Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

94 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardconsists of a factual comparison between the pre- and post-affiliationbargaining representative to determine whether the affiliationhas so substantially altered the union's identity so as to raisea question concerning representation and require a new representationelection.In Seattle-First National Bank, 95 the Board determined that althoughsome differences did exist between the preaffiliationLocal 1182 of the Financial Institution Employees Union and thepostaffiliation Local 1182 of the Retail Clerks InternationalUnion, these differences were not sufficiently dramatic to alterthe identity of the bargaining representative so as to raise a questionconcerning representation.• In reaching this determination, the Board applied its factualanalysis and observed that there was a substantial continuity ofthe executive committee from the pre- to the post-affiliationlocal. According to the Board, any changes in officers since affiliationwere the result of a natural turnover and not the resultof a required condition of the affiliation. Additionally, the Boardnoted that the postaffiliation local retained substantial controlover day-to-day union operations that included, inter alia, contractadministration; handling of grievances; control of collectivebargaining, including fmal ratification of contracts; and the abilityto participate in or to call strikes.The Board pointed out that although there were differencesbetween the pre- and the post-affiliation local, including, interalia, modifications in the requirements for union membership aswell as the eligibility of a member to hold a union office, thesedifferences were not sufficient to demonstrate that there existed alack of continuity in the bargaining representative.The Board therefore found that the employer had violatedSection 8(a)(5) and (1) when it failed and refused to recognizeand bargain with the postaffiliation Local 1182 of the RetailClerks International Union as the affiliation did not give rise to aquestion concerning representation.7. Duty to Furnish InformationIn York International Corp.," the Board concluded, based on astipulated record, that the respondent had not violated Section8(a)(5) by refusing to disclose the monetary amount and type ofemployment references given a former bargaining unit memberas part of a settlement agreement of various claims relating to theformer employee's discharge, including a state administrativecomplaint, a Federal district court complaint, and contractualgrievances. The panel majority found that the information wasnot so obviously related to the union's duty as bargaining representativeas to make it presumptively relevant.95 290 NLRB No. 72 (Chairman Stephens and Members Babson and Cracraft).96 290 NLRB No. 57 (Chairman Stephens and Member Johansen; Member Babson dissenting).