Court Opinion

ID: 9960650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 19:00:45.422771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:44.064847
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 16 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS                        No. 23-519
BOARD,

             Petitioner,                        MEMORANDUM*

 v.

PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         National Labor Relations Board

                           Submitted March, 11, 2024**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: R. NELSON, FORREST, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      The National Labor Relations Board (Board) seeks enforcement of its order

concluding that Respondent The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (TMPG) engaged

in unfair labor practices by failing to produce relevant information requested by the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
National Union of Healthcare Workers (Union) and by untimely producing the

requested information that it did provide. TMPG opposes enforcement of the

Board’s order, arguing that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s

conclusions that TPMG violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). We

have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f), and we grant the Board’s

application for enforcement.

      “This court upholds decisions of the NLRB ‘if its findings of fact are

supported by substantial evidence and if the Board correctly applied the law,’ and

defers to any ‘reasonably defensible’ interpretation of the [Act].” Retlaw Broad. Co.

v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting NLRB v. Gen. Truck Drivers,

Loc. No. 315, 20 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 1994)).

      1. Refusal to Provide Information. Under § 8(a)(5) of the Act, an employer

has a duty “to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.” 29

U.S.C. § 158(a)(5). “It has long been established that the obligation to bargain

collectively in good faith includes an employer’s duty to furnish information which

the union needs to carry out its statutory duties and responsibilities . . . .” Press

Democrat Pub. Co. v. NLRB, 629 F.2d 1320, 1324 (9th Cir. 1980). When a union

requests information from an employer that is “not presumptively relevant” to the

union’s duties, as here, the union has the burden to demonstrate a “reasonable belief,

                                        2                                    23-519
supported by objective evidence, that the requested information is relevant.”

Disneyland Park, 350 N.L.R.B. 1256, 1257–58 (2007).

      Here, the Board reviewed the Union’s requests for information and made

factual findings as to each category. TPMG does not address the Board’s

individualized findings. Rather, TPMG argues broadly that the Board erroneously

concluded that the Union reasonably believed the information it requested was

relevant. We disagree. As the Board concluded, the Union demonstrated that the

requested information would allow it to establish a baseline for assessing

forthcoming recommendations made by a collaborative committee that was created

by the collective bargaining agreement. And seeking the information one day before

the committee was to give a progress report and a few months before the committee’s

final report was due was not premature. The Union’s request was also supported by

objective evidence that demonstrated the requested information was relevant to the

committee’s objectives and purpose. TMPG offers no reason, other than conclusory

allegations, for rejecting the Board’s findings that the Union met its burden of

showing relevance under the “liberal discovery standard.” NLRB v. Associated Gen.

Contractors of Cal., Inc., 633 F.2d 766, 770–72 (9th Cir. 1980).

      2.   Untimely Production. An employer has a duty to provide relevant

information requested by a union in a timely manner. See Woodland Clinic, 331

                                       3                                   23-519
N.L.R.B. 735, 736 (2000). The Board concluded that TPMG’s three-month delay in

providing requested information violated the Act.

      First, TPMG challenges this finding, arguing that “there can be no delay in

providing information that cannot be lawfully sought in the first instance” because

there was no evidence the information was “relevant to anything three months in

advance of the [committee’s] recommendations.” This argument fails because it

simply repeats the same relevancy arguments discussed above. As the Board

concluded, “[r]equesting relevant data 3 months before the [committee] presented

its final report, in order to prepare for a review of those recommendations, is not

somehow premature or temporally inappropriate.”

      Second, TPMG argues that because it produced information requested by the

Union within days of the committee’s final report, when TPMG deemed the

information relevant, the production was timely. This is incorrect. “[T]he Union was

entitled to the information at the time it made its initial request, [and] it was

[TMPG’s] duty to furnish it as promptly as possible.” Woodland Clinic, 331

N.L.R.B. at 737 (second alteration in original) (quoting Pennco, Inc., 212 N.L.R.B.

677, 678 (1974)). The timeliness of production is determined based on all the

circumstances. See W. Penn. Power Co., 339 N.L.R.B. 585, 587 (2003) (“In

evaluating the promptness of the response, the Board will consider the complexity

and extent of information sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the

                                         4                                    23-519
information.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). TPMG does not contend that

producing the information was overly burdensome, and it fails to justify its months-

long delay.

      PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.

                                       5                                   23-519