1 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 87
relevant to collective bargaining and to the administration of
the bargaining agreement.
Similarly, in Southern, Counties Gas Co., 43 the employer's refusal
to comply with the union's request for the names and
addresses of unit employees was found violative of section 8
(a) (5) and (1). 44 Although the employer had offered to send
out via company mail a limited number of mailings to employees
soliciting their views on "negotiations in grievances" at no cost
to the union, provided that the mailings were not derogatory to
the company, and had also offered to do so by United States
mail if the union assumed postage costs, the union objected to
the limitation on the number of mailings and pleaded its inability
to know whether nonmembers would actually receive
such mailings. The union also contemplated different mailings
to members and nonmembers.
The Board concluded that the employer's offering to make
limited mailings of material not derogatory to the employer implied
inspection of the material by the employer ; that there
might be times when the union would prefer that the employer
not know the nature of the union's solicitations ; and that the
employer, rather than the union, would in reality decide the
number of mailings to be made. It therefore found that the
names and addresses of the unit employees were necessary for
effective communication between the union and the employees
it represented and directed that the information be supplied.
In General Electric Co. 45 the Board, concluding that the union's
inability to communicate effectively with 20 percent of the overall
bargaining unit and with 77 percent of the unit comprised of
office, clerical, and technical employees would hinder compliance
with the union's statutory obligation to fairly and fully represent
all employees in the unit, held that the employer violated section
8 (a) (5) by refusing to furnish the union a list of home addresses
of employees in units consisting of production and maintenance
employees and of office, clerical, and technical employees. The
absence of required union membership under the contract with
the concomitant lack of home addresses seriously hindered the
union's ability to communicate with nonmembers regarding their
conditions of employment. Further impediments to the union's
0 174 NLRB No. 11.
44 Members Fanning, Jenkins, and Zagoria. Member Zagoria relied, as in Prudential Insurance
Co. supra, only on the fact that the relevance of the requested information for
collective-bargaining purposes had been clearly established. Reference was made to Member
Zagoria's dissent in Standard Oil Co., supra.
0 176 NLRB No. 84.
384-517 0 - 70 - 7