*2
whiсh it would
and
make demands
below
WISDOM,
TATE,
Before
FAY and
Cir-
settle,
which it would not
where employee
Judges.
cuit
meetings were scheduled the next month to
TATE,
Judge:
Circuit
proposals,
discuss contract
and where writ-
proposals
ten
were to be submitted within
peti-
The National Labor Relations Board
year,
concerning
of
tions for enforcement
its order issued
personnel
probable
nonunit
or po-
assumes
against the
Brazos Electric Power
Inc.,
tential relevance to the
tive,
reported
statutory
Union’s
and
at 241 NLRB No.
20, 1979).
responsibility
fully prepare
upcoming
(April
160
The Board found that
negotiations.”
Cooperative,
had committed
in
sec-
unfair labor
violation of
The Board’s determination of the
(5)
tion
of the National Labor
sought
relevance of the information
in a
158(a)(1), (5).
Relations
29 U.S.C. §
particular case
given great
must be
weight
The
violation consisted of its
courts,
if
because it
a finding
is
failurе to furnish to the
re-
union certain
question
on mixed
of law and fact “which
quested wage
concerning
em-
nonunit
particular expertise
is within the
of the
рloyees. Cooperative primarily questions
Guild,
Diego
Board.” San
Newspaper
Local
the Board’s determination
obli-
that was
863,
(9th
96
548 F.2d
867
Cir.
gated
allegedly
furnish
non-relevant
13,
Newspa
See also Local District
data.
Printing
per
Graphics
Union N.L.
practice complaint
The unfair
R.B.,
(D.C.Cir.1979).
used in negotiating persuasive renewal We do not find contract remaining between the union contentions Coop- Board error the emрloyer Cooperative: erative. (1) with Although Board cir- the Board differed concluded: “Under case,
cumstances as to relevance оf the of this conclusion law where estab- tively representatives employ- 8(a)(5), 158(a)(5), pro- Section § U.S.C. vides: “It ees . shall be . . an unfair labor bargain tо refuse collec- — OF GRANT- (whose credibility ENFORCEMENT ORDER judge undisturbed), the left ED. were determinations to the relevance as FAY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit was within sought the information not that rеsponsibility, primary own respectfully dissent. *3 Consequently, def hearing officer. the Brazos Elec- The record indicates that not less to the board’s erence (Brazos) Cooperative employs tric Power contrary legal infer the as a result ened In employees. and non-union both union by the administrative drawn ence union, past of the In- years, the Local 346 Corporation N.L. judge. Florida Steel Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ternatiоnal 125, R.B., ers, for the negotiated has contracted F.2d 281 Hawkins employees represents. it Brazos, given employees its non-union has hearing, the (2) At date of the wage granted same increase to the un- the put on the formally on notice was first tive percent per a six employees. ion In сharge as to the basis unfair-labor wage negotiated for annum increase was the re- contract-negotiation need for employeеs; the increase was to the union (as compared with the initial quested data years 1977 1978. A similar cover the basis). Cooperative did grievance-founded wage increase was to the non-union however, not, unconditionally agree that employees. information,2 nor it did to furnish the time January, during year In the second hearing or postpone to the claim inade- seek contract, gave the union of this basis for the quate advance notice wage increase of employees its non-union a Instead, that it had been charge. it insisted percent. response to this more than six In obligation purposes no con- under action, Shelton, manager Mr. T. R. business prior tract-negotiation to furnish union, a to the wrote “mad letter”1 fully hearing, issue triеd to an general manager requesting of Brazos all (by and determined pertaining to the non-union Board) to adversely con- The letter nei- emplоyees’ increase. circumstances, Under, these we tention. justifi- gave attempted give any nor to ther Cooperative’s con- find non-meritoriоus cation whatsoever for its demand infor- to tention that it not refuse furnish the did and, hence, Brazos refused to furnish the in- guilty not mation. unfair practice. subsequently labor Cooperative’s posi- granted employees 2. The to not Board summarized increase all with- bargaining exception tion as follows: in the unit. The employees hearing, During would be classified as su- those course counsel that, pervisors, Respondent adhering guards. In accord- statеd while to watchmen or position legal obligation Act, had to it no ance with the National Labor Relations comply request, it was with the Union’s now tо this Local Union is entitled this informa- to furnish information to Un- expect tion. I will it office this However, ion. stressed that 10th, Friday, February close or of business on agrеe- it would not ment, into enter settlement compelled legal I will be take action. to post kind notice that it had regret Cooperative fit has seen repeat any or in violated the future grant bargaining not this to unit premature. disclosure which it considered increase, you hope and I will reconsider this of 8A 3 of decision for is a clear violation 30, 1978, 1. The “mad letter” of reads: And, you the National Labor Act. “Dear Mr. Monahan: pursue will leave us but this no alternative brought my been has attention that matter all means. Cooperative Brazos Electric Power has Best wishes. recently grantеd larger pay non- Sincerely yours, granted bargaining unit than was /s/ T. R. Shelton bargaining employees. unit T. R. Agent, Shelton Bargaining requesting As am increase, Manager” рertaining pay Business to this scales for all classifications and the amount found unfair itself 8(a)(1) in violation of section of the National Labor Relаtions 158(a)(1),(5).
U.S.C. § Judge
The Administrative Law dismissed complaint against Brazos and found justify
that the union had failed to its data
request. The Board reversed this dismissal
and found that Brazos was of violat-
ing (5). The sections core of the opinion is that Brazos should have
“guessed” that a reasonable need for such my opinion,
information existed. In *4 shocking
both and unfounded in the law. shows record that the first instance making union known reason for
request at the August came held on At time counsel for employer immediately un- responded with an provide requested
conditional offer to
information.
The court has now been advised
such information was indeed furnished. circumstances, holding
Under these the em-
ployer is, of an unfair labor injustice.
in my opinion, a manifest
Mary STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, HARRIS, Secretary of
Patricia Roberts Resources,
Health and Human
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 79-3766
Summary Calendar.* of Appeals,
United States Court
April 24, 1980. Denied June 1980. requested]” majority opinion 2. now furnish [all finds Brazos’ оffer II, Record, supply completely vol. unconditional. to be less than un- “unconditional” Brazos was because to admit of law. violation * disagree majority’s interpretation; 34(a); Fed.R.App.P. Cir. R. 18. 5th company find Brazos’ will statement that “[t]he