Court Opinion

ID: 9901562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 01:00:34.171347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:35.182302
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60075        Document: 00516976324             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-60075
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                              November 21, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Johns Manville Corporation,

                                                            Petitioner/Cross-Respondent,

                                            versus

   National Labor Relations Board,

                                           Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
                     ______________________________

                   Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board
                             Agency No. 08-CA-270764
                    ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Johns Manville Corporation (“Johns Manville”) petitions for review
   of a National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) decision and order
   determining that Johns Manville violated Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the
   National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) by failing and refusing to furnish
   information, requested by the union that represents its employees, which was
   relevant and necessary to a grievance filed by a Johns Manville employee and

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60075     Document: 00516976324           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

   union bargaining unit member. The Board cross-applies for enforcement of
   its order. For the following reasons, we DENY Johns Manville’s petition
   and GRANT the Board’s cross-application.
                 I. Factual and Procedural History
          Johns Manville manufactures and warehouses building products in
   facilities across the country, including three facilities in Waterville and
   Maumee, Ohio. Plant 1 and Plant 7, and their auxiliary warehouses, are
   located in Waterville, and the Kingsbury warehouse is located in Maumee.
   Each of these three locations employs bargaining unit workers. The
   International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 20 (“Union”) is
   a labor union that represents Johns Manville employees at its three Ohio-area
   facilities. The Union and Johns Manville have entered into successive
   collective bargaining agreements since approximately 1970. Article III of the
   current bargaining agreement governs the recognition of the Union as the
   exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees.
          This case arises from a grievance filed by Ramon LaBiche, an
   employee in the bargaining unit represented by the Union. LaBiche alleged
   that Johns Manville violated its bargaining agreement with the Union by
   using non-bargaining unit employees to perform unit work at two third-party
   warehouses, Global One Distribution or Global Distribution Center
   (“GDC”) and Maumee Assembly. Paul Konwinski, the vice president and
   business representative for the Union, investigated LaBiche’s allegations.
   Konwinski met with LaBiche, examined relevant bills of lading, and observed
   warehouse operations. Based on this initial investigation, the Union decided
   that it needed more information bearing on whether unit work was performed
   at those warehouses. It then filed the information request at issue with Johns
   Manville. In turn, Johns Manville refused to furnish the Union with (1) copies
   of the contract or (2) copies of all correspondence between or among GDC,

                                         2
Case: 23-60075      Document: 00516976324          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

   Maumee Assembly, and Johns Manville (or any of its affiliates), related to the
   work being performed at GDC and Maumee Assembly.
          When Johns Manville refused to produce the requested information,
   the Union filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the Board alleging that
   Johns Manville’s refusal violated its statutory duty to bargain, which includes
   providing requested information relevant and necessary to the Union’s
   representational duties. The Regional Director found merit in the Union’s
   claims, and the matter was heard before an Administrative Law Judge
   (“ALJ”). After the hearing, the ALJ determined that Johns Manville’s
   conduct violated Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because its refusal
   to provide the requested information violated the Union’s statutory duty to
   bargain. The Board considered and affirmed the ALJ’s rulings and adopted
   the recommended order. Johns Manville then filed the instant petition with
   this court.
                          II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          We will affirm the Board’s findings of fact if they are “supported by
   substantial evidence on the record, considered as a whole.” Poly-Am., Inc. v.
   NLRB, 260 F.3d 465, 476 (5th Cir. 2001). “Substantial evidence is that which
   is relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to
   support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a
   preponderance.” El Paso Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 681 F.3d 651, 656 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (emphasis omitted) (quoting Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir.
   1993)). Under the substantial evidence standard, the ALJ’s decision stands
   “if a reasonable person could have found what the ALJ found, even if the
   appellate court might have reached a different conclusion.” Tellepsen Pipeline
   Servs. Co. v. NLRB, 320 F.3d 554, 559 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Valmont Indus.
   v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454, 463 (5th Cir. 2001)). “The Board’s determination
   of relevance of the information sought [by a union] in a particular case must

                                          3
Case: 23-60075      Document: 00516976324          Page: 4      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

   be given great weight by the courts, if only because it is a finding on a mixed
   question of law and fact, ‘which is within the particular expertise of the
   Board.’” NLRB v. U.S. Postal Serv., 128 F.3d 280, 287 (5th Cir. 1997)
   (quoting NLRB v. Brazos Elec. Power Coop., 615 F.2d 1100, 1101 (5th Cir.
   1980)).
          Challenges to legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, Asarco, Inc. v.
   NLRB, 86 F.3d 1401, 1406 (5th Cir. 1996), while procedural and evidentiary
   rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Marathon LeTourneau Co.,
   Longview Div. v. NLRB, 699 F.2d 248, 254 (5th Cir. 1983).
                                III. DISCUSSION
          Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA outlaws as “unfair labor practices” any
   employer activities that “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
   exercise of the rights guaranteed in [Section 7].” 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1).
   Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA mandates that an employer must provide a
   union with relevant information that is necessary for the proper performance
   of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. Detroit Edison Co. v.
   NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). And since the NLRA “makes it an unfair
   labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain in good faith with the
   representative of his employees,” NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 149
   (1956), a refusal to furnish information to a bargaining representative “may
   constitute a breach of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith.” NLRB
   v. CJC Holdings, Inc., 97 F.3d 114, 117 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Purple
   Commc’ns, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 26 (2020) (reprimanding an employer for
   “failing and refusing to furnish [a union] with requested information that is
   relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the
   collective-bargaining   representative    of    the   [the   employer’s]   unit
   employees”).

                                         4
Case: 23-60075     Document: 00516976324           Page: 5   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

          The “key inquiry” is whether the information sought by the union is
   “relevant to its duties.” NLRB v. Leonard B. Herbert, Jr. & Co., 696 F.2d
   1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1983). The standard for establishing relevancy is the
   “liberal, discovery-type standard.” Id. (citing Acme, 385 U.S. at 438, 438
   n.6); see also Alcan Rolled Prods., 358 NLRB 37, 40 (2012). Unlike requesting
   bargaining unit data (i.e., bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of
   employment), “when a union requests non-bargaining unit data, such as
   subcontracting costs, that information is not considered presumptively
   relevant.” Sara Lee v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 422, 431 (5th Cir. 2008).
   Consequently, “the union has the initial burden of establishing relevancy
   before the employer must comply with the information request.” Id.; see also
   NLRA, § 8(a)(5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(5).
          A union bears the burden of showing relevancy where the requested
   information is “not ordinarily pertinent to its performance as bargaining
   representative, but alleged to have become relevant due to particular
   circumstances.” Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. & Co., 696 F.2d at 1124; NLRB v.
   PDK Invs., LLC, 433 F. App’x 297, 301 (5th Cir. 2011). First, the union must
   show, at the time of the information request, that it articulated a legitimate
   purpose for seeking the information. Sara Lee, 514 F.3d at 431. Second, the
   union must show that the information it requested bears a logical relationship
   to a legitimate union purpose. Id.
          For the reasons explained below, we hold that Johns Manville’s
   refusal to furnish information requested by the Union amounted to unfair
   labor practices because (1) the Union had a legitimate purpose for requesting
   the information and (2) the information requested had a logical relationship
   to the Union’s grievance and enforcement of the bargaining agreement. Id.

                                         5
Case: 23-60075      Document: 00516976324          Page: 6   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

      A. Legitimate Purpose
          The ALJ determined that the Union had articulated legitimate reasons
   for seeking the requested information, specifically the need to evaluate and
   investigate the grievance allegations, prepare for the grievance process that
   was initiated by LaBiche, and ensure Johns Manville’s compliance with the
   bargaining agreement. On appeal, Johns Manville contends that (1) the
   Union failed to state a legitimate purpose for the requested information and
   (2) the requested contracts and correspondence were not needed to
   determine if Johns Manville’s use of the warehouses violated the bargaining
   agreement. Johns Manville maintains that the Union’s articulated need for
   the requested information is based on nothing more than “unsupported
   assertions” and “mere suspicion.”
          We agree with the Board and the ALJ that the requested information
   was relevant and necessary to the Union’s representational role in the
   grievance process and enforcing the bargaining agreement.
                 “[T]he Board has long held that Section 8(a)(5)
                 of the Act obligates an employer to furnish
                 requested information which is potentially
                 relevant to the processing of grievances. An
                 actual grievance need not be pending nor must
                 the requested information clearly dispose of the
                 grievance. It is sufficient if the requested
                 information is potentially relevant to a
                 determination as to the merits of a grievance or
                 an evaluation as to whether a grievance should be
                 pursued.”
   Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992) (citing United Tech.
   Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985)). Thus, the Union was entitled to the
   information at issue to determine if it was prudent and appropriate to file and
   proceed with a grievance. Moreover, the Board has persistently held that a

                                         6
Case: 23-60075     Document: 00516976324           Page: 7   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

   union has a vested interest in monitoring the collective bargaining agreement
   to ensure that the employer remains in compliance. Purple Commc’ns, Inc.,
   370 NLRB No. 26 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that
   “a requesting union is entitled to data requested in order to properly
   administer and police a collective-bargaining agreement”).
          Not only did the Union articulate legitimate reasons for the requested
   information, but it also offered objective evidence sufficient to support its
   reasonable belief that bargaining unit work had been subcontracted in
   violation of the bargaining agreement at the two warehouses. A union satisfies
   its burden of showing a legitimate purpose by demonstrating “a reasonable
   belief supported by objective evidence for requesting the information.” PDK
   Invs., 433 F. App’x at 301. The ALJ determined, and we agree, that
   Konwinski’s personal observations of warehouse operations, analysis of bills
   of lading, and interviews all objectively corroborated the charge that Johns
   Manville’s use of the warehouses and non-bargaining unit employees
   contravened the bargaining agreement and that the requested information
   was relevant to processing the grievance and ascertaining whether bargaining
   unit work had been subcontracted.
      B. Logical Relationship
          The ALJ also determined that the information requested by the Union
   conveyed a logical relationship to its legitimate purpose of investigating the
   grievance allegations and monitoring compliance with the bargaining
   agreement. On appeal, Johns Manville contends that no such logical
   relationship exists because its contracts and other correspondence with third-
   party warehouses relate to non-bargaining unit employees and entities not
   covered by the bargaining agreement. Apropos to that, we agree with the
   Board and the ALJ that “[i]t is precisely because [Johns Manville] might be,
   through the third-party warehouses, using nonbargaining unit employees to

                                         7
Case: 23-60075     Document: 00516976324           Page: 8   Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-60075

   perform work normally performed by bargaining unit workers that gives the
   Union a legitimate reason to be concerned that [Johns Manville] is using
   these third-party warehouses to circumvent provisions of the [collective
   bargaining agreement] which reserves certain job functions for bargaining
   unit employees.” In other words, we agree that there is a logical relationship
   to a legitimate purpose.
          The ALJ determined that the information Johns Manville provided
   (the articles of organization for both warehouses and other publicly available
   information) failed to sufficiently address its possible financial or other
   interest in GDC and Maumee Assembly. A copy of the contract and
   correspondence between Johns Manville and the warehouses is relevant in
   determining whether Johns Manville subcontracted bargaining unit work in
   violation of the bargaining agreement. The information sought would (1)
   reveal the type of work Johns Manville had moved to GDC or Maumee
   Assembly and the extent of its business relationship with them and (2) reveal
   if an unlawful transfer of bargaining unit work to GDC or Maumee Assembly
   took place. We agree with the Board and the ALJ that Johns Manville’s
   conduct constitutes a violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1). Accordingly,
   we conclude that the ALJ’s holding is not in error. Asarco, 86 F.3d at 1406
   (“As to questions of law, we review the decision de novo; however, if the
   NLRB has given a ‘reasonably defensible’ construction of a statute, we will
   affirm the decision.”).
                               IV. Conclusion
          For the aforementioned reasons, Johns Manville’s petition is
   DENIED. The Board’s cross-application for enforcement is GRANTED.

                                         8