National Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Machine Works

• Decision Date: 08 December 1954
• Docket Number: No. 6883.,6883.
• Citation: 217 F.2d 593
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WHITIN MACHINE WORKS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

217 F.2d 593 (1954)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WHITIN MACHINE WORKS, Respondent.

No. 6883.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 18, 1954.

Decided December 8, 1954.

Frederick U. Reel, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and James A. Ryan, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner.

Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C. (Pierce & Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for respondent.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce an order directing the Whitin Machine Works to furnish the bargaining union representing its employees the individual wage rates of these employees. It appears that, in the course of negotiations with respondent, the union representing its employees asked this information and that respondent refused to furnish it, although it did furnish a list containing the names of all employees, their individual job categories and the dates on which they were hired. It also furnished a list of the hourly wage rates paid at the plant, not showing, however, the individual wage rates of the individual employees, and a schedule of the existing rate ranges paid at the plant together with the number of employees within each rate range. The Board held that, notwithstanding the information furnished, it constituted a violation of section 8(a) (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (5) not to furnish the information requested. The Board said:

"An examination of the wage information furnished by the respondent shows that from such information the union could not possibly determine what each individual employee it represented was earning.

"We are convinced that the authority conferred by section 9(a) of the Act upon a union representing a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit entitles the union to all wage information essential to the intelligent representation of the employees and that when such information is reasonably available only from the employer\'s records, it is the employer\'s duty, on request, to accommodate the union. The courts have consistently agreed with this construction of the statute. In the instant case no showing has been made that compliance with the union\'s request would have placed an unwarranted and undue burden on the employer.

"Refusal by an employer to supply such necessary information makes impossible the full development of the collective bargaining negotiations which the statute is intended to achieve. It therefore constitutes a violation of section 8(a) (5) of the Act. This

...