## Facts

- Ralston Purina Company reassigned certain inventory-control duties from employees in the bargaining unit represented by Local 66 to salaried (non-unit) personnel.
- The union filed a grievance seeking an order that Ralston (1) stop the reassignment and (2) return any affected bargaining-unit employees to their prior positions.
- The dispute involved Ralston’s inventory-control operations, which relied on computerized processes.
- Before the arbitration hearing on the merits of the grievance, the union requested permission for a union-retained computer specialist to come on site and observe the inventory-control processes.
- The union proposed that the observation occur with both union and company representatives present.
- Ralston refused the on-site observation request, stating that it did not want to reveal its internal processes.
- Ralston offered to explain the inventory-control processes to the union instead of allowing the specialist to observe them.
- The union then filed a prehearing motion asking the arbitrator to compel the requested access and related information.

## Issues

1. In a labor arbitration where the collective-bargaining agreement does not expressly provide for discovery, may an arbitrator order prehearing, on-site observation of the employer’s computerized inventory-control processes by a union-retained computer specialist?
2. If the arbitrator has authority to order such access, should that authority be exercised where the employer objects on confidentiality grounds and offers an alternative explanation of the processes?

## Decision

- The arbitrator denied the union’s motion to compel.
- The arbitrator declined to require Ralston to permit a prehearing, on-site observation of its inventory-control processes by the union’s computer specialist.
- The dispute was to proceed to a hearing on the merits without the requested compelled inspection.

## Legal Principles

- Labor arbitration procedure is primarily controlled by the parties’ agreement; when a contract is silent on discovery, an arbitrator may be reluctant to impose litigation-style discovery measures.
- An arbitrator’s general responsibility to conduct a fair hearing does not automatically carry with it a broad power to order prehearing inspections of an employer’s internal operations.
- Requests that would expose an employer’s internal processes may be denied where confidentiality or proprietary concerns are raised and the parties have not agreed on protections for such information.
- When information can be addressed through other means at or in connection with the hearing—such as the employer’s explanation, witness testimony, and cross-examination—an arbitrator may find a compelled prehearing inspection unnecessary.

## Conclusion

In *Ralston Purina Co., 82 Lab. Arb. Rep. 983 (1984)*, the arbitrator addressed a union’s prehearing request to compel on-site observation of the employer’s computerized inventory-control processes by a union-retained computer specialist. After Ralston refused access on the ground that it did not want to reveal its internal processes and offered to explain the procedures instead, the union moved to compel. The arbitrator denied the motion, declining to require a discovery-like inspection in the absence of contractual support and in light of the employer’s confidentiality concerns and the availability of hearing procedures to test the company’s account.
