Endo Painting Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
679 F. App'x 614
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Endo Painting Service, Inc. refused to produce information requested by the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1791 (the Union), and delayed nearly three months in telling the Union that a requested organizational chart did not exist.
- The Union sought the information to investigate a class grievance under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The Board’s administrative law judge found Endo committed unfair labor practices by (1) failing to furnish relevant information and (2) unreasonably delaying notice that the chart did not exist; the Board adopted the Order with modification.
- Endo petitioned this court for review; the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement of its Order. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f).
- The court reviewed whether the requested information was relevant and necessary to bargaining/administration of the CBA, whether the request was improper (confidential, harassing, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or in bad faith), and whether the delay in notifying nonexistence was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Endo) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested information was relevant and necessary to bargaining | Request sought materials not tied to grievable disputes; Endo challenged relevance | Information related to wages/hours/conditions and necessary for grievance investigation | The information was relevant and necessary; Endo violated duty to bargain in good faith |
| Whether request sought confidential, harassing, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or bad-faith information | The request was improper and burdensome | Request was neither confidential, harassing, overbroad, unduly burdensome, nor in bad faith | Board’s finding that request was proper is supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether an employer may refuse disclosure based on merits of grievance | Endo argued merits justified noncompliance | Board/Union: duty to disclose is not limited by grievability or merits of dispute | Employer’s objections to grievance merits do not excuse refusal to provide relevant information |
| Whether delay in informing Union that requested organizational chart did not exist was unreasonable | Delay was reasonable given facts | Delay (nearly three months) was unexplained and unreasonable for a simple request | Delay was unreasonable; constituted an unfair labor practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Frankl ex rel. NLRB v. HTH Corp., 693 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (employer must furnish information that is relevant and necessary to bargaining)
- Press Democrat Publ’g Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1980) (information related to wages/hours/conditions is relevant)
- NLRB v. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc., 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980) (relevance/necessity standard for disclosure requests)
- NLRB v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 622 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1980) (refusing to add a grievability requirement to disclosure duty)
- NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967) (an employer’s duty to disclose is not limited by the merits of a grievance)