253 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

Advertisers Composition Co., Typograhers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 6, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

ADVERTISERS COMPOSITlION COMPANY I'YP(GRAPHLRS, INC ACC Typographers, Inc. d/b/a Advertisers Composi- tion Company Typographers, Inc. and Los An- geles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-9131 January 6, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENIII.O On June 27, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Burton Litvack issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief' and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, ACC Typogra- phers, Inc. d/b/a Advertisers Composition Compa- ny Typographers, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I The (eneral C(oiullscl', motion to strike portions iof Respolndent's brief In support of exceptlons is hereby denied ils lacking 1 merit 're note that Rsplrlideirll i, ecepted solcly to Ihe Adnirminlraltic I.aw Judge', findillg, tha the t 1 nil', requstl for the home addresses of Respondent's present emploees l as presumptivelv rele'anl to the tUnion's role ils itlectlsce-bargaining represenlatisr and thal those ad dresses were not priileged from disclosure DECISION S AIEMENT OF IHE CASE BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on February 19, 1980, pursuant to a complaint, issued by the Regional Director for Region 31 on September 28, 1979, pursuant to a charge filed by Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on June 25, 1979. The complaint alleges, in sub- stance, that ACC Typographers, Inc. d/b/a Advertisers Composition Company Typographers, Inc.,' herein The formal documents n the case were amended io shoi, the correct name of Respomdlcll 253 NLRB No. 147 called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)( 1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by failing and refusing to furnish to the Union information which is necessary and relevant to the Union's performance of its function as the exclusive col- lectie-hargaining representative of certain of Respond- ent's employees. Respondent filed an answer, denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Extensive briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record of the case, and from my obser- vation of the demeanor of the witnesses. and having carefully considered the post-hearing briefs, I make the following: FIN)IN(s O FAC I I. JtURISI)ICrION Respondent, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California, mainltains an office and principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, and is engaged in the business of typesetting. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business op- erations, annually sells goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers or business enterprises within the State of California, which customers or busi- ness enterprises themselves meet one of the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdictional standards other than the indirect inflov or indirect outflow standards. The parties further stipulated that Respondent is now. and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. I AROR ORG(;ANIZATION Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. ISSUES 1. Whether the Union has been the exclusive repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining of a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit? 2. Whether since on or about March 15, 1979,2 Re- spondent has failed and refused to furnish to the Union information which is necessary and relevant to the Union's performance of its function as the exclusive col- lective-hargaining representative of certain of Respond- ent's employees'? ' 11 All lt. heIlrcill iart i 197q iliuless llhIluse slated 101c/ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. HI ALlEF GI) UNFAIR I ABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Respondent is engaged in business as a commercial printer in the graphic arts industry in Los Angeles, Cali- fornia. For approximately 20 years Respondent and 16 other commercial printers in the Los Angeles area, rep- resented for purposes of collective bargaining by Print- ing Industries Association, Inc. of Southern California, herein called PIA, engaged in multiemployer bargaining with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a unit comprising the composing room employees of the employers, including Respondent. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the multiemployer association was effective from August 6, 1973, through August 4, 1976. Negotia- tions between the Union and the multiemployer associ- ation on a successor contract, during which Frederick R. Nelson, the secretary-treasurer of Respondent, was an active participant, were conducted during the period June through November 1976. As found and reported by the National Labor Relations Board in Typographic Serv- ice Co., Eureka Press Co., Modern 17pesetting Co., Central Tpesetting Co.: and Printing Industries Association, Inc. of Southern Catifornia, Union Employers Section, 238 NLRB 1565 (1979), the parties reached an impasse in bargaining. Thereupon, the 17 employer-members of the multiem- ployer association, including Respondent, placed into effect their final contract proposal, and on the following day the Union struck all 17 employers, including Re- sponident. During the next several months, the Unioni contacted eacth employer seperately and sought individu- al bargaining with each one. As found by the Board, "[T'he Union's conduct effectively fragmented arid de- stroyed the integrity of the bargaining unit and thus [authorized] unilateral unit withdrawal by the employ- ers." At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the mul- tiemployer bargaining unit had dissolved and that Re- spondent is no longer a part of said unit.3 According to the credible and uncontroverted testimo- ny of C. B. Hughes, president of the Union, the strike against Respondent continued into 1979. On March 15, Hughes sent a letter to Nelson, requesting the resumption of negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agree- ment. Said letter stated in part, "To the end that fruitful negotiations may be pursued we will need to have up-to- date information on the current status of all employees, i.e. wages being paid, vacations, fringes which include Health Insurance and Pensions and any other informa- tion pertinent to the employment of your employees." Soon thereafter, by a letter dated March 20, Hughes re- ceived a reply from E. Lad Sabo, a labor relations con- sultant for Respondent, suggesting April 4 as an appro- priate meeting date. By letter dated March 21, Hughes wrote to Sabo, agreeing to the April 4 meeting date and reiterating his request for "information relative to present :{ In its aforeelntionti d aInsscr. Resportdellt admitted that hce fillvw- ilg unit is appropriate rr purpose ,of collective hargalining All omllposing rooim lltIiployc s Iemploycd by Respiodnt ill it(s fa cillly located t 881 Ninrlh Western AveriNut , I ,s All gelIs. Callh r- liil: xcludilg office clericals. guards, truckdrivers and superis,, rs Is defiled i the Act employees." Hughes further requested the information prior to the bargaining session. A bargaining session was held on April 4 at the PIA office. Present representing Respondent were Nelson and Sabo, and representing the Union were Hughes, Dennis Prairie, an International Typographical Union repre- sentative, and three striking employees of Respondent. At the outset of the meeting, Hughes requested informa- tion pertaining to the individuals whom Respondent had hired to replace its striking employees. According to Hughes, he requested the names and addresses of the striker replacements, a description of their job duties, in- formation concerning the insurance and pension cover- age for the striker replacements, and their vacation pay, holiday pay, overtime pay, and overscale payment--"all the information that we felt was necessary to adequately represent the employees; 4 According to Hughes, Sabo replied that he would supply to the Union a copy of Re- spondent's health insurance plan but other than that and in the lack of any pension plan, "he said that as far as they were concerned, they were living up to . . . the final offer [of] Nov. 9, 1976." As to overtime payments, Hughes told Sabo that the Union desired specific infor- mation concerning the amount of overtime the replace- ment employees were working and whether the final offer overtime rates were being paid. To this, Sabo vaguely replied that Respondent was living up to the final offer. Next, Hughes reiterated his request for the names and addresses of the striker replacements, explain- ing that such inbormation was necessary "so that we could contact them to find out if in fact the Employer was living up to the final offer," and because "the only way we could reach an agreement was to know who we were representing and what they were doing." Sabo re- plied that "it was very unlikely that the names and ad- dresses would be given to us [because] our members would probabhl just want the names and addresses to harass the present employees." Hughes denied that such was the intent of the Union. The meeting ended with an agreement that the parties would next meet on May 8 before a representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Pursuant to their agreement, the parties did next meet on May 8 at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service's office in Los Angeles. The same representatives of the parties were present at this meeting. Sabo began the session by handing to Hughes a purportedly accurate list of the last names of Respondent's current and striking employees together with their job duties and current em- ployment status.5 Hughes examined the document and told Sabo that the information on the sheet was "inad- equate" for bargaining purposes. Sabo "responded by saying that is all you are going to get." Hughes and Sabo next discussed the job duties of the strikers and their re- placements. At one point, Sabo stated that Respondent Accordliling to Hughes, the normal practice in the industry is to lingo- Ilatle rliilnl urn wage rates ill each collcc c-bargaining agreement Thereater. achi individual emplvoyee i all owed to negotiate his own Tau;ti wage ralte wth his cmi plo cr I he differeince between the vcolltrac- Lial a.ge rate ad the actual wage rate is known as "uverscale ' I h list of Ihc cIplovees reaid ias follows 1020 ADVERTISERS COMPOSI'TION COMPANY YPOGRAPHERS. IN( did not know whether the strikers would be performing the work that was being done placements. Hughes replied by requesting pertaining to the type of work being done placements. Sabo replied that the Union hac formation it was going to get. Next, Sabc Hughes a copy of Respondent's existing heal plan for its employees. Hughes inquired whet was comparable to the plan set forth in th offer, and Sabo replied that the plan was except that the employees had to pay for th pendents. Finally, Hughes pointed out to Sa information, which Sabo had presented to t that meeting, did not contain either the first n addresses of the striker replacements. Sabo r we just wanted the information to harass t ees." Hughes responded that the information to contact them for collective-bargaining p that the Union did not intend to harass them. ing ended at that point. According to Hughe this meeting nor at the April 4 meeting did deny or assert that the Union was not still representative of Respondent's composing ro ees. Following this bargaining session, on May sent to Nelson a letter summarizing the Ut mentioned demands for information. Said "We again request that you furnish this Uni names and addresses of all your present empl we need to know EXACTLY what wages a pay each employee is receiving. We also ne what the employees are receiving for vaca NA'.4ME Sevell Widmyer Reec Curtis Samarn tIanish Melgoza Keto Chellgren Mason Covello C'havez Stanek Schrier Gomez Burgess Schmalng Wetzel Barr) Willians Pislone (rlliak (Orsak Dept Mark-up Fhor NIt' Floor Floor l.ino t:loor VIP Reader Forneman Foreman P'res Floor VII, Mark-up Molo" Lillno MarkL-up Reader TN pos/camera TN pos camera T\ po/cam era Vi'P NOTEh Quit Qut Quit Dept closed Quit Quit Q(uit Dept closed QUii Quit Quit Quit ()ult capable of by their re- information by the re- d all the in- ) handed to th insurance ther the plan e 1976 final comparable leir own de- bo that the he Union at names or the replied "that he employ- was needed urposes and 6 The meet- es, neither at Respondent the majority and holidays. One added item is to know the duties of each of your employees." Sabo responded by a letter dated June 6 in which he stated that Respondent already had given to the Union a list of the current employees and their departments and that no addresses would be given because such information "would he used for ha- rassment of the employees." 7 While admittedly not furnishing to the Union the com- plete names and addresses of its current employees, Re- spondent offered the following explanation for its con- duct. Joan Schmidt, Respondent's vice president, testified that at some point during the negotiations with the Union, "one of the letters requesting the names and ad- dresses of the employees" was posted on the plant bulle- tin board. According to Schmidt, a day or two later. "the employees presented [a petition] to us as a protest to their home addresses being given to the Los Angeles Ty- pographical Union." The petition, which bears the pur- ported signatures of 10 current employees, states: "We the undersigned request that the employer (ACC Typog- raphers, Inc.) keep our home telephone numbers and ad- om employ- dresses confidential, and not be released to anyone unless specific permission is given by us individually in response y 29 Hughes to each individual request. Specifically, we do not want lion's afore- to be harassed by the Typographical Union." According letter states, to Schmidt, she personally observed at least four current on with the employees sign the petition and was shown the docu- oyees. Also, ment by an employee as it was being distributed. On nd overtime cross-examination. Schmidt admitted that the letter ,ed to know which was posted on the bulletin board was Hughes' ition credits May 29 letter to Nelson, that said letter was posted within a week after its receipt, and that the employee pe- tition was circulated within 2 or 3 days after the posting of the letter. Finally, Schmidt admitted that she had no knowledge whether Respondent's employees were aware of the Union's request for information prior to the post- ing of the May 29 letter. REPIACE- Inasmuch as the record establishes that the alleged em- ployee petition was circulated at some point qfter the April and May bargaining sessions, Schmidt was asked by me to explain Respondent's motivation at these bar- gaining sessions for refusing to supply to the Union the Abrnans first names and addresses of the striker replacements-- Respondent's current employees. Schmidt replied that Respondent's refusal was based upon its belief that "All Richairtd personnel records in any business are confidential infor- Ba Illrr s mation and have always been so." Schmidt was then asked whether Respondent's April attitude had anything Batre', to do with its employees' desires. She responded, "It had to do with the employees' concern for their names and lDuella addres.es being provided . . . at any time .. . Because they had already expressed this concern to me the year MNtrpih Rollins I ouic liiic, i Hughes denied that any list of the names and addresses of the triker replacements would be distributed to anolle but union fficials tughe, as asked during tcros--exallmilnattlli t expl;in ,nce agiln .h the Ilames ad iaddresses of Ille triker rpla ements . .ere ncesar Io the Itni in ughc stated. "5 feel that in orcder t) (erif 5 the ionl.ll tons. \wages. oxertimre. ercale all of tihe things thai affecl the l cli- hood of those people. hiat ctoiildn'l take the s'.ord it lour repreeill;l- tise that t)i .re lilong tLip i tihe finaIl elter \-. . iicd e,, rif with I ,ec ,rmpl scs if tile .cii IcHilng pr ,ided A ilth .al Ithe henefits ,f the final offer In xe, is t;, tlc ce, ,l , ereli ph,;iiig them, ;iet i. don 't kno aut the other area - " 1()021 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD before, please do not put our names and addresses on a list of any kind [even] for their own use." Schmidt explained that the employees' concerns were triggered by alleged acts of violence and harassment during the strike. According to Schmidt, who was Re- spondent's sole witness at the hearing, "Employees have reported to the company many instances of slashed tires, being confronted in the parking lot as they came to work, having been called names nd hollered at." She further testified, "One employee in particular was con- fronted at his house and there was some physical abuse. He was later confronted in the parking lot." As a result, according to Schmidt, there were some police reports and the filing of a complaint for physical violence, which was eventually dismissed. While asserting that the alleged harassment and vio- lence during the strike occurred at some point prior to December 1978, Schmidt had no recollection of exactly when the alleged incidents occurred. Moreover, she ad- mitted that no criminal sanctions were ever brought against strikers for the alleged misconduct, that no unfair labor practice charges were filed as a result of the con- duct, that nothing was ever reported to the Union, and that to her knowledge no union officials were ever in- volved in any strike misconduct. Finally, the record es- tablishes that Schmidt's personal knowledge of any strike misconduct or violence was limited to seeing some slashed tires. B. Discussion and Findings 1. The Union's majority status The record discloses that, for approximately 20 years prior to January 1977, the Union was the exclusive rep- resentative for purposes of collective bargaining of a unit comprising the composing room employees employed by a 17-member multiemployer collective-bargaining associ- ation, of which Respondent was an employer-member. In Typographic Service Co., supra, the Board found and con- cluded that, after the expiration of their most recent agreement and due to the union's conduct, the integrity of the multiemployer bargaining unit was destroyed and circumstances authorized unilateral unit withdrawal by the individual employer-members of the association. The parties herein stipulated that Respondent is no longer a member of the multiemployer association. While not con- tending that the alleged bargaining unit is in any way in- appropriate in scope or composition, Respondent does contend that the Union has lost its majority status as the aforementioned employees' representative. Respondent has advanced no arguments in support of its contention. However, the Board has long held that the presumption of majority status flowing from a contract in a multiem- ployer bargaining unit survives an employer's withdraw- al from that unit and carries over to a newly created single-employer unit. Roger's I.G.A., Inc., 232 NLRB 1053 (1977); Sparks Nugget, Inc., d/b/a John Ascuaga's Nugget, 230 NLRB 275 (1977); Nevada Lodge, 227 NLRB 368 (1976). This presumption is based upon an employer's prior recognition of a union as the bargaining representative for its employees in the multiemployer unit and a public policy of fostering and encouraging in- dustrial tranquility. NIL.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc., 584 F.2d 293 (9th Cir. 1978). Moreover, notwithstanding that the Union's strike is still continuing and that the strikers have been replaced by other employees, the Board's gen- eral rule "is that new employees, including striker re- placements, are presumed to support the Union in the same ratio as those whom they have replaced." Windham Community Memorial Hospital and Hatch Hospital Corpo- ration, 230 NLRB 1070 (1977). Finally, there is no ques- tion herein that Respondent voluntarily entered into col- lective-bargaining negotiations with the Union on April 4, 1979. It is gainsaid that an employer's commitment to enter negotiations with a union constitutes implicit rec- ognition of that union's majority status. Jerr-Dan Corp., 237 NLRB 302, 303 (1978). Accordingly, I find that the Union is now, and at all times material herein has been, the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a majority of Respondent's composing room employees. 2. The refusal to furnish information to the Union. It is uncontroverted herein, and I find, that by letters dated March 15 and 21 and May 29 and during the col- lective-bargaining sessions held on April 4 and May 8, the Union's president. C. B. Hughes, demanded that Re- spondent supply to him the following information re- garding Respondent's striker replacements: Their names and addresses, wages and overscale payments, the over- time hours worked by each replacement and the over- time rates of pay, vacation and holiday benefits, and in- formation pertaining to each replacement employee's current job duties. It has long been held that an employ- er has an obligation, as part of its duty to bargain in good faith, to provide information needed by a bargain- ing representative for the proper performance of its duties. N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); Douborn Sheet Metal. Inc., 243 NLRB 821 (1979). Furthermore, the only standard for determining whether particular requests for information must be hon- ored by an employer is one of relevancy. N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); Los Angeles Chapter Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Na- tional Association, Inc., 246 NLRB 886 (1979). However, where the information pertains to the mandatory subjects of bargaining and covers the very terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit employees, such information involves the "core of the employer-employee relationship" and, thus, the standard of relevance be- comes very broad and no specific showing of relevancy is normally required. Teleprompter Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 570 F.2d 4, 8 (Ist Cir. 1977); Ohio Power Com- pany, 216 NLRB 987, 991 (1975). Regarding the aforementioned requested information, other than the names and addresses of the striker re- placements Respondent offers no objections to the rel- evancy of said information. Rather, Respondent's sole defense is that it has complied with the Union's demand for said information. Analysis of the record reveals that Respondent's defense rests upon General Counsel's Ex- hibit 7, which is the document handed to Hughes by Sabo o May 8 and which has listed upon it the alleged job duties of the striker replacements, and Sabo's asser- 1022 A)DVERTISERS COMPOSITION COMPANY TYPOG()(iRAPHERS, INC tion to Hughes that Respondent was "living up to the . . . final offer." As to the May 8 document, while Hughes admitted that he was generally familiar with the job duties of individuals who normally worked in the listed departments, it was uncontroverted that Sabo as- serted to Hughes that the strikers were incapable of per- forming the work being done by the replacement em- ployees and that Hughes' request for information con- cerned the precise nature of the striker replacements' work. In these circumstances, the vague and generalized information listed on General Counsel's Exhibit 7 can hardly be considered as sufficient to meet the Union's re- quest. As to Sabo's assertion that no further information would be given to the Union regarding the replacements' terms and conditions of employment inasmuch as Re- spondent was living up to the 1976 final offer, it is clear Board law that a union is entitled to obtain from an em- ployer such information as is relevant for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said union is not bound to accept the employer's conclusionary statements regard- ing such information. Douborn Sheet Metal, Inc., supra, Hterk Elevator Maintenance, Inc., 197 NLRB 96 (1972). Accordingly, contrary to Respondent, I find that it has not complied with the Union's specific demands for the aforementioned information and that as said information is presumptively relevant for the Union to bargain effec- tively on behalf of Respondent's employees, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by not furnishing said information to the Union. Aydin Energy Division, 245 NLRB 468 (1979). As to the Union's request for the names and addresses of Respondent's striker replacement employees, the Board has recently held that such information is pre- sumptively relevant to a union's role as the bargaining agent for an employer's employees during contract nego- tiations. Georgetown Associates d/b/a Georgetown Holiday Inn, 235 NLRB 485, 486 (1974). Moreover, the record clearly establishes that the Union had a legitimate inter- est in being able to contact the striker replacements, not only to solicit their support, "but more importantly, as their statutorily designated representative . . . to secure their views and assistance as to the pending negotiation." Westinghouse Learning Corporation. and Westinghouse Learning Corporation (Indiana), 211 NLRB 19, 35 (1974). Respondent does not deny that it has failed to furnish said information to the Union. Rather, it alleges that said information is confidential and would only be used by the Union to harass and visit violence upon the striker replacements. Respondent's defense of confidentiality rests upon two premises-that the confidentiality of em- ployees' names and addresses is "accepted industrial rela- tions procedure" and that employees have petitioned it to withhold their names and addresses from the Union. Concerning Respondent's first argument, "confidentiality . . .cannot stand as a defense to requiring [the Employ- er] to produce the . . . data." General Electric Co. (UE) v. N.L.R.B., 466 F.2d 1177 (6th Cir. 1972); The Westgate Corporation, 196 NLRB 306 (1971).8 As to Respondent's I The Supreme Court's decision in Detroait dison Co. iV L R B, 440 U S 301 (1979), is not applicable herein Therein, the Court concluded that certain employee aptitude tests and results thereof wsere so highly sensitive that the employer was under no duty to furnish said informanlon second confidentiality argument, based upon Respond- ent's Exhibit 1, which is the employee petition allegedly received by Respondent from its employees in early June, the Board has rejected such a defense to an em- ployer's obligation to furnish to a union the names and addresses of unit employees Viewing the defense as an attempt to interject employees between an employer and a union and as a technique for curtailing the bargaining rights which the statute assures the established bargain- ing agent, the Board states that an "employer may not intrude in the relationship between the exclusive bargain- ing agent and the employees on whose behalf it speaks The net effect . . . was to tell the Union it could not ex- ercise the full gamit of its statutory authority unless it could convince . . . the employees to what it wished to do on their behalf." Wellington Hlall Nursing Iome. Inc.. 240 NLRB 639, 642 (1979). Respondent next asserts that the alleged past acts of harassment and violence against the striker replacements privilege its refusal to turn over their names and address- es to the Union. In Shell Oil Company v. N.L.R.B., 457 F.2d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 1972), the court held the "presen- tation of hona fide concerns" by an employer of harass- ment and violence based upon a "clear and present danger" of such conduct is sufficient to justify an em- ployer's refusal to provide the names and addresses of unit employees to a union. Herein, the Union's strike had continued for approximately 30 months. Respondent's vice president, Schmidt, had no recollection of when any alleged harassment and violence occurred-only that such occurred at some point prior to December 1978. Moreover, Schmidt was not an eyewitness to any of the alleged violence or intimidation. Rather, her testimony was based upon "reports of such incidents, not corrobo- rated by the testimony of any of the employees purport- edly involved." Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc., 213 NLRB 532, 536 (1974). Moreover, the alleged harass- ment appears to have been no more than the normal picket line name calling and verbal taunting, no criminal sanctions were ever levied against any of the strikers, and there is no evidence that union officials were in- volved in or aware of the alleged violence and harass- ment. In these circumstances, I do not believe that a "clear and present danger" of harassment and violence exists and believe that Respondent's asserted fears are un- founded and pretextual. Accordingly, by failing and re- fusing to furnish to the Union the names and addresses of the striker replacements, Respondent has acted in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act. United Aircraft Corp. [Pratt & Whitney] v. N.L.R.B., 434 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970); Pearl Bookbinding Company, Inc.. supra. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- to the union However, the Court distinguished this case from its decision in N.L.R RB Wvman-Gordon Co., 394 US 759 (1969), wherein the Court sanctioned the furnishing of the names and addresses of unit em- ployees to a unionl during a representational campaign Further, in Detrot Edilson. he Court found that he union therein made only a general re- quest for information, herein, the Union's request was specific 1023 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dered to cease and desist therefrom, that it furnish to the Union the information requested by the Union since on or about March 15, and that it post an appropriate notice. CONCIUSIONS :01 LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All composing room employees employed by Re- spondent at its facility located at 881 North Western Avenue, Los Angeles, California; excluding office cleri- cals, guards, truckdrivers and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish to the Union certain information which is relevant to the Union's per- formance of its representative responsibilities on behalf of the aforementioned bargaining unit employees. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER S The Respondent, ACC Typographers, Inc. d/b/a Ad- vertisers Composition Company Typographers, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO, as rep- resentative of all composing room employees employed by Respondent at its facility located at 881 North West- ern Avenue, Los Angeles, California; excluding office clericals, guards, truckdrivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act, by refusing to furnish to the Union informa- tion pertaining to striker replacement employees, includ- ing their names and addresses, wages and overscale pay- ments, overtime hours and overtime rates of pay, vaca- tion and holiday benefits, and current job classifications and duties, which information is relevant for purposes of negotiating a successor collective-bargaining agreement. (b) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, or interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Furnish to the Union the information requested by the Union since on or about March 15. (b) Post at its Los Angeles, California, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." t ° Copies of I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 10248 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he deemed waived for all purposes. "' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf- ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. Order of the National Labor Relatiotns Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of a United States Court of( Appeals Enforcing an Older of the National t.abor Relations Board APPENDIX NorTIcE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF1 THE NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and to carry out its provisions. WE WILL. NO refuse to bargain collectively with Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 174, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of all composing room employees employed by us at our facility located in Los Angeles, California; excluding office clericals, guards, truckdrivers, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Rela- tions Act. Wr Wll.l NOI refuse to furnish to the Union in- formation pertaining to our current employees, in- cluding their names and addresses, wages and overscale payments, overtime hours worked, over- time wage rates, vacation and holiday benefits, and current job classifications and job duties. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner refuse to bargain collectively with the Union, or in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE Wll.l furnish such information to the Union in order to enable it to effectively bargain with us on a successor collective-bargaining agreement and for other legitimate purposes. ACC TYPOGRAPHERS, INC. D/B/A ADVER- TISERS COMPOSITION COMPANY TYPOGRA- PHERS, INC. 10)24