NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER, AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC., INTERVENOR,
v.
GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the corporation's refusal to provide requested data on research and development employees constituted an unfair labor practice.
The union requested data on employees outside the bargaining unit (research and development) to determine if work was being improperly assigned. The c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collective Bargaining Representative cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order finding Goodyear Aerospace Corporation had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the union’s request for data concerning certain employees outside the bargaining unit represented by the union. The Board’s decision is reported at 157 N.L.R.B. No. 45.
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW and its Local Union No. 856, is the exclusive representative for employees at the corporation’s plant at Akron, Ohio. The contract between the union and the corporation covers employees engaged in production; those employees engaged in research and development are excluded from the contract. The union contends that the corporation has assigned to research and development employees who should be assigned to production. This has been a long-standing argument between the union and the corporation, going back to the 1950’s.
The union requested the corporation to furnish to it the department numbers, names, job titles and job descriptions, wages or salaries, hours, and fringe benefits for those employees engaged in research and development. The corporation declined to furnish the information.
The Board found that the information requested was relevant to the union’s function as the collective bargaining representative of the production employees and that the corporation’s refusal to furnish the information constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the Act. We agree. Curtiss-Wright Corp., Wright Aero Div. v. N.L.R.B., 347 F. 2d 61 (3rd Cir. 1965); Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B., 325 F. 2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963).
The Board’s order will be enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soule Glass & Glazing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 652 F.2d 1055 (1st Cir. 1981)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953 (6th Cir. 1969)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Associated Gen. Contractors OF Cal., Inc., 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965)