IronTiger Logistics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 2012

359 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

236 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

359 NLRB No. 13
IronTiger Logistics, Inc. and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO. Case 16–CA–027543
October 23, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HAYES
AND BLOCK
On May 6, 2011, Administrative Law Judge George
Carson II issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief,
1
and the Respond-
ent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
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 and
to adopt the recommended Order. For the reasons set out
by the judge, as further explained below, we agree that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by failing to timely respond in any manner to the
Union’s request for presumptively relevant information
relating to the Respondent’s employees.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case stems from a dispute about the apportioning
of freight delivery assignments between the Respondent
and TruckMovers.com, Inc. (TruckMovers). Both em-
ployers are engaged in the interstate delivery of freight
and share common ownership.
2
The Union represents
the Respondent’s drivers but does not represent Truck-
Movers’ drivers.
TruckMovers assigns the loads for delivery to both
groups of drivers. Before the events at issue, the Re-
spondent and the Union entered into a Letter of Agree-
ment clarifying that loads assigned to TruckMovers’
drivers were not the Respondent’s and that their delivery
by TruckMovers would not be considered subcontract-
ing.
On March 16, 2010,
3
the Union alleged that the Re-
spondent was not complying with the dispatch provisions
in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. On
March 29, the Union filed a grievance concerning the

1 The Acting General Counsel urges us to disregard the Respond-
ent’s exceptions because they were “procedurally defective.” We de-
cline to do so. We find the Respondent’s exceptions substantially
comport with the requirements of Sec. 102.46(b)(1) and (c) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, and accept them. See, e.g., Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 351 NLRB 130 fn. 3 (2007).
2 There is no allegation that the two companies constitute alter egos
or a single employer.
3 All dates are in 2010, unless otherwise indicated.
dispatch of loads to TruckMovers’ drivers, contending
that the Respondent was not placing all available loads
on its dispatch board. On April 12, the Union requested
information concerning all units of work dispatched to
both the Respondent’s and TruckMovers’ drivers over
the preceding 6 months. The Respondent provided a list
of units dispatched to both employers’ drivers.
On May 11, the Union requested supplemental infor-
mation. Items (a) through (g) of the Union’s supple-
mental request concerned TruckMovers’ drivers. Items
(h) through (j) requested information about the Respond-
ent’s drivers, including the names of the Respondent’s
drivers for each unit, their destination and mileage, and
all relevant communication from customers about those
units. The Respondent did not immediately provide the
Union with any of that information. In fact, some 4–1/2
months would pass before the Respondent even
acknowledged the Union’s May 11 request, as described
below.
In the meantime, on July 15, the Union filed an unfair
labor practice charge, triggering the Board Region’s in-
vestigative machinery and ultimately resulting in the
complaint underlying this case. On July 30, the Union
repeated its May 11 request for supplementary infor-
mation, but again the Respondent provided no response.
The Respondent finally responded to the Union’s May
11 information request on September 27. The Respond-
ent did not provide any of the requested information.
Rather, it asserted that loads not appearing on the Re-
spondent’s dispatch board were not the Respondent’s
drivers’ loads pursuant to the Letter of Agreement, that
information about TruckMovers involved nonunit em-
ployees and was irrelevant, and that the Union needed to
substantiate the relevance of the information concerning
the Respondent’s drivers’ loads because that work had
already been performed by the Respondent’s drivers.
The Respondent also alleged that the Union’s infor-
mation request was generally “harassment, burdensome,
and irrelevant.”
4

II. THE JUDGE’S DECISION
The judge found that the Union’s May 11 information
request concerning the units dispatched to the Respond-
ent’s drivers was presumptively relevant because it in-
volved unit employees, and, therefore, “[t]he Respondent
herein was obligated to inform the Union in a timely
manner of the reasons that it did not believe that the in-

4 The information sought by the Union’s May 11 request was not re-
lated to any pending grievance. Shortly before the hearing in this case,
the Union confirmed that the Respondent had sufficiently responded to
that information request, narrowing the question before the judge to the
lawfulness of the Respondent’s 4-1/2-month delay in providing that
response.
IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC. 237

formation sought was relevant.”
5
Because the Respond-
ent waited more than 4-1/2 months to do this, the judge
found that the Respondent had not met its obligations
under Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, despite the
judge’s related finding that all the supplementary infor-
mation requested by the Union was ultimately irrelevant
and, therefore, did not need to be provided by the Re-
spondent.
6
The judge quoted an earlier Board decision
for the proposition that

[A]n employer must respond to a union’s request for
relevant information within a reasonable time, either by
complying with it or by stating its reason for noncom-
pliance within a reasonable period of time. Failure to
make either response in a reasonable time is, by itself, a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Some
kind of response or reaction is mandatory.

Columbia University, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990), citing
Ellsworth Sheet Metal, 232 NLRB 109 (1977).
We agree with the judge’s finding for the reasons he
gives and those discussed below.
III. DISCUSSION
Under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, which imposes the
duty to bargain in good faith, a unionized employer must
provide, on request, information that is relevant and nec-
essary to the union’s performance of its duties as collec-
tive-bargaining representative. NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). It must do so in a reasonably
timely manner. E.g., Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735,
736 (2000) (“An unreasonable delay in furnishing [re-
quested relevant] information is as much of a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the in-
formation at all.”). Under a well-established corollary to
that requirement, an employer must timely respond to a
union request seeking relevant information even when
the employer believes it has grounds for not providing
the information.
7

5 The judge found that the Union’s information request concerning
TruckMovers’ drivers was not presumptively relevant because it in-
volved nonunit employees. No party excepted to this finding.
6 No party excepted to the judge’s ultimate finding of irrelevance.
7 See, e.g., A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB 499, 501
(2011) (employer with legitimate confidentiality defense to disclosure
has affirmative duty to respond and seek accommodation); Superior
Protection, Inc., 341 NLRB 267, 269 (2004), enfd. 401 F.3d 282 (5th
Cir. 2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 874 (2005) (if employer believes
request is ambiguous or overbroad, it must seek clarification or comply
with request to extent it encompasses relevant information); Daim-
lerChrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1329 (2000), enfd. 288 F.3d 434
(D.C. Cir. 2002) (although employer may have had legitimate objec-
tions to providing requested information, it was obliged to make those
objections known to the union in a timely fashion); Yeshiva University,
315 NLRB 1245, 1248 (1994) (where employer had information in
Applying those principles here, we have little trouble
affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by not timely re-
sponding in some manner to the Union’s May 11 request
for information concerning bargaining unit employees.
8

As found by the judge, paragraphs (h) through (j) of that
request related to unit employees’ assigned loads and
thus sought information that was presumptively relevant
to the Union’s ability to represent those employees. See,
e.g., Kathleen’s Bakeshop, 337 NLRB 1081, 1094
(2002), enfd. mem. 173 LRRM (BNA) 2576 (2d Cir.
2003) (requested information about unit drivers’ delivery
routes and products was presumptively relevant because
it dealt with their working conditions).
9
Accordingly, the
Respondent was required to timely provide that infor-
mation or to timely present the Union with its reasons for
not doing so. The Respondent did neither, and thus vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Our dissenting colleague would dismiss the complaint
because the Respondent later rebutted the presumptive
relevance of the requested unit information and therefore
was not required to actually furnish the Union with that
information. In his view, then, the Respondent was free
to ignore the Union’s request at the time it was made.
We do not find his view persuasive, either as a matter of
law or policy.
As explained, the duty to provide information is a
component of the broader duty to bargain in good faith
under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The issue in this case
must be decided in that context. The question here is not
whether the Respondent had a duty to provide the infor-
mation sought by the Union, but rather whether it had a
duty to respond to the Union’s request in a timely way.
Board precedent, cited above, requires a timely response
even when an employer may have a justification for not
actually providing requested information.
Our colleague would distinguish those cases on the
ground that they involved requests for relevant infor-
mation. But where, as here, the information sought is
presumptively relevant, that distinction is immaterial. In
such cases, it is reasonable for the union to expect pro-
duction of the information, unless and until the employer
notifies it otherwise. Good faith, in turn, requires the
employer to respond promptly with its reasons for not
providing the information. Placing this minimal burden

form not requested by the union, employer was required to so notify the
union so that it could modify request).
8 We read the judge’s unfair labor practice finding as being limited
to the requested information concerning unit employees, and the Acting
General Counsel does not appear to argue otherwise.
9 The fact that the requested information was not also relevant to a
pending grievance, as the judge found, is beside the point.
238 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

on the employer is appropriate moreover because, partic-
ularly where the requested information is presumptively
relevant, the employer is in a clearly superior position to
ensure that a dispute is avoided. These are the principles
underlying the cases cited above, and they likewise form
the basis for our finding in this case.
As our colleague acknowledges, there are good policy
reasons for the rule we apply here, not the least of which
is encouraging the parties themselves to address potential
disputes before they disrupt the collective-bargaining
relationship and burden the parties and the public with
the cost of administrative investigation and litigation.
There is no doubt here, for example, that an unnecessary
dispute could have been avoided. The Respondent’s
belated September 27 response consisted of two pages,
and the Union later agreed that its May 11 request had
been satisfied.
10
Contrary to our colleague’s suggestion,
it is more than merely “preferable” in such circumstances
that employers act in good faith. The law demands it.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, IronTiger Logistics, Inc.,
Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.

MEMBER HAYES, dissenting.
I would reverse the judge and dismiss the complaint.
The Act imposes no obligation on an employer to pro-
vide requested information that is not relevant to a un-
ion’s performance of its responsibilities as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of bargaining unit
employees. A fortiori, the Act imposes no obligation on
an employer to respond, timely or otherwise, to a request
for information that is not relevant. Because there is no
exception to the judge’s finding that the information re-
quested here was irrelevant, the Respondent did not act
unlawfully in failing to timely respond to the Union’s
request for that information.
Until today, the Board has never held that there is an
independent statutory duty to respond to a request for
presumptively relevant information, even if that pre-
sumption was rebutted in litigation. The presumption is
merely an evidentiary tool where relevance is contested.
Ultimately, requested information is either legally rele-
vant to a union’s representative duties, or it is not. If it is
not relevant, then the statutory duty to bargain in good
faith is not implicated by the request or the employer’s
failure to respond timely to the request. None of the cas-

10 We agree with the judge, for the reasons he states, that the Re-
spondent did not establish that the Union’s information request was
made in bad faith or constituted harassment.
es cited by the Acting General Counsel and my col-
leagues support their contrary view. In each and every
instance, the unlawful failure to respond or delay in re-
sponding involved a request for relevant information.
While it might be preferable for a party to explain its
refusal to provide information which is irrelevant to the
statutory bargaining, it is not a violation of the statutory
duty to bargain in good faith to fail to do so.
1
On the
other hand, whether or not the Union here made its in-
formation request in good faith, my colleagues’ holding
today gives even greater latitude for unions to hector
employers with information requests for tactical purposes
that obstruct, rather than further, good-faith bargaining
relationships. I therefore dissent.

Kelly Elifson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas P. Krukowski, Esq., for the Respondent.
Mr. Boysen Anderson, for the Charging Party Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 28, 2011, pursuant to
a consolidated complaint that issued on December 22, 2010.1
Prior to the hearing, Case 16–CB–008084, with which Case
16–CA–027543 had been consolidated, was settled, and the
allegations relating to Case 16–CB–008084 were withdrawn.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by
delaying providing relevant information requested by the Un-
ion. The answer of the Respondent denies any violation of the
Act. Although I agree with the Respondent that the information
sought was not relevant, I find that the Respondent was obligat-
ed to timely respond to the request made by the Union and that
it failed to do so.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, IronTiger Logistics, Inc., IronTiger, a Mis-
souri corporation headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, is
engaged in the interstate transportation of freight from various
locations including Garland, Texas. IronTiger annually derives
gross revenue in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of
freight from the State of Texas directly to points located outside

1 Similarly, it might be preferable for an employer engaged in con-
tract negotiations to explain the basis for any economic proposal, but
except in limited circumstances the failure to do so is not a violation of
the statutory duty to bargain in good faith. See NLRB v. Truitt Mfg.,
351 U.S. 149 (1956).
1 All dates are in 2010 unless otherwise indicated. The charge in
Case 16–CA–027543 was filed on July 15 and was amended on De-
cember 1.
IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC. 239

the State of Texas. IronTiger admits, and I find and conclude,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
IronTiger admits, and I find and conclude, that International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO,
the Union or the IAM, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Thomas (Tom) Duvall is the owner and chief executive of-
ficer of IronTiger as well as TruckMovers.com, Inc. Truck-
Movers has contracts for the transport of trucks from produc-
tion facilities of Volvo/Mack and Navistar to various locations.
The delivery transport to the various locations is carried out by
drivers employed by TruckMovers, IronTiger, and some 15
other companies. The contracts between TruckMovers and
Volvo/Mack and TruckMovers and Navistar provide that no
more than 80 and 75 percent, respectively, of the transports can
be provided by any one carrier so that any disruption in service
by any one provider would not cause a cessation of all deliver-
ies. The assignment of loads to a particular carrier is made by
TruckMovers. The vast majority of deliveries are made by
TruckMovers and IronTiger.
IronTiger employs approximately 100 employees at four lo-
cations: Garland, Texas; Springfield, Ohio; Macungie, Penn-
sylvania; and Dublin, Virginia. TruckMovers obtained the
transportation contracts with Volvo/Mack and Navistar from
Auto Truck Transport. The first contract obtained was at Dub-
lin, Virginia. After TruckMovers obtained the contract, man-
agement officials of IronTiger met with the employees of the
predecessor. Upon conclusion of their meeting, any employees
interested were invited to remain for a presentation by the Un-
ion. No management officials of IronTiger remained for the
meeting with representatives of the Union. A majority of em-
ployees signed cards authorizing the Union to represent them.
Pursuant to a card check, IronTiger agreed to recognize the
Union. The initial collective-bargaining agreement related to
only the location at Dublin, Virginia, and was negotiated be-
tween CEO Duvall, Tom Jones, the attorney for IronTiger, and
Boysen Anderson, automotive coordinator for the Union. It was
effective from September 29, 2008, until September 30, 2011.
Thereafter, when TruckMovers obtained additional contracts,
the Union obtained authorization cards from a majority of the
predecessor’s employees at the other three IronTiger locations,
and the collective-bargaining agreement was extended to those
locations by separate letters of agreement. The record does not
reflect the manner in which the TruckMovers drivers, who are
not represented by a union, were hired or whether they operate
from the same terminals as the IronTiger drivers.
The bargaining units at each location are identical and in-
clude all yard drivers, shop workers, utility workers, and driv-
ers domiciled, and employed at each location.
Article 6 of the collective-bargaining agreement sets out the
dispatch procedure for IronTiger drivers. Subparagraph 3 pro-
vides that drivers will be “dispatched on a first in first out ba-
sis” and that when “two or more IronTiger drivers arrive at the
terminal at the same time” priority will be given to the driver
with the most company seniority. Subparagraph 5 provides:

All available loads will be placed on one board in the order of
importance of delivery. Available loads may include break-
downs or secondary moves as part of a trip or as a separate
dispatch. Old, Hot, or Expedited loads will have priority.

The “board” to which the foregoing provision refers is also
referred to as a kiosk and is a listing appearing on a computer
screen. TruckMovers makes the assignments of loads, and the
assignments are displayed on the computer screen of the carrier
to which the load has been assigned. TruckMovers, as already
noted, is prohibited by its contracts with Volvo/Mack and
Navistar from assigning more that 80 and 75 percent of the
loads to any one carrier. IronTiger is not a party to those con-
tracts. The foregoing contractual language relating to dispatch
obviously applies only to loads assigned by TruckMovers to
IronTiger, and they are shown on the IronTiger kiosk.
IronTiger informed the Union of the restriction upon the
amount of work that TruckMovers could assign to any one
company, and Anderson does not deny that the Union was in-
formed of that restriction. IronTiger’s attorney, Tom Jones,
sought to address that restriction by proposing language to be
included in article 19 of the collective-bargaining agreement
relating to subcontracting by IronTiger. Automotive Coordina-
tor Anderson requested that the proposed language be placed in
a letter of agreement because he did not want any other em-
ployer to be aware of the agreement into which the Union had
entered. Jones agreed. The letter of agreement, executed on
September 27, 2008, states:

The parties hereto agree that loads not appearing on the Iron-
Tiger Logistics drivers’ kiosk are not IronTiger loads and will
be moved by carriers other than IronTiger Logistics and the
movement of such loads does not constitute Sub-Contracting
and does not violate Article 19 of the Agreement between
IronTiger Logistics, Inc., and the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers covering the period from
September 29th, 2008, through and including September 20,
2011.
B. Facts
On the morning of March 16, there was an exchange of
emails between Automotive Coordinator Anderson and Tom
Duvall, the first of which was from Anderson.

Tom—once again the company is not complying with the
dispatch language in the CBA. Thus the final warning notice
from the IAM. So that we are clear ALL AVAILABLE
LOADS ARE TO BE PLACED ON THE BOARD FOR
DISPATCH. We have am [sic] Agreement and the company
will comply.

Duvall replied by email:

All available IronTiger loads ARE placed on the board for
dispatch. If you believe that they are not, please give me some
specifics so that I can investigate. [Emphasis added.]

Anderson answered:

Tom—don’t question me on what I believe; here are the facts,
240 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

one driver 1 load—two drivers 2 loads—six drivers 6 loads.
Enough of the bullshit.

Three short emails followed. Duvall stated, “We don’t set the
priorities. Our customer does.” Anderson answered, “Bullshit,
you will abide by the contract.” Duvall replied, “I am.”
On March 29, the Union, in an email from Anderson to Du-
vall, informed IronTiger that the Union was filing a class action
grievance:

Tom—attached you will find a class grievance on the continu-
ing contract violations. Also this shall serve as the notice to
cure the contract provision breach outlined in the attached
grievance. If the Company ignores this notice the Union will
proceed on this grievance under Article 20, Section 1.

Article 20, section 1 of the contract provides that “all griev-
ances and questions of interpretation arising from or in any way
pertaining to the provisions of this Agreement shall be submit-
ted to the grievance procedure for determination.” It further
provides that there shall be no strike except “in the event the
Company intentionally ignores the provisions of this agree-
ment.”
The grievance, dated March 29, alleges violation of articles 6
and 7 of the contract. Article 7 relates to return travel and is not
an issue here. Relative to article 6, the grievance states: “The
Employer is not placing all available loads on the dispatch
board.” The settlement desired is stated as “all loads to be
placed on the board asap . . . all drivers shall be [made] whole
for all losses when not allow[ed] to pick from all available
loads.”
Duvall replied to Anderson by email on April 5:

Boysen,

The Company is in receipt of your class action grievance al-
leging violation of Article 6-Master Dispatch Procedure and
Article 7-Return Travel.

The Company respectfully disagrees with your allegations
and states that the Company is in compliance with the provi-
sions of Article 6-Master Dispatch Procedure as well as the
provision of Article 7-Return Travel.

Further, concerning your allegations regarding Article 20,
Section 1, the Company denies that it has intentionally ig-
nored any of the provisions of the National Master Agree-
ment.

It is respectfully suggested that we set up a meeting to see if
we can resolve what is an obvious difference of opinion as to
the meaning and/or interpretation of the aforementioned Arti-
cles. If we are not able to agree then the matter should be
submitted to the grievance procedure for determination as set
forth and required by Article 20, Section 1.

Anderson replied by email on April 5 stating, in pertinent
part:

Your e-mail misstates several facts. . . . This is to advise you
that the Union rejects your contention and claim. . . . [T]he
Union met with you several times on these issues. You choose
to intentionally ignore the Agreement. In short, the Union be-
lieves another meeting on these issues will be none [sic] pro-
ductive and will proceed with it’s course of actions to correct
the contract breach.

On April 12, the Union made an information request of the
Company requesting identification of all units dispatched to
TruckMovers and IronTiger drivers, respectively, for the last 6
months, the persons responsible for dispatching TruckMovers
drivers and the persons responsible for dispatching IronTiger
drivers, and documentation “to support why these units were
dispatched to TruckMovers drivers” and documentation “to
support why these units were dispatched to IronTiger drivers.”
On May 7, the Company responded in a 29-page document
that gave the units dispatched to TruckMovers and IronTiger
drivers, respectively, and the names of the individuals respon-
sible for dispatching. Don Houk of TruckMovers was identified
as the individual responsible for dispatching TruckMovers
drivers. Dispatchers at the respective IronTiger terminals were
identified as the individuals responsible for dispatching Iron-
Tiger drivers. In response to the request for documentation, the
response explained that the assignments are “[d]one by system
assignment not though email or other written communication.”
I note that the information request sought the identification
of the persons responsible for dispatching. It did not seek iden-
tification of the persons responsible for assignment of the loads
to specific carriers. As already noted, TruckMovers made those
assignments. Dispatching drivers occurred after the assign-
ments were made.
The Union, on May 11, sent another information request as
follows:

After reviewing the information you provided, the Union is
requesting additional information. Please provide the follow-
ing information:

(a) Please provide the name for each TruckMovers
driver dispatched on the referenced unit(s) outlined in your
paragraph No. 1.
(b) Please provide the destination and mileage for each
unit(s) dispatched to TruckMovers drivers in you para-
graph No. 1.
(c) Please identify Don Houk primary employer.
(d) Please provide Don Houk job title.
(e) Please provide the name(s) of the person who au-
thorize[d] Don Houk to dispatch the referenced unit(s)
outlined in your paragraph No. 1 to TruckMovers drivers.
(f) Please provide in details the “System Assignment”
you referenced in your paragraphs 4 and 8.
(g) Provide all e-mails, transcripts, faxes, telecommu-
nications and other documentation from your customers(s)
to support the units in your paragraph No. 1 be dispatched
to Truckmovers drivers.
(h) Please provide the name for each IronTiger driver
dispatched on the referenced unit(s) outlined in your para-
graph No. 5.
(i) Please provide the destination and mileage for each
unit(s) dispatched to IronTiger drivers in you paragraph
No. 5.
(j) Provide all e-mails, transcripts, faxes, telecommu-
nications and other documentation from your customers(s)
IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC. 241

to support the units in your paragraph No. 5 be dispatched
to IronTiger drivers.

IronTiger did not respond to the foregoing request. On July
15, the Union filed the charge herein alleging that IronTiger
had failed and refused to provide information since April 12.
On July 30, the Union repeated its request of May 11. On Sep-
tember 27, the Union withdrew its charge insofar as it related to
the April 12 information request to which IronTiger had re-
sponded. Also, on September 27, IronTiger, by Attorney Tom
Jones, responded by email to the May 11 request.
The response by Jones initially notes that the letter of agree-
ment provides that “loads not appearing on the IronTiger Logis-
tics drivers’ kiosk are not IronTiger loads.” It then addresses
the individual requests and points out that the information relat-
ing to TruckMovers drivers relates to nonunit employees and is
irrelevant. It confirms, as stated in the May 7 response, that
Don Houk is employed by TruckMovers. The response, as did
the May 7 response to the April 12 request, explains that there
is no paperwork, that assignments are made through a comput-
erized system. Relative to the request for information relating
to unit employees, i.e., the name of each IronTiger driver dis-
patched to deliver the units listed in the May 7 response and the
destination and mileage related to those units, Jones requested
that the Union explain the relevance insofar as the work had
been performed by IronTiger drivers. He points out that there
were over 10,500 units involved and that the request was “har-
assment, burdensome, and irrelevant.” Jones closes by pointing
out that IronTiger had requested that the parties meet in its
April 5 response to the grievance and that the request had been
refused. He again offered to meet.
On October 12, Anderson responded by email. His response
states that the letter of agreement “has nothing to do with the
Union’s request for information.” It raises a claim that loads
had been removed from the IronTiger kiosk and asserts that the
information sought relating to TruckMovers drivers is relevant
because “in the past the Company removed loads from the
IronTiger board and dispatch[ed] such loads to non-union driv-
ers.” Although Anderson asserted that the information relating
to IronTiger drivers assigned the units and the destination and
mileage related to those units was relevant “in order to investi-
gate the appropriate grievances,” no grievance relating to re-
moval of loads had been filed and the Union had made no com-
plaint or filed any grievance relating to improper payment to
IronTiger drivers for loads that they had delivered. Anderson’s
October 12 response does not address the claim of harassment
or burdensomeness, nor does it respond to the offer to meet.
IronTiger had, on March 30, 2009, settled a grievance relat-
ing to the removal of loads from the IronTiger dispatch kiosk.
The brief of the General Counsel refers to testimony by Ander-
son that he received reports that loads had been removed from
the IronTiger kiosk. Insofar as any driver was aware that a load
had been removed, the driver would be able to identify the load
that was removed, and, as in 2009, an appropriate grievance
could be filed. Whether the reports Anderson received were
accurate is immaterial insofar as neither the March 29, 2010,
grievance nor the information request relates to removal of
loads.
In subsequent communications, the Union continued to as-
sert that the contract had been violated, and IronTiger contin-
ued to deny any violation of the contract. IronTiger continued
to seek a meeting, but the Union did not agree to meet.
Notwithstanding its contention that IronTiger was violating
the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union, as of May 13,
contended that there was no contract at Springfield, Ohio, or
Garland, Texas. On May 13, in a telephone conversation, An-
derson informed IronTigers’s attorney, Tom Jones, that Iron-
Tiger did not have a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union at Springfield or Garland. On May 18, Jones sent an
email to Anderson confirming the May 13 conversation and
seeking further information relating to the position of the Un-
ion. Anderson responded by email on May 21 stating that “we
have not [sic] agreements at the Garland, Texas, and Spring-
field, Ohio, locations.”
IronTiger filed a charge, Case 16–CB–008084, against the
Union. That charge resulted in a complaint being issued against
the Union. As already noted, that case was consolidated with
the case here. Thereafter, Case 16–CB–008084 settled, and
those allegations were withdrawn.
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The complaint herein issued on December 22, after the Re-
spondent’s September 27 response. It alleges that the failure to
timely furnish information “necessary for, and relevant to, the
Union’s performance of its duties” as the representative of the
unit employees violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As estab-
lished by emails on March 15 and 16, 2011, following confer-
ence calls in this proceeding, the Union confirmed that the Re-
spondent had sufficiently responded to its information request.
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel confirmed that
the only issue before me is “unlawful delay in furnishing re-
quested information.”
The General Counsel argues that the information sought was
relevant and that, even if it was not, the Respondent was obli-
gated to respond to the request of the Union.
The Respondent contends that the information sought was
not relevant. Both the April 12 and the May 11 requests related
to the March 29 grievance that IronTiger had not placed “all
available loads on the dispatch board.” No other grievance was
pending. The grievance does not assert that any loads had been
removed from the IronTiger kiosk. The Union did not mention
removal of loads until its letter of October 12. The letter of
agreement states that “loads not appearing on the IronTiger
Logistics drivers’ kiosk are not IronTiger loads.”
At the hearing herein, counsel for IronTiger questioned An-
derson regarding the May 13 contention of the Union that the
parties had no contract. Notwithstanding the Union’s conten-
tion that there was no contract, Anderson claimed that the
March 29 grievance had not been forfeited by the failure of the
Union to seek further processing of the grievance after Iron-
Tiger’s April 5 response. It is unnecessary to address the fore-
going conflicting contentions insofar as there is no allegation
relating to the grievance, only the information request.
I agree with the Respondent that the information sought in
the May 11 request was not relevant. The information relating
to the identification of the TruckMovers driver assigned to each
242 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

load as well as the destination and distance of each load related
to nonunit employees and was not presumptively relevant. The
request regarding the individual IronTiger drivers assigned to
each IronTiger load was presumptively relevant insofar as the
request related to unit employees. Although presumptively
relevant, the information concerning the assignment, destina-
tion, and miles driven by the drivers assigned to the IronTiger
loads was unrelated to the grievance relating to failure to place
all loads on the IronTiger kiosk. Duvall explained that a driver
assigned a shorter trip would not necessarily earn less because
that driver would be able to return sooner and be available for
another dispatch. The Union had made no complaint, filed no
grievance, or made any claim that any IronTiger drivers were
improperly paid. The information relating to assigned driver,
destination, and distance was not relevant.
Duvall testified that the Respondent did not respond to the
May 11 information request because it was “nothing more than
harassment.” He explained that, on March 24, IronTiger had
refused to reinstate an employee. Anderson informed him that,
if IronTiger wanted “labor peace,” the employee needed to be
reinstated and that, if he was not reinstated, Anderson would
“make your [Duvall’s] life hell.” The brief of the Respondent
makes several references to the foregoing comment which An-
derson did not deny making. Although Duvall considered the
May 11 information request to be harassment, as the brief of
counsel for the General Counsel points out, the exchange of
emails on March 16 relative to placing all loads on the board
was before the March 24 meeting. The position of the Union
had been stated prior to Anderson’s March 24 comments. The
Respondent fulfilled the Union’s April 12 information request
and made no claim of harassment with regard to that request.
Anderson recalled meeting with Attorney Jones regarding an
unrelated matter on May 12, the day after the May 11 infor-
mation request and the day before he asserted that there was no
contract at Garland or Springfield. In casual conversation, An-
derson recalled that Jones referred to the information request,
stating that Anderson was “asking for a lot of bullshit.” Ander-
son recalls answering, “Yes I am, but I need it.” He claims that
Jones stated that he would be responding, but no response was
received until September 27. Anderson’s agreement that the
information sought was “bullshit,” absent an explanation re-
garding why the information was needed, confirms my finding
that the information requested was irrelevant.
Notwithstanding my finding that the information sought in
the May 11 request was not relevant, I agree with the General
Counsel that an employer may not ignore a union’s request for
information. Information relating to unit employees is presump-
tively relevant. “It is well established that when a union makes
a request for relevant information, the employer has a duty to
supply the information in a timely fashion or to adequately
explain why the information was not furnished.” Beverly Cali-
fornia Corp., 326 NLRB 153, 157 (1998). The Union requested
information relating to unit employees. The Respondent was
obligated to inform the Union in a timely manner that it would
not provide the information and the reasons for its refusal.
An employer cannot simply ignore a union’s information re-
quest. See Daimler Chrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1329
(2000); Interstate Food Processing, 283 NLRB 303, 304 at fn.
9 (1987). The Respondent herein was obligated to inform the
Union in a timely manner of the reasons that it did not believe
that the information sought was relevant. “[A]n employer must
respond to a union's requests for relevant information within a
reasonable time, either by complying with it or by stating its
reason for noncompliance within a reasonable period of time.
Failure to make either response in a reasonable time is, by
itself, a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Some
kind of response or reaction is mandatory.” Columbia Universi-
ty, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990), citing Ellsworth Sheet Metal,
232 NLRB 109 (1977). [Emphasis added.] The September 27
response, more than 4 months after the May 11 request, was not
made in a timely manner. The Respondent’s brief does not
address the foregoing precedent.
Although the Respondent did not violate the Act by failing to
provide the irrelevant information requested by the Union on
May 11, I find that, by not providing a timely response to the
Union's May 11 information request, the Respondent failed and
refused to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing to respond to the May 11, 2011 information re-
quest of the Union in a timely manner, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered to post and email an appro-
priate notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, IronTiger Logistics, Inc., Kansas City,
Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to respond to information requests
made by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO, in a timely manner.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Garland, Texas; Springfield, Ohio; Macungie, Penn-
sylvania; and Dublin, Virginia, copies of the attached notice

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC. 243

marked Appendix.3 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 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 11, 2010.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

3 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.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
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 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 fail and refuse to respond to information re-
quests made by International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, in a timely manner.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.

IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC.