Opinion ID: 4529815
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to provide requested documents

Text: In addition to arguing that PSAV’s withholding of documents was itself a violation of the Act, Local 15 also argues the withholding evidences PSAV’s overall bad faith. As previously discussed, the duty to bargain in good faith generally requires employers to provide “relevant information needed by a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the employees’ bargaining representative.” Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). However, not every refusal to produce documents, even relevant documents, violates the Act. NLRB v. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc., 633 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1980). “The employer’s reasons for nondisclosure and the negotiating conduct of the parties must be considered.” Id.; see also Detroit Edison Co., 440 U.S. at 318 (rejecting “proposition that union’s interests in arguably relevant information must always predominate over all other interests, however, legitimate” and noting “such an absolute rule has never been established”); Frankl, 693 F.3d at 1064 (recognizing circumstances where an employer can limit its disclosure in response to union’s requests for records). We previously concluded that PSAV was not required to produce documents responsive to Local 15’s first document request because it retracted its inability-to-pay claim. Therefore, PSAV’s failure to produce those documents was not an act of bad faith. Likewise, we conclude that PSAV’s IATSE LOCAL 15 V. NLRB 25 failure to produce documents responsive to Local 15’s other requests does not indicate bad faith bargaining. PSAV believed, although mistakenly, that the relevance of all of Local 15’s document requests depended on PSAV making an inability-to-pay claim and, therefore, it had no duty to provide the requested information because it was not making such a claim. PSAV also explained it was unwilling to produce documents responsive to Local 15’s requests because they sought “proprietary and confidential business information.” This is not a case where PSAV ignored or refused even to consider Local 15’s requests. Nor is it a case where the information sought by Local 15 was presumptively relevant to the bargaining process. See Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., 633 F.2d at 770 n.4a. PSAV explained to Local 15 why it was not producing documents responsive to the document requests. And even though the NLRB later determined that PSAV’s position was partially wrong, the error was not so patently obvious as to suggest that PSAV’s position was illegitimate or that it was trying to frustrate the parties’ ability to reach an agreement. Further, there is no indication that Local 15 challenged PSAV’s explanation or made any effort to negotiate this issue with PSAV or persuade PSAV that the requested documents remained relevant to the bargaining process regardless of any inabilityto-pay claim. See id. at 770 (holding “the negotiating conduct of the parties” is relevant in assessing good faith related to document production); cf. Frankl, 693 F.3d at 1064–65 (holding that employer withheld requested documents in bad faith where union repeatedly explained why limited production was inadequate and where union signed confidentiality agreement to address employer’s concerns). Instead, less than a month after issuing its document requests, Local 15 filed a charge against PSAV 26 IATSE LOCAL 15 V. NLRB with the NLRB. Under these facts, we conclude that PSAV’s failure to produce documents responsive to Local 15’s requests is not evidence of bad faith bargaining.