# Sinclair Refining Company v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1962 · 306 F.2d 569

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448732

## Case

- **Full name:** SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 26, 1962
- **Citations:** 306 F.2d 569; 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2830; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4392
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rives
- **Judges:** Tuttle, Rives, Brown
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448732

## Opinion text

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Whether or not the Union was entitled to grieve over the Company’s determination of a “lack of work,” it is nonetheless true that both under the Act and under the express terms of the contract the Union had a right to show, if it could, that the demotions of the two pipefitter helpers were in fact motivated by other considerations, and that such action was being taken to discriminate against them as members of the Union. The failure of the Union to charge that the demotions were improperly motivated or were discriminatory is both responsible and understandable, when we consider that it did not have the information either upon which it could base such charges or from which it could know that such charges were untrue. The Union’s letter to the Company’s Assistant Plant Manager C. F. Mallory requesting the information stated that, “This information is needed so we can intelligently evaluate this grievance with respect to settlement of or further processing of same.” Whether any such further processing of the grievance might include submission of the possible dispute to arbitration is, I submit, immaterial. That step had not been reached and might never be reached if the Union were furnished the information from which it could intelligently evaluate the grievance.
*580 This Court has heretofore adhered to the very broad rule, first announced by former NLRB Chairman Guy Farmer, under which “wage and related information pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit should, upon request, be made available to the bargaining agent without regard to its immediate relationship to the negotiation or administration of the collective bargaining agreement.” National Labor Relations Board v. Item Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 956, 958 , citing Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 , aff’d per curiam, 4 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 593 ; cf. Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ; National Labor Relations Board v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 1956, 352 U.S. 938 , 77 S.Ct. 261 , 1 L.Ed.2d 235 ; J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 149 .
No sound ground, such as being confidential, a trade secret, prejudicial, etc., has been asserted or proved why the information sought should not be furnished. The Union’s follow-up letter appears to me an appeal to reason in its assertion that “ * * * we would much prefer an honest and open discussion with full disclosure of essential facts with a good faith attempt to reach a settlement based on common knowledge of all of the facts and the common problem.”
The Board’s order simply requires the Company to make available to the Union, upon its request, information concerning:
“(a) Work hours for separate jobs performed by the Pipe Department from May 2, 1959, to May 2, 1960.
“(b) Placement and/or job assignments of all replacement pool employees from January 1, 1960, to May 2, 1960.
“(c) Work hours and separate job assignments for the Labor Department from January 1, 1960, to May 2, 1960.”
Good faith collective bargaining requires full knowledge and understanding of all of the relevant facts both by the Company and by the Union. The Union claimed that unless it could study the requested information, it could not evaluate the grievance to determine whether there was in fact a meritorious grievance to be submitted to arbitration. I think that the Board’s order should be enforced, and therefore respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9448732. Public record. Not legal advice.