Torrington Co. v. N.L.R.B.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | D,231,Nos. 230,s. 230 |
| Parties | 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2079, 79 Lab.Cas. P 11,787 The TORRINGTON COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. ockets 76-4135, 76-4157. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jay S. Siegel, Hartford, Conn. (Siegel, O'Connor & Kainen, Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for petitioner.
James M. Hirschhorn, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C. (John S. Irving, Jr., Gen Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Carl L. Taylor, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John H. Ferguson and Thomas A. Woodley, Attys., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORE, FEINBERG and GURFEIN, Circuit Judges.
The Torrington Company petitions for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board, which found it in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act for refusing to supply a union local with information concerning the Company's operations at various plants. In addition to the usual relief, the Board ordered the Company to furnish the information to the union. Since the Board's order is fully supported on the record, we deny the Company's petition for review and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement.
The Company is a manufacturer of metal products with plants in Torrington, Connecticut, including its "Standard" plant, and in Thomaston, Morris, Bantam, and Waterbury, Connecticut. Local 1645, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (the Union) is the collective bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees at the Standard plant. Because of union concern over the Company's moving from Torrington, the collective bargaining agreement contains a provision, Article XV, Section 15.2, which gives the employees certain rights in the event that the Company "transfers any operations" from its Standard plant to another plant within a 75-mile radius of Torrington. 1 The Thomaston, Morris, Bantam, and Waterbury plants are all within 75 miles of Torrington.
In June 1974, the Union requested information on, among other things, the number of employees and the products manufactured in the plants outside Torrington, and any transfer of operations from the Standard plant. The Union sought this information in light of reports that the Company was reassigning work normally done at Standard to other plants and "in order to police and administer intelligently" Section 15.2 of the Standard plant contract. At first, the Company responded that it was under no obligation to provide the information, but in November 1974, it did provide a partial answer to the requests. With respect to the questions concerning the Standard plant, the Company stated, in essence, that there had been no transfers from Standard. The Company then maintained its stance that it was under no obligation to answer the questions concerning the plants that the Union did not represent. We agree with the Board that this response was not satisfactory.
The duty to bargain in good faith obliges the employer to furnish information enabling the union to make an intelligent decision about processing grievances. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967). Here, although some of the information sought related to employees whom the Union did not represent, the Union did show that the information was relevant to its enforcement of the contract by virtue of Section 15.2. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 77, 84 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 263, 24 L.Ed.2d 226 (1969). The Company stresses that there have been no "transfers" of "operations" under Section 15.2 because that phrase only covers actions such as physical relocation of machinery and permanent transfer of employees. The Union, on the other hand, interprets the phrase as covering reassignments of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
...act intelligently on its grievances, NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967); Torrington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976), we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Companies were under no obligation to furnish any of this information......
-
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. N.L.R.B.
...to requests for information needed by the union to determine whether to take a grievance to arbitration. 1 Accord Torrington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976). C&P neither challenges this principle nor questions the relevancy of the information sought. It argues, however, that once a......
-
San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95 of Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC v. N.L.R.B.
...the term of agreement. Cf. NLRB v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 497 F.2d 747, 751 (6th Cir. 1974).6 The recent case of Torrington Company v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976); is not controlling. The collective bargaining agreement there contained "a provision, Article XV, Section 15.2 which g......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Designcraft Jewel Industries, Inc.
...495 (1967). See also, Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303, 99 S.Ct. 1123, 1125, 59 L.Ed.2d 333 (1979); Torrington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840, 841 (2nd Cir. 1976); United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB, 434 F.2d 1198, 1204 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 1232, 28 L.Ed.......