Iatse Local 15 v. NLRB, 957 F.3d 1006

Local 15 was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for PSAV technicians; PSAV initially refused to bargain during a certification challenge but began bargaining after the NLRB denied PSAV review.
Bargaining (June 2016–Jan 2017) stalled on wages/benefits: Local 15 sought very large wage increases (roughly 64–120%); PSAV proposed much lower rates and defended its business model.
At an August 2016 session PSAV’s lawyer said the Union’s wage demand would be “suicide”/put PSAV “underwater.” Local 15 then requested financial documents to substantiate an inability-to-pay claim.
PSAV replied that its stance reflected unwillingness to pay (a business-model decision), not an inability to pay, and refused the first documentary request; Local 15 filed NLRB charges soon after.
The ALJ found PSAV violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) by withholding financial information and bargaining in bad faith; the NLRB reversed in part: it held PSAV effectively retracted an inability-to-pay claim (so it did not have to produce those financials) and that PSAV’s overall conduct did not prove bad faith bargaining.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusions and that the Union had not sufficiently tested PSAV’s willingness to bargain before filing bad-faith charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PSAV effectively retracted an inability-to-pay claim and thus could withhold financial documents	Local 15: PSAV’s earlier “suicide/underwater” statements continued to assert inability to pay, so PSAV must produce financials	PSAV: it clarified its position was unwillingness to pay (business-model decision), not inability, so financials were not required	Held: PSAV retractedi; NLRB reasonably found PSAV disavowed poverty claim and need not produce docs responsive to request 1
Whether PSAV bargained in bad faith (conduct at/away from table and document refusals)	Local 15: PSAV’s extreme wage/benefit/discipline proposals, CEO statements, and document refusals show refusal to bargain in good faith	PSAV: proposals were legitimate hard bargaining, discipline proposal limited discretion, CEO remarks not unlawful, and its withholding was based on a plausible legal position about relevance/confidentiality	Held: Substantial evidence supports NLRB that PSAV did not bargain in bad faith; conduct showed hard bargaining, not unlawful refusal to negotiate

Frankl ex rel. NLRB v. HTH Corp., 693 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) (employer must disclose financials when it asserts inability to pay).
Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1956) (union may request financial proof when employer claims inability to pay).
Int’l Chem. Workers Union Council v. NLRB, 467 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2006) (retraction doctrine: employer can abandon a poverty claim if it clearly disavows it).
Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1991) (duty to bargain in good faith does not compel agreement or concessions).
Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1979) (employer must furnish relevant information, but disclosure is not absolute).
Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. NLRB, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980) (refusal to produce documents must be evaluated in context of parties’ negotiating conduct).