NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,578, SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 31., (Dec. 16, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 16, 1994)

SOUTHERN OHIO COAL COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 31.

315 NLRB No. 122.Case No. 6-CA-24742. December 16, 1994 Elbert D. Gadsden, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Devaney, Browning and Cohen.

Dalia Belinkoff, for General Counsel. Frank G. Wobst (Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur), Columbus, Ohio, for Respondent.

Union Right to Information--Failure to Furnish--Sale of Business.--By refusing to provide a union with relevant requested information concerning the sale of one of its coal mines, an employer violated its bargaining duty. The union’s request for a complete copy of the employer’s purchase and sale agreement was relevant and necessary to the union’s processing of employee grievances concerning their right to preferential employment at the employer’s other locations. Section 8(a)(5).

Back reference: ¶3135.138.

Remedial Orders--Necessity for--Confidentiality Required.--Although an employer was found to have violated its bargaining duty by refusing to furnish a union with a copy of a sales contract, the union’s remedy was limited by the NLRB due to the confidential nature of portions of the sales agreement. While the employer was required to provide the union with an unexcised copy of the contract, the union could not disclose the contents of the agreement to unit employees or any other party. Section 10(c).

Back reference: ¶5320.245.

From Text of Board’s Decision

On January 24, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Elbert D. Gadsden issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief opposing the Respondent’s exceptions.

* * *

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [1] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order which has been modified, [2] in certain respects and restated below.

The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide United Mine Workers of America, District 31, with relevant requested information concerning the sale of the Martinka Mine. The Respondent excepts, arguing, among other things, that the judge’s remedy and recommended Order are overbroad. The judge required the Respondent to provide District 31 with an unexcised copy of the agreement of purchase and sale for the Martinka Mine without imposing a confidentiality requirement. The Respondent contends that the agreement contained highly confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information, that it repeatedly informed District 31 of this fact, and that District 31 assured it that such confidential and proprietary information would be protected. In these circumstances, the Respondent argues that the judge should have restricted District 31 from disclosing the information. We agree. Under the circumstances of this case, where the Respondent repeatedly told District 31 that the requested agreement contained confidential and proprietary information, and where District 31 consistently responded that it was willing to sign a reasonable confidentiality agreement, we find that a confidentiality requirement is appropriate. Accordingly, we modify the judge’s remedy.