International Woodworkers of America v. NLRB
| Citation | 263 F.2d 483 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | 14354.,No. 14303,14303 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNIONS 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc., et al., Intervenors. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. PINE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Arthur J. Goldberg and Bernard Dunau, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 14303.
Miss Rosanna A. Blake, Atty., N. L. R. B., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Owsley Vose, Atty., N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for respondent in No. 14303 and petitioner in No. 14354.
Mr. Raymond S. Smethurst, Washington, D. C., for Pine Industrial Relations Committee, Inc., and certain others, intervenors in No. 14303 and respondents in No. 14354.
Mr. Howard P. Robinson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Chicago, Ill., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Richard J. Flynn (of Sidley, Austin, Burgers & Smith), Chicago, Ill., was on the brief, for intervenor Brooks-Scanlon, Inc., in No. 14303.
Before PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
The unions filed unfair labor practice charges, alleging that various employers had violated the Labor Act1 by refusing to supply certain information and thereafter refusing to agree to changes in terms of employment. The information, which was requested by the unions for purposes of negotiating new labor contracts, falls into two separate and distinct categories: (1) relating to wages paid to its employees and (2) relating to production and sales of the company. The Board found that the employers had violated the Act by refusing to supply the information relating to wages, but dismissed the complaint insofar as it concerned the refusal to supply production and sales information. The unions seek review of the dismissal part of the order (No. 14303), and the Board asks for enforcement of that part of the order finding a violation (No. 14354).
The unions argue that relevancy to collective bargaining is the only factor that should be considered in determining whether an employer is required to supply requested information. A union, they contend, is entitled, by the good faith bargaining requirement of the Labor Act, to secure from the employer all information relevant to the negotiation of a contract.
The Board takes the position that a refusal to supply requested information must be examined in the light of all the circumstances to determine whether the refusal constitutes lack of good faith bargaining. It is the unions' position that refusal to supply relevant information is a per se violation of good faith bargaining; the Board concludes that such refusal is merely one factor to be considered in determining whether a violation has occurred.
All of the cases cited by the unions in support of their position deal with an employer's refusal to supply wage information2 and it appears that a union's right to such information cannot be seriously challenged. This is the only conclusion we can draw from N. L. R. B. v. F. W. Woolworth Co., supra, where the Supreme Court summarily reversed (without benefit of argument and without opinion) the Ninth Circuit's refusal to enforce a Board order requiring production of wage information. Accordingly, we grant the Board's petition for enforcement in No. 14354.
But neither the same rule nor the same reasoning apply to production and sales information of the employer. The Supreme Court, in N. L. R. B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co.3 (a production information case) said: (Emphasis added.)
The unions argue that any distinction between wage information on the one hand and production and sales information on the other is arbitrary and meaningless. According to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SIGN AND PICTORIAL U. LOCAL 1175, B. OF P., D. & P. v. NLRB
...Co., 351 U.S. 149, 76 S.Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027 (1956); International Woodworkers, etc., Locals 6-7 and 6-122 v. N. L. R. B., 105 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 38, 263 F.2d 483, 484 (1959); N. L. R. B. v. Southland Cork Co., 342 F.2d 702, 706 (C.A.4, 1965). However, "Each case must turn on its particula......
-
Sinclair Refining Company v. NLRB
...Co., 2 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 947. In International Woodworkers of America Local Unions 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO v. N. L. R. B., 105 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 1958, 263 F.2d 483, the Court, sustaining an order as to traditional wage data while denying enforcement as to sales and promotional information,......
-
INT'L LADIES'GARMENT WORKERS U. v. NLRB, 71-1159
...(1934); Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 378, 365 F.2d 898, 911 (1966); International Woodworkers v. NLRB, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 39, 263 F.2d 483, 485 (1959). A reviewing court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though t......
-
NLRB v. Clegg
...Co., 1956, 352 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 261, 1 L.Ed.2d 235, reversing 9 Cir., 235 F.2d 319; International Woodworkers of America, etc., v. NLRB, D.C.Cir., 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 263 F.2d 483, 484; J. I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 149, 152. But the wage information involved here ......