, 1998.4 Under the terms of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement, the grievances were filed at the third step of the grievance procedure. The Union then filed eight information requests. When the Respondent refused to furnish the requested information because it objected, inter alia, to the "canned questionnaires," the Union submitted to the Respondent the information request at issue here, its August 28 letter with nine attached questionnaires which narrowed the scope of the information requested (GC Exh. 30).5 The questionnaires requested identical information:6 1. Was consideration given to any of the qualified employees? Did the Company attempt to utilize plant forces? If so, how? 3. The Union requests a copy of the agreement signed by the subcontractor and the Company. 6. If it is your claim that this work is being contracted out because of special equipment involved, describe it. 1 The case caption is amended to reflect the correct name of the Respondent. 2 In his cross-exceptions, the General Counsel excepts to certain inadvertent errors in the judge's notices. The attached corrected notices are substituted for those of the administrative law judge. 3 The Respondent excepts, inter alia, to the judge's statement, at sec. II,B, last paragraph, of his decision, that the Respondent had contended at the hearing that the "Type A" pallets were made under the old collective-bargaining agreement between Ormet Mill and the Union (here, Local Union 5760 and the Steelworkers International Union), but were brought into the plant on January 2, 1997, under the terms of their new collective-bargaining agreement. We find merit in this exception to the extent that we agree with the Respondent that it did not contend at the hearing that it relied on any contractual language to bring the "Type A" pallets into the plant. Rather, the Respondent contended at the hearing that Respondent Ormet Mill relied on certain "shelf item" language in art. 39 of the new collective-bargaining agreement to bring the "Type B" pallets into the plant beginning in mid-January 1997. This inadvertent error, however, does not affect the result here because the judge subsequently, at sec. III,A, third paragraph, of his decision, accurately set out the Respondent's contentions and it was on this basis that he analyzed the issue presented. Finally, we note that the issue here is whether the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to provide the Union information it requested so that it could verify, inter alia, the truth of the Respondent's contentions, no matter what th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
