G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 7
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. and Waste Treat-
ment Security Guards Union 161. Case 19–CA–
221172
January 9, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On March 25, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Elea-
nor Laws issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions with supporting argument and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions1 and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.3
The judge found, among other things, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to furnish the Union with a copy of the contract
between the Respondent and Bechtel National, Inc.
(Bechtel). The judge found that the Union was entitled
to this contract because its relevance was established by
evidence that Bechtel and the Respondent’s predecessor
had been joint employers of the unit employees. Contra-
ry to the judge, we find that the Union failed to establish
the contract’s relevance. Consequently, the Respondent
lawfully refused to give a copy of this contract to the
Union.
The relevant facts, set forth in full in the judge’s deci-
sion, may be briefly summarized as follows. In Novem-
ber 2017, the Respondent succeeded Securitas Security

1 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
did not violate the Act by refusing to furnish certain requested infor-
mation about the cost of “running” the contract between itself and
Bechtel National, Inc. (Bechtel) that did not pertain to unit employees’
wages and benefits.
2 For the reasons stated in her decision, we affirm the judge’s find-
ing that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
failing and refusing to provide Waste Treatment Security Guards Union
161 (the Union) with information about the cost of running the Bechtel
contract that did pertain to unit employees’ wages and benefits. Also
for the reasons stated by the judge, we affirm her finding that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with copies of communications between the Respondent and
Bechtel concerning bargaining unit employees, including requested
post transfers, discipline, negative performance reviews, and lists of
“good” and “bad” employees.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to
our findings herein and to the Board’s standard remedial language, and
we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
Services USA, Inc. (Securitas) as the contract provider of
security services at several Bechtel locations, including a
Richland, Washington waste-treatment plant.4 The Un-
ion is the certified exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of a unit consisting of the Respondent’s full-
time and regular part-time security guards. Shortly be-
fore the Respondent succeeded Securitas, the Union filed
an unfair labor practice charge alleging, among other
things, that Securitas and Bechtel were joint employers.
On September 5, 2017, the Board’s Division of Advice
issued a memorandum opining that Bechtel was a joint
employer with Securitas and summarizing the evidence
on which that opinion was based. The Union and Securi-
tas settled the case.
In May 2018,5 the Union sent the Respondent a series
of information requests seeking, in relevant part, a copy
of the contract between the Respondent and Bechtel. In a
May 20 email, the Union explained that it sought a copy
of the contract to review any agreements the Respondent
had entered into with Bechtel regarding unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment, such as information
related to unit employees’ job duties and Bechtel’s right
to request removal of security officers. On May 21, the
Respondent denied the Union’s request but invited the
Union to provide the Respondent with anything that sup-
ported its belief that the Respondent was required to fur-
nish the contract between itself and Bechtel. On May 22,
the Union provided the Respondent with a copy of the
Advice memorandum concerning Bechtel and Securitas
and stated that the memorandum demonstrated why the
contract was relevant to the Union’s duties as bargaining
representative. On May 24, the Respondent thanked the
Union for providing the Advice memorandum, stated that
it did not see how the memorandum supported the Un-
ion’s claim that it was entitled to the Bechtel-G4S con-
tract, and once again refused to furnish the contract.
The judge found, and it is undisputed, that the contract
between Bechtel and the Respondent is not presumptive-
ly relevant because it does not directly relate to unit em-
ployees’ terms and conditions of employment. The
judge found, however, that relevance was established by
the Union’s May 20 email and by the Advice memoran-
dum “discussing Bechtel’s . . . control over the terms and
conditions of predecessor Securitas Services’ unit em-
ployees.” Accordingly, the judge concluded that by re-

4 This waste-treatment plant is part of a massive cleanup project at
the Hanford site just outside of Richland, where two-thirds of the na-
tion’s plutonium was produced during World War II and the Cold War.
Bechtel is one of the prime contractors at the Hanford site, which is
managed by the United States Department of Energy. See
https://www.hanford.gov (last visited Aug. 21, 2019).
5 All dates are in 2018 unless otherwise noted.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fusing to furnish the Union with a copy of the contract,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Contra-
ry to the judge, and as explained below, we find that the
evidence fails to establish the contract’s relevance and
that, therefore, the Respondent did not violate the Act by
refusing to furnish a copy of it to the Union.
For information that is not presumptively relevant, a
union satisfies its burden of proving relevance by
demonstrating “a reasonable belief supported by objec-
tive evidence for requesting the information.” Shoppers
Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). Suspi-
cion alone is not enough, and “[w]hether a union has
gone beyond ‘mere suspicion’ to show relevance is a
factual question to be decided on a case-by-case basis.”
Postal Service, 310 NLRB 701, 702 (1993). Here, the
evidence relied on by the judge—specifically, the Un-
ion’s May 20 email and the Advice memorandum—falls
short of establishing an objective factual basis for the
Union’s belief that the contract between Bechtel and the
Respondent contains relevant information. The May 20
email merely surmised that the contract might include
provisions that affect unit employees’ terms and condi-
tions of employment. It did not set forth facts supporting
a reasonable belief that the contract actually included
such provisions. Moreover, the Advice memorandum
solely addressed the relationship between Securitas and
Bechtel, including the Securitas-Bechtel contract. If the
Union believed that the contract between the Respondent
and Bechtel contained similar terms, it did not say so
explicitly, nor did it furnish an objective factual basis for
any such unstated belief.6
In finding that relevance was established, the judge ob-
served that the Union’s request was aimed at determining
whether the contract contained relevant information.
However, the Union needed to show an objective factual
basis for believing that the contract contained such in-
formation. Instead, the Union merely suspected as much,
and suspicion alone is not enough. Postal Service, 310
NLRB at 702.7
In support of her finding that the Union demonstrated
relevance, the judge cited Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916,

6 Nothing in the stipulated record ties the Respondent’s contract
with Bechtel to Bechtel’s prior contracts. The fact that the Respondent
succeeded Securitas as the unit employees’ employer means only that
employees continued to do the same jobs; it does not mean they contin-
ued to do so under the same contractual terms.
7 We have affirmed the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(5) by refusing to furnish the Union with copies of communi-
cations between the Respondent and Bechtel concerning bargaining
unit employees, including requested post transfers, discipline, negative
performance reviews, and lists of “good” and “bad” employees, and we
will order the Respondent to provide this information to the Union. It
is conceivable that these communications might enable the Union to
make the demonstration of relevance it has failed to make here.
918–919 (1984), enfd. 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985). The
judge’s reliance on that case was misplaced. In Pfizer,
the employer discharged two employees for fighting, and
the union filed a grievance on behalf of the employee
who had not instigated the fight, contending that the em-
ployer had unfairly disciplined both employees equally.
The employer denied the union’s request for the instiga-
tor’s personnel file, even though it told the union it had
relied on both employees’ personnel files in deciding to
discharge them. In other words, the employer itself pro-
vided the union with the factual basis for believing that
the requested file was relevant to determining if the
grievant had been treated unfairly. Here, there is no con-
tention that the Respondent told the Union that it relied
on its contract with Bechtel to establish any term or con-
dition of the security officers’ employment. Rather, the
Union relied on mere speculation that the contract might
contain relevant information.
In sum, the requested contract between the Respondent
and Bechtel was not presumptively relevant, and the Un-
ion failed to show that it reasonably believed, based on
objective factual evidence, that the contract was relevant.
Accordingly, the Respondent had no obligation to pro-
vide the Union with a copy of the contract, and its failure
to do so did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
as alleged.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, G4S Secure Solutions, Inc., Richland,
Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Waste
Treatment Security Guards Union 161 (the Union) by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per-
formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on May 20, 2018, except
for the Waste Treatment Plant contract and financial in-
formation about running the contract that does not per-
tain to unit employees’ wages and benefits.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Richland, Washington facility copies of the attached
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. 3
notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since May 20, 2018.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 9, 2020
John F. Ring, Chairman
_
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Waste Treatment Security Guards Union 161 (the Union)
by refusing to furnish it with requested information that
is relevant and necessary to the Union's performance as
the collective-bargaining representative of our unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL promptly furnish to the Union the infor-
mation requested by the Union on May 20, 2018, except
for the Waste Treatment Plant contract and financial in-
formation about running the contract that does not per-
tain to unit employees’ wages and benefits.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-221172 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.
Nia Renei Cottrell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Fred Seleman, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried based on a joint motion and stipulation of facts I approved
as Acting Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge on Febru-
ary 6, 2019.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Waste Treatment Plant Security Guards Union 161 (The
Charging Party or Union) filed the charge on May 29, 2018,
and the General Counsel issued the complaint on October 29,
2018.1 G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (the Respondent),
filed a timely answer denying all material allegations.
The complaint alleges the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by
refusing to provide requested information to the Union.
On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and the Respondent,2 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a State of
Florida corporation with a place of business in Richland, Wash-
ington, engaged in the business of providing security services,
including at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in Richland,
Washington. The Respondent is admittedly an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act, and the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent provides security services for the WTP in
Richland, Washington. On November 13, 2017, the Respond-
ent succeeded Securitas Services USA, Inc. as the contract
provider of security services to Bechtel National, Inc. (Bechtel)
at the WTP among other sites and continued to employ a major-
ity of Securitas Services’ employees. The Respondent is an
admitted successor to Securitas Services. (Jt. Stip. ¶¶ 5–6.)4
The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full time and regular part-time security guards, including
leads, employed by Respondent at the Waste Treatment Plant
in Richland, Washington; excluding all other employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(Jt. Stip. ¶ 12.) 0n October 14, 2016, the Board certified the
International Guards Union of America, Region 1 as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit, and De-
cember 21, 2017, the Board amended the certification to reflect
that the Union was the certified exclusive collective-bargaining

1 All dates are in 2018 unless specified otherwise.
2 The Respondent filed a motion to strike parts of the General Coun-
sel’s brief for characterizing allegations as fact. I received the motion
on the day it was filed, March 19, 2019, and had already completed a
draft of my decision without relying whatsoever on anything more than
the agreed-upon stipulations as fact. The motion is therefore moot.
3 The stipulated facts establishing this are set for the in the joint
stipulation at pars. 7–10.
4 “Jt. Exh.” stands for “joint exhibit” and “Jt. Stip. stands for “joint
stipulation of facts.” Although I have included some citations to the
record, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are based not
solely on the evidence specifically cited, but rather are based my review
and consideration of the entire stipulated record.
representation of the unit.
Christopher Phillips (Phillips) is the Respondent’s general
manager, and David Dutro (Dutro) is the Union’s president.
B. The Information Requests
All of the correspondence I am considering was sent by
email.5 The evening of May 17, 2018, Dutro sent the following
email to Phillips:
We would like to make a request of information on the con-
tract between you and Bechtel, because it is relevant to our
representative duties. This is the second request, if you recall
I made a request during our first meeting please provide the
information as soon as possible.
Phillips responded the next morning, May 18:
While G4S recognizes the Union’s right under federal labor
law to certain information, as part of its representative duties,
G4S’s contract with Bechtel is not a document to which the
Union is entitled. As such, G4S is not in a position to provide
a copy of that contract.
Is there a specific question you have that G4S can possibly
provide some additional information or clarity?
Less than an hour later, Dutro replied:
The Union disagrees with your response.
The contract is necessary and relevant to our bargaining duties
for our membership. We can agree to sign a confidentiality
agreement. We absolutely have a right and a relevant need for
that information.
The NLRB has agreed with us in the past that the contract be-
tween company and client is in fact [sic] relevant information
and as such I repeat my request.
Shortly thereafter, Phillips sent the following response:
We respectfully disagree. I you think there is some specific
reason why the contract is something to which the union is
entitled at this time or can point us to some NLRB case law
that says such contracts are generally something to which a
union is entitled, we will take another look at your request.
Thanks.
Dutro sent an email the morning of May 20, setting forth the
reasons for the Union’s request for the contract with Bechtel,
offering to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and requesting
information about the costs of running the WTP contract:
Upon review I understand that our request of information, the
contract between Bechtel and G4S, may have been a little
vague.
So we would like to explain and expand on our reasons why
we have requested the contract.
 Contractual obligations to the client from G4S, to ensure
the union can assist in meeting said obligations.
 Any and all information related to terms and conditions,

5 The email correspondence is contained in Jt. Exhs. D–F.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. 5
wages, hours and work assignments, agreed to by G4S
and Bechtel.
 For proper representation of the union members, any in-
formation related to officer and shift lead duties, includ-
ing training, job descriptions, officer discipline, which is
to include any information related to client request for
removal of officers.
 Any and all information related to safety, including in-
formation about on shift safety representatives.
 The entirety of our work is based off this contract and is
relevant based [sic]
Due to the sensitivity of the information, the union is willing
to sign a non-disclosure agreement with you to show good
faith in the matter.
Furthermore, we would like to request all information con-
cerning the cost of running the WTP contract, including but
not limited to wages, benefits, overhead etc.
The Union reserves the right to request further relevant infor-
mation on this matter. Please provide this information by May
28th. 2018. Please notify me immediately if there are any difficulties in providing any of this information.
A couple minutes later, Dutro requested from Phillips docu-
ments regarding communications between Bechtel and the Re-
spondent about employees:
This is a request of information for communication between
the client, Bechtel, and G4S related to employees. This is in-
cluding, but not limited to, emails and documents exchanged
from the contract award date to current date. Any and all in-
formation, which is including and not limited to requested
post transfers, discipline, negative reviews of employees, lists
of employees that are “good” and “bad”, etc., shared between
the two entities relating to employees is requested. The Union
reserves the right to request further relevant information on
this matter. Please provide this information by May 28th. [sic]
2018. Please notify me immediately if there are any difficul-
ties in providing any of this information.
The next evening, May 21, Phillips denied the Union’s request:
I am in receipt of your request for information. G4S has no
reason to believe that any of the requested information is in-
formation or documents to which the Union is entitled under federal labor law. As such, G4S will not be providing any of the requested
Dutro responded at 11:22 a.m. on May 22, stating:
I understand that G4S believes that the requested information
is not relevant, and do not feel the need to furnish it to the un-
ion. However, the justification that, “G4S feels it is not rele-
vant” is not a legal defense. As such, we will move forward
with the request to the NLRB, if you change your mind we
will be willing to talk.
(Emphasis in original). A little more than an hour later, Dutro
sent the following email, with attachments:
Upon further review and discussion, The Union has decided
to supply you with an appropriate case that displays the con-
tract between G4S and Bechtel is relevant in our bargaining duties and negotiations.
Please review at your earliest convenience and furnish the re-
quested contract, so that we may continue to move forward.
Also as requested during our negotiations on Thursday, May
17th, 2018, here is the settlement agreement between The Un-
ion, Securitas and Bechtel. The settlement became official
Mid-January 2018.
Additionally, we would like to request relevant financial in-
formation again that effects (sic) economic impacts for our
negotiations. We find this critical to moving forward with our
negotiations and to formulate an appropriate proposal for
wages.
Also, please supply us with detailed answers to the following:
 Wait to November for increase in wages
 Only 2-3% initial increase in wages
 Why the Company’s position is that the client can dic-
tate terms and conditions and remove officers, and direct
their day to day work scope, as reflected in the compa-
ny’s management rights clause proposal, as well as prior
discussions with you.
As always, we look forward to your response.
Dutro attached a copy of a settlement agreement between the
Union and, as joint employers, Securitas Services and Bechtel,
approved by the Regional Director for Region 19 on December
21, 2017. (Jt. Exh. G.) 6 The other attachment was a Septem-
ber 5, 2017 advice memorandum from Jayme L. Sophir, Asso-
ciate General Counsel, Division of Advice for the Board, to
Ronald K. Hooks, Regional Director Region 19, opining that
Bechtel had been a joint employer with Securitas Services, and
that the Union had not waived its right to Bargain with Bechtel
as a joint employer with Securitas Services back in 2016. (Jt.
Exh. H.)7 The advice memo also discussed Bechtel’s control
over the terms and conditions of the unit employees’ employ-
ment with predecessor Securitas Services.
Phillips provided the following response on May 24:
Thank you for forwarding those materials. However, after
careful review, we don't see how they support the Union’s
claim that it is entitled to the requested information in connec-
tion with ongoing bargaining between the Union and G4S
over a first CBA. As such, we will not be providing the re-
quested information or contract.
The requests at issue in the complaint can be summed up as
follows: (1) The contract between the Respondent and Bechtel;
(2) The costs of running the WTP contract; and (3) Communi-
cation between the Respondent and Bechtel related to the Re-
spondent’s employees. As of the time of this decision, the Re-
spondent had not provided the information.

6 The version of the settlement agreement attached to Dutro’s May
22 email was only signed by the Union. Regardless, I am not consider-
ing the execution of the agreement as material to my decision. See
Respondent’s closing brief, p. 5.
7 Neither the settlement agreement nor the advice memorandum es-
tablish legal precedent on any issue.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, each party to a bar-
gaining relationship is required to bargain in good faith. Part of
that obligation is that both sides are required to furnish relevant
information upon request. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432 (1967). This duty is statutory and exists regardless of
whether there is a collective-bargaining agreement between the
parties. American Standard, 203 NLRB 1132 (1973).
The employer’s duty to provide relevant information exists
because without the information, the union is unable to perform
its statutory duties as the employees’ bargaining agent. Like a
flat refusal to bargain, “[t]he refusal of an employer to provide
a bargaining agent with information relevant to the Union's task
of representing its constituency is a per se violation of the Act”
without regard to the employer’s subjective good or bad faith.
Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 220 NLRB 189, 191 (1975); Procter
& Gamble Mfg. Co., 237 NLRB 747, 751 (1978), enfd. 603
F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979).
In determining possible relevance, the Board does not pass
upon the merits, and the labor organization is not required to
demonstrate that the information is accurate, not hearsay, or
even, ultimately reliable. Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822
(2002). Information concerning employees in the bargaining
unit and their terms and conditions of employment, is deemed
“so intrinsic to the core of the employer-employee relationship”
to be presumptively relevant. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB
1256, 1257 (2007); Sands Hotel & Casino, 324 NLRB 1101,
1109 (1997). Presumptively relevant information must be fur-
nished on request to employees’ collective-bargaining repre-
sentatives unless the employer establishes legitimate affirma-
tive defenses to the production of the information. Metta Elec-
tric, 349 NLRB 1088 (2007); Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635
(2000).
When the requested information does not concern subjects
directly pertaining to the bargaining unit, such material is not
presumptively relevant, and the burden is upon the labor organ-
ization to demonstrate the relevance of the material sought.
Disneyland Park, supra, at 1257; Richmond Health Care, 332
NLRB 1304, 1305 fn. 1 (2000). To determine relevance, the
Board uses a “liberal, discovery-type standard” that requires
only that the requested information have “some bearing upon”
the issue between the parties and be “of probable use to the
labor organization in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.”
Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 360 NLRB 573, 574 (2014);
Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635, 636 (2000). The Union’s bur-
den to establish relevance of information requests concerning
employees outside the bargaining unit is “not exceptionally
heavy.” A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB 499, 500
(2011). An articulation of general relevance, however, is insuf-
ficient. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. NLRB, 744 F.2d 536
(6th Cir. 1984); F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. , 316 NLRB
1312, 1313 (1995). The Union must demonstrate a reasonable
belief supported by objective evidence that the requested in-
formation is relevant, unless the relevance of the information
should have been apparent to the Respondent under the circum-
stances. Disneyland Park, supra at 1258 (2007).
A. The Contract
Complaint paragraphs 6(a)-(c) and 7 allege that the Re-
spondent’s refusal to provide a copy of its contract with Bechtel
violated the Act.
The request does not concern subjects directly pertaining to
the bargaining unit, thus the Union must establish relevance.8
Here, the Union was on notice that Bechtel was potentially a
joint employer with the Respondent, with attendant bargaining
obligations. The Union was also on notice that Bechtel exer-
cised control over employees’ terms and conditions of em-
ployment with the Respondent’s predecessor. By articulating
the specific reasons as they related to bargaining for requesting
the contract it its May 20 email, and by providing the advice
memorandum discussing Bechtel’s status and its control over
the terms and conditions of predecessor Securitas Services’ unit
employees, the Union shared this with the Respondent, demon-
strating relevance.
The Respondent cites to F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., supra
at 1312–1313 (1995), where the union requested all of the em-
ployer’s customer contracts in response to the employer’s rejec-
tion of its proposal to increase standardized wages, asserting
that its customer contracts varied. The Board determined that
“the General Counsel cannot plausibly claim that the Union
would need to examine the contracts in order to assure itself
that the customers were not all paying the Respondent exactly
the same amount on each contract.” Id. at 1313.9 The situation
here is different, and the Union has established a need to exam-
ine the contract with Bechtel to determine whether it was a
potential joint employer, and/or to determine what, if any,
terms and conditions of the unit employees’ work the contract
covered.
The Respondent claims the General Counsel relies on incor-
rect assumptions regarding its predecessor Securitas Services’
relationship with Bechtel. Regardless of what the General
Counsel may or may not have assumed, the Union has estab-
lished relevance. There was no need for the General Counsel to
establish a joint employer relationship between the Respondent
and/or its predecessor and Bechtel, or even to show the prede-
cessor acknowledged a joint employer relationship. The re-
quest was aimed at determining whether there was such a po-
tential relationship or whether the contract otherwise covered
terms and conditions of employment like the contract with the
Respondent’s predecessor did. See Pfizer, Inc. 268 NLRB 916,
918 (1984); “[P]otential or probable relevance is sufficient to

8 The Respondent repeatedly misstates the Union’s burden as one of
overcoming a presumption of irrelevance for information such as a
customer contract. See Respondent’s closing brief, pp. 7–8, 14–15.
There is no legal presumption of irrelevance for the Union to over-
come; the Union must simply establish relevance under the legal stand-
ards articulated herein. Even if such a presumption applied, it has been
effectively rebutted.
9 The Respondent also cites to Station GVR Acquisition, LLC , 366
NLRB No. 175, slip op. at 2 fn. 6 (2018), but in that case the Board
denied summary judgment to the General Counsel because the union’s
requests for contract agreements and for covenants did not seek pre-
sumptively relevant information. The analysis went no further, as the
issue was remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate
action.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. 7
give rise to an employer's obligation to provide information.”
Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB at 1258 (citing Richmond Health
Care, 332 NLRB at 1305 fn.1). Determining the appropriate
entities for purposes of bargaining is certainly relevant and
necessary to the union’s proper performance of its statutory
duties and responsibilities. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co. supra;
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
Based on the foregoing, I find the Union provided the Re-
spondent with an objective factual basis for believing that the
contract between the Respondent and Bechtel was potentially
relevant for the Union to meet its bargaining obligations. Ac-
cordingly, I find the General Counsel has met her burden to
prove this complaint allegation.
B. The Financial Information
Complaint paragraphs 6(e) and 7 allege that the Respond-
ent’s refusal to provide information about the cost of running
the WTP contract violated the Act. Specifically, in a May 20
email, the Union requested “all information concerning the cost
of running the WTP contract, including but not limited to wag-
es, benefits, overhead etc.”
The Board has consistently held that the Act does not permit
an employer simply to refuse to respond to an ambiguous or
overbroad request, but rather requires the employer to request a
clarification, or to comply to the extent that the request for
information clearly asks for necessary and relevant information.
Azabu USA (Kona) Co, 298 NLRB 702 (1990); Masonic Hall
& Asylum Fund, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); Mobay Chem. Corp.,
233 NLRB 109 (1977).
Information as to wages and benefits of bargaining-unit em-
ployees is presumptively relevant, so this requested information
should have been provided. The Respondent violated the Act
by refusing to do so.10 See Merchant Fast Motor Lines, Inc.,
324 NLRB 562, 563 (1997)(Information about contractual re-
tirement benefits of unit employees is presumptively relevant,
and the union is not required to prove a need for it).
The requested financial information not pertaining to bar-
gaining-unit employees’ wages and benefits, however, is not
presumptively relevant. To establish the Union’s entitlement to
the information, the General Counsel must show the Union’s
request was in response to an assertion the Respondent was
unable to pay the Union’s demands, or that it was otherwise
relevant. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra; AMF Trucking &
Warehousing, 342 NLRB 1125, 1126 (2004), National Extru-
sion & Mfg. Co., 357 NLRB 127, 128 (2011). The stipulated
record is devoid of any fact indicating the Respondent stated it
was unable to meet any of the Union’s financial conditions or
demands, and the General Counsel has not otherwise estab-
lished relevancy. The General Counsel asserts that the financial
information was basic information necessary for the Union to
meet its bargaining obligations. This is insufficient to prove
relevance. See Island Creek Coal, 292 NLRB 480, 490 fn. 19
(1989). Accordingly, the General Counsel has not met her

10 It is unclear whether any non-bargaining-unit employees worked
under the WTP contract, but if they did, the information as to their
wages and benefits is not presumptively relevant and would not need to
be provided absent a showing of relevance. The same holds true for the
information detailed in complaint paragraph 6(d), discussed below.
burden to prove the Respondent violated the Act by refusing to
provide financial information not directly pertaining to the
bargaining unit.
C. Information Re: Communications Regarding Employees
Complaint paragraphs 6(d) and 7 allege that the Respond-
ent’s refusal to provide information about communications it
had with Bechtel concerning employees violated the Act. Spe-
cifically, on May 20, the Union requested information about
requested post transfers, discipline, negative reviews of em-
ployees, lists of employees that are “good” and “bad,” etc.
The information requested concerns the terms and conditions
of the unit employees and is therefore presumptively relevant.
The only real argument the Respondent makes is that this was
an end-run around getting at information in the Respondent’s
contract with Bechtel. This is of no moment, other than per-
haps as an implicit acknowledgement that the contract may
contain information of potential relevance to the Union as the
employees’ bargaining agent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing to provide relevant information to the Union,
the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
2. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found the Respondent refused to provide relevant in-
formation to the Union, the Respondent shall be required to
provide this information, as specified in the proposed Order
below.
I will recommend that the Respondent post a notice at its
Richland, Washington facility.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
Respondent, G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., its offic-
ers, successors and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from failing and refusing to provide rele-
vant requested information when requests for relevant infor-
mation are made by Waste Treatment Security Guards Union
161.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the Act.
(a) Provide the Union with a copy of the contract between
the Respondent and Bechtel;
(b) Provide the Union with copies of all communications be-

11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tween the Respondent and Bechtel related to the Respondent’s
bargaining unit employees, including, but not limited to the
following: Copies of all emails and documents exchanged be-
tween Respondent and Bechtel from the contract award date to
current date concerning employees, including but not limited to
requested post transfers, discipline, negative reviews of em-
ployees, and lists of employees that are “good” and “bad.”
(c) Provide the Union with information concerning the cost
of running the WTP contract as it pertains to the terms and
conditions of bargaining-unit employees including, but not
limited to, wages, benefits, and other related factors.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Richland, Washington, on, facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since May 17, 2018.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 25, 2019
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.

12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Waste Treatment Security
Guards Union 161 with relevant information it requests in order
to perform its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the following unit of employees:
All full time and regular part-time security guards, including
leads, employed by Respondent at the Waste Treatment Plant
in Richland, Washington; excluding all other employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL provide the following requested information to the
Union:
 A copy of the contract between the Respondent and
Bechtel.
 Copies of all communications between the Respondent
and Bechtel related to the Respondent’s bargaining-unit
employees, including, but not limited to emails and doc-
uments exchanged between Respondent and Bechtel
from the contract award date to current date concerning
requested post transfers, discipline, negative reviews of
employees, and lists of employees that are “good” and
“bad”.
 Information concerning the cost of running the WTP
contract as it pertains to the terms and conditions of bar-
gaining-unit employees including, but not limited to,
wages, benefits, and other related factors.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
you by Section 7 of the Act.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-221172 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.