Ideal Corrugated Box Corp. Of West Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 247 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

IDEAL CORRUGATED BOX CORP
Ideal Corrugated Box Corporation of West Virginia
and United Paperworkers International Union
Local 124, AFL-CIO Case 9-CA-25049
September 30 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On an unfair labor practice charge filed January
26 1988 by United Paperworkers International
Union Local 124 AFL-CIO the Union the Re
gional Director for Region 9 issued a complaint
March 8 1988 against Ideal Corrugated Box Cor
poration of West Virginia the Respondent alleging
that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act Copies of the
complaint and notice of hearing were served on the
Respondent and the Charging Party The Respond
ent filed a timely answer denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices
On April 26 1988 on the basis of an all party
stipulation the General Counsel filed with the
Board a motion to transfer the instant proceeding
to the Board without a hearing before an adminis
trative law judge and submitted a proposed record
consisting of the formal papers and the parties stip
ulation of facts with attached exhibits On June 23
1988 the Deputy Executive Secretary of the
Board by direction of the Board issued an Order
granting the motion approving the stipulation and
transferring the proceeding to the Board Thereaf
ter the Respondent filed a brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the stipulation the
brief and the entire record in this proceeding and
makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent a corporation is engaged in the
manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of
corrugated shipping containers at its facility in Par
kersburg West Virginia where it annually pur
chases and receives products goods and materials
valued in excess of $50 000 directly from points
outside West Virginia We find that the Respond
ent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
247
The issue is whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing since
November 27 1987 to furnish the Union requested
information that is necessary for and relevant to
the Union s role as the exclusive collective bargain
ing representative of the unit employees We find
that the Respondent violated the Act
A The Stipulated Facts
The Union is designated the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the Respondents em
ployees in the following appropriate unit
All production and maintenance employees
employed by [Respondent] at its Parkersburg
West Virginia facility excluding all time keep
ers clerks office clerical employees foremen
other salaried employees guards and supervi
sors as defined in the Act
Such recognition has been embodied in succes
sive collective bargaining agreements including an
agreement that is effective by its terms from Sep
tember 29 1986 to May 31 1989
On November 9 1987, the Respondent posted a
notice to all employees announcing that it was
changing its hospitalization insurance carrier A
notice dated January 1988, attached to the stipula
tion as Exhibit B stated that employees hospital
ization coverage would remain the same, but that
certain surgical operations and hospital confine
ments would require a second opinion to be paid
for by the carrier The January notice also stated
that the Respondents method of payment had
changed which might result in a paperwork
change for employees
On November 27 1987 the Union in writing
requested the Respondent to furnish the Union
with the following information
I A complete copy of the previous medical
and accident hospitalization insurance policy in
effect prior to December 1 1987 including all
amendments thereto
2 A complete copy of the new medical and
accident hospitalization insurance policy which
went into effect on or about December 1
1987 including all amendments thereto
3 All claims experienced under the previous
medical and accident hospitalization insurance
policy for the past 2 years
4 The percentage and dollar amount of pre
mium increases in the previous medical and ac
cident hospitalization insurance policy over the
past 2 years and the effective date of such in
creases
291 NLRB No 39
248 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 The premium cost for the previous medl
cal and accident hospitalization insurance
policy in effect prior to December 1 1987
6 The premium cost for the new medical
and accident hospitalization insurance policy
which took effect on or about December 1
1987
7 A list of all changes in coverage if any
under the new medical and accident hospital'
zation insurance policy vs the coverage con
tamed in the previous policy
8 The name and address of the agent han
dlmg the new medical and accident hospital'
zation insurance policy which went into effect
December 1 1987
9 Information as to whether the Employer
contacted the new insurance carrier to discuss
the possibility of developing new insurance
coverage or whether the carrier contacted the
Employer
Since November 27 1987 the Respondent has
refused to furnish the Union with the requested in
formation
B The Parties Contentions
The parties stipulation contains the following
statement of the parties contentions
The Union contrary to Respondent asserts
the information requested is necessary for and
relevant to the Union s performance of its
function as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the Unit In this regard the
Union further asserts that there have been
some minor changes in the hospitalization in
surance policy including the requirement of a
second surgical opinion when surgery is re
quired Therefore the requested information is
necessary to determine whether there are any
changes in actual coverage which would serve
as the basis for filing a grievance Respondent
contrary to the Union asserts that it has no
legal obligation to furnish the information
during the mid term of the parties collective
bargaining agreement Moreover Respondent
asserts there has been no actual change in the
hospitalization insurance policy
In its brief the Respondent contends that chang
ing insurance carriers from Blue Cross/Blue Shield
of Parkersburg to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Charleston does not violate the Act because its col
lective bargaining agreement with the Union does
not specify that hospitalization insurance benefits
must be provided under any particular insurance
carrier The Respondent further contends that no
employees have been denied their contractual bene
fits as a result of the change in insurance carriers
The Respondent also asserts that the Union s re
quest for insurance information is premature be
cause the parties are not currently engaged in con
tract negotiations
C Analysis
The complaint alleges that the Respondent vio
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing
to provide the Union with the information request
ed on November 27 1987 Although the Respond
ent admits that it has refused to provide the re
quested information since November 27 1987 the
Respondent denies that the information is relevant
to and necessary for the Union s performance of its
function as exclusive bargaining representative of
the unit employees It is however well established
that information concerning wages hours and
other terms and conditions of employment such as
hospitalization insurance for employees actually
represented is presumptively relevant for purposes
of collective bargaining i The Respondent has not
attempted to rebut the presumed relevance of the
information
The Respondents arguments that it need not
provide the information during the term of the col
lective bargaining agreement and that the Union s
request is premature because the parties are not en
gaged in contract negotiations are without merit 2
The Supreme Court held in NLRB v Acme Indus
trial Co 385 U S 432 436 (1967) that an employ
er s duty to furnish information extends beyond
the period of contract negotiations and applies to
labor management relations during the term of an
agreement
The Respondent also relies on Bay Shipbuilding
Corp 251 NLRB 809 (1980) in which the Board
deferred to an arbitrators determination that the
employers change of insurance carriers was per
mitted by the collective bargaining agreement Bay
Shipbuilding is inapposite because the only issue in
this case is whether the Respondent refused to pro
vide the Union requested information that is neces
sary for and relevant to its function as the unit em
ployees exclusive bargaining representative the
complaint does not allege an unlawful unilateral
change in terms and conditions of employment
See Coalte Inc 278 NLRB 293 300 (1986) Masonic Hall 261
NLRB 436 437 (1982)
2 In support of its arguments the Respondent relies on NLRB v Good
year Aerospace Corp 497 F 2d 747 (6th Or 1974) however that reliance
is misplaced The employer in Goodyear was not required to provide the
union with requested financial information when the parties were not en
gaged in contract negotiations Unlike the information requested in the
instant case corporate financial information is not presumptively relevant
for purposes of collective bargaining
IDEAL CORRUGATED BOX CORP
Further the stipulation states that the Union re
quested the information in order to determine
whether the Respondents action warranted filing a
grievance An employer violates the Act by refus
ing to furnish the union requested information rele
vant to and necessary for grievance processing 3
In light of the above we find that the Respond
ent s refusal since November 27 1987 to furnish
the Union the information it requested constitutes
an unlawful refusal to bargain in violation of Sec
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing since November 27 1987 to provide
the Union the requested information necessary for
and relevant to its function as the exclusive collec
tive bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act we shall order it
to cease and desist and to provide the Union on re
quest with the necessary and relevant information
it requested
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent Ideal Corrugated Box Corporation
of West Virginia Parkersburg West Virginia its
officers agents successors, and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to provide United Paperworkers
International Union Local 124 AFL-CIO with in
formation necessary for and relevant to its per
formance as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with restraining or coercing employees in the ex
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action neces
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
9 NLRB v Acme Industria l Co supra
249
(a) On request provide the Union with the infor
mation it requested concerning hospitalization in
surance benefits applicable to unit employees
(b) Post at its Parkersburg West Virginia loca
tion copies of the attached notice marked Appen
dix 4 Copies of the notice on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 9 after being
signed by the Respondents authorized representa
tive shall be posted by the Respondent immediate
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced
or covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
* If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcung an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide United Paper
workers International Union Local 124 AFL-CIO
with information necessary for and relevant to its
performance as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exer
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL on request provide the Union with
the information it requested concerning hospitaliza
tion insurance benefits applicable to unit employ
ees
IDEAL CORRUGATED Box CORPORA
TION OF WEST VIRGINIA