NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the The National Labor Relations Board has

rd has delegated its

bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
PCC Structurals, Inc. and International Association of The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain and to pro-
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge vide the requested information but contests the validity of
63. Cases 19–CA–207792 and 19–CA–233690 the Union’s certification on the basis of its contentions,
raised and rejected in the underlying representation pro-
November 27, 2019
ceeding, that the certification was improper because the
DECISION AND ORDER unit is inappropriate.
BY MEMBERS MCFERRAN, KAPLAN, AND EMANUEL All representation issues raised by the Respondent were
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respond- or could have been litigated in the prior representation pro-
ent is contesting International Association of Machinists ceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a
and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge W24’s (the Un- hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable
ion’s) certification as bargaining representative in the un- evidence, nor does it allege any special circumstances that
derlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to charges would require the Board to reexamine the decision made
filed on October 11, 2017, and January 7, 2019, by Inter- in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that
ers, Local Lodge 63 (the Charging Party Local Union), the is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceed-
General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint (the ing. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S.
complaint) on February 26, 2019, and an amendment to 146, 162 (1941).3
the complaint on March 15, 2019, alleging that PCC Struc- We also find that there are no factual issues warranting
turals, Inc. (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) a hearing with respect to the Respondent’s refusal to fur-
and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to rec- nish the Union with requested information. The complaint
ognize and bargain with it and to furnish relevant and nec- alleges, and the Respondent admits, that by letter dated
essary information following the Union’s certification in December 3, 2018, the Union requested the following in-
Case 19–RC–202188.1 (Official notice is taken of the rec- formation pertaining to the bargaining unit:
ord in the representation proceeding as defined in the I. Current data and data for the prior three years show-
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and ing:
102.69(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The
Respondent filed answers to the complaint and the amend- a. A breakdown for any insurance premiums
ment, admitting in part and denying in part the allegations (such as medical, dental, vision, life, accident,
and asserting affirmative defenses. etc.) by type of coverage (such as single, one de-
On April 3, 2019, the General Counsel filed a Motion pendent, family, etc.) and carrier, including details
for Summary Judgment. On April 10, 2019, the Board is- on per employee premium costs (or premium
sued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and equivalent for self-insured plans), number of em-
a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be ployees by type of coverage, and any employee-
granted. The Respondent filed an opposition to the motion share of these insurance premiums . . .;
and answer to the Notice to Show Cause, the General b. Information by type of coverage, carrier, en-
Counsel filed a reply, and the Charging Party Local Union rollment, costs and retiree-share of costs for any
filed a Joinder to the General Counsel’s motion with a re- insurance for retirees; and
quest for additional remedies.
1 We maintain the nomenclature of the complaint by referring to Dis- the Board confuses the question of what constitutes a craft unit with the
trict Lodge W24, which was certified in the representation proceeding, separate question of whether such a unit may be severed from a historical
as “the Union” and referring to Local Lodge 63, which filed the unfair bargaining unit. As stated in our denial of review, the latter question is
labor practice charges at issue here, as “the Charging Party Local Union.” not before us. Accordingly, the Respondent’s bare assertion that we have
2 Chairman Ring is recused and took no part in the consideration of sub silentio overruled Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387
this case. (1966), which clarified the standard for directing a severance election, is
3 In denying the Respondent’s request for review of the amended cer- meritless. Mallinckrodt did not affect the discussions about what consti-
tification, we unanimously found the petitioned-for unit appropriate for tutes a craft unit or about craft welders in cases the Regional Director
bargaining. Contrary to the Respondent, the overlapping majorities’ and Board majority cited in the underlying representation decisions in
analyses are neither inconsistent with one another nor mutually exclu- these proceedings.
sive. In addition, the Respondent’s discussion of precedent in its brief to

368 NLRB No. 122

2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

c. C.O.B.R.A. rates for medical, prescription e. The current IRS determination letter;
drug, dental, and vision insurance. f. For voluntary participation and/or contribution
II. A current detailed breakdown by bargaining unit em- plans, such as 401(k) plans, the annual average for
ployee showing the following (please indicate date of the past three year[s] for:
time period data is for): 1) The number of bargaining unit members
participating;
a. Pay/occupation grade or level (i.e. pay grade
2) The average contribution by these partici-
5);
pants;
b. Job title; 3) The average employer match/contribution
c. Straight-time hourly rate; for these participants;
4) The average account balance for partici-
d. Shift primarily assigned to; pants;
e. Age or date of birth; 5) The number of these participants with loans
from the plan.
f. Seniority or date of hire.
V. The current Summary Plan Description (SPD) and
III. For the entire bargaining unit:
Summary of Material Modifications (SMM) for all other
a. The current average hourly rate; benefit plans not included in Section IV.
b. Number of employees currently at each level VI. An electronic copy (preferable format is in Mi-
of the vacation schedule; crosoft Word) of the current collective-bargaining
c. Average number of days used per bargaining agreement.
unit member for paid sick leave, paid personal
days, paid jury duty, paid bereavement leave, paid The requested information pertains to the wages and
military leave, and any other types of paid leave benefits of bargaining unit employees and the costs of
during the most recent year (calendar, fiscal or 12- such wages and benefits. It is well established that infor-
month period); mation concerning the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of unit employees is presumptively relevant for pur-
d. Average annual cost to the employer per em- poses of collective bargaining and must be furnished on
ployee for pension, health care, life insurance, ac- request. See, e.g., UNY LLC d/b/a General Super Plating,
cidental death & dismemberment, and each other 367 NLRB No. 113, slip op. at 2 (2019); Anheuser-Busch,
type of insurance or other employer provided ben- LLC, 365 NLRB No. 123, slip op. at 2 (2017); Metro
efits; Health Foundation, 338 NLRB 802, 803 (2003).4 The Re-
e. Average hours of overtime worked per week spondent has not asserted any basis for rebutting the pre-
per bargaining unit member. sumptive relevance of this information. We find, there-
fore, that the Respondent unlawfully refused to furnish the
IV. For any pension, savings or stock plan: information sought by the Union.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
a. Form 5500 and all schedules and attachments
ment.
for the past three years;
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
b. Annual Funding Notice for defined benefit FINDINGS OF FACT
plans and actuarial reports for the past three years;
I. JURISDICTION
c. The current Summary Plan Description (SPD)
At all material times, the Respondent has been a corpo-
and all current Summary of Material Modification
ration with offices and places of business in Portland,
(SMM);
Clackamas, and Milwaukie, Oregon (jointly, the Portland
d. The current plan document, including all facilities) and has been engaged in the manufacture and
amendments and attachments; repair of aerospace and mechanical components.

4 Although the complaint does not specifically state that the infor- information concerning retiree benefits is relevant to the future retire-
mation request was limited to unit employees, we find that the request ment benefits of active bargaining unit employees, which is a mandatory
indicates that it should be so construed. See, e.g., Freyco Trucking, Inc., subject of bargaining. Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.,
338 NLRB 774, 775 fn. 1 (2003). We also find that the requested 404 U.S. 157, 180 (1971).
 PCC STRUCTURAL, INC. 3

In conducting its business operations during the 12 information described above. The Respondent did not re-
months preceding the complaint, which period is repre- spond to the Union’s request, and since December 3, 2018,
sentative of all material times, the Respondent derived the Respondent has failed and refused to provide the re-
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and quested information. The requested information is neces-
received goods at the Portland facilities valued in excess sary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its du-
of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ore- ties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
gon. of the unit.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in We find that these failures and refusals constitute an un-
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) lawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with
of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.5 Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CONCLUSION OF LAW
A. The Certification By failing and refusing since December 3, 2018, to rec-
Following a representation election held on September ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
22, 2017, the Union was certified on October 2, 2017.6 tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
After supplemental proceedings, the Regional Director is- propriate unit, and by failing and refusing since December
sued an amended certification on May 4, 2018, certifying 3, 2018, to furnish the Union with requested information
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- that is necessary for and relevant to the Union’s perfor-
sentative of the employees in the following appropriate mance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
unit:7 representative of the Respondent’s unit employees, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
All full-time and regular part-time rework welders, re- commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
work specialists, and crucible repair welders employed and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
by [the Respondent] at its facilities in Portland, Clacka- REMEDY
mas, and Milwaukie, Oregon; excluding all other em-
ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined by the Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
Act. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to recognize and bargain on request with the Union
The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-bar- and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the under-
gaining representative of the unit employees under Sec- standing in a signed agreement. We shall also order the
tion 9(a) of the Act. Respondent to furnish the Union with the information it
B. Refusal to Bargain requested.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
By letter dated December 3, 2018, the Union requested of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
that the Respondent bargain collectively with it as the ex- by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit cation as beginning on the date the Respondent begins to
employees. The Respondent did not reply to the Union’s bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
request. Since December 3, 2018, the Respondent has Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction
failed and refused to bargain with the Union. Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57
By the December 3, 2018 letter, the Union also re- (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
quested that the Respondent furnish it with the
5 The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Charging Party Local in the representation proceeding, and it has presented no argument con-
Union has at all material times been a local constituent union of the Un- cerning either issue in its opposition to the General Counsel’s motion and
ion (i.e., of District Lodge W24); that the Union has delegated bargaining answer to the Notice to Show Cause.
responsibilities to the Charging Party Local Union for the purposes of 6 The Respondent filed a request for review of the Regional Director’s

representing certain groups of employees; and that both the Union and Decision and Direction of Election on September 18, 2017, and a cor-
the Charging Party Local Union have at all material times have been la- rected request on October 12, 2017. The Board granted review and re-
bor organizations within the meaning of Sec. 2(5). manded the proceeding to the Regional Director on December 15, 2017.
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent does not dispute the PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017).
above allegations but states that it lacks knowledge as to whether either 7 The Respondent subsequently filed a request for review of the

the Union or the Charging Party Local Union has at all material times amended certification on May 17, 2018. The Board denied the request
been a labor organization and whether the Union delegated bargaining for review in Case 19–RC–202188 by unpublished order dated Novem-
responsibilities to the Charging Party Local Union. The Respondent ber 28, 2018.
could have, but did not, challenge the Union’s labor organization status
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Respond-
379 U.S. 817 (1964). ent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
The Charging Party Local Union requests the additional spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
enhanced remedy of requiring an official of the Respond- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ent to read the notice to all employees at the involved fa- ployees are customarily posted. In addition to physical
cilities. We find that there has been no showing that the posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed elec-
Board’s traditional remedies are insufficient to redress the tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
violations found. Accordingly, we deny the Charging internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
Party Local Union’s request. spondent customarily communicates with its employees
ORDER by such means. The Respondent shall take reasonable
steps to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
spondent, PCC Structurals, Inc., Portland, Clackamas, and
out of business or closed the facility involved in these pro-
Milwaukie, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
assigns, shall
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
1. Cease and desist from
and former employees employed by the Respondent at any
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
time since December 3, 2018.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
Workers, District Lodge W24 (the Union) as the exclusive
the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certification
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
the bargaining unit.
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with re-
ply.
quested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 27, 2019
Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Respondent’s unit employ-
ees.
______________________________________
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
Lauren McFerran, Member
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
______________________________________
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit concerning terms and con-
______________________________________
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
William J. Emanuel, Member
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time rework welders, re-
work specialists, and crucible repair welders employed (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by [the Respondent] at its facilities in Portland, Clacka-
mas, and Milwaukie, Oregon; excluding all other em- APPENDIX
ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined by the NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Act. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Furnish the Union in a timely manner the infor- An Agency of the United States Government
mation requested by the Union on December 3, 2018.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
its facilities in Portland, Clackamas, and Milwaukie, Ore- olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
gon, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 obey this notice.
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
8 United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Relations Board.”
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
 PCC STRUCTURAL, INC. 5

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO All full-time and regular part-time rework welders, re-
Form, join, or assist a union work specialists, and crucible repair welders employed
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your by [PCC Structurals, Inc.] at its facilities in Portland,
behalf Clackamas, and Milwaukie, Oregon; excluding all other
Act together with other employees for your bene- employees, and guards and supervisors as defined by the
fit and protection Act.
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- WE WILL furnish the Union in a timely manner the in-
tivities. formation requested by the Union on December 3, 2018.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain PCC STRUCTURALS, INC.
with International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, District Lodge W24 (the Union) as the ex- The Board’s decision can be found at
clusive collective-bargaining representative of our em- www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-207792 or by using the QR
ployees in the bargaining unit. code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Un- decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
ion by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested in- Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
formation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and con-
ditions of employment for our employees in the following
appropriate bargaining unit: