Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co., 187 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1951). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co., 187 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1951). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the rule governing disclosure of data is not unlike that prevailing in discovery procedures under modern codes.”
57 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. NLRB (ca3, 2020-09-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. NLRB
3rd Cir. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the rule governing disclosure of data is not unlike that prevailing in discovery procedures under modern codes.
cited Cited as authority (rule) cadc 1983
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir.1951) ), enforced sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir.1951)), enforced sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
8th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company v. National Labor Relations Board
8th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 13, Detroit Newspaper, Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the standard for assessing the relevancy of requested information to a bargainable issue is a liberal one, much akin to that applied in discovery proceedings. 5 See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437 & n.6, 87 S.Ct. 565 ; NLRB v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953 , 958 (6th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (per curiam); R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 13, Detroit Newspaper Printing & Graphic Communications Union v. National Labor Relations Board
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the standard for assessing the relevancy of requested information to a bargainable issue is a liberal one, much akin to that applied in discovery proceedings. 5 See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437 & n.6, 87 S.Ct. 565 ; NLRB v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953 , 958 (6th Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (per curiam); R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Western Massachusetts Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Western Massachusetts Electric Company (2×)
1st Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
This is not to say that unions may obtain information having no discernible relevance to any open course of action a union may not seek information merely to harass, See Sylvania Electric Products v. NLRB, 291 F.2d at 132 , or if its only materiality is to an issue plainly foreclosed by an existing contract, Cf. NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (disclosure not required if requested information is "patently outside the bargaining issue").
cited Cited as authority (rule) Western Massachusetts Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Board, the Connecticut Light & Power Company v. National Labor Relations Board
1st Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teleprompter Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (2×)
1st Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New York Printing Pressmen & Offset Workers Union No. 51 v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
NLRB v. Fitzgerald Mills Corp., 313 F.2d 260 , 265 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 834 , 84 S.Ct. 47 , 11 L.Ed.2d 64 (1963); NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New York Printing Pressmen And Offset Workers Union No. 51 v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
NLRB v. Fitzgerald Mills Corp., 313 F.2d 260 , 265 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 834 , 84 S.Ct. 47 , 11 L.Ed.2d 64 (1963); NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2d Cir. 1951).
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Savoy Laundry, Inc. And Its Officer and Managing Agent, Stephen Vazzano
2d Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2 Cir. 1951).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division v. National Labor Relations Board
3rd Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
Co., 187 F.2d 947, 949 (2 Cir. 1951). 20 . 142 N.L.R.B. 304 , enforced, Hollywood Brands v. N.L.R.B., 324 F.2d 956 (5 Cir. 1963), rehearing denied, 5 Cir., 326 F.2d 400 , cert. denied, 377 U.S. 923 , 84 S.Ct. 1221 , 12 L.Ed.2d 215 (1964). 21 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin MacHine Works
4th Cir. · 1954 · confidence medium
Co., 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 947, 948, 949 ; N. L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." National Labor Relations Board v. New Britain MacHine Co.
2d Cir. · 1954 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., National Labor Relations Board v. Yawman & Erbe, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 947 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Jacobs Manufacturing Co., 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 680 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Otis Elevator Co., 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 176 .
National Labor Relations Board
v.
Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co.
21789_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Mar 28, 1951.
187 F.2d 947
George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Raymond M. Norton, Attorneys, National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner., Nixon, Hargrave, Middleton & Devans, Rochester, N. Y., for respondent; Arthur L. Stern and William H. Morris, Rochester, N. Y., of counsel.
Hand, Swan, Frank.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether the employer can be compelled to furnish a union with current wage data of employees in the bargaining unit when requested to do so in the course of bargaining for a new contract. The Office Employees International Union, Local No. 34, A. F. of L., was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for certain of respondent’s non-production employees in 1946 and continued as such during all times material to the present case. After certification the Union executed contracts with respondent in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. The 1948 contract expired February 24, 1949, and prior to its expiration the Union and respondent began negotiations for a new contract, in the course of which the Union requested four major changes in the 1948 contract. It demanded a 15 pér cent, across-the-board wage increase, a $1.00 minimum hourly wage, a union shop, and longer vacatipns for employees with seniority. Respondent refused these requests and offered to renew the 1948 contract without change. Thereupon the Union asked respondent for and was refused a list of all employees, together with their current salaries and salaries as of January 1, 1946, 1947 and 1948. At a hearing before a Trial Examiner appointed by the Board, the Examiner found that respondent’s refusal to supply the requested information constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. [1] The Board affirmed the Examiner’s rulings except as to the wage information requested for the years 1946 and 1947, and entered, an order accordingly. [2] The present petition seeks enforcement of its order. [3]

Respondent concedes that an employer must supply a union with relevant wage information as an incident of its duty[*949] to bargain in good faith. But it contends that the Union did not show how the information was relevant to the negotiations for the 1949 contract, and that the Union demonstrated the irrelevancy of the requested information by negotiating and executing a contract while the present proceeding was pending before the Board, and before the Union received the information which the Board subsequently required the employer to furnish. We are unable to agree with either contention. We approve the Board’s finding that the wage information for the year 1948 was “clearly relevant” to the 1949 negotiations. Respondent rejected the Union’s demand for wage increases . and insisted that the 1948 wage rates remain unchanged, thus bringing the 1948 rates directly in issue. Indeed, we find it difficult to conceive a case in which current or immediately past wage rates would not be relevant during negotiations for a minimum wage scale or for increased wages. [4]

Since the employer has an affirmative statutory duty to supply relevant wage data, his refusal to do so is not justified by the Union’s failure initially to show the relevance of the requested information. The rule governing disclosure of data of this kind is not unlike that prevailing in discovery procedures under modern codes. There the information must be disclosed unless it plainly appears irrelevant. [5] Any less lenient rule in labor disputes would greatly hamper the bargaining process, for it is virtually impossible to tell in advance whether the requested data will be relevant except in those infrequent instances in which the inquiry is patently outside the bargaining issue.

Nor is our determination that the information was relevant affected 'by the subsequent execution of a contract without disclosure. The most that can be inferred from the Union’s action is that the advantages of a contract in hand outweigh those which the Union might later obtain when all relevant information would be available to it.

Order enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (5) and (1).

2

. 89 N.L.R.B. No. 108.

3

. Section 10(e) of the Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e).

4

. See Aluminum Ore Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 131 F.2d 485, 487, 147 A.L.R. 1; National Labor Relations Board v. J. H. Allison Co., 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 766, 770, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 814, 69 S.Ct. 31, 93 L.Ed. 369.

5

. See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., pp. 1063-5.