Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-75,No. 5-114,I,Nos. 82-1418,COLGATE-PALMOLIVE,AFL-CI,P,No. 6-418,No. 733,AFL-CIO,6-75,733,6-418,5-114,s. 82-1418 |
| Citation | 711 F.2d 348 |
| Parties | 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3163, 229 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 98 Lab.Cas. P 10,269, 1983 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 26,600 OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 6-418,; Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Unionetitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Intervenor. INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 733,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc., Intervenor. OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, KANSAS CITY, LOCAL NO. 5-114,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Intervenor. BORDEN CHEMICAL, A DIVISION OF BORDEN, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 733,, Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Respondent, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418,, et al., Intervenors.COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Kansas City, Localntervenor. to 82-1420, 82-1743, 82-1589 and 82-1940. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
On Petitions for Review and Application and Cross-Applications for Enforcement of Orders of the National Labor Relations Board.
George H. Cohen, with whom Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioners, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, Local Union No. 6-418, AFL-CIO, et al.
George J. Tichy, II, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Robert K. Carrol, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner, Borden Chemical, A Division of Borden, Inc.
Howard A. Crawford, with whom Jack D. Rowe, Kansas City, Mo., was on brief, for petitioner and intervenor, Colgate-Palmolive Co. G. William Frick, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for intervenor Colgate-Palmolive Co. in No. 82-1420.
Thomas M. Vogt, with whom Nelson E. Schmidt, St. Paul, Minn., was on brief, for intervenor and respondent, Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co.
Collis Suzanne Stocking, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner and respondent, N.L.R.B. Elinor Hadley Stillman, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for respondent in Nos. 82-1419 and 82-1743.
Before WILKEY and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
These consolidated petitions for review and applications for enforcement involve three decisions of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") in cases dealing with requests by unions for information concerning the health and safety of employees represented by the bargaining agents. In each instance, the company was found to have violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or "Act") 1 by failing to provide the unions with information, other than data constituting trade secrets or individually identifiable medical records, relevant to the health and safety of the employees.
Two of the employers, Colgate-Palmolive Company ("Colgate") and Borden Chemical ("Borden") have petitioned for review of the decisions adverse to them; in both of these cases, the NLRB has cross-applied for enforcement. The third employer, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company ("3M"), did not petition for review, but is resisting the NLRB's application for enforcement. Notwithstanding this minor procedural difference, the challenges presented by the three employers overlap in a number of important respects. Each company argues that the requested information is not relevant to the unions' bargaining responsibilities and that, in any event, the inclusion of proprietary and trade secret data within the scope of the unions' requests for information legitimated the employers' refusal to comply with those requests. The employers, alone or in combination, also raise a number of other defenses premised, for example, on allegations pertaining to the confidentiality of employees' medical records, the burdensomeness of the unions' requests, and the unions' waivers of their right to receive relevant information. We find no merit in any of these contentions.
The Board's decisions are attacked, from a different angle, by two locals of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union ("International") and one affiliated with the International Chemical Workers Union ("ICWU"). The unions, while satisfied with most aspects of the NLRB's decisions, argue that the Board ignored its statutory obligation to resolve unfair labor practice charges 2 in failing to decide whether the employers' refusal to supply relevant information containing trade secrets violated the NLRA. We disagree. In our view, the Board's decisions, fairly read, reveal clearly its conclusion that the companies had not been shown to have contravened the Act by declining unconditionally to disclose the small part of the requested information constituting proprietary or trade secret material. As the Board found, however, the employers failed to satisfy their bargaining obligations concerning this information by wholly denying its relevance; accordingly, we approve the orders requiring them to bargain in good faith with the unions over the conditions under which trade secret information might appropriately be disclosed.
At issue in these petitions for review is the bargaining relationship--successfully maintained for over twenty-five years--between 3M and Local 6-418, the exclusive representative of a unit of employees at 3M's Chemolite plant in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. The employees represented by Local 6-418, the NLRB properly concluded, are regularly exposed to a wide range of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances and conditions, and employee health and safety have long been acknowledged by 3M to be legitimate and appropriate subjects of collective bargaining. Thus, the relevant collective bargaining agreement contains an extensive health and safety provision that, in addition to imposing various obligations on 3M, requires Local 6-418 to take an active role in promoting the health and safety of employees at the Chemolite plant. 3
The events underlying the unfair labor practice charge against 3M commenced in 1977 when the International, increasingly concerned about health and safety problems affecting its members, instituted a nationwide program to aid its locals in investigating potentially hazardous working conditions. On October 27, 1977, in response to advice from the International, a representative of Local 6-418 requested health and safety information pertaining to employees at 3M's Chemolite plant to enable the union to "carry out its representation responsibilities under the collective bargaining agreement." 4 Among the data requested were morbidity and mortality statistics for past and present employees, generic names of all substances used or produced at the plant, results of clinical and laboratory studies of employees undertaken by 3M, results of studies of toxic agents to which employees may be exposed, health information derived from insurance and workmen's compensation claims, a list of contaminants monitored by 3M, a description of 3M's hearing conservation program, and data on employees' exposure to radiation and heat. Subsequent events and testimony by representatives of the union made clear, and the NLRB properly found, that the request did not seek disclosure of individually identified medical records. In submitting its request, moreover, Local 6-418 disclaimed any intention to circumscribe "the format under which the company may choose to answer" and emphasized that "any ... written form convenient for the company" would be acceptable to it. 5
3M never responded to Local 6-418's request in writing, but the vague position communicated to the union shortly after the submission of the request crystallized at a meeting of company and union representatives on March 24, 1978. After representatives of Local 6-418 had explained the reasoning underlying their request, 3M indicated that it would not supply any of the information specified in the union's letter. In short, 3M claimed that (1) it kept no morbidity or mortality statistics, (2) the list of generic names would not aid the union and might reveal trade secrets, and (3) medical records could be supplied only to an individual's personal physician pursuant to a request by the employee or the physician. 6 3M supplemented these specific responses with generalized contentions that its health and safety programs were adequate and that Local 6-418 should rely on the company to safeguard its employees' health and safety.
The NLRB found that 3M's refusal to comply with the union's request violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA to the extent that the requested material did not include either trade secrets or individually identified medical records. The Board began its analysis by approving, in large measure, the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") conclusions regarding the threshold question of relevance. 7 Read together, the opinions of the ALJ and the NLRB indicate that the requested information was found relevant to Local 6-418's representational responsibilities because (1) employees at the Chemolite plant are exposed to many real and potential dangers, (2) the contract between the parties evinces genuine concern for employees' health and safety on both sides and obligates both 3M and Local 6-418 to act to protect health and safety, and (3) the viewpoints of the union...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewers and Maltsters, Local No. 6 v. N.L.R.B.
.... . . to provide it," Crowley Marine Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 234 F.3d 1295, 1297 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 359 (D.C.Cir.1983)) and omission in original). It therefore is sufficient that the information sought is relevant to the inve......
-
Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...is light and requires only "the ‘probability that the desired information [is] relevant.’ " Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 359 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (alteration in original) (quoting Acme Indus., 385 U.S. at 437, 87 S.Ct. 565 ); see Country Ford Trucks, ......
-
Whether The United States Department of Labor Has The Authority To Control The Disclosure of Federal Employee Compensation Act Records Held By The United States Postal Service, 12-10
...privacy interests and the union's need for information would not generally require the disclosure of the records under Detroit Edison. Cf. id. at 319 (weighing the nature” of the information requested in that case against the “minimal burden” that a privacy-protecting accommodation would ha......
-
U.S. Postal Service v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, AFL-CI
...representative of the employees, of a good deal of information concerning the employees. See Oil Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 358 (D.C.Cir.1983); NLRB v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 950 F.2d 1324, 1330 (7th Cir.1991). Just how much disclosure is required under th......
-
Litigation Discovery and Corporate Governance: the Missing Story About the "genius of American Corporate Law"
...v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 359-60 (D.C. Cir. 1983).162. These tools are not available in this form in civil law adjudication. See infra notes 524-37.163. In civil law c......
-
Weapon selection and attack
...193 (N.D.W.Va. 2000); Behnia v. Shapiro , 176 F.R.D. 277 (N.D.Ill. 1997); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB , 711 F.2d 348 (1983). 42 There is no doubt about the intention to narrow the scope of discovery. According to the Advisory Committee Notes on the 2000 Amen......
-
Weapon Selection and Attack
...193 (N.D.W.Va. 2000); Behnia v. Shapiro, 176 F.R.D. 277 (N.D.Ill. 1997); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348 (1983). 36 There is no doubt about the intention to narrow the scope of discovery. According to the Advisory Committee Notes on the 2000 Amendm......
-
Weapon Selection and Attack
...193 (N.D.W.Va. 2000); Behnia v. Shapiro, 176 F.R.D. 277 (N.D.Ill. 1997); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348 (1983). 36 There is no doubt about the intention to narrow the scope of discovery. According to the Advisory Committee Notes on the 2000 Amendm......