Reference no: EM131718618

The current employer purchased the auto glass supply business from the previous employer two years ago. The current employer immediately granted recognition to the existing union representation and agreed to assume the terms of the existing labor agreement, which had two years until it expired. Approximately one month prior to the contract’s scheduled expiration date, the parties began negotiating a new contract to replace the expiring one. During June and July, the two sides held four separate bargaining meetings, with the last meeting occurring on July 24.

Merit Pay Plan—One of the key company propo- sals was a new merit pay plan which would allow the company, at its discretion, to pay individual bargaining unit members a pay rate above the minimum pay rate for the job classification established in the contract so long as the company did not decide merit raises in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. At several bargain- ing meetings, the union requested that the employer furnish it with information about goals, objectives, and standards that would be used by managers to award merit pay increases. The company negotiator responded that the employer could not furnish the requested information because it did not exist. Under management’s proposal all merit raises would be granted solely at the discretion of the manager in charge, negating any reliance on fixed standards for determining individual employee’s merit pay outcomes. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging

that the failure to provide the requested information regarding the merit pay proposal violated the employ- er’s duty to bargain in good faith.

Health Care Benefit Proposal—At the last bargain- ing meeting between the parties on July 24, the com- pany introduced a proposal that bargaining unit members would pay the same share or dollar amount toward the cost of health care benefits as similarly sit- uated nonbargaining unit members of the employer. The union’s negotiator immediately requested that the company furnish the dollar amount currently contrib- uted by similarly situated nonbargaining unit employ- ees of the firm. The company’s negotiator replied that nonbargaining unit employees’ current share of health care cost was 50 percent, but the employer retained the right to raise or lower this share at any time. The com- pany’s negotiator indicated that he could not furnish the dollar amount of similarly situated nonbargaining unit employees because the dollar amount would depend on an employee’s individual circumstances such as their health condition and the number of dependents. The company’s attorney/negotiator did disclose the dollar amount that he currently paid for health care benefits provided by the company. Although the union’s negotiator did not pursue the matter further during the July 24 meeting, in letters to the company dated August 18 and September 8, the union repeated its request for the dollar amount currently paid for health care benefits by similarly

situated nonbargaining unit employees. The company never supplied the requested information to the union. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the company’s refusal to supply the requested informa- tion related to the company’s proposed change in health benefit cost-sharing for bargaining unit mem- bers represents a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith.

Information about the Company’s Financial Condi- tion—During several bargaining meetings the com- pany’s negotiator suggested that the company was struggling economically with the downturn in the U.S. auto industry. During the July 24 meeting when management presented its final proposed settlement terms the company’s negotiator stated, “We are not going to be able to continue the business unless we make these changes.” The union’s negotiator asked the company to provide financial information to verify the company’s claim that it was struggling to stay in business. The union repeated its request in letters to the company on July 31, August 14 and 18, and Sep- tember 8. The company never gave the union any financial information about its current business opera- tion. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the company’s refusal to supply the requested information related to the company’s financial condi- tion represents a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith.

Evaluate each of the three unfair labor practice charges concerning the company’s refusal to supply requested bargaining information and decide if each charge represents a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith?