Opinion ID: 218756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevance of Documents

Text: Section 8(a)(5) imposes upon an employer the duty to bargain collectively, Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303, 99 S.Ct. 1123, 59 L.Ed.2d 333 (1979), and the employer's duty has long been acknowledged to include a duty to supply a union with `requested information that will enable [the union] to negotiate effectively and to perform properly its other duties as bargaining representative.' Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 358 (D.C.Cir.1983) (alteration in original) (quoting Local 13, Detroit Newspaper Printing & Graphic Commc'ns Union v. NLRB, 598 F.2d 267, 271 (D.C.Cir.1979)). Because a union's other duties include the duty to see to it that an employer meets its [collective bargaining agreement] obligations, Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. NLRB, 648 F.2d 18, 25 (D.C.Cir.1980), the employer's duty to furnish information extends to data requested in order properly to administer and police a collective bargaining agreement. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 711 F.2d at 358. Nevertheless, the duty imposed by section 8(a)(5) is subject to a minimum standard of relevance: The union's need and the employer's duty depend, in all cases, on the `probability that the desired information [is] relevant, and that it [will] be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.' Id. at 359 (alterations in original) (quoting NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967)). The requisite showing of relevance depends, in turn, on whether the union is requesting information about employees who are part of the bargaining unit or outside it. For information about employees in the bargaining unit, it is presumed that the requested information is relevant . . ., and the employer must provide the information unless it can show the information is irrelevant. U.S. Testing Co. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 14, 19 (D.C.Cir. 1998). Here, the first portion of the Board's orderrequiring the Hospital to furnish information regarding [t]he shifts worked of all nurse practitioners who are directly employed by the [Hospital], N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 354 N.L.R.B. No. 5, at involved only bargaining unit employees represented by NYSNA and therefore relevance is presumed. With respect to employees outside the bargaining unit, on the other hand, the burden is on the union to demonstrate the relevance of [the requested] information. U.S. Testing Co., 160 F.3d at 19. We must therefore inquire further into the relevance of the remaining portions of the Board's orderwhich, in requiring the Hospital to furnish information about nurse practitioners who are on the payroll of Columbia University and documents between the Hospital and Columbia concerning the employment of nurse practitioners, N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 354 N.L.R.B. No. 5, at -2, related to employees outside the bargaining unit represented by NYSNA. A union's bare assertion that it needs information . . . does not automatically oblige the employer to supply all the information in the manner requested. Detroit Edison, 440 U.S. at 314, 99 S.Ct. 1123. In requesting information about employees outside the bargaining unit, the union must explain to the employer why the information is relevant. See ConAgra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1435, 1439 (D.C.Cir.1997) (where no presumption of relevance applies, union must demonstrate that any requested . . . information is relevant . . . in order to require the employer to turn it over). Nevertheless, `the threshold for relevance is low.' Brewers & Maltsters, Local Union No. 6 v. NLRB, 414 F.3d 36, 45 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. NLRB, 288 F.3d 434, 443 (D.C.Cir.2002)). In particular, the union need not demonstrate the existence of some particular controversy or the need to dispose of some recognized problem. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 711 F.2d at 361. Rather, we apply a discovery-type standard, Acme, 385 U.S. at 437, 87 S.Ct. 565, under which `[t]he fact that the information is of probable or potential relevance is sufficient to give rise to an obligation . . . to provide it.' Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 711 F.2d at 359 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 239 N.L.R.B. 106, 107 (1978)). There can be little dispute that NYSNA's information request is relevant to the question whether non-bargaining unit NPs are performing bargaining unit work. If true, that practice might well make out a violation of the side letter to the Hospital's collective bargaining agreement with NYSNA. Because NYSNA's representative duties include policing the Hospital's adherence to the collective bargaining agreement, see Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, 711 F.2d at 358, the Union was within its rights to demand the information and the Hospital was obligated to provide it. The Hospital contends that the requested information regarding Columbia NPs is irrelevant to the Union's original grievance, which alleged only that the Hospital had hired non-Union NPs to perform bargaining unit work. If the precise wording of the grievance bounded the scope of the Hospital's duty to provide information, we might agree that the Hospital had no obligation to furnish information regarding NPs not hired by the Hospital. We have held, however, that context is everything in evaluating the relevance of a union's request for information, U.S. Testing Co., 160 F.3d at 19, and we consider the reasons proffered by the union at the time of its request, see Gen. Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 916 F.2d 1163, 1169 (7th Cir.1990) (relevance must be examined as of the time of the demand and refusal). The current dispute arises not from NYSNA's original grievance but from the request for information contained in the Union's October 11, 2007 letter. Indeed, as the ALJ observed, the October 11, 2007 letter was carefully phrased to cover documents about non-Union NPs working on Hospital premises  irrespective of who was their employer.  N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 354 N.L.R.B. No. 5, at  (emphasis in original). The nub of NYSNA's request for information was the Union's concern that non-Union NPs were performing bargaining unit work in the Hospital. We believe that NYSNA has adequately demonstrated the relevance of its request for information. The Hospital also challenges the Board's order and decision on various factual grounds. The Hospital claims, for instance, that it had already furnished the information requested by NYSNA about the shifts worked by bargaining unit NPs employed by the Hospital. The record, however, belies the Hospital's assertion. When Roberta Murphy, NYSNA's representative, was asked during direct examination whether the Union had receive[d] any information to show the shift [ sic ] worked for NYSNA represented employees, she answered, No. Hearing Tr. at 179, N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., No. 2-CA38512 (NLRB Sept. 4, 2008) (Tr. 9/4). Although Murphy admitted during cross examination that the Hospital produced information about the amount of shift differential that was paid to NPs at the Hospital, she maintained that the documents showed only shift differential and [n]ot the shifts worked. Tr. 9/9 at 343-44. The Hospital cites no specific evidence to rebut Murphy's testimony but refers instead to portions of the record detailing the information the Hospital did produce. There is no dispute that the Hospital produced most of the information requested by the Union about bargaining unit NPs. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 354 N.L.R.B. No. 5, at . The question before us, however, is whether the Board's order that the Hospital be required to furnish information about shifts worked by bargaining unit NPs is supported by substantial evidence. In the absence of countervailing evidence, we conclude that it is. The Hospital argues further that the credentialing files in its custody are non-responsive to NYSNA's request for information about non-Union Columbia NPs. We disagree. The Director of Operations of Columbia's Department of Medicine testified that a typical credentialing packet specifies the NP's name, anticipated start date at the Hospital, the unit of the Hospital in which the NP is expected to perform duties, a statement of duties and a collaborative practice agreement with a supervising physician outlining the NP's job duties as it relates to the position. Tr. 9/4 at 199, 201-02, 243. Although it is likely, as the Hospital argues, that the credentialing files do not contain all of the information requested by NYSNAsuch as the Columbia NPs' shifts or full- or part-time statusthis deficiency does not relieve the Hospital of its obligation to produce whatever responsive information it does possess. The Hospital's reliance on cases in which the employer did not possess the information being sought in any form, see, e.g., Detroit Typographical Union No. 18 v. NLRB, 216 F.3d 109, 121 (D.C.Cir.2000), or in which the employer had already furnished all of the information in its possession, see, e.g., Korn Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 389 F.2d 117, 123 (4th Cir.1967), is therefore misplaced.