Opinion ID: 196952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevance of the Internal Consolidation.

Text: also found that MNA's requests for information regarding the consolidation were relevant. This finding cannot seriously be questioned. MNA initially sought this information in the summer of 1993. It honed the information requests and renewed them several times in the succeeding months. Aside from broad denials that the consolidation would have any effect on the bargaining units, management's first substantive response came late in 1994 (after MNA had preferred charges and the Board was on the verge of issuing a complaint). In the intervening fifteen months (during 9The Hospitals' asseveration that they could not explain the need for confidentiality without revealing privileged information proves too much. If that was the case, then the Hospitals were obliged to cite that dilemma in response to the MNA's requests. They did not do so. 19 which interval MNA made five separate requests for information about the consolidation) the Hospitals laid off more than 200 workers. In light of the continuing uncertainty about imminent corporate restructuring uncertainty fed by statements attributable to management MNA reasonably could have believed that further changes were in the offing. Consequently, the Board plausibly could have found as it did that the requested information had great importance to the union and was, therefore, relevant. This is especially so in view of the fact that the collective bargaining agreement at Providence Hospital expired on December 31, 1994, unless automatically renewed, and MNA had to decide no later than October 1, 1994 whether to allow the contract to renew automatically or to reopen negotiations. The Hospitals offer no convincing rebuttal to the Board's relevancy finding. As the Board noted, see Providence Hosp., 1996 WL 48263, at , the Hospitals' position boils down to a naked assertion that the union had to take management at its word that the organizational changes portended no further alterations in staffing. That is not the way the world works: a union is not bound to accept management's ipse dixit, especially when, as now, the totality of the circumstances indicates that something else may be afoot. Here, extensive layoffs had followed past assurances from management, and the union had every reason to probe. It requested information which, if extant, had undeniable relevance for the purpose of effects bargaining. Thus, MNA had a statutory right to receive this information in a 20 timely fashion, or in lieu thereof to receive a contemporaneous written statement as to some legally sufficient reason why it could not be produced (say, that no such information existed or that it was somehow privileged).10 4. Substantial Compliance. We dismiss out of hand the