Oncor Electric Delivery LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 40
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.
Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 69. Case 16–CA–212174
March 6, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On April 4, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Robert A.
Ringler issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions with supporting argument, the General
Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed
a reply brief. The Union filed cross-exceptions with sup-
porting argument, and the Respondent filed an answering
brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm
the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the
extent consistent with this Decision and Order.1
I. BACKGROUND
The Respondent is an electric utility company with a fa-
cility in Dallas, Texas. On May 4 and October 6, 2017,2
the Union filed grievances3 over the Respondent’s assign-
ment of “storm evaluation work” to non-unit workers in
violation of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.
In conjunction with the grievances, the Union submitted
14 information requests on June 5. On August 28, the Un-
ion restated these requests and added five information re-
quests. Of these 19 requests, only 13 are at issue here.4
They are as follows:
1. [N]ames of . . . non-bargaining unit Oncor employ-
ees who have performed storm evaluation work for On-
cor from January 1, 2016 to the present.

1 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to our
findings and to the Board’s standard remedial language, and we shall
substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
The Union cross-excepts to the judge’s proposed remedy, specifically
his failure expressly to order the Respondent to provide information in
response to its requests up to the present and to update that information
on a monthly basis. We believe that our standard remedial language is
sufficient to remedy the violations found. Any issues regarding the ex-
tent of the Respondent’s obligation may be resolved in compliance.
2 All dates are 2017 unless otherwise indicated.
3 The May 4 grievance stated that “[s]ince, on or about March 29,
2017, the Company violated [the contract] when they utilized office per-
sonnel to troubleshoot the electrical grid in Fort Worth, Texas, after a
2. [Their] regular position with Oncor at the time he/she
performed storm evaluation work.
3. [D]ates and amount of time worked by each in storm
evaluation work since January 1, 2016[.]
4. [R]egular pay rate[s] for such employee[s] from Jan-
uary 1, 2016 to the present.
5. [W]hether Oncor provided any additional pay or
compensation, and if so, how much (and what such pay
was called . . .), to such employee[s] for storm evalua-
tion work.
6. Oncor’s reason, if any, for not using bargaining unit
members to perform such work.
7. [S]pot bonuses, work orders, memos, emails, and
other records describing the work done [for] each inci-
dent of storm evaluation.
8. [S]eniority date . . . present job position, and . . . any
training he/she has been provide by Oncor that Oncor
contends is sufficient to permit him/her to properly and
safely perform storm evaluation work.
9. [I]ndividuals that Oncor has provided Damage Eval-
uation Training from July 1, 2015, through the present.
10. [I]ndividuals that Oncor has provided I-Dispatch
Storm Support Training from July 1, 2015, through the
present.
11. [I]ndividuals that Oncor has provided Mobile TC
Storm Training from July 1, 2015 through the present.
12. [N]ames of all new Oncor employees assigned as
Damage Evaluators on or after January 1, 2016.
13. [N]ames of all “more experienced employees who
have served as Damage Evaluators during previous
storms” . . . on or after January 1, 2016.
We adopt the judge’s findings that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to com-
ply with the Union’s Requests 1–5 and 8–13.5 However,
storm.” The October 6 grievance broadened the May 4 grievance, stating
that “[s]ince, on or about March 29, 2017, and in other instances now
known to the Union, plus instances the Company has not disclosed to the
Union but that the Union is seeking to identify, the Company has violated
[the contract] by utilizing non-bargaining unit personnel for damage
evaluation and/or storm evaluation work.” The Respondent denied these
grievances.
4 Requests 9 through 14 made on June 5 are not at issue here. As a
result, the complaint, the judge’s decision, and the parties’ briefs refer to
the five additional August 28 requests as numbers 9 through 13. For
consistency, we will do the same.
5 For request 1, we agree with the judge that the information is rele-
vant to investigate the Union’s grievances alleging the use of nonunit
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judge’s
finding that the Respondent violated the Act by failing to
provide all of the information sought by requests 6 and 7.
I. INFORMATION REQUEST 6
Request 6 sought the Respondent’s reason for not using
bargaining unit members to perform storm evaluation
work. The judge found that the requested information
could have facilitated bargaining and productive discus-
sions on the issue of diversion of unit work. The Respond-
ent argues that it did not provide its reasoning for using
nonunit employees because it did not exist and, further,
claims that it could not respond to this request because the
Union failed to specify the relevant storms.
We find merit in the Respondent’s exception. With re-
gard to the work at issue, the parties’ collective-bargaining
agreement states: “Supervisors and other Company em-
ployees not covered under this Labor Agreement will not
perform work normally performed by bargaining unit em-
ployees where such work would result in the reduction of
the regular work hours of an employee covered by this
agreement.” The Respondent has conceded that it used
nonunit employees to perform storm evaluation work.
Therefore, the only question to be answered is whether the
Respondent’s use of nonunit employees led to a reduction
of the regular work hours of unit employees. Because we
fail to see how the Respondent’s reasons for assigning
work to nonunit employees are relevant to that determina-
tion, we find that the Respondent did not violate the Act
by failing to provide the information described in request
6.6
II. INFORMATION REQUEST 7
In the June 5 information request, Request 7 asked the
Respondent to provide, among other documents, work or-
ders for each incident of storm evaluation. The work or-
ders contained a great deal of information, including the
names of the employees (both unit and nonunit) who per-
formed the work, the amount of time it took to perform the
work, the location or address of the work, and the names
of customers. In its June 23 response, the Respondent ob-
jected to the request, asserting that it was both unduly bur-
densome and sought nonrelevant information about non–
bargaining unit employees. Nevertheless, the Respondent
agreed that it would make the work orders available for

employees to perform bargaining unit work. See AGA Gas, 307 NLRB
1327, 1327 fn. 2 (1992) (finding requested information about nonunit
employees relevant to determine whether the employer’s actions violated
the collective-bargaining agreement and whether the union had a viable
grievance). Member Kaplan agrees that this result is consistent with cur-
rent Board precedent and joins his colleagues in finding a violation.
However, he believes that a heightened requirement for finding nonunit
employee names relevant may better protect the privacy interests of those
the Union to review in person at a mutually agreeable time
and location. On August 28, the Union asked for the work
orders to be provided “electronically in a searchable form"
and, thereafter, the Respondent and Union continued to
exchange letters about the many information requests and
grievances. Then, on February 26, 2018, the Respondent
replied that it had approximately 120,000 work orders
from January 1, 2016, through the present and reminded
the Union of its earlier offer for the Union to review the
work orders in person. Because the work orders contain
customer information such as names, addresses and tele-
phone numbers, the Respondent further stated that it
would have to redact this information from the work or-
ders before copying them. The Respondent estimated that
this redacting and copying would take approximately 1
month and cost $16,000, which the Respondent expected
the Union to pay. The Union never responded to this offer.
On June 21, 2018, the Union offered to enter into a con-
fidentiality agreement regarding the names of the nonunit
employees. On July 9, 2018, the Respondent asked the
Union to draft a confidentiality agreement. At the time of
the hearing, the Union had neither drafted nor submitted a
confidentiality agreement to the Respondent. At the hear-
ing, the Union stated that it did not draft a confidentiality
agreement because it wanted to wait until the hearing for
the judge’s ruling on the matter.
In finding that the Respondent's conduct with regard to
information request 7 violated the Act, the judge found
that the Respondent failed to prove its conclusory claim of
undue hardship. The judge also questioned why the Re-
spondent would need to redact customer information from
the work orders, given that employees routinely see that
information, and he further found that there was no basis
for keeping the nonunit employees’ names on the work or-
ders confidential because such information was relevant.
The judge noted that, even assuming that an undue hard-
ship had been established, the Respondent remained obli-
gated to bargain over the cost of producing the documents.
Although we agree with the judge that the requested in-
formation is relevant, we disagree with the judge’s finding
that the Respondent failed to articulate a legitimate confi-
dentiality concern with respect to the customer infor-
mation. We further find that the Respondent fulfilled its
employees, and he would be willing to revisit this issue in a future ap-
propriate case.
6 Member Kaplan agrees with his colleagues. He would also find that
the Respondent did not violate the Act because request 6 does not seek
documents in the Respondent’s possession but rather asks the Respond-
ent to provide the reasoning behind the Respondent’s actions. This re-
quest, which amounts, in effect, to pretrial discovery, is not permissible.
Cf. California Nurses Assn., 326 NLRB 1362 (1998) (finding no general
right to pretrial discovery in arbitration proceedings).
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, LLC 3
obligation to offer to accommodate its confidentiality con-
cerns and its bargaining obligations.
Where a union requests relevant but assertedly confi-
dential information, the Board must balance the confiden-
tiality interests established by the employer against the un-
ion's need for the information. GTE California, Inc., 324
NLRB 424, 426 (1997). The Board has further held that
“when a union is entitled to information concerning which
an employer can legitimately claim a partial confidential-
ity interest, the employer must bargain toward an accom-
modation between the union’s information needs and the
employer's justified interests.” Pennsylvania Power Co.,
301 NLRB 1104, 1105–1106 (1991).
We find that the Respondent has established a confiden-
tiality interest regarding customer information. The Re-
spondent maintains a policy addressing this specific inter-
est, entitled, “Security of Sensitive Employee Information
and Sensitive Customer Information,” the stated purpose
of which is to “provide guidance regarding the handling,
security and destruction of documents containing . . . Sen-
sitive Customer Information. The Company will take ap-
propriate measures to protect . . . Sensitive Customer In-
formation against unauthorized access to or use, and to en-
sure its proper disposal.” The policy further states that “all
employees are responsible for safeguarding confidential,
proprietary and material nonpublic information,” classi-
fies “Sensitive Customer Information” as “proprietary in-
formation,” and specifically lists customer addresses and
telephone numbers as among the types of information that
employees are required to protect. GTE California, Inc.,
supra, 324 NLRB at 426–427 (confidentiality interest
shown both by employer’s treatment of the information
and by nature of information itself, which was deemed
confidential under state statute).
Furthermore, in determining whether an employer has
established a confidentiality claim, the Board has consid-
ered State laws deeming certain information confidential.
See Olean General Hospital, 363 NLRB No. 62, slip op.
at 7–8 (2015); Kaleida Health, Inc., 356 NLRB 1373,
1378–1379 (2011); Borgess Medical Center, 342 NLRB
1105, 1105 (2004). The Respondent is required by the
Texas Public Utility Commission to safeguard and protect
proprietary customer information and to refrain from re-
leasing such information without the authorization of the

7 The statute defines “proprietary customer information” as “[a]ny
information . . . that makes possible the identification of any individual
customer by matching such information with the customer's name, ad-
dress, account number, type or classification of service, . . . billing rec-
ords, or any other information that the customer has expressly requested
not be disclosed.” 16 T.A.C. Sec. 25.272 (c)(5).
8 Further, such policies certainly create a reasonable expectation of
privacy among Respondent's customers that it would protect their
customer.7 See PURA Sec. 39.107(a); 16 T.A.C. Sec.
25.272(g). Records reviewed by any third party must be
redacted in such a way as to protect the customer’s iden-
tity. 16 T.A.C. Sec. 25.272 (g)(1). Further, the regulation
expressly limits employers' ability to release customer in-
formation, allowing employers to “release proprietary
customer information without customer authorization to a
federal, state, or local governmental entity or in connec-
tion with a court or administrative proceeding involving
the customer or the utility” only under the condition that
"the utility shall take all reasonable actions to protect the
confidentiality of such information, including, but not lim-
ited to, providing such information under a confidentiality
agreement or protective order, and shall also promptly no-
tify the affected customer in writing that such information
has been requested.” 16 T.A.C. Sec. 25.272 (g)(1)(B).
The Union requested work orders containing sensitive
information such as customer names, addresses, and tele-
phone numbers. Under the Respondent’s own policies as
well as the requirements imposed upon it by the State of
Texas, the Respondent has an obligation to keep its cus-
tomers’ personal information confidential.8 We therefore
find that the Respondent had a legitimate and substantial
confidentiality concern regarding its proprietary customer
information.9
We further find that the Respondent fulfilled its obliga-
tion to bargain towards an accommodation that would sat-
isfy the Union’s need for the information while protecting
the Respondent’s confidentiality concerns. Pennsylvania
Power Co., supra, 301 NLRB at 1105–1106. The Re-
spondent sought to accommodate the Union's need for in-
formation about the work orders on several occasions. In
a letter to the Union dated June 23, the Respondent offered
the Union the opportunity to examine its work orders in
person. The Union responded by requesting that the Re-
spondent provide the work orders electronically in a
searchable format. On February 26, 2018, by letter, the
Respondent offered to provide hard copies of the docu-
ments in redacted form in addition to an in-person review.
The Union did not respond to this request. Thus, much as
it did with the offer to enter into a confidentiality agree-
ment regarding the nonunit employee names, the Union
appeared to be biding its time until the Board resolved the
matter. Choosing not to respond to the Respondent’s
confidential information. It is possible that failing to protect this infor-
mation could also result in legal action against the Respondent by the
customers.
9 We do not believe that the Respondent’s initial offer of an in-person
review of the work orders in any way undermines the confidentiality in-
terest at stake here. We view such a review as something quite different
from giving the Union unrestricted access to, and possession of, an elec-
tronically searchable database or providing the Union with unredacted
hard copy work orders containing sensitive customer information.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
offers of accommodation, however, effectively shut down
the Respondent’s efforts to respond to the Union’s infor-
mation request under an accommodation acceptable to
both parties.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has estab-
lished its confidentiality claim and has met its duty to bar-
gain towards an accommodation with the Union. We
therefore conclude that the Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by not providing the Union with
the information it requested.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC, Dallas, Texas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with 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 rep-
resentative 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) To the extent it has not already done so, furnish to
the Union in a timely manner the information requested in
those portions of the Union’s August 28, 2017 information
requests that the Respondent, as found in this decision,
was legally obligated to furnish.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Dallas, Texas facility and other facilities where the unit
performs work copies of the attached notice marked “Ap-
pendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 16, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. In addition to phys-
ical 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 Re-
spondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, 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

10 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 National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
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 Re-
spondent at any time since August 28, 2017.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 16 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 6, 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
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 ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested in-
formation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, LLC 5
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of our unit employees.
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 furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested in those portions of the Union’s Au-
gust 28, 2017 information requests that the National Labor
Relations Board found that we were obligated to provide.
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, LLC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-212174 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.
Maxie E. Gallardo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Amber M. Rogers, Esq. (Hunton, Andrews & Kurth, L.L P.), for
the Respondent.
H. K. Gillespie, Esq. (Gillespie & Sanford, L.L P.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 22, 2018. The com-
plaint alleged that Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC (Oncor or the
Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act (the Act) by failing to provide relevant requested in-
formation to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local Union No. 69 (the Union). On the entire record, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Oncor, a corporation with a Dallas,
Texas facility, has been an electric utility company. Annually, it
derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and receives at its
Dallas facility goods valued over $5000 directly from points out-
side of Texas. It, thus, admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),

1 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits,
stipulations, and undisputed evidence.
and (7) of the Act. It also admits, and I find, that the Union is a
Section 2(5) labor organization.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Labor Relations History
Oncor and the Union have a longstanding bargaining relation-
ship. The Union is the designated exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of this appropriate unit of workers (the unit):
INCLUDED: All regular employees . . . including Lineman
Troubleman, Journeyman Lineman, Serviceman, Apprentice
6, Apprentice 5, Apprentice 4, Apprentice 3, Apprentice 2, Ap-
prentice 1, Lineman Helper 2 Lineman Helper 1, Service Spe-
cialist Sr., Service Specialist, Utility, Mechanic Garage, Field
Dispatcher-Distribution, Cable Splicer Sr., Cable Splicer 6, Ca-
ble Splicer 5, Cable Splicer 4, Cable Splicer 3, Cable Splicer 2,
Cable Splicer 1, Network Helper 2, Network Helper 1, Meter
System Specialist Sr., Meter System Specialist 2, Meter Sys-
tem Specialist 1, Storekeeper Sr., Storekeeper, Distribution
Specialist Sr., Cable Pulling Sr., Equipment Operator, and Net-
work Specialists Sr.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(Jt. Exh. 1.) Oncor’s recognition of the Union’s status was me-
morialized in the parties’ most recent contract, which ran from
October 25, 2017 to October 25, 2018 (the CBA). (Id.) This
litigation involves Oncor’s usage of nonunit workers to perform
unit storm damage work and the Union’s efforts to gain infor-
mation about its practice for connected grievances.
B. May 4, 2017—Union’s First Grievance
This grievance stated that Oncor violated the CBA, when, on
March 29, 2017, it assigned unit work to a nonunit worker, i.e.,
“to troubleshoot the electrical grid.” (GC Exh. 13.) This practice
was alleged to violate article 10’s unit work and safety provi-
sions.2 (Jt. Exh. 1.) On May 23, 2017, Oncor denied the griev-
ance. (GC Exh. 15.)
C. June 5, 2017—Union’s Information Request
Following Oncor’s denial, the Union requested this infor-
mation:
1. [Request 1] . . . [N]ames of . . . non-bargaining unit Oncor
employees who have performed storm evaluation work . . .
[since] January 1, 2016. . . .
2. [Request 2] . . . [Their] regular position[s] . . . [when] per-
form[ing] storm evaluation work. . . .
3. [Request 3] . . . [D]ate(s) and amount of time worked by
each in storm evaluation work since January 1, 2016. . . .
4. [Request 4] . . . [R]egular pay rate[s] for such employee[s]
from January 1, 2016 to the present. . . .
5. [Request 5] . . . [W]hether Oncor provided any additional
pay . . . and if so, how much (and what such pay was called . .
2 It is undisputed that storm damage work is generally performed by
the unit.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.) . . . for . . . [such] work.
6. [Request 6] . . . Oncor’s reason, if any, for not using bar-
gaining unit members to perform such work . . . .
7. [Request 7] . . . [S]pot bonuses, work orders, memos, emails
and other records describing the work done [for] . . . each inci-
dent of storm evaluation work [at issue herein]. . . .
8. [Request 8] . . . [S]eniority date . . . [,] position, and . . .
training . . . that . . . permit[s non-Unit employees to] safely
perform storm evaluation work. . . .
(GC Exh. 2.) Oncor’s June 23, 2017 reply failed to provide re-
sponsive data. (GC Exh. 3.)
D. August 28, 2017—Union’s Followup
The Union then sent this letter restating its earlier requests and
adding five new ones:
[1. Requests 1 to 8]. . . .[N]ames of . . . non-unit . . . employees
. . . perform[ing] storm . . . work [since] . . . January 1, 2016
[and their personnel data is] . . . relevant [to assess the CBA
violation and] . . . quantify damages . . .
[9. Request 9] [I]ndividuals . . . [receiving] Damage Evaluation
Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015. . . .
[10. Request 10] [I]ndividuals . . . [receiving] I-Dispatch Storm
Support Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015. . . .
[11. Request 11] [I]ndividuals . . . [receiving] Mobile TC Storm
Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015. . . .
[12. Request 12] . . . [N]ames of all new Oncor employees as-
signed as Damage Evaluators [since] . . . January 1, 2016.
[13. Request 13] . . . [N]ames of all “more experienced employ-
ees who have served as Damage Evaluators during previous
storms” . . . [since] January 1, 2016.
(GC Exh. 4 (footnotes omitted)).
E. October 6, 2017—Union’s Second Grievance
The Union supplemented its earlier grievance, and stated that:
This letter is . . . a . . . grievance . . . [under] Article IV citing
violations of Article I . . . , Article III . . . , Article V . . . , Article
VII . . . , [and] Article X. . . .
Since . . . March 29, 2017, . . . [Oncor] has violated the above
Articles . . . by utilizing non-bargaining unit personnel for
damage . . . [and] storm evaluation. . . .
Storm evaluation work is . . . unit work.
This is a [continuing] . . . violation. . . .
GC Exh. 14.) On October 30, 2017, Oncor denied this grievance.
(GC Exh. 16.)
F. January 5, 2018—Oncor’s Next Reply
Oncor then sent the Union 1000 pages of mostly irrelevant
documents that were previously sent to the Public Utility Com-
mission of Texas. (GC Exh. 7.) Its reply was a mosaic of letters,
jobs descriptions, and training materials, which omitted infor-
mation on the identities of nonunit employees performing storm
evaluation work, and their personnel and training data. (Id.) On
February 9, 2018, the Union told Oncor that its reply was non-
responsive. (GC Exh. 8.)
G. February 26, 2018—Oncor’s Response
Oncor then offered to allow the Union to either review respon-
sive work orders, or pay for copying and redaction costs. Its let-
ter stated that:
[T]he Company. . . [will] let the Union review relevant work
orders. Alternatively, . . . there are approximately 120,000 [re-
sponsive] work orders. . . . We estimate that it will take approx-
imately one month . . . to print and redact the customer infor-
mation from the work orders. The Company will charge $.11
per page to print each work order . . . [W]e anticipate that it will
cost . . . $16,000 . . . The Company will require payment before
it incurs these costs. . . .
(GC Exh. 9.)
H. May 11, 2018—Oncor’s Followup
Oncor then sent a letter enclosing some relevant data, which
is summarized below:
Request Reply
Request 1—“[N]ames of . . . non-bargaining unit Oncor employees . . . per-
form[ing] storm evaluation work . . . [since] January 1, 2016.”
Data not provided (i.e., non-unit names not
provided)
Request 2—“[Their] regular position[s] . . . [when] perform[ing] storm eval-
uation[s]. . . .”
Data not provided (i.e., regular position
provided without associated names).
Request 3—“[The] amount of time worked by each [non-unit employee] in
storm evaluation work since January 1, 2016.”
Data not provided.
Request 4—“[T]he regular pay rate for such [non-unit] employee[s] [since]
. . . January 1, 2016.”
Data not provided (i.e., regular rate pro-
vided without associated names).
Request 5—“[A]dditional pay [if any] . . . (and what such pay was called . . .
to such [non-unit] employee[s] for storm evaluation work.”
Data not provided (i.e., additional pay pro-
vided without associated names, and name
of pay not provided).
Request 6—“Oncor's reason . . . for not using bargaining unit members to
perform such work.”
Data not provided.
Request 7—“[A]ll records . . . describing the work done or to be done . . . [by
non-unit employees for] . . . storm evaluation work. . . .”
Data not provided.
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, LLC 7
Request 8—“[Describe each non-unit employee’s] seniority date with Oncor,
. . . job position, and . . . training . . . provided . . . to permit [them to] …
perform storm evaluation work.”
Data not provided (i.e., hire date given without
names).
Request 9 – “All lists of individuals that Oncor has provided Damage Evalu-
ation Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015.”
Data not provided (i.e., training sessions and
dates provided without names).
Request 10—“All lists of individuals that Oncor has provided I-Dispatch
Storm Support Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015.”
Same as above.
Request 11—“All lists of individuals that Oncor has provided Mobile TC
Storm Training [since] . . . July 1, 2015.”
Same as above.
Request 12—“[N]ames of all new Oncor employees assigned as Damage
Evaluators [since] . . . January 1, 2016.”
Data not provided (i.e., no names).
Request 13—“[N]ames of all ‘more experienced employees who have served
as Damage Evaluators during previous storms.’”
Data not provided (i.e., no names).
(GC Exh. 10.) Although Oncor supplied some relevant material,
it omitted the names of the nonunit workers, which was critical.
This omission precluded the Union from, inter alia: contacting
nonunit employees to further its investigation of the grievances;
requesting additional information about specific nonunit work-
ers; independently analyzing the qualifications of nonunit work-
ers to safely perform such work; verifying Oncor’s claims re-
garding how much work was performed by requesting specific
payroll records; or subpoenaing specific non-unit employees to
testify about their performance of unit work at a grievance or
arbitral hearing.
I. June 21, 2018—Union’s Reply
The Union explained that Oncor’s reply was deficient; it
stated that:
[Y]our supplemental responses [do not] resolve this matter. . . .
FIRST: Attachment 1 is confusing and requires explanation. .
. .
SECOND: Without the names of the individuals who have
performed storm evaluation work, the Union lacks the infor-
mation we need. The Union . . . needs to identify which non-
bargaining unit Oncor employees received how much compen-
sation and when and where such work has been performed . . .
(GC Exh. 11.)
J. July 9, 2018—Oncor’s Reply
Oncor responded as follows:
[T]he Company assigned numbers . . ., rather than providing . .
. names. . . .
The names of the non-bargaining unit employees are not nec-
essary to determine compensation, as that information has al-
ready been supplied. Regarding the Union's request to know
when and where the work was performed . . . [,] this request . .
. is unduly burdensome, . . . and is not relevant. To determine
when and where each person worked will require evaluating
each work order from January 1, 2016, which the Company has
already stated . . . will take potentially hundreds of hours to
compile. The Company will make the work orders available .
. . for the Union to review after the confidentiality agreement is
executed. . . .
(GC Exh. 12.)
K. Parties’ Positions
Union Business Manager Bobby Reed testified that the CBA
bars nonunit employees from performing unit work. He cited a
recent incident, where a unit worker was almost killed by an elec-
tric arc while working on a jobsite that had been unsafely closed
by nonunit storm workers. He said that these concerns prompted
the Union’s data requests.
Oncor Senior Labor Relations Manager Barbara Gibson testi-
fied that Oncor’s reply allowed the Union to assess safety train-
ing and how much unit work was diverted. She averred that
identifying nonunit workers was unwarranted.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Precedent
1. Unit information
Generally, an employer must provide requested information
to a union representing its employees, whenever there is a prob-
ability that such information is necessary and relevant to its rep-
resentational duties. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432
(1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). This duty
encompasses the obligation to provide relevant grievance-pro-
cessing materials. Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002).
Information, which concerns unit terms and conditions of em-
ployment, is “so intrinsic to the core of the employer-employee
relationship” that it is presumptively relevant. U.S. Information
Services, 341 NLRB 988 (2004).
2. Information outside of the unit
Information about persons outside the bargaining unit, how-
ever, does not enjoy a presumption of relevance. Caldwell Mfg.
Co., 346 NLRB 1159 (2006). Nevertheless, the burden to estab-
lish the relevance of extra-unit information is “not exceptionally
heavy.” Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 139
(1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983). In these cases, the
Board uses a broad, discovery-type of standard to assess rele-
vance. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 259
(1994). Once the burden of showing the relevance of nonunit in-
formation is satisfied, the duty to provide the information is the
same as it is with presumptively relevant unit information. Cald-
well Mfg. Co., supra, 346 NLRB at 1159–1160.
3. Employer defenses
a. Undue burden
The onus rests upon the employer to show that production
would be unduly burdensome, although it must still offer to co-
operate with the union in reaching a mutually acceptable accom-
modation. Yeshiva University, 315 NLRB 1245, 1248
(1994); Soule Glass & Glazing Co. v. NLRB, 652 F.2d 1055,
1094 (1st Cir. 1981), abrogated on other grounds NLRB v. Curtin
Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786 fn. 7 (1990). Where
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
the employer presents a legitimate, good-faith undue burden ob-
jection and offers to cooperate regarding a fair accommodation,
it is incumbent upon the union to reach a compromise regarding
form, extent and timing. Soule Glass, 652 F.2d at 1098. The
cost and burden of compliance, however, will ordinarily not jus-
tify an initial, categorical refusal to supply information. Yeshiva
University, supra; Tower Books, 273 NLRB 671 (1984). More-
over, if there are substantial costs involved in compiling certain
information, the parties must bargain in good faith over who
shall bear such costs. Yeshiva University, supra; Food Employ-
ers Council, 197 NLRB 651 (1972).
b. Confidentiality
Confidentiality can justify a refusal to provide relevant infor-
mation. See Jacksonville Area Assn. for Retarded Citizens, 316
NLRB 338, 340 (1995), citing NLRB v. Detroit Edison Co., 440
U.S. 301 (1979). When a claim of confidentiality has been made,
“the trier of fact must balance the union's need for the infor-
mation sought against the legitimate and substantial confidential
interests of the employer (footnote omitted).” Jacksonville, su-
pra. Under this balancing test, the burden of proof rests with the
party raising confidentiality. Id. Confidentiality must be timely
raised and proven before the balancing test is triggered. A blan-
ket claim of confidentiality, without more, will not satisfy this
burden. Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071, 1072
(1995); Jacksonville, supra. Finally, even where the employer
can prove a legitimate confidentiality concern, it still has a duty
to seek an accommodation via bargaining. Lenox Hill Hospital,
327 NLRB 1065, 1068 (1999).
B. Evaluation of the Union’s Requests3
The Union’s requests involved nonunit data and required a
showing of relevance under Caldwell Mfg. Co. As will be dis-
cussed, however, the Union demonstrated relevance.
1. Requests 1 to 5, and 84
Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to satisfy Re-
quests 1 to 5, and 8. These requests focused on nonunit employ-
ees performing storm evaluation work, and sought their names,
titles, training, qualifications, wage rates, added compensation,
and time spent doing this work. The Union adduced relevance.
First, it demonstrated that it needed to know their identities and
associated personnel data in order to support its unit work griev-
ance. The Union had every right to not accept Oncor’s data at
face value, and make its own independent inquiry, which re-
quired names and related data. Second, the Union showed that it
also needed nonunit names and personnel data to evaluate their
safety training and connected impact on workplace safety.
Oncor’s confidentiality claim was invalid.5 Besides its blan-
ket statement, it failed to show why confidentiality of nonunit
names was warranted, given that they worked alongside unit em-
ployees and their assignments were known. I, thus, find that

3 These allegations are listed under complaint pars. 9 to 12.
4 This request first appeared in the June 5 letter, and was then reiter-
ated in the August 28, 2017 letter.
5 Oncor held the burden of proof on this affirmative defense.
6 Even if confidentiality was warranted, which it was not, the Union’s
need for the information for its grievances outweighed Oncor’s de
Oncor failed to show that confidentiality was merited6 and vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to reply to these requests.
2. Request 6
Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to respond to
Request 6, which sought its rationale for diverting unit work.
Such guidance could have facilitated bargaining and productive
discussions on this key issue and should have been produced
without hesitation.
3. Request 7
Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to respond to
Request 7, which sought work orders. The Union established
that work orders were keenly relevant to its grievances.
Oncor’s contention that producing work orders would cause
an undue hardship is invalid. Although it offered to provide
work orders once the Union paid $16,000 in copying and redac-
tions costs, its reply was invalid. Besides a conclusory claim of
undue hardship, it wholly failed to prove this point. Its conten-
tions about copying and redaction costs were exaggerated. It is
unclear why it needed to redact customer information from work
orders, when such data is routinely viewed by unit employees in
other work orders and contexts. It was also invalid, as stated, to
redact the names of nonunit workers because such information
was relevant, nonconfidential, and producible. It is also unclear
how Oncor concluded that a pricey $.11 per page copying cost
was valid, given that this estimate seems significantly higher
than a commercial copying center rate, and it offered nothing to
support this estimate. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that it
demonstrated an undue hardship, which it did not, it still re-
mained obligated to bargain over cost; its unilateral, pay-in-ad-
vance stance, did not fulfill this obligation. Yeshiva University,
supra, 315 NLRB at 1249; Somerville Mills, 308 NLRB 425
(1992). On this basis, it failed to show an undue burden, and
violated the Act by withholding work orders.
4. Requests 9 to 117
Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to respond to
Requests 9 to 11, which sought the names of nonunit workers
receiving training. Such data was relevant to the safety griev-
ance.
5. Requests 12 and 138
Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when failed to provide re-
sponses to requests 12 and 13, which sought the names of all
“new Oncor employees assigned as Damage Evaluators,” and
“more experienced employees . . . serv[ing] as Damage Evalua-
tors during previous storms.” These requests, once again, sought
information related to the Union’s safety grievance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oncor is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
minimis interest in confidentiality. In sum, Oncor did not win this bal-
ancing test.
7 These requests appeared as requests 15 through 17 in the August 28,
2017 letter, but, were listed as requests 9 through 11 the complaint.
8 These requests appeared as requests 18 and 19 in the August 28,
2017 letter, but, were listed as requests 12 and 13 in the complaint.
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY, LLC 9
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5).
3. These Oncor employees form a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b):
INCLUDED: All regular employees . . . including Lineman
Troubleman, Journeyman Lineman, Serviceman, Apprentice
6, Apprentice 5, Apprentice 4, Apprentice 3, Apprentice 2, Ap-
prentice 1, Lineman Helper 2 Lineman Helper 1, Service Spe-
cialist Sr., Service Specialist, Utility, Mechanic Garage, Field
Dispatcher-Distribution, Cable Splicer Sr., Cable Splicer 6, Ca-
ble Splicer 5, Cable Splicer 4, Cable Splicer 3, Cable Splicer 2,
Cable Splicer 1, Network Helper 2, Network Helper 1, Meter
System Specialist Sr., Meter System Specialist 2, Meter Sys-
tem Specialist 1, Storekeeper Sr., Storekeeper, Distribution
Specialist Sr., Cable Pulling Sr., Equipment Operator, and Net-
work Specialists Sr.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the latter unit, within the meaning of
Section 9(a).
5. Oncor violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to supply to
the Union relevant information requested in its August 28, 2017
letter.
6. This unfair labor practice affects commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7).
REMEDY
Oncor is ordered to cease and desist and take certain affirma-
tive action to effectuate the Act. It shall provide to the Union the
information sought in its August 28, 2017 letter,9 and post the
attached notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11
(2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC, Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by failing
to furnish it with information sought in its August 28, 2017 letter,
which was relevant and necessary to its role as the unit’s exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the Act’s policies.

9 As stated in Electrical Energy Services, 288 NLRB 925 fn. 1 (1988),
“[t]o the extent that costs and burdens are incurred in the provision of
this information, the allocations of such costs can be resolved at the com-
pliance stage.”
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by §102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
(a) Furnish to the Union, to the extent that it has not already
done so, in a timely manner the data requested by it since August
28, 2017.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Dallas, Texas facility and other facilities where the unit performs
work copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 16, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In ad-
dition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet
or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respond-
ent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en-
sure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered 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 employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since August 28, 2017.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 16 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. April 4, 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 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 benefit and pro-
tection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 69
(the Union) by failing to furnish it with information requested in
its August 28, 2017 letter, which is relevant to its role as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of our unit employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
Order shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
11 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 National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the data
sought by it since August 28, 2017.
ONCOR DELIVERY, LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/16-CA-212174 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099
14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940