Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01858/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Electrical Energy Services, Inc.
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent

Document Text:

J;,7 . i t. . ··. J_ i L.L..-LJ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

' :' r •:,. l ·; '. ,,.,. , 1 •. 1 • 

ELECTRICAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

vs. ) 

) 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

Clerk 

No. 88-1858 

(On Petition for Review of 

an Order of the National 

Labor Relations Board 

No. 28-CA-8806) 

ORDER AND * JUDGMENT 

Before McKAY and LOGAN' Circuit Judges' and BOHANON I District 

** Judge. 

This appeal arises from a decision of the National Labor 

Relations Board ("NLRB") upholding the findings of Administrative 

Law Judge Michael D. Stevenson that Electrical Energy Services, 

I nc. ("EESI'') violated Sections (8) (a) (1) and (5) of the National 

Labor Relations Act (the "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) and (5), by 

refusing to supply relevant and necessary information lawfully 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and 

shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable - Luther Bohanon, Senior United states 

District Judge for the Western, Eastern and Northern Districts of 

Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-1858 Document: 01019962919 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 1 
demanded by the Union and thereby failing to bargain collectively. 

We affirm. 

EESI, a construction company, is a member of the New Mexico 

Sheet Metal Contractor's Association ("Association") and, as such, 

is bound by an agreement with Sheet Metal Workers International 

Association, Local Union No. 49, AFL-CIO (the "Union") which 

provides that "none but journeymen, apprentice, and pre-apprentice 

sheet metal workers shall be employed on any work described in 

Article I, and shall be paid as such regardless of the type of work 

he is directed to do." 

In December 1986, George Gilliland, the Union's business 

representative received a · complaint from a contracting member of 

the Association that EESI was operating a nonunion company known 

as Industrial Mechanical, Inc. ( "IMI'') . Gilliland contacted two 

other companies who stated that they had heard of a connection 

between EESI and IMI. At a Building Trades Council meeting, other 

unions complained that EESI was operating a nonunion company. 

Gilliland was supplied a questionnaire by a business agent 

for the Operating Engineers. The questionnaire contained fifty 

questions. Gilliland had the questionnaire typed on the Union's 

stationary, and then on December 29, 1986, mailed it to EESI. 

A few days later, Gilliland received a letter from Earl Sury, 

president of Western Power Service & Construction Company, 

complaining that IMI, a nonunion arm of EESI, had outbid Sury's 

company on a contract. A copy of the contract award from the State 

of New Mexico was enclosed with the letter. The contract named IMI 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1858 Document: 01019962919 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 2 
and Thomas Akins, EESI's president, as the contracting party. The 

cover letter to IMI's bid was signed by Tony Burns, a longtime 

field superintendent of EESI, as superintendent of IMI. 

On January 6, Gilliland received information from New Mexico 

authorities showing that Thomas Akins was a majority owner of both 

EESI and IMI, that each company held a state contractor's license, 

that Akins was president, a director and registered agent of both 

companies, that the officers of the two corporations were 

identical, that the directors were almost the same, and that the 

two companies had the same business address. When Gilliland 

telephoned both EESI and IMI, the same person answered. 

Subsequently, Gilliland visited two sites at which IMI had 

contracted to perform work. At both sites Gilliland observed EESI 

equipment. He also observed employees taking orders from Tony 

Burns. Gilliland also received a letter from Hugh Taylor, Sury's 

project manager, stating that Taylor had observed trucks with EESI 

logos delivering employees to a job site and that the employees 

performed work contracted to IMI. 

EESI does not dispute the following principles of law, only 

their application to the facts of this case. "A union, as a 

bargaining representative, is entitled to receive any information 

which is relevant to its obligation to administer a collective 

bargaining agreement." Safeway Stores. Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 691 F.2d 

953, 956 (10th Cir. 1982). The only limitation on the Union's 

right is that the requested information must be relevant. See Id. 

The information is relevant if it "would aid the union in 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1858 Document: 01019962919 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 3 
performing its statutory duties." Id. Information about terms and 

conditions of employment are presumptively relevant. CurtissWright Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3rd Cir. 1965). 

When requesting information which is not presumptively relevant, 

a union must establish the relevancy. N.L.R.B. v. Rockwell 

Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969). In a factual 

situation such as this, the Union need only show that it had a 

reasonable basis to suspect that EESI was operating a nonunion arm 

in violation of the contract. See Walter N. Yoder & Sons v. 

N.L.R.B., 754 F.2d 531, 535 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting N.L.R.B. v. 

Associated General Contractors, 633 F.2d 766, 771-74 (9th Cir. 

1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 915 (1981). However, the employer 

does not have to supply information "if its compilation would be 

unduly burdensome or if the employer's interest in its 

confidentiality outweighs the unions interest." 

Inc., 691 F.2d at 956. 

Safeway Stores, 

In this case the Union was investigating the possibility that 

EESI and IMI were single employer or alter ego companies. Factors 

relevant to the single-employer issue are "(l) interrelation of 

operation, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor 

relations, and (4) common ownership." Walter N. Yoder & Sons, 754 

F. 2d at 535. Factors relevant to the alter ego issue are the 

degree of identity of the "'management, business purpose, 

operation, equipment, customers, supervision and ownership." Id. 

at 536, quoting Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 v. PrattFarnsworth, Inc., 690 F.2d 488, 507 (5th Cir. 1982). 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1858 Document: 01019962919 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 4 
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the 

NLRB's decision. The relevant facts have been stated above and 

need not be repeated here. Given the abundance of support for the 

Union's suspicions, the Union had at least a reasonable belief that 

EESI and IMI were a single employer or alter ego companies. 

Further, a review of the questionnaire reveals that all the 

questions asked by the company would be of use to the Union · in 

carrying out its duties and responsibilities. Merely because EESI 

answered 18 of the 50 questions does not relieve it of the 

responsibility to answer all relevant questions, and neither does 

the fact that a representative of EESI met with the Union. 

We further find that there is nothing in the record which 

supports EESI's argument that the burden of responding outweighs 

the Union's need for the requested information. We al.so agree with 

Judge Stevenson that if the burden is too great, the issue can be 

resolved at the compliance stage of the proceeding, where the cost 

can be allocated through negotiation. Oil. Chemical & Atomic 

Workers Union No. 6-418. AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 363 (D.C. 

Cir. 1983). 

Therefore, we find that there is substantial evidence in the 

·record to support the Board's findings, and that its order should 

be enforced. 

5 

Entered for the Court 

Luther Bohanon 

District Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1858 Document: 01019962919 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 5