<PAGE> 1
SCHEDULE 14A
(RULE 14A-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(A) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (AMENDMENT NO. )
Filed by the registrant /X/
Filed by a party other than the registrant / /
Check the appropriate box:
/ / Preliminary proxy statement
/ / Definitive proxy statement
/X/ Definitive additional materials
/ / Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-11(c) or Rule 14a-12
MERCK & CO., INC.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
MERCK & CO., INC.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement)
Payment of filing fee (Check the appropriate box):
/ / $125 per Exchange Act Rule 0-11(c)(1)(ii), 14a-6(i)(1), or 14a-6(j)(2).
/ / $500 per each party to the controversy pursuant to Exchange Act Rule
14a-6(i)(3).
/ / Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and
0-11.
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transactions applies:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11:1
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ / Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act
Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid
previously. Identify the previous filing by registrations statement number, or
the form or schedule and the date of its filing.
(1) Amount previously paid:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Form, schedule or registration statement no.:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Filing party:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Date filed:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------
(1)Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state
how it was determined.
<PAGE> 2
Attached is the following correspondence regarding a shareholder
resolution submitted to the Company by the Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association Local Union 19, of which Mr. Thomas J. Kelly is President/Business
Manager, for inclusion in the Company's 1994 proxy statement and form of proxy:
1. Letter and enclosed Shareholder's Resolution dated November 10, 1993
from Thomas J. Kelly to Merck & Co., Inc.
2. Letter, and attached Exhibits A through E, dated December 28, 1993
from George Shiebler, Senior Attorney, Merck & Co., Inc., to
Securities and Exchange Commission
3. Letter dated January 6, 1994 from Bruce E. Endy, attorney for the
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 19,
to Securities and Exchange Commission
4. Letter dated February 7, 1994 from William E. Morley, Senior
Associate Director, Securities and Exchange Commission, to George
Shiebler, Senior Attorney, Merck & Co., Inc., with enclosed Response
of the Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Corporate Finance from
Amy Bowerman Freed, Special Counsel
5. Letter dated March 8, 1994 from Thomas J. Kelly to Clarence
Abramson, Corporate Secretary, Merck & Co., Inc.
The Company may use some or all of this material in the future in
connection with the solicitation of proxies from its stockholders. The Company
did not ask for, or receive consent from, the Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union
19 to the use of this material as proxy soliciting material.
<PAGE> 3
[LETTERHEAD OF SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
LOCAL UNION 19]
March 8, 1994
Clarence Abramson
Corporate Secretary
Merck & Co.
One Mark Drive
P.O. Box 100, WS3A-65
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100
Dear Mr. Abramson:
In view of the opinion of the SEC Staff that Merck & Co. is not required under
SEC Rule 14a-8 to include in management's proxy statement the resolution
previously submitted, this is to notify you that the resolution is withdrawn
and will not be submitted to the annual meeting. I disagree entirely with the
Staff's conclusion, but the costs of independent solicitation in support of
resolutions is prohibitive. Thus, the Staff's decision effectively precludes
consideration of the subject of the resolution prior to the meeting.
Sincerely,
/s/ Thomas J. Kelly
Thomas J. Kelly
President/Business Manager
TJK/rm
Via: Certified Mail P160725696
<PAGE> 4
[LETTERHEAD OF UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION]
February 7, 1994
George Shiebler, Senior Attorney
Merck & Co., Inc.
One Merck Drive
P.O. Box 100 WS3B-45
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey 08889-0100
Re: Merck & Co., Inc.
Incoming letter dated December 28, 1993
Dear Mr. Shiebler:
This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1993 concerning a
shareholder proposal submitted by Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, Local Union 19. This letter is also in response to a letter from
the proponent dated January 6, 1994. Our response is attached to the enclosed
photocopy of your correspondence. By doing this, we avoid having to recite or
summarize the facts set forth in the correspondence. Copies of all of the
correspondence also will be provided to the proponent.
In connection with this matter, your attention is directed to the
enclosure, which sets forth a brief discussion of the Division's informal
procedures regarding shareholder proposals.
Sincerely,
/s/ William E. Morley
William E. Morley
Senior Associate Director
Enclosures
CC: Sheet Metal Workers International Association
Local Union 19
1301 South Delaware Avenue
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147
<PAGE> 5
DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE
INFORMAL PROCEDURES FOR SHAREHOLDERS PROPOSALS
The Division of Corporation Finance believes that its responsibility
with respect to matters arising under Rule 14a-8 [17 CFR 240.14a-8], as with
other matters under the proxy rules, is to aid those who must comply with the
rule offering informal advice and suggestions and to determine, initially,
whether or not it may be appropriate in a particular matter to recommend
enforcement action to the Commission. In connection with a shareholder
proposal under Rule 14a-8, the Division's staff considers the information
furnished to it by the Company in support of its intention to exclude the
proposals from the Company's proxy material, as well as any information
furnished by the proponent or the proponent's representative.
Although Rule 14a-8(d) does not specifically provide for any
communications from shareholders to the Commission's staff, the staff will
always consider information concerning alleged violations of the statutes
administered by the Commission, including argument as to whether or not
activities proposed to be taken would be violative of the statute or rule
involved. The receipt by the staff of such information, however, should not be
construed as changing the staff's informal procedures and proxy review into a
formal or adversary procedure.
The determination reached by the staff in connection with a
shareholder proposal submitted to the Division under Rule 14a-8 does not and
cannot purport to "adjudicate" the merits of the Company's position with
respect to the proposal. Only a court such as a U.S. District Court can decide
whether a Company is obligated to include shareholder proposals in its proxy
material. Accordingly, a discretionary determination by the staff not to
recommend enforcement action to the Commission does not preclude a proponent,
or any shareholder of a Company, from pursuing any rights he or she may have
against the Company in court, should the management omit the proposal from the
Company's proxy material.
<PAGE> 6
February 7, 1994
RESPONSE OF THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE
Re: Merck & Co., Inc. (the "Company")
Incoming letter dated December 28, 1993
The proposal requests that the Company implement a policy of using
construction companies and subcontractors that use unionized labor.
There appears to be some basis for your view that the proposal relates
to the redress of a personal claim or grievance or is designed to result in a
benefit to the proponent or to further a personal interest, which benefit or
interest is not shared with the other security holders at large. Accordingly,
the Division will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if the
Company omits the proposal from its proxy materials in reliance on rule
14a-8(c)(4). In reaching a position, the staff has not found it necessary to
address the alternative basis for omission upon which the Company relies.
Sincerely,
/s/ Amy Bowerman Freed
Amy Bowerman Freed
Special Counsel
<PAGE> 7
[ LETTERHEAD OF LAW OFFICES
SPEAR, WILDERMAN, BORISH, ENDY, BROWNING & SPEAR ]
January 6, 1994
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549
Re: Merck & Co. Notification of Shareholder Resolution
Exclusion From Proxy Material
Dear Gentleperson:
This letter is in response to the letter of December 28, 1993 you
received from George Shiebler, Senior Attorney Merck & Company, Inc.
("Company"). Mr. Shiebler's letter constitutes notice to my client, Sheet
Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 19 ("Shareholder") of
the Company's intention to omit from its proxy materials a proposed shareholder
resolution put forward by the Shareholder.
It is the position of the Shareholder that the statements made by the
Company are substantially inaccurate and mischaracterize the shareholder
resolution put forward in accordance with 17 C.F.R. # 240.14 a-8.
The Company characterizes the shareholder resolution as one intended
for the personal benefit of the Shareholder. In this assertion the Company is
grossly mistaken. Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 has collective bargaining
agreements with employers in an area that roughly covers only the eastern
one-half of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and portions of the State of
Delaware. The work performed by Shareholder's members on new construction
represents only a fraction of the total manpower, wages and fringe benefits
that go into various projects erected by the Company. New buildings are
erected by the combined efforts of operating engineers, glaziers, boilermakers,
electricians, bricklayers, laborers, carpenters, plumbers, iron workers,
pipefitters, steamfitters, drywall finishers, lathers, plasterers, painters,
cement masons
<PAGE> 8
January 6, 1994
Page 2
and elevator constructors as well as sheet metal workers. A similar statement
can be made of maintenance work performed with respect to existing buildings.
When the Company undertakes construction and maintenance, whether in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas, Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire,
California or elsewhere in the United States, this Shareholder gains but little
in the way of monetary benefit. Indeed, when it comes right down to it the
Shareholder's dues payment from working members are insignificant when compared
to the real benefit derived by the Company from employing union labor.
As set forth in the statement of position accompanying the proposed
resolution, union workers contribute significant dollars to maintain health
benefit plans that provide pharmaceutical benefits to those workers, their
spouses and dependents. Union pension funds enable retired workers and their
spouses the opportunity to purchase, in many cases life saving drugs, that are
otherwise unavailable. The employment of non-union workers not only undercuts
the standard of living of union workers established through collective
bargaining, but erodes the Company's ability to reach thousands of union workers
who are only able to purchase their pharmaceuticals, because of their union
employment.
Far from being an individual benefit to this Shareholder, this
resolution implicates broad policy considerations that all of the Company's
shareholders deserve the right to consider "The lost information right itself,
and not the damage done because of the failure to adopt any given shareholder
proposal, is the injury upon which shareholders invoking Section 14(a) and Rule
14a-8 sue. Roosevelt v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 958 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir.
1992).
The Company's assertions that this Shareholder's resolution furthers
only a personal interest of the Shareholder is also substantially misleading.
An examination of the proposed resolution itself reflects no individual benefit
conferred on this Shareholder. It suggests no retroactive action to cure the
Company's insensitivity to where its dollars are spent, and will not provide
this Shareholder with a single penny in compensation. It is not limited to the
employment of sheet metal workers at all, but only to those union workers whose
combined employment increases the purchasing power of workers who may utilize
Company products.
In 1987, seven years ago, and before this union became a shareholder,
the Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Health and Welfare Fund ("Fund") sponsored a
boycott of Merck products -- except where to do so was deemed inadvisable by a
participant's physician. It needs to be noted that the Fund is not a creature
of the Shareholder, but an independent, jointly administered trust owing
fidiciary duties to the participants who benefit from that administration. See
29 U.S.C. # 302(c)(5) and 29 U.S.C. # 1001 et seq; Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 105 S.Ct. 2380 (1985). That boycott is
ancient history. But its genesis raised the same questions that ultimately led
to the present proposed resolution. Should health care payers purchase
pharmaceutical products from companies that are not committed to supporting the
institutions responsible for providing the funding to pay for the Company
products? Once again, the
<PAGE> 9
January 6, 1994
Page 3
proposed resolution will not specifically provide a remedy for any grievance
that the Fund may have had with Merck. But the proposed resolution raises what
the Shareholder believes are profound social and economic issues for the
shareholders to consider.
The Company in general again misleads the Commission by suggesting that
the local union uses this resolution "as a tactic ... to further a personal
interest" is an ongoing dispute with Merck. The Company suggests,
misleadingly, that site picketing over this issue" has occurred on many
occasions. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Employed at the
Company's West Point Pennsylvania facility are certain subcontractors who do
not pay their employees the wages and benefits established by the union through
the process of collective bargaining. The union has no primary labor dispute
with Merck, only with those employers who undercut the area wage standards by
denying to all of their sheet metal employees the same wages, health and
pension benefits that members of this local union enjoy. Indeed, the union
notified the Company of the nature of this dispute before any primary picketing
took place so that the Company could insulate itself from any picketing
activity that might take place at the construction site. Because of the
Union's advance notice the Company established gates reserved for use by the
non-union subcontractors on the job; at which gates the union has limited its
picketing.
While having no primary dispute with the Company, the local union is
free to raise the issue of the Company's good citizenship with the general
public. See Edward J. DeBartolo v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction
Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 108 S.Ct. 1392 (1988). The handbills attached to
the Company's letter make no attempt to discuss the Shareholder's resolution
that was subsequently submitted for consideration at the Company's 1994 annual
meeting. Those handbills do, however, raise legitimate questions about Merck's
good citizenship and its corporate responsibility to the organized working
person. Like other corporate citizenship issues, these subjects are not
private disputes, but are fair game for consideration by the Company's
shareholders.
In discussing a union's First Amendment right to leaflet company's that
promote the destruction of area wage standards, the Supreme Court stated:
We do not suggest that communications by labor unions
are never of the commercial speech variety and thereby
entitled to a lesser degree of constitutional protection.
The handbills involved here, however, do not appear to be
typical commercial speech such as advertising the price of
a product or arguing its merits, for they pressed the benefits
of unionism to the community and the dangers of inadequate
wages to the economy and the standard of living of the
populace.
<PAGE> 10
January 6, 1994
Page 4
DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council,
supra.
These same arguments elevate the proposed Shareholder's resolution from
one pertaining to the "ordinary business operations" of the Company to a matter
of fundamental corporate policy. See Adoption of Amendments Relating to
Proposals by Security Holders, Exchange Act Release No. 12,999, 41 Fed. Reg.
52,944, 52,998 (Dec. 3, 1976).
It is clear that the availability of health care for all Americans including
prescription drug benefit -- is finally at the top of the Executive and
Legislative agenda, with 37 million Americans having no health care and an
additional 22 million lacking adequate coverage. See The American Health
Security Act, Times Books, NY, 1993. The Shareholder's proposed resolution
does not purport to require the Company to expend any dollars on construction.
The proposal does not suggest which of potentially hundreds of builders to
select for construction purposes. What the proposal calls for is the creation
of a policy whereby the Company's own expenditures would foster the further
utilization of its own products.
The issue of whether such a policy has merit is not a question of
ordinary business operation, but one of substantial policy import, especially
to a purveyor of health care products.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Shareholder requests that the
Commission reject issuance of a no-action letter in this matter.
Very truly yours,
SPEAR, WILDERMAN, BORISH,
ENDY, BROWNING & SPEAR
/s/ Bruce E. Endy
------------------------
Bruce E. Endy
BEE/jn
UIW/SIU
cc: Thomas Kelly, President
George Shiebler, Senior Attorney
<PAGE> 11
[LETTERHEAD OF MERCK & CO., INC.]
December 28, 1993
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549
Re: Merck & Co., Inc. Shareholder's Proposal
Dear Sir or Madam:
Merck & Co., Inc. (the "Company") has received a shareholder's
proposal (the "Proposal") from the Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, Local Union 19 (the "Proponent") for inclusion in the Company's
proxy materials for its 1994 annual meeting of stockholders (the "Proxy
Materials"). The Proposal requests that the Proxy Materials include the
following proposed resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED: That the stockholders of Merck & Co., Inc.
("Company") recommend that our Board of Directors take the necessary
steps to adopt and implement a policy of utilizing construction
companies and subcontractors for the erection and construction of
Company facilities that hire unionized employees and whose unions are
affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department of the
AFL-CIO and which construction companies and subcontractors contribute
to health benefits, pension, and training plans for the benefit of
their workers.
I am of the opinion that the Proposal may be properly omitted from the
Proxy Materials for the following reasons:
1. The Proposal is designed to result in a benefit to the Proponent or to
further a personal interest, which benefit or interest is not shared
with the other security-holders at large -- Rule 14a-8(c)(4).
2. The Proposal deals with a matter relating to the conduct of ordinary
business of the registrant -- Rule 14a-8(c)(7).
Accordingly, the Company requests that the Staff confirm that it will
not recommend any enforcement action if the Company excludes the Proposal from
its Proxy Materials.
In accordance with Rule 14-8(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, we are enclosing herewith six copies of
<PAGE> 12
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
December 28, 1993
Page 2
this letter and six copies of the Proposal, including the statement in support
thereof.
The Company is hereby notifying the Proponent of its intention to
omit the Proposal from the Proxy Materials by forwarding a copy of this letter
to them.
DISCUSSION
1. THE PROPOSAL IS DESIGNED TO RESULT IN A BENEFIT TO THE PROPONENT OR TO
FURTHER A PERSONAL INTEREST, WHICH BENEFIT OR INTEREST IS NOT SHARED
WITH THE OTHER SECURITY-HOLDERS AT LARGE -- RULE 14a-8(c)(4).
The Proposal requests that the Company's Board of Directors adopt a
policy of utilizing construction companies and subcontractors that hire
unionized employees and whose unions are affiliated with the Building and
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO. The Proposal also requires that
such construction companies and subcontractors contribute to health, pension
and training plans for their workers. The Proponent union is affiliated with
the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and provides the
type of benefits described.
The Proposal is designed to result in a benefit to the Proponent not
shared with the other security-holders at large. It is designed to result in
the hiring of members of the Proponent union and its affiliates for the
Company's construction projects to the exclusion of non-union members.
The Proposal is another tactic by the Proponent to further a personal
interest (working on Company construction projects) that it has sought to
achieve by various other means over the years. A partial list of these tactics
is as follows:
o On many occasions since 1987 agents of the Proponent union have come
to the Company's Whitehouse Station, New Jersey and West Point,
Pennsylvania facilities to distribute handbills urging the boycott of
Company products to protest the Company's policy of "merit shop"
construction at its West Point facility. Merit shop construction
awards contracts to qualified bidders regardless of union status or
affiliation. The Proponent has also distributed handbills at Veterans
Stadium. Copies of three of the Proponent's handbills are attached as
Exhibits A, B and C.
<PAGE> 13
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
December 28, 1993
Page 3
o In 1987 the Proponent's Welfare Fund initiated a boycott of Company
products. A copy of the letter sent October 22, 1987 to Welfare Fund
participants by Welfare Fund Administrator Joseph Cavanaugh is
attached as Exhibit D. A copy of a letter sent to doctors is attached
as Exhibit E.
o The Proponent has engaged in site picketing over this issue on many
occasions.
The Staff has consistently permitted the exclusion of proposals
designed to further a personal interest not shared by other security-holders.
See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Company (February 28, 1992) (proposal recommending
that company board establish a stockholders' advisory committee excludable);
Thomas Industries Incorporated (January 13, 1992) (proposal that company
establish policy relating to employment discrimination excludable); Rockwell
International Corporation (November 21, 1991)(proposal that company establish a
patent recognition and review policy excludable).
The primary benefit cited by the Proponent in its supporting statement
- -- the benefits to union workers available upon retirement -- will not be shared
with the Company's security-holders at large. The other benefit cited in the
Proponent's supporting statement -- that the use of unionized labor is in the
self-interest of the Company -- though drafted in such broad terms as might
arguably be of general interest to all security-holders, should not permit a
proposal designed to require the hiring of members of this Proponent union and
its affiliated unions to avoid exclusion pursuant to Rule 14a-8(c)(4). As
the Commission noted in Release No. 34-19135 (October 14, 1982) ". . . a
proposal, despite its being drafted in such a way that it might relate to
matters which may be of general interest to all security holders, properly may
be excluded under paragraph (c)(4), if it is clear from the facts presented by
the issuer that the proponent is using the proposal as a tactic designed to
redress a personal grievance or further a personal interest."
The facts in this case are clear. The Proponent seeks to have its
members hired to work on Company construction projects to the exclusion of
non-union members. It has used a variety of other tactics in the past to
achieve this goal. This Proposal is another tactic to further the Proponent's
personal interest. It should therefore be excluded under Rule 14a-8(c)(4).
<PAGE> 14
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
December 28, 1993
Page 4
2. THE PROPOSAL DEALS WITH A MATTER RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE
ORDINARY BUSINESS OF THE REGISTRANT -- RULE 14A-8(C)(7).
Where a shareholder proposal involves a business matter that is
mundane in nature and does not involve any substantial policy or other
considerations, such proposal may be omitted in reliance on Rule 14a-8(c)(7) as
relating to the Company's ordinary business operations. Release No. 34-12999
(November 22, 1976).
The Staff has consistently permitted the exclusion of shareholder
proposals dealing with matters of hiring and employee relations pursuant to
Rule 14a-8(c)(7). See, e. g., FPL Group, Inc. (March 9, 1993) (proposal
that company establish a labor-management relations committee for purpose of
evaluating impact of hiring out-of-state workers and use of subcontractors
which pay no health and welfare benefits or pension funds to their employees is
excludable as matter relating to conduct of company's ordinary business
operations); Duke Power Company (March 4, 1992) (proposal to form employee
advisory committee addressing employee relations excludable); Atlantic Energy,
Inc. (February 17, 1989) (proposal that company give priority to hiring area
contractors and employees excludable); Angelica Corporation (March 23, 1987)
(proposal to form special committee to study policies to create the spirit of
partnership and goodwill among employees, management and shareholders
excludable).
While the Proposal's supporting statement discusses the potential
benefits to the Company of assuring that only unionized contractors and
subcontractors are employed, this discussion is incidental to the purpose of
the Proposal -- to cause the company to hire contractors and subcontractors who
employ members of the Proponent and its affiliated unions for jobs at the
Company's construction sites and to exclude non-union members. No other
substantial policy or consideration is raised by the Proposal. It should
therefore be excluded under Rule 14a-8(c)(7).
<PAGE> 15
Securities and Exchange Commission
Office of the Chief Counsel
Division of Corporate Finance
December 28, 1993
Page 5
If you have any questions regarding this matter or require any
additional information, please contact me at (908) 423-1643. Kindly
acknowledge receipt of this letter and the enclosures by stamping a copy of
this letter and returning it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Very truly yours,
/s/George Shiebler
George Shiebler
Senior Attorney
Tel. (908) 423-1643
cb:933540007
Enclosures
<PAGE> 16
EXHIBIT A
BOYCOTT MERCK DRUGS
MERCK demands top dollar when you buy its drugs from your hospital or
pharmacy. Indeed, MERCK's profits depend on you and your doctor to request
MERCK drugs by brand-name, and to pay the higher prices that name entails. But
now MERCK insists on "cut-rate" labor when it builds or renovates its
corporate and manufacturing facilities.
MERCK wants your hard earned dollars, but now it is using some of
those dollars to undercut the wages and benefit standards of this community.
Construction workers currently employed by contractors on MERCK building
projects receive wages and benefits far below the prevailing rate for building
trades workers in the Greater Philadelphia area. But MERCK is allowing those
cut-rate contractors to perform work on its construction projects, even though
MERCK depends for its very existence on your purchase of top-priced drug
products.
We believe that any attempt to undercut the wage standards of any
worker can spread throughout the community and harm us all. If we don't fight
back, no craftsman, no salesman, no employee of any kind will be safe. Your
job, your livelihood, may be next!
PLEASE BOYCOTT MERCK DRUGS until MERCK stops allowing its construction
work to be done at substandard wage and benefit levels. Let MERCK know you
won't pay them to hurt you and your family.
REFUSE MERCK DRUGS by asking your doctor or pharmacy to substitute an
alternative wherever medically possible.
CALL MERCK'S CEO, Dr. Roy Vagelos at 908-594-6775 or 215-661-5236 and
tell him that you deplore MERCK's destruction of your way of life.
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
LOCAL UNION NO. 19
1301 SOUTH DELAWARE AVENUE
PHILADELPHA, PA 19147
(215) 952-1999
We are not asking anyone to cease deliveries or work for MERCK or any entity.
[Union Label]
<PAGE> 17
EXHIBIT B
[CARTOON A - See Appendix for Narrative]
PHILADELPHIA HAS A NEW TURKEY THIS THANKSGIVING--Merck & Company, the
pharmaceutical firm.
Merck has hired a union-busting construction manager from South
Carolina to take jobs away from skilled union workers. Don't help them. Please
don't buy these Merck, Sharp & Dohme products:
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C>
ALDOCLOR ALDOMET ALDORIL
BENEMID BLOCADREN CLINORIL
COGENTIN ColBENEMID CORTONE
CUPRID CUPRIMINE DARANIDE
DECADERM DECADERM DECADRON
DECADRON IN ESTERGEL DEMSER
TABLETS DECASPRAY DOLOBID
DIUPRES DIURIL FLEXERIL
EDECRIN ELAVIL HYDROCORTONE
FLOROPRYL HUMORSOL INDOCIN
HydroDIURIL HYDROPRES MEPHYTON
INVERSINE LACRISERT MINTEZOL
MEVACOR MIDAMOR NOROXIN
MODURETIC NEODECADRON REDISOL
PEPCID PERIACTIN TIMOPTIC
SINEMET TIMOLIDE URECHOLINE
TONOCARD TRIAVIL VIVACTIL
VASERETIC VASOTEC
</TABLE>
[Union Seal]
For more information, contact: Thomas J. Kelly, president & business manager,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 19, 1301 South
Delaware Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 19147 (215) 952-1999.
<PAGE> 18
EXHIBIT C
Ask your druggist
[CARTOON B - See Appendix for Narrative]
Why is Merck & Co. using a union busting construction manager from
South Carolina to take jobs away from skilled union craftsmen?
Support your neighbors and friends. Please don't purchase these Merck,
Sharp & Dohme pharmaceutical products:
<TABLE>
<S> <C> <C>
ALDOCLOR ALDOMET ALDORIL
BENEMID BLOCADREN CLINORIL
COGENTIN ColBENEMID CORTONE
CUPRID CUPRIMINE DARANIDE
DECADERM DECADERM DECADRON
DECADRON IN ESTERGEL DEMSER
TABLETS DECASPRAY DOLOBID
DIUPRES DIURIL FLEXERIL
EDECRIN ELAVIL HYDROCORTONE
FLOROPRYL HUMORSOL INDOCIN
HydroDIURIL HYDROPRES MEPHYTON
INVERSINE LACRISERT MINTEZOL
MEVACOR MIDAMOR NOROXIN
MODURETIC NEODECADRON REDISOL
PEPCID PERIACTIN TIMOPTIC
SINEMET TIMOLIDE URECHOLINE
TONOCARD TRIAVIL VIVACTIL
VASERETIC VASOTEC
</TABLE>
[Union Seal]
For more information, contact: Thomas J. Kelly, president & business manager,
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 19, 1301 South
Delaware Ave., Philadelphia, Pa. 19147 (215) 952-1999.
<PAGE> 19
EXHIBIT D
SHEET METAL WORKERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 19
BENEFIT FUNDS
1301 S. Delaware Avenue o Philadelphia, PA 19147
(215) 952-1990
HEALTH & WELFARE o PENSION o VACATION o ANNUITY
October 22, 1987
Dear Participant:
Enclosed is your new identification card for our prescription drug program.
This card is to be used for the six month period commencing November 1, 1987.
We have listed on the card your dependents currently carried on Welfare Fund
records. Should changes be necessary please notify the Fund office so a new
card can be issued.
Please note "Merck Products Excluded" has been indicated on your identification
card. Recently the Merck Co. has contracted for a $6,000,000 job to be
performed by non-union contractors. This will result in a loss of 45 jobs for
members of Local Union # 19 that could be expected to last a year.
As union members, we cannot condone the purchase of prescription drugs
manufactured by a company that through their use of non-union labor is
depriving Local # 19 members of jobs. At our request, NPA has reviewed our paid
prescriptions for the past 12 months. We are informed that of the total
prescriptions paid, more than $85,000 was for Merck products.
We will not, therefore, effective November 1, 1987 provide payment for
prescription drugs manufactured by the Merck Co. For your information a list of
Merck products is attached. Should you currently be using any of these
products, when you require a refill, request your doctor write a prescription
for a generic equivalent or if not available for a similar medication
manufactured by another company.
If you are not currently using medication you may in the future. Request that
your doctor prescribe other than Merck products. There may be some few cases
where the prescription required is manufactured only by Merck and no generic
substitution is available. In these cases you should use a Direct Pay form
which should be completed by the pharmacist at the time of the prescription
drug purchase. The completed form should be forwarded to NPA for payment.
Direct Pay forms may be secured from the Welfare Fund Office upon request. Upon
verification that no generic equivalent or similar drug is available you will
receive reimbursement from NPA.
If you do not have a Direct Pay form at the time you purchase a Merck product
for which there is no generic equivalent or similar drug recommended by your
physician, secure an itemized receipt from the pharmacist indicating name of
patient, date of purchase, name of drug and quantity purchased. This receipt
should be forwarded to the Welfare Fund Office for payment.
We request your full cooperation in this effort. As union members we must
convey a message to companies using non-union labor that we will not use their
products. They must be made to understand that the savings realized by use of
non-union labor may not appear as significant when offset by loss of sales.
Sincerely,
/S/ Joseph L. Cavanaugh
Joseph L. Cavanaugh
Administrator
<PAGE> 20
EXHIBIT D (CONTINUED)
MERCK SHARP & DOHME PRODUCTS
<TABLE>
<S> <C>
ALDOCLOR HYDROCORTONE
ALDOMET* HydroDIURIL*
ALDORIL* HYDROPRES*
BENEMID* INDOCIN*
BLOCADREN INVERSINE
CLINORIL LACRISERT
COGENTIN* MEPHYTON
ColBENEMID* MEVACOR
CORTONE MIDAMOR
CUPRID MINTEZOL
CUPRIMINE MODURETIC
DARANIDE NEODECADRON
DECADERM NOROXIN
DECADERM IN ESTERGEL PEPCID
DECADRON PERIACTIN
DECADRON TABLETS* REDISOL
DECASPRAY SINEMET
DEMSER TIMOLIDE
DIUPRES* TIMOPTIC
DIURIL* TONOCARD
DOLOBID TRIAVIL*
EDECRIN URECHOLINE*
ELAVIL* VASERETIC
FLEXERIL VASOTEC
FLOROPRYL VIVACTIL
HUMORSOL
</TABLE>
Of the products listed, those marked with an * are drugs for which generic
substitutions are available. Of the remaining, in many instances, similar
products are manufactured by other drug firms. You should request your doctor
permit generic substitution and prescribe similar products if available.
NOTE: NPA will provide payment for only those drugs manufactured by Merck for
which there is no generic substitution or similar product.
<PAGE> 21
EXHIBIT E
[Letterhead of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association]
Local Union 19
March 25, 1988
Dear Doctor:
Since 1949, the Sheet Metal Workers' Union's Medical Plan has been providing
medical coverage to our members and their families. Our records indicate that
you have provided services to participants covered by our medical plan. The
purpose of this letter is to solicit your support and cooperation in the Sheet
Metal Worker's Union boycott of pharmaceutical products manufactured by the
Merck, Sharp and Dohme Corporation.
Recently, the Merck Company brought in a union busting construction manager
from South Carolina which hired a non-union sheet metal contractor. This took
jobs away from skilled union craftsmen. Previous to this action, competent and
highly qualified union contractors had employed our members to work in Merck's
West Point Park Plant, providing quality construction at fair prices.
As union members, we cannot condone the purchase of prescription drugs
manufactured by a company that, through their use of non-union contractors, is
helping deprive Local 19 members of jobs. We have reviewed our paid
prescriptions for the past twelve months and have determined that of the total
prescriptions paid, more than $85,000 were for Merck products.
The Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Health & Welfare Fund has independently
decided not to provide payment for prescription drugs manufactured by the Merck
Co. when alternatives are available. We understand that you shall be advised of
this program under separate cover in a letter from the Fund. We request on
behalf of our members, that you cooperate with this restriction being imposed
by the Health & Welfare Fund.
We are proud that our Union was the first Building Trades Union in the City of
Philadelphia to establish a medical plan for its members. The Health & Welfare
Fund's annual payment to providers of medical services is in excess of $10
million, and the total annual cost of the prescription drug program is well
over $1 million. The medical plan is financed by Union employer contributions
submitted on behalf of union members they employ. The Merck Company's actions
have helped to deprive our members of jobs. Merck should not continue to
benefit from our hard earned fringe benefits.
Sincerely yours,
/S/ Thomas J. Kelly
- -------------------
Thomas J. Kelly
President
Business Manager
TJK/bkw
<PAGE> 22
[ LETTERHEAD OF
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Local Union 19 ]
November 10, 1993
Certified Mail #P 722 564 380
Return Receipt Requested
Merck & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 100
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-0100
RE: Shareholder's Resolution
Gentlemen:
The enclosed proposed shareholder Resolution is submitted for inclusion in the
proxy statement and form of proxy relating to the 1994 annual meeting.
The proponent of this Resolution is Sheet Metal Workers, Local 19, 1301 South
Columbus Boulevard (formerly 1301 South Delaware Avenue), Philadelphia, PA
19147. The organization is the holder of 200 shares of Merck common stock
having purchased 100 shares on February 13, 1991 (No. CB 519335) and acquired
100 shares on May 22, 1992 (No. ZQ cz084927).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Thomas J. Kelly
- ---------------------
Thomas J. Kelly
President/Business Manager
TJK/eb
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Celia Calbert, Treasurer
Certified Mail #P 722 564 381
union label
<PAGE> 23
RESOLUTION
The Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 19, 1301
South Columbus Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA 19147, owner of 200 shares of
Common Stock of the company, hereby gives notice that it intends to present for
action at the Annual Meeting the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED: That the stockholders of Merck & Co., Inc.
("Company") recommend that our Board of Directors take the necessary steps
to adopt and implement a policy of utilizing construction companies and
subcontractors for the erection and construction of Company facilities that
hire unionized employees and whose unions are affiliated with the Building
and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and which construction
companies and subcontractors contribute to health benefits, pension, and
training plans for the benefit of their workers.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Unionized construction workers have long been
the beneficiaries of health benefits plans obtained through the process of
collective bargaining with their employers. These plans are and will continue
to be the purchasers of millions of dollars of pharmaceuticals manufactured by
the Company. Every hour worked by a unionized construction worker provides
funding for the provision of these health benefits.
Unionized construction workers also participate in industry pension
plans that provide retired workers with the ability to purchase pharmaceuticals
that are not available under medicare. Retirement with dignity has been a
major goal of the labor movement since its inception.
The proponent believes that the Company should encourage the employment
of unionized labor thereby increasing the number of workers who participate in
health care plans that provide drug prescription programs and retirement plans
that give participants the ability to live with dignity upon retirement.
By contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that few non union
construction workers are afforded health benefits that include drug
prescription programs or retirement plans. When labor unions collectively
bargain for area wage standards that provide these benefits, they support the
ability of the Company to offer pharmaceuticals at fair prices to millions of
Americans. The destruction of labor's area wage standards destroys the ability
of workers to purchase the Company's products. It makes little sense to reward
non union companies whose lower bid prices are based on their rejection of
health care and retirement benefits for their employees.
The proponent believes that the support of unionized labor is in the
self-interest of the Company. Strong health benefit plans support the share
price of the stock and further Company goals respecting the sales of drugs.
The proponent also believes that training programs sponsored jointly
by the union and the construction industry provide skilled workers who, in the
long run, lower the Company's costs of construction, maintenance and repair.
Finally, the failure to utilize unionized workers in the construction
of Company facilities results in adverse publicity and higher costs for the
Company, potentially affecting sales of Company products at the corner
pharmacy.
THE PROPONENT RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION
<PAGE> 24
APPENDIX
CARTOON A NARRATIVE
"Philadeldelphia has The cartoon depicts a live, frightened turkey
a new turkey this standing on a table with its wings stretched
Thanksgiving" over its head in a protective stance. The
words "MERCK & COMPANY" are emblazened across
the turkey's chest. The head of an American
Indian wearing a headband is partially in
view behind the turkey. To the turkey's
right is a scowling male Pilgrim wearing a
black coat and top hat with his arms folded
defiantly across his chest. To the turkey's
left is an angry-looking woman wearing a full
apron. Her hair is pulled in a bun atop her
head. She is holding a meat cleaver in her
right hand.
CARTOON B
"Ask your druggist" The cartoon depicts a middle-aged male
pharmacist, full head of hair, thick mustache,
wearing a striped tie and what appears to be
a white laboratory coat with pens sticking
out of his left breast pocket. A sign behind
him reads "PHARMACY." The man's right elbow
is resting on a counter and the fingers of
his right hand are resting on his right
temple. His left hand is around a jar which
is sitting on the counter. A label is
affixed to the jar.
