Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 95In attempting to establish the information's relevancy, theGeneral Counsel and the union argued that the union could notproperly decide whether to pursue the grievance on behalf of theformer employee unless it knew whether the respondent had offeredthe employee a fair settlement. The majority stated, however,that the record failed to show that the union had objectedto the private settlement discussions between the former employee,his attorney, and the respondent in which the contractualgrievances could have been coupled with the numerous noncontractualclaims and that, in fact, the discussions resulted in a settlementthat satisfied the former employee. The General Counseland the union also asserted that the information was relevant becauseit could be used as precedent for future grievance settlements.In rejecting this assertion, the majority stated that, in additionto the two contractual grievances, the former employeehad also filed numerous noncontractual claims that precluded adetermination of which portion of the monetary amount, if any,pertained to the contractual grievances. As a result, the monetaryamount was found to be of little precedential value to the unionin processing future grievances.With respect to the information on employment references, themajority found that that term of the settlement agreement was inresponse to the allegation in the Federal court complaint that therespondent gave the former employee adverse employment references,thereby placing the matter outside the purview of the filedgrievances. The majority concluded that the unique circumstancesof this case showed that requiring disclosure of the requestedinformation would not enhance the union's ability to representthe employees in future grievance settlement negotiations.In a dissenting opinion, Member Babson stated that the informationwas presumptively relevant because it concerned the settlementof contractual grievances that arose under the bargainingagreement in effect between the union and the respondent.Member Babson found that withholding the information from theunion, in light of the union's right to pursue the grievances notwithstandingthe settlement, undermined the union's ability to intelligentlyadminister the grievances. He also found that the mixtureof contractual and noncontractual claims involved in thecase went to the weight the parties would accord the settlementin future negotiations, not to its relevance. Member Babson concludedthat, even absent the presumption of relevance, the information'srelevance had been established based on the union'sright to review the terms of the settlement agreement to enable itto satisfy its statutory obligation to fairly represent the formeremployee.