New York and Presbyterian Hosp. v. N.L.R.B

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. IronTiger Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB - Decision Summary

    National Labor Relations BoardJune 8, 2016

    lay in responding was a violation of its duty to bargain in good faith.In March 2015, the Board (Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and McFerran), in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to timely respond to three requested items that the Board found were presumptively relevant because they related to unit employees: (1) the name of each unit driver dispatched for each load; (2) the destination and mileage for each load; and (3) all e-mails, faxes, “and other documentation from your customers to support the loads dispatched to [unit] drivers.”The Board also explained its rationale for extending the existing requirement that an employer timely respond to a request for relevant information to encompass also requests for presumptively relevant information.On review, the court stated that “although we have previously held only that an employer must timely respond to a union’s request for relevant information, see N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 730 (D.C. Cir. 2011), we have no basis to quarrel with . . . the Board’s extension in this case, to the proposition that an employer must timely respond to a request for presumptively relevant information.”The court noted that this is “the sort of legal and policy determination to which we are obliged to defer.”