Public Service Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 692 F.3d 1068

Madrid, employed by PNM, was fired for disconnecting a gas line without supervisor approval after an angry customer interaction.
Madrid’s union filed a grievance arguing the termination violated the collective bargaining agreement; PNM argued the contract allows termination for reasonable cause.
The union sought discovery of disciplinary records for other employees (union and non-union) to probe for disparate treatment; PNM refused non-union data as irrelevant.
Administrative proceedings ultimately led the ALJ and then the Board to find PNM violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5) by failing to bargain in good faith and delaying information disclosure.
The Board ordered remedies including posting a notice about employees’ rights and the violation.
PNM petitioned for review; the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement; the core issue is preservation under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is non-union disciplinary information relevant to the grievance?	PNM: non-union data irrelevant.	Board/union: information relevant to whether treatment was evenhanded.	Relevant to the grievance; preserved issues limited to two specific relevance objections.
Does § 160(e) preserve or bar unpreserved objections on appeal?	§ 160(e) is not jurisdictional and preserves arguments if adequately raised.	§ 160(e) is a jurisdictional limit requiring objections to be raised before the Board.	§ 160(e) is a jurisdictional limit; unpreserved objections cannot be heard.
Should the court entertain preserved objections beyond the two identified relevance issues?	There were additional preserved objections (arguing irrelevance and burdens on showing relevance).	Board did not address these preserved objections; they are not properly before the court.	Only the two preserved relevance objections are reviewable; the rest are not.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 691 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1982) (non-exhaustive considerations for information-request obligations)
NLRB v. L&B Cooling, Inc., 757 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1985) (agency discretion and evidentiary considerations on objections)
Consolidated Freightways v. NLRB, 669 F.2d 790 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (adequacy of objections to the Board to apprise it of issues)
Interstate Builders, Inc., 351 F.3d 1020 (10th Cir. 2003) (whether Board was aware of issues needing decision)
Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1990) (jurisdictional nature of § 160(e) and its effect on review)
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1982) (administrative exceptions and Board review standards)
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (distinguishing jurisdictional limits from claim-processing rules)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (jurisdictional questions and court authority)
Holiday Inns, Inc., 317 N.L.R.B. 479 (NLRB 1979) (presumption of relevance for union employee information)
Equitable Gas Co., 227 N.L.R.B. 800 (NLRB 1977) (irrelevance when not directly bearing on the issue)