Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

88 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardconsiderations that bargaining would not have changed; the refusalto provide information did not contribute to the union's lossof majority, particularly in the absence of evidence that the employer'sposition was disseminated to employees; and the employerhad not engaged in tactics calculated to frustrate the bargainingprocess.Consequently, the panel majority held that the employer wasfree to rely on the employees' petition as establishing a reasonabledoubt of loss of majority support and, because the withdraw- 1al of recognition was not unlawful, the allegation regarding theemployer's subsequent unilateral changes was also dismissed. Asthe union no longer represented the employees, Member Cracraftfound it inappropriate to include disclosure and bargaining languagein the Board's Order and notice regarding the employer'srefusal to provide information concerning supervisors who .performedunit work. Chairman Dotson agreed because he wouldnot have found the refusal violative.Member Johansen dissented in part. He concurred withMember Cracraft that the employer unlawfully refused to furnishinformation on supervisors performing unit work, but unlike thepanel majority he found that the employer additionally violatedSection 8(a)(5) by engaging in dilatory bargaining. Accordingly,he found the withdrawal of recognition and unilateral changesviolative as well. He pointed out that in 15 months of bargainingthe employer met with the union only 13 times, although theunion made repeated requests to schedule negotiations more frequently.Relying on the employer's insistence on infrequent bargainingsesssions, its failure to provide information relevant tonegotiations, and its negotiator's remarks suggesting that theunion terminate the bargaining relationship, Member Johansenconcluded that the evidence showed a refusal to meet at reasonabletimes and a design to avoid consummating an agreement withthe union. He therefore found it unnecessary to pass on thejudge's fmding that the employer's unremedied unfair labor practicesmade the withdrawal of recognition unlawful.In reply, the panel majority adhered to the judge's findingsthat both parties contributed to the confusion and delays surroundingthe negotiations, and that the scheduling difficultieswere neither preconceived nor intentional.In Richmond Toyota," the Board reversed the administrativelaw judge and held that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5)and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the union.The union informed the employer's general manager that itrepresented a majority of the employees and offered to demonstrateits majority status. The general manager requested proof ofthat status and verified the employees' signatures on union authorizationcards. When the union asked to meet with the gener-75 287 NLRB No. 13 (Members Johansen and Babson; Member Stephens dissenting).