United Parcel Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 4, 2013

26-CA-072915 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 4, 2013)

JD(ATL)–5–13
Nashville, TN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
and CASES 26−CA−72915
26−CA−76655
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION, No. 480 26−CA−78241
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Michael W. Jeannette, Esq., for the Acting
General Counsel.
William T. Fiala, Esq. and Charles H. Williamson,
Esq., of Nashville, Tennessee, for the
Respondent.
Samuel Morris, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARGARET G. BRAKEBUSCH, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
Nashville, Tennessee, on August 28, 29, and 30, 2012. Teamsters Local Union No. 480,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union) filed the charges in 26-
CA-72915, 26-CA-76655, and 26-CA-7824, respectively, on January 23, March 15, and April
6, 2012. The Acting1 General Counsel issued the 570-page consolidated complaint on June
28, 2012. The Acting Regional Director thereafter issued an amendment to the complaint on
August 15, 2012. At the opening of the hearing in this matter, the complaint was further
amended in follow up to counsel for the Acting General Counsel’s notice of intent to amend
the consolidated complaint that was filed on August 22, 2012.
The consolidated complaint alleges that during 20082, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the
Union initiated information requests relating to 558 grievances in multiple requests and that

1 For purposes of brevity, the Acting General Counsel is referenced herein as General Counsel.
2 Only one complaint paragraph relates to an information request in 2008.
JD(ATL)–5–13
2
United Parcel Service, Inc. (Respondent) has failed and refused to provide the requested
information or has delayed in furnishing the requested information. The allegations are
included in 533 separate complaint paragraphs. In its answer, Respondent denies that it failed
and refused to provide the information. In its affirmative defenses, Respondent further asserts
that some or all of the information requested by the Union is not within Respondent’s 5
possession or control and also that Respondent has provided the Union with all requested
information in its possession to which the Union is legally entitled. Respondent additionally
asserts that any requested information that it has not provided to the Union is not necessary
for, or relevant to, the performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative for the
represented employees. Furthermore, Respondent defends its actions asserting that the 10
Union’s requests were overly broad, duplicative, and lacking sufficient specificity to allow
Respondent to identify and to provide the information. The Respondent additionally asserts
that the Union’s requests were submitted in bad faith and unduly burdensome. Finally,
Respondent maintains that any information provided was delivered in a reasonable time frame
that did not prejudice the Union in the performance of its duties as collective-bargaining 15
representative and delivered in compliance with the parties’ long-standing practice.
On the entire record, including my observations of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent, I
make the following:20
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an office and place of business in Nashville,
Tennessee, transports packages and freight throughout the United States and the world. 25
During the 12-month period ending May 31, 2012, Respondent derived gross revenues in
excess of $50,000 for the transportation of packages and freight from the State of Tennessee
directly to points outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),(6), and (7) of the Act. I
further find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the 30
Act.
I. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background35
The underlying facts of his case involve the Respondent’s operation in Whites Creek
Package Center in Nashville, Tennessee. The Whites Creek facility is the largest package hub
operation for the Respondent in the Nashville area with approximately 1650 employees.
Since at least 1979, the International Union, through this local and other locals, has been the 40
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain bargaining unit employees at
Respondent’s facility. The current collective-bargaining agreement became effective on
December 19, 2007, and continues in effect through July 31, 2013.
Len Hughes is employed by Respondent and is on a leave of absence serving as the 45
current business representative for the Union. There are approximately 32 union stewards at
JD(ATL)–5–13
3
the Whites Creek facility. Matthew Webb has been employed with Respondent since 1994.
He became Respondent’s Tennessee District Labor Relations manager in 2006 and in 2010 he
became the Mid-South District Labor Relations manager. Although Webb’s staff and
responsibilities increased, his duties in labor relations management have included dealing
with the Union’s requests for information and grievances. 5
B. The Grievance Process
Article 51 of the Southern Regional Supplemental Agreement between Respondent
and the Southern Area Teamsters contains the negotiated grievance process that covers the 10
Whites Creek Package Center. The article outlines each step of the grievance process and
specifies the time period for the completion of each step of the grievance procedure. Within 5
working days of an alleged contract violation, a grievance must be filed. A grievance filed
beyond the 5-day period is untimely under the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA). Once a grievance is filed, a steward has a 48-hour window to resolve the 15
grievance matter with the appropriate supervisor. If the matter cannot be settled at this first
step, the grievance will be turned over to the Local Union. The second step of the process
allows a 15-day period for management and the Local Union to resolve the issue. If the
parties cannot do so within this 15-day period, the Union has the option of taking the matter to
the Southern Region Area Parcel Grievance Committee (SRAPGC) for a hearing. The 20
collective-bargaining agreement contains no limitations or restrictions concerning the time
when the Union can request information related to a grievance. Article 47 of the collective-
bargaining agreement provides:
The Employer shall, upon written request, provide the Local Union or the 25
Steward designated by the Local Union, with documents/information that is
reasonably related (based on NLRA standards) to the pending grievance.
C. The Global Agreement
30
Webb testified that between 2007 and the time of the hearing, the Union has made
more than 1300 requests for information from Respondent. In June 2010, the parties entered
into an informal agreement to settle prior Board charges. The agreement, referred to as the
Global Agreement, dealt in part with the issue of the Union’s information requests to
Respondent. The agreement also provided for setting up a procedure for employees in the 35
full-time shifter position to be given the opportunity to work overtime instead of less senior
and lesser paid employees from other classifications. Shifter employees move trailers from
one location to another within the confines of the facility. General Counsel asserts that the
overwhelming majority of information requests involved in this case relate to the issue of
overtime denial for shifter employees. In June 2010, and after the settlement, Webb 40
designated a management employee to devote all of her time to collecting information for the
Union’s information requests.
JD(ATL)–5–13
4
D. The Scope of the Complaint Allegations
The hearing in this matter involves the litigation of three unfair labor practice charges
filed by the Union in January, March, and April 2012. The 570-page complaint contains 5333
paragraphs alleging that the Union requested information from Respondent and that the 5
Respondent either failed to provide all of the information requested and/or delayed in
providing the requested information. Almost every complaint paragraph relates to a specific
grievance that is alleged to be in issue and identifies the information requested as well as the
dates and means by which the Union requested information. Every complaint paragraph lists
multiple dates for information requests. The extent and the significance of these multiple 10
requests are further discussed in this decision.
General Counsel submits that 489 of the grievances relate in some way to issues
involving the shifter classification. General Counsel also asserts that the complaint involves
13 grievances concerning discipline, 14 grievances concerning supervisors performing 15
bargaining unit work, 15 grievances concerning job bidding and extra work issues, and 15
grievances concerning union duty issues. There are four grievances that concern
subcontracting, pay related issues, or safety issues.
E. Prevailing Legal Authority20
1. Failure to provide information
Pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, an employer, upon request, has a duty to
furnish its employees’ bargaining representative with information that is relevant and 25
necessary to the performance of its statutory duties. Pulaski Construction Co., 345 NLRB
931, 935 (2005); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). This duty includes
providing information relevant to contract administration including the processing of
grievances. Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1367 (2000); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S.
149 (1956). The Board has long held that requested information necessary to decide whether 30
to proceed with a grievance or arbitration must be provided by an employer. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., supra at 437-438. American National Can Co., 293 NLRB 901 (1989); United
Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985); Eazor Exprees, 271 NLRB 495 (1984). In fact,
an employer has an obligation to furnish the bargaining representative the requested
information if there is merely a probability that such information is relevant and will be of use 35
to the union in fulfilling its statutory duties and responsibility as the employees’ exclusive
bargaining representative. Bentley-Jost Electric Corp., 283 NLRB 564, 567 (1987).
In determining the relevancy of the requested information, the Board uses a liberal
discovery-type standard. Information concerning terms and conditions of employment of 40
bargaining unit employees represented by the union is presumptively relevant. Ibid; W L
Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239 (1984). Citing its decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 346 NLRB
62, 64 (2005), the Board explained in Dodger Theatricals Holdings, Inc., 347 NLRB 953, 967
(2006), that a union’s burden is not an exceptionally heavy burden in showing relevancy. The

3 General Counsel withdrew complaint par. 357 at the beginning of the hearing.
JD(ATL)–5–13
5
test of the union’s need for information is simply a showing that the desired information is
relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and
responsibilities. Acme Industrial Co., above at 437. In fact, the union need not demonstrate
that the information sought is certainly relevant or clearly dispositive of the basic issues
between the parties. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 239 NLRB 106, 107 (1978). The requested 5
information needs only to have some bearing on the issues between the parties. W L Molding
Co., above at 1239. The Board, in determining that information is producible, does not pass
on the merits of the underlying grievance; and the union is not required to demonstrate that
the information sought is accurate, nonhearsay, or even ultimately reliable. Ibid.
10
When the information is presumptively relevant, the employer has the burden of
rebutting the presumption by proving that it is either not relevant or that it cannot, in good
faith, supply the information. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 311 NLRB 424, 425 (1993). An
employer is not empowered to make a unilateral determination that presumptively or
otherwise demonstrably relevant information sought by the union is unnecessary or irrelevant 15
to the performance of the union’s statutory duties. The Board has rejected this kind of
argument in finding that an employer’s claim that the requested information appears
unnecessary is not an adequate basis for refusal. Amphlett Printing Co., 237 NLRB 955, 956
(1978). Additionally, an employer may not simply refuse to comply with a request it
considers overly broad and/or onerous. Keauhou Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702 (1990). 20
2. Delay in producing requested information
The duty of the Respondent to furnish information relevant to and necessary for the
performance of the Union’s statutory duty requires the Respondent to do so in a timely 25
manner. An employer’s “unreasonable” delay in furnishing requested information is as much
of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all.
Amersig Graphics, Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2001). See also the Board’s holdings in Britt
Metal Processing, Inc., 322 NLRB 421, 425 (1996), affd. mem. 134 F.3d 385 (11th Cir. 1997),
and Leland Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992). The Board evaluates the 30
reasonableness of an employer’s delay in supplying information based on the complexity and
extent of the information sought, its availability, and the difficulty in retrieving the
information. West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enfd. in part and remanded
394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005); Samaritan Medical Center, 319 NLRB 392, 398 (1995).
35
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Overview of Findings
As referenced above, the outstanding complaint contains a multitude of information 40
requests over a 3-year period. Each complaint paragraph contains a listing of multiple
requests for the same information for separate and individual grievances. Overall, almost
every complaint paragraph reflects no less than three separate requests and some complaint
paragraphs reflect as many as five or six information requests for a single grievance. These
requests primarily cover a period of time from April 7, 2009, through April 24, 2012. Only 45
one request for information in issue occurred in 2008. Each request seeks the production of
JD(ATL)–5–13
6
multiple categories of documents. In analyzing each complaint allegation and each request
included therein, I have determined that Respondent unlawfully failed to provide requested
information as alleged in certain complaint paragraphs and I have also found that Respondent
unlawfully delayed in providing the requested information as alleged in specific complaint
paragraphs. Additionally, and for the reasons explained below, I have also found that 5
Respondent did not violate the Act with respect to other complaint allegations. My findings
and conclusions are discussed below.
B. Respondent’s Unlawful Failure to Provide Information
10
Each complaint paragraph includes multiple dates when the Union requested the same
information relating to a single grievance. Each information request seeks multiple
documents involving various employees within specified, as well as, unspecified time periods.
Each complaint paragraph includes the initial date when specific information was requested,
as well as the subsequent dates when this same information request was duplicated. Based on 15
the entire record, I find that Respondent has unlawfully failed to provide information to the
Union for requests made on the following dates:
2008 and 2009 Requests
Date of Request Number4 of Requests for Date Complaint paragraph(s)
7-14-2008 1 481
6-5-09 8 290-294, 533-535
9-2-09 4 495, 530-532
4-7-09 1 284
8-26-09 7 495-498, 530-532
11-16-09 50 95-108, 120, 125, 127, 483-493,
499-502, 504-521
12-10-09 1 483
20
2010 Requests
Date of Request Number5 of Requests for Date Complaint paragraph(s)
1-18-10 16 70-75, 82, 83, 134, 141, 142,
152-155, 163
1-22-10 1 497
2-22-10 32 80, 119, 121-124, 128-133, 135-
137, 143-149, 151, 156, 158,
159, 522-524, 526, 528, 529
3-4-10 6 81, 126, 150, 157, 182, 183
3-30-10 20 76-79, 84-86, 138, 160, 162,
167, 173-177, 192, 194, 196-197
4-22-10 54 87-91, 139, 140, 161, 168-172,
178-181, 184-191, 193, 195,

4 This is the total number of information requests that the Union made on this date.
5 This is the total number of information requests that the Union made on this date.
JD(ATL)–5–13
7
198-214, 217-226
6-1-10 16 244-248, 250, 252-257, 259,
260, 262, 525
6-29-10 43 109, 111-118, 164-166, 215,
216, 227-240, 249, 251, 258,
261, 263-272, 494
7-26-106 12 241-243, 527
8-4-10 3 92-94
10-18-107 1 305
11-11-10 1 295
12-14-10 17 280, 282, 299, 300, 303, 306-317
2011 Requests
Date of Request Number8 of Requests on Date Complaint paragraph(s)
2-24-11 1 473
2-27-11 1 473
3-30-11 4 324-327
4-5-11 5 328-330, 332, 333
5-16-11 2 336, 537
5-17-11 1 338
6-6-11 1 12
6-7-119 1 12
6-13-11 15 15-28, 341
8-1-11 3 281, 323, 355
8-5-11 3 12, 30, 356
8-9-11 1 503
8-12-11 9 31-33, 35-38, 281, 323
8-18-11 4 13, 281, 323, 503
8-25-11 1 39
8-26-11 3 40-42
8-29-11 1 14
8-31-11 2 283
9-2-11 1 345
9-5-11 3 346-48
9-8-11 1 12
9-9-11 1 14
9-12-11 1 503
9-14-11 1 345
9-15-11 2 331, 344

6 On August 9, 2010, Respondent provided five of the six requested categories of information.
7 On November 5, 2010, Respondent provided five of the six requested categories of
information.
8 This is the total number of information requests that the Union made on his date.
9 On June 7, 2011, the Union duplicated its information request from the previous day.
JD(ATL)–5–13
8
9-16-11 6 43, 349-350, 358-360
9-20-11 2 481, 482
9-22-11 1 281
9-25-11 91 76, 77
10-7-11 6 366
11-7-11 13 58
11-18-11 8 69
12-1-11 6 351, 375, 421, 422, 423, 424
12-2-11 2 453, 454
12-5-11 6 352, 452, 455
12-14-11 1 352
2012 Requests
Date of Request Number10 of Requests on Date Complaint paragraph(s)
1-7-12 4 435-437, 456
1-8-12 1 536
1-15-12 5 304, 456, 536, 537, 538
1-20-12 36 365, 368, 370-373, 379-398,
401, 427-433, 457, 458
1-21-12 4 304, 378, 536, 537
1-28-12 36 365, 368, 370-373, 378-385,
387-398, 403, 427-433, 457, 458
1-29-12 2 450, 451
2-2-12 3 378, 403, 536
2-4-12 6 347, 349, 405, 406, 448, 482
2-7-12 1 437
2-9-12 1 462
2-10-12 35 365, 370-372, 379-381, 384-393,
395, 396, 347, 368, 398, 427-
429, 431-433, 450, 451, 457,
458, 537-539
2-13-12 3 415, 440, 441
2-17-12 1 540
2-20-12 3 414, 417, 419
2-24-12 4 416, 420, 540, 541, 473
2-27-12 23 407-417, 419-420, 438-441, 459-
462, 465, 466
3-4-12 30 347, 407-417, 419, 420, 438-
440, 459-462, 465, 466, 473,
481, 503, 539-542
3-5-12 1 281
3-7-12 3 353
3-8-12 3 444, 468, 541

10 This number is the total number of requests that the Union made on this date.
JD(ATL)–5–13
9
3-9-12 4 474
3-11-12 27 286-289, 296-298, 301, 302,
318, 319, 321, 322, 324-330,
332-333, 336-338
3-12-12 5 320, 335
3-14-12 28 286-289, 296-298, 301, 302,
318, 320-330, 332, 333, 335-339
3-15-12 2 319, 334
3-16-12 6 283, 346, 348, 478, 347, 441
3-20-12 6 354, 418, 442, 443, 464, 543
3-21-12 6 283, 346, 348, 403, 428, 542
3-23-12 7 354, 418, 442, 443, 464, 542,
543
3-27-12 13 283, 286, 288, 289, 296-298,
301, 318, 319, 321, 348, 440
3-29-12 25 284, 285, 290-294, 354, 377,
400, 402, 425, 426, 463, 476-
479, 497, 498, 533-535, 543
4-4-12 26 284, 285, 290-294, 376, 377,
399, 400, 402, 425, 426, 463,
476-479, 496-498, 533-535, 544
4-9-12 14 376, 377, 399, 400, 402, 425,
426, 463, 476-479, 498, 544
C. Respondent’s Unlawful Delay in Providing Information to the Union
I find that Respondent has unlawfully delayed in providing information for the periods
listed below and as alleged in the corresponding complaint paragraphs:5
1. Delay in providing information requested in 2009
Dates of Alleged Delay Alleged in complaint paragraph(s)
6-5-09 to 4-18-12 535
8-26-09 to 1-22-10 496-498
8-26-09 to 2-29-12 495, 530, 531
8-26-09 to 4-17-12 530, 531
8-26-09 to 4-18-12 495
8-29-09 to 2-29-12 532
8-29-09 to 4-17-12 532
11-16-09 to 1-22-10 494, 500, 501, 504-514
11-16-09 to 1-7-11 512-514, 518
11-16-09 to 2-20-12 97, 98
11-16-09 to 3-18-11 99
11-16-09 to 2-20-12 99-108
11-16-09 to 10-17-10 127
JD(ATL)–5–13
10
11-16-09 to 10-29-10 483
2. Delay in providing information requested in 2010
Dates of Alleged Delay Alleged in complaint paragraph(s)
1-1811-10 to 3-18-11 152
1-18-10 to 2-29-12 70-72
1-18-10 to 3-18-11 73-75, 134, 141, 142, 153-155, 163
1-18-10 to 2-29-12 73, 82, 83
2-22-10 to 3-18-11 121-124, 128-133, 135-137, 143-149, 151,
158, 159
2-22-10 to 2-20-12 80
3-4-10 to 2-29-12 81
3-4-10 to 3-18-11 126, 150, 157, 182, 183
3-30-10 to 2-20-12 76, 77, 78, 79, 84-86
3-30-10 to 3-18-11 138, 160, 162, 167, 173-177, 194, 196, 197
4-22-10 to 2-20-12 87
4-22-10 to 3-18-11 88, 139, 140, 161, 168-172, 178-181, 184-
189
4-22-10 to 2-29-12 89, 90, 91
4-22-10 to 3-18-11 190, 191, 195, 198-214, 217-226
6-1-10 to 3-18-11 244-247, 250, 252-257, 259, 260, 262
6-29-10 to 3-18-11 109, 215, 216, 228-237, 248, 249, 258, 261,
265-272, 494
6-29-10 to 12-14-11 109, 111-118, 164, 166, 215, 216, 227, 234-
237, 239, 248, 249, 251, 258, 261, 263-272,
494
6-29-10 to 12-15-11 165
6-29-10 to 12-11-11 228-233
8-4-10 to 2-29-12 92-94
3. Delay in providing information requested in 20115
Dates of Alleged Delay Alleged in Paragraph(s)
6-13-11 to 2-7-12 and 2-25-12 15-28
6-13-11 to 12-14-11 341
8-30-11 to 11-10-11 340
8-31-11 to 3-16-12 283
9-5-11 to 4-12-12 348
9-5-11 to 3-6-12 347

11 Par. 152 of the consolidated complaint erroneously alleges that since January 10, 2010, the
Respondent delayed in producing the requested information. Inasmuch as the complaint also
alleges that the initial request for information was made on January 18, 2010, par. 152 (f) is
incorrect.
JD(ATL)–5–13
11
9-5-11 to 4-14-12 346
9-15-11 to 2-7-12 344
10-6-11 to 2-7-12 and 2-8-12 349
10-6-11 to 2-1-12 350
12-20-11 to 4-10-12 361
12-20-11 to 3-8-12 362, 367, 471
12-20-11 to 3-8-12 470
12-20-11 to 3-9-12 363, 364, 369, 374, 472
12-20-11 to 3-27-12 469
12-21-11 to 3-27-11 468
D. Complaint Allegations not Supported by the Record
1. Respondent did not unlawfully delay in providing information
5
In determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed in furnishing requested
information to a union, there is no authority that defines how much delay constitutes unlawful
delay. A determination of whether an employer has acted unlawfully is based on the
individual facts of the case. In its decision in Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000),
the Board rejected the employer’s assertion that a 7-week delay was minimal and found that 10
the employer’s delay in providing information as unlawful. The Board also considered the
fact that the information was provided only one day before the employer declared an impasse
in bargaining. The Board determined that this sequence of events severely diminished the
usefulness to the union at the time that it was provided. In Regency Service Carts, 345 NLRB
671, 674 (2005), the Board found that the employer intended to frustrate negotiations with the 15
union and prevent the successful negotiation of a bargaining agreement. In addition to finding
that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, the Union also found that the employer’s 16-
week delay in providing requested information was unlawful. Thus, in both Woodland Clinic
and Regency, the Board looked at the facts surrounding the request and the alleged delay.
Unlike the circumstances considered by the Board in Woodland Clinic and Regency, there 20
were a number of information requests in this case in which there was minimal delay by the
Respondent in providing the requested information and no evidence that the delay severely
diminished the usefulness of the information as found in Woodland Clinic and Regency. In
determining whether an employer unlawfully delayed in responding to an information request,
the Board looks to the totality of the circumstances, including the complexity and extent of 25
the information sought, its availability and the difficulty in its retrieval. West Penn Power
Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enfd. in pertinent part 349 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005).
Considering the total circumstances of this case and in light of the tremendous number
of the Union’s information requests that were made on or about the time of these requests, and 30
in total, I find that Respondent did not unlawfully delay in providing the requested
information as alleged in the consolidated complaint:
Dates of Alleged Delay Complaint Paragraphs
6-29-10 to 8-9-10 238, 240
JD(ATL)–5–13
12
8-31-11 to 10-27-11 283
9-2-11 to 10-25-11 345
12-6-11 to 1-30-12 304
12-7-11 to 2-7-12 30-43, 53, 54, 59-61, 65-68, 58, 355, 35612
12-7-11 to 2-1-12 50
12-7-11 to 2-15-12 58
12-9-11 to 2-7-12 44-49, 51, 52, 55-57, 62-64
12-9-11 to 2-1-12 44-49
12-9-11 to 1-26-12 52
12-9-11 to 2-16-12 69
12-20-11 to 2-7-12 361-364, 367, 369, 374, 434, 445, 446, 449,
469, 470, 471, 472
12-20-11 to 2-8-12 467
12-20-11 to 2-17-12 446
12-21-11 to 2-7-12 468
12-22-11 to 1-30-12 343
12-22-11 to 2-7-12 447
12-22-11 to 1-27-12 448
12-22-11 to 2-1-12 342, 404
12-22-11 to 2-17-12 447
12-22-11 to 2-18-12 342, 404
12-27-11 to 2-7-12 435-437, 456
12-27-11 to 2-17-12 435-437
12-27-11 to 2-23-12 456
1-20-12 to 2-20-12 368
1-20-12 to 2-22-12 370, 371, 379, 392-395, 398, 427
1-20-12 to 2-23-12 429, 430
3-11-12 to 4-13-12 298, 301, 302
There are additional delays in providing information that I have not found to be unlawful.
These requests are covered later in this decision as the explanation for my findings relate to
other complaint allegations.
5

12 These complaint paragraphs allege that Respondent unlawfully delayed in furnishing
information from December 7, 2011, until February 7, 2012. The complaint also reflects that
the original requests for information for grievance nos. 18603 and 18608 (complaint pars. 355
and 356) were made on August 5, 2011, and these requests included nothing more than the
standard nonspecific requests for shift reports, staffing reports, timecards, WOR, and payroll
histories without any identification as to dates or employee records sought by the request. On
December 7, 2011, the Union updated its request to include requests for specific employee
records and time periods. Even before the Union modified its request for information to be
more specific, Respondent attempted to furnish the requested information as early as August
12, 2011; 12 days after the initial request. Thus, when Respondent provided additional
information on February 7, 2012, it only supplemented what had already been provided 12
days after the initial nonspecific request.
JD(ATL)–5–13
13
2. Respondent did not fail to provide information as requested
With 533 complaint paragraphs involving at least 1600 separate requests for
information, I have found merit to some of the allegations and no merit to others. For requests
that were incomplete, ambiguous, or of such a nature that Respondent could not appropriately 5
respond, I find that Respondent did not violate the Act as alleged. These are addressed below,
as well as any complaint allegations that appear to be in error.
a. Pleading errors
10
Paragraph 14 alleges that an initial request for information for grievance #15595 was
made on September 29, 2011.13 The complaint also alleges that Respondent provided a
portion of the requested information on January 25, 2011.14 The complaint further alleges that
from August 29 to January 25, 2011, Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the
Union with the information that was allegedly provided on January 15, 2011. Although the 15
consolidated complaint was amended on August 16 and 28, 2012, a correction in this pleading
was apparently inadvertently overlooked. Accordingly, no merit is found to the allegation of
an unreasonable delay in providing information as alleged in paragraph 14.
General Counsel amended paragraph 29 (a) on August 16, 2012, to allege that the 20
Union requested information on September 29, 2011, in connection with grievance #18312.
Subparts 29(f), (g), and (h) were not amended however. Thus, no merit can be found to the
allegations of complaint paragraph 29 alleging that Respondent has unreasonably delayed in
furnishing information or failed and refused to furnish information since August 29, 2011, as
alleged in subparts (f), (g), and (h) of paragraph 29. 25
b. Vague and ambiguous requests
Paragraph 376 alleges that on March 29, 2012, in connection with grievance #18882,
the Respondent failed to furnish “Employee Record (including Attendance Report and 30
Document Talk-Ins) for previous one (1) year.” The request was repeated on April 4 and 9,
2012. Inasmuch as the request lacks sufficient specificity for Respondent to adequately
respond, I find no violation in Respondent’s failure to furnish the requested information.
E. Whether the Requests Were Made in Bad Faith35
Although the Respondent denies that it has failed and refused to provide information
to the Union, the Respondent maintains that the Union acted in bad faith with respect to the
requests for information that are in issue. In asserting that the Union has acted in bad faith, the
Respondent asserts a number of different grounds. 40

13 The August 16, 2012 complaint amendment changed this date from August 29, 2011 to
September 29, 2011.
14 The August 16, 2012 complaint amendment changed this date from January 15, 2011 to
January 25, 2011.
JD(ATL)–5–13
14
Hughes testified that at a minimum, the Union has 2000 pending grievances.
Respondent asserts that from 2007 forward, the Union made more than a thousand
information requests for thousands of grievances forcing Respondent to devote a significant
amount of resources to attempt to keep up with the flood of requests. There is no dispute that
in June 2010, Respondent moved Supervisor Amy Snead to its District Labor Department to 5
assist the Whites Creek facility in responding to the volume of information requests it
received. Respondent contends that as the Union did in 2009, it has now hoarded hundreds of
information requests to which the Union claims that Respondent has not responded or has
delayed in providing the information.
10
1. Respondent’s arguments concerning the nature of the requested information
a. The alleged reasons for the requests
Respondent submits that the Union made no individualized determination regarding its 15
need for the information prior to requesting it and that the Union has abused the information
process by automatically requesting, in every instance, categories of documents it may not
ever need and without any real intention of using the information. Furthermore, Respondent
submits that the Union has used the unfair labor practice charges to pressure Respondent to
make large concessions on bargaining issues that the Union had previously failed to obtain 20
through the collective-bargaining process. Specifically, Respondent maintains that by
accumulating a large number of information requests, the Union is using the unfair labor
charges to pressure Respondent to make concessions regarding the use of the shifter position;
a change that the Union has not been able to achieve through the collective-bargaining
process or through the global settlement in 2010. In support of this argument, Respondent 25
relies on the testimony of Business Agent Hughes when he testified:
The company is using anyone and everyone they want to perform shifting
work and they have … all but destroyed the Shifter classification over the
course of the years. And this is what we’re trying to resolve and get our arms 30
around.
Respondent argues that because 90 percent of the information requests at issue in this case
involve the shifter position, the Union is thus manipulating the information request process to
achieve concessions that it has otherwise not obtained in through the bargaining process. 35
b. Respondent’s argument that the Union requests unnecessary records
Respondent also points to a number of examples where it contends that the Union
requested six different items for a grievance matter when only one of which would have been 40
sufficient. As an example, Respondent points to union grievance no. 18901; alleging that
Supervisor Amy Snead (Snead) delivered packages on a specific date and thus performed
bargaining unit work. (GC Ex. 378.) In its January 21, 2012 request for information, the
Union requested six categories of information including the delivery and pickup records for
Snead, identifying any and all delivery and pickups made by Snead on January 5, 2012. 45
Hughes admitted that the delivery and package records would identify every single package
JD(ATL)–5–13
15
delivered at or picked up with a time stamp and address of the work that Snead performed that
date. Hughes further explained that such record is the true source document that identifies the
work performed and not the work allegedly performed. Despite High’s testimony, however,
the Union’s request of January 21, 2012, included a request for all of the following:
5
1. Time card for Supervisor Amy Snead for 1/5/12.
2. Delivery and Pick Up Records for Amy Snead, identifying any/all
delivery and pick ups made by Snead on 1/15/12.
3. Shuttle and Misload Log identifying all packages which were LIB (Left
in Building) and/or shuttled to PCD’s or TCD’s by Snead on January 5, 10
2012.
4. Verification of which employee(s) (hourly or management) ran Route
30 D on 1/5/12.
5. Times which Supervisor Snead departed Whites Creek and returned to
Whites Creek on 1/5/12.15
6. Vehicle number and associated vehicle statistics for UPS equipment
operated by Snead on January 1/5/12.
Respondent asserts that based on Hughes’ testimony, Snead’s delivery and pickup
records should have been sufficient and that the duplicative nature of the requested 20
information only belies the Union’s claim that it needed all of the requested information.
Although Respondent asserts that the Union could have obtained the same kind of information
in far fewer documents, I am aware that a union’s request for information need not be
dispositive of the issue between the parties; it must merely have some bearing on it.
Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105 (1991). Thus, what might be considered by 25
the Respondent to be superfluous and unnecessary may nevertheless be sufficiently relevant
under the liberal “discovery type” standard. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432
(1967). Using that standard, I do not find that Respondent was relieved of its duty to provide
the information as requested in this complaint paragraph. Furthermore, this standard would
preclude me from finding that Respondent is relieved of its obligation to furnish other 30
requested information simply because the Union may request information that exceeds its
need.
2. The Union’s standard request for five categories of documents
35
The Respondent contends that while each grievance is unique and presents a
potentially different issue, the Union routinely requests the same documents for any shifter-
related grievance. The Union does not dispute that it commonly requests the same five
categories of documents for any shifter related grievance. These documents include
timecards, payroll history, staffing reports, shifter detail reports, and the Weekly Operations 40
Report (WOR). Respondent argues that in fact the Union repeatedly requests these same
documents when they are not needed and that the Union does so in bad faith. In its brief,
Respondent cites an example of the Union’s request for information that was admittedly not
necessary to process the grievance in question. In grievance no. 19166, shifter employee
Pamela Buck claimed that a less senior employee was sent home before she was sent home. 45
Respondent points out that Buck was not making any pay claim. Despite the fact that the
JD(ATL)–5–13
16
employee was seeking no pay adjustment, the Union nevertheless requested the following
records in its initial request for information on November 7, 2011:
1. Shift Reports
2. Staffing Records5
3. Time Cards
4. WOR
5. Payroll Histories
During his testimony, Hughes explained that in this grievance Buck was simply requesting 10
that her seniority be honored. Hughes further acknowledged that based on the facts of the
grievance, the documents requested on November 7, 2011 were not necessary. He further
explained that this request for information was a prime example of the Union’s using what he
termed the “cookie cutter five” standard request. Hughes confirmed that if the grievance was
shifter related, the Union routinely requested the same five core groups of documents. 15
Admitting that the Union requested more documentation than was necessary for grievance no.
19166, Hughes testified “all is fair in love and war.”
The General Counsel’s consolidated complaint includes 533 substantive paragraphs
identifying specific grievances and the information requested by the Union on various dates 20
concerning the grievance issue. My review of the complaint allegations reflects that out of
the 533 initial information requests, only 64 involved information requests that did not also
include the Union’s five core document categories. Of the remaining 469 initial requests
included in the consolidated complaint, only 16 initial requests included a request for some
but not all, of the five core or cookie cutter document categories. All of the remaining 454 25
initial requests demanded the production of shift reports, staffing reports, timecards, payroll
histories, and the weekly operations reports for each grievance.
It is apparent that not only does the Union always request these same five categories of
documents if the grievance relates in any way to the shifter position, the Union often makes 30
its request by simply copying the words “Shifting Reports, Staffing Reports, Payroll History,
Timecards, and WOR’s at the bottom of the newly filed grievance near the section entitled
“Documents/information Requested by Steward.” My review indicates that for 157 of the 454
initial requests seeking the production of these five same document categories, the Union did
nothing more than simply add the names of these five documents to the bottom of the 35
grievance form without any reference to dates, employees, or any other identifying factors. In
order to respond to this kind of information request, the Respondent had to do so with no
information concerning whose shift reports, staffing reports, payroll histories, or time cards
the Union was seeking. Furthermore, Respondent was given no indication as to which dates
were sought for any of these reports. In many instances, approximately a month to 2 months 40
after the initial request seeking only “Shift Reports, Staffing Reports, Time Cards, WOR
(Weekly Operation Reports), and Payroll Histories, the Union usually submitted a more
complete request citing specific employees and dates for the requested reports.
Citing East Tennesee Baptist Hospital v. NLRB, 6 F.3d 1139, 1144 (6th Cir. 1993), 45
Respondent asserts that a union cannot insist on receiving information in particular formats
JD(ATL)–5–13
17
demanded by the union. Relying on the Board’s decisions in New York Presbyterian Hospital,
354 NLRB 71 (2009), and Food Employer Council, 197 NLRB 651 (1972), Respondent
argues that it has no legal obligation to provide the information requested by the Union in the
format demanded by the Union. While it is apparent that the Union often uses a shotgun
approach in its request for information, there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the 5
Union’s requests were made in bad faith simply because of the brevity of the requests or the
failure to tailor its request to the specific nature of the grievance. The Board has held that an
employer is not relieved of the duty to respond to an ambiguous or an overly broad
information request; but must request clarification or comply with the request to the extent
that it encompasses necessary and relevant information. Superior Protection Inc., 341 NLRB 10
267, 269 (2004), enfd. 401 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, the employer’s duty to
furnish information remains in tack regardless of the potential merits of a grievance. Schrock
Cabinet Co., 339 NLRB 182, 185 fn. 6 (2003). Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB
258, 259 (1994). Typically, when information is requested in connection with a grievance,
the Board’s test for relevance is essentially a liberal one. In NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 15
385 U.S. 432 (1967), the Supreme Court sanctioned the Board’s view that a liberal and broad
discovery type criterion applies to union information requests related to the evaluation of
grievances. The Board has continued to follow this standard. As the Board explained in
Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 104, 1105 (1991), the information sought need not be
dispositive of the issue between the parties but must merely have some bearing on it. 20
The overall record, including the testimony of Hughes, reflects that the Union
routinely requested the same category of documents if the grievance related in any way to
employees performing shifter work, without any apparent attention to whether these
documents were actually required to analyze the merits of the grievance. As discussed above, 25
the Union very often simply listed these document categories to the bottom of a grievance
without any specificity or identifying details. Although such practices could be termed as
inefficient or even dilatory, such practices as a general rule would not necessarily constitute
bad faith. The record demonstrates that the Union’s use of these standard requests, in
conjunction with the timing of its multiple requests, has also hindered the process of obtaining 30
information from the Respondent. This practice, which reveals the degenerative working
relationship between the Union and Respondent, is discussed in more detail below.
3. Practices supporting Respondent’s claims of bad faith
35
a. Prevailing authority
Although the Union’s practices in general do not rise to the level of bad faith as
argued by Respondent, there are patterns of information requests that raise questions as to the
Union’s underlying motivation. At the very least, these particular requests for information 40
suggest a disinterest in genuine communication with Respondent. By their very nature and
timing, such requests almost seem crafted to guarantee Respondent’s failure in responding.
There is no question that a union is entitled to request from the employer relevant
information necessary for the proper performance of its duties as a bargaining representative. 45
The request must be made in good faith and the Board has found that this requirement is met
JD(ATL)–5–13
18
if at least one reason for the demand can be justified. Land Rover Redwood City, 330 NLRB
331, 331-332 fn. 3 (1999); Associated General Contractors of California, 242 NLRB 891,
894 (1979), enfd. as modified 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 452 U.S. 915 (1981).
Furthermore, there is a presumption that a union acts in good faith when its requests
information from an employer until the contrary is shown. International Paper Co., 319 5
NLRB 1253, 1266 (1995), enf. denied on other grounds 115 F.3d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1997). O &
A Industries, 269 NLRB 986, 987 (1984).
Although an employer has a duty to provide information to a reasonable request, the
duty cannot be defined in terms of a per se rule. The employer is required only to make a 10
reasonable good faith effort to respond to a request as promptly as circumstances will allow.
Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). In assessing the promptness of
an employer’s response, the Board will also consider the complexity and extent of
information requested, its availability, and the difficulty in retrieving the information. West
Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003); Samaritan Medical Center, 319 NLRB 392, 15
398 (1985), enfd. in relevant part 394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005); Postal Service, 308 NLRB 547
(1992). As pointed out by the Court in NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956),
each case must turn on its particular facts when determining whether there has been a breach
of a failure to bargain in good faith.
20
In West Penn Power Co., above, a union was not found to have acted in bad faith
when it flooded the employer with information requests and the employer was not excused for
its delay or inadequacy of response. The union submitted 82 separate requests for information
concerning 43 different subjects over a 19-month period. In affirming the Board, the court
rejected the employer’s argument that the union acted in bad faith by its repeated and 25
expansive information requests. In doing so, however, the court noted that there was no
evidence that the employer made any effort to obtain or provide the requested information. In
the instant case, I note that Respondent has repeatedly attempted to respond to the myriad of
information requests that are in issue.
30
The Board has also noted that if a union’s only reason for making its requests was for
harassment the employer would not be required to comply with the request. Island Creek
Coal Co., 292 NLRB 480, 489 (1989); Hawkins Construction Co., 285 NLRB 1313 (1987),
enfd. denied on other grounds 857 F.2d 1224 (8th Cir. 1988).
35
b. Requests for information that impede and delay responses
In reviewing the information requests that are the subject of these consolidated cases, I
have found a number of requests for information where it is apparent that the nature of the
requests impede, delay, or prevent a lawful response. Some, but not all of these are described 40
below.
Paragraph 13
On August 8, 2011, in connection with grievance #18772 involving the discharge of 45
Eric Rhodes, Len Hughes requested the following:
JD(ATL)–5–13
19
1. Payroll History for Eric Rhodes and Mohamed Baskin for week ending
7/23/11 and 7/30/11.
2. Employee record (Attendance & Talk-Withs) for Rhodes and Basin.
3. Copies of any/all statements, documents or information in the 5
Company’s possession regarding the alleged incident(s) of 7/21/11 and
subsequent investigation.
4. Copies of any/all statements, documents or information which the
Company reviewed and/or considered in discharging Rhodes and
Baskin. 10
5. List of all witness names provided to the Company by Rhodes and/or
Baskin (both hourly and management.)
6. Copies of any statements provided to the Company (including Security)
by Rhodes and/or Baskin.
15
On August 18, 2011, the Union sent another request for this same information. On
August 30, 2011 and within 22 days from the Union’s initial request, Respondent furnished
all the requested information. The next day after receiving the previously requested
information, Hughes sent Respondent an email requesting:
20
1. Supervisor Barry Anderson’s hire date.
2. List of previous jobs and dates of Supervisor Barry Anderson since he
has worked at Whites Creek.
3. Company policy addressing how management is expected to behave
outside of the workplace concerning interaction with hourly employees 25
(e.g. fraternalization, etc…..)
4. Available dates and times the Union can interview Sup. Barry
Anderson
5. Verification of employment of the following alleged witnesses to this
case, to include, Supervisor Barry Anderson, Greg Taylor, Craig 30
Riggins, Greg Taylor Jr., Devin Tucker, Devin Mayer and Kendall
Gross.
6. Verification of dates(s) of separation from employment regarding all
employees identified in Item 5 above.
35
Although there is no evidence that Respondent furnished the information requested on
August 31, 2011, as alleged in paragraph 13, the record also reflects that within 22 days of
receiving the initial information request concerning grievance #18772, Respondent furnished
all six categories of requested documents. Although there is no direct evidence of bad faith
by the Union in making its August 31, 2011 request, it cannot be ignored that the Union made 40
an entirely new request for information on the day following Respondent’s full compliance on
August 30, 2011. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that the information requested on August
31, 2011, has been provided, I find merit to complaint allegation 13.
JD(ATL)–5–13
20
Paragraph 365
On January 3, 2012, the Union filed grievance #18653 contending that a feeder driver
from Evansville, Indiana facility was performing shifting work and affecting the pay for
employee David Williams. At the bottom of the grievance, the following documentation was 5
listed as documents requested by the Steward. No additional information was provided with
respect to the employees for which the information was requested or the time periods for
which the information was requested.
Shift Reports10
Staffing Reports
Time Cards
WOR (Weekly Operation Report)
Payroll History
15
Complaint paragraph 365 (b) alleges that on January 20, 2012, Hughes requested by
email that Respondent furnish the Union with the following information:
1. Shift reports for David Williams for week ending 1-1-12.
2. Shift reports for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week ending 20
1-1-12.
3. Payroll history for David Williams for week ending 1-1-12.
4. Payroll history for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week
ending 1-1-12.
5. Time cards for David Williams for week ending 1-1-12.25
6. Time cards for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week ending 1-
1-12.
7. WOR (Weekly Operations Report) for week ending 1-1-12.
8. Staffing Report (Vacation and Call-in sheets and staffing) for week
ending 1-1-12. 30
The complaint further alleges that on January 28, and only 8 days after this more
specific request of January 20, 2012, Hughes again requested this same information.
On January 31, 2012, Hughes sent another email to Respondent requesting the 35
following information in conjunction with grievance #18653:
1. Shift reports for David Williams for week ending 12.31.11.
2. Shift reports for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week ending
12.31.11.40
3. Payroll history for David Williams for week ending 12.31.11
4. Payroll history for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week
ending 12.31.11.
5. Time cards for David Williams for week ending 12.31.11.
6. Time cards for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for week ending 45
12.31.11.
JD(ATL)–5–13
21
7. WOR (Weekly Operations Report) for week ending 12.31.11.
8. Staffing Report (Vacation and Call-in sheets and staffing) for week
ending 12.31.11.
On February 7, 2012, Respondent furnished items 3, 4, and 7 of the items requested on 5
January 31, 2012.
On February 10, 2012, Hughes sent an email asserting that the Respondent had failed
to comply with the information request and asked that Respondent provide all missing
information immediately. 10
On February 22, 2012, Respondent furnished items 1, 5, and 8 of the items requested
on January 31, 2012.
In the consolidated complaint, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent has failed 15
and refused to furnish the Union with items 2 and 6 as requested on January 31, 2012.
Although there is no evidence that Respondent provided these last two items, the manner in
which these requests were made cannot be ignored. The Union’s initial request for
information gave Respondent no direction as to the actual documents that were desired.
Although the Union waited 17 days before providing a specific request for information, the20
Union waited only 8 days to submit an additional request for this same information on
January 20, 2012. Despite its requests of January 3, 2012 and January 20, 2012, Respondent
sent an entirely new request for information concerning this same grievance on January 31,
2012. There is no dispute that despite the fact that the Union made three separate requests for
information concerning this same grievance within a 28-day period, Respondent nevertheless 25
provided 6 of the 8 requested document categories by February 22, 2012. Although I find
merit to this complaint allegation, the circumstances surrounding these requests certainly
present a question of the Union’s underlying motivation.
Paragraph 38330
On November 30, 2011, the Union filed grievance #18984, asserting that seasonal
employees were performing work in the shifter classification. At the bottom of the grievance,
the following documents were identified as information requested by the steward. No
specifics were given with respect to the time period, the employee records involved, or the 35
departments for the requested documents.
Shifting Reports
Staffing Reports
Time Cards40
WOR’s
Payroll History
On January 20, 2012, and almost two months after the initial skeleton request, the
Union requested that the Respondent provide the following information concerning the 45
grievance:
JD(ATL)–5–13
22
1. Shift reports for David Williams for week ending 11-26-11.
2. Shift reports for Charles Shue for week ending 11-26-11.
3. Shift reports for Jose Porez for week ending 11-26-11.
4. Shift reports for Michael Lazarsky for week ending 11-26-11.5
5. Shift reports for Preston Shaw for week ending 11-26-11.
6. Shift reports for Cecil Buchanan for week ending 11-26-11.
7. Payroll history for David Williams for week ending 11-26-11.
8. Payroll history for Charles Shue for week ending 11-26-11.
9. Payroll history for Jose Porez for week ending 11-26-11.10
10. Payroll history for Michael Lazarsky for week ending 11-26-11.
11. Payroll history for Preston Shaw for week ending 11-26-11.
12. Payroll history for Cecil Buchanan for weekending 11-26-11.
13. Time cards for David Williams for week ending 11-26-11.
14. Time cards for Charles Shue for week ending 11-26-11.15
15. Time cards for Jose Porez for week ending 11-26-11.
16. Time cards for Michael Lazarsky for week ending 11-26-11.
17. Time cards for Preston Shaw for week ending 11-26-11.
18. Time cards for Cecil Buchanan for week ending 11-26-11.
19. WOR (Weekly Operations Report) for week ending 11-26-11.20
20. Staffing Report (Vacation and Call-in sheets and staffing) for week
ending 11-26-11.
On January 28, 2012, and 8 days after requesting the 20 items on January 20, 2012, the Union
requested that Respondent provide the information immediately. Three days later, however, 25
the Union submitted a new request for information concerning this grievance. The Union
included all of the 20 items from its January 20, 2012 request and included an additional
request for (1) shift reports for Brian Demonbreun for the week ending November 26, 2011;
(2) payroll history for Brian Demonbreun for the week ending 11-26-11; and (3) timecards for
Brian Demonbreun for the week ending 11-26-1. 30
Respondent furnished part of the requested information on February 7 and on
February 8, 2012. Although I find merit to the allegations of complaint 383, the
circumstances of the Union’s requests are similar to those described above concerning
complaint paragraph 365; raising the same questions concerning the Union’s motivation. 35
c. Respondent attempts to respond to insufficient requests
The consolidated complaint also contains a number of requests to which Respondent
attempted to provide information and yet the Respondent is alleged to have delayed in 40
providing information or is alleged to have failed to provide information. The circumstances
of this group of requests and responses are all quite similar.
The consolidated complaint contains 29 paragraphs that involve the Union’s requests
for information that were made between March 30, and July 1, 2011, in connection with 29 45
separate grievances. In each instance, the Union’s initial request for information included
JD(ATL)–5–13
23
only the five nonspecific categories of documents; timecards, staffing reports, shift reports,
payroll histories, and weekly operations reports without any clarification as to time periods,
employee records, departments, or other specific information sought. Despite the fact that the
initial request was without specificity, Respondent provided information in response to each
of these initial requests. In response to the non-specific initial requests that were made on 5
March 30, April 4 and 5, May 16 and 17, 2011, Respondent furnished a part of the requested
information on February 7, 2012. (Pars. 322, 324, 325-330, 332, 333, 336-338). On March
11, 2012, and after waiting for approximately a year after the initial request for information,
the Union made a specific request for the specific documents that it was seeking. Although I
have found merit to each of these complaint paragraphs, I also note that in each instance, 10
Respondent attempted to provide information to the Union’s vague and unspecified request
and the Union waited approximately a year before giving Respondent a specific and defined
request.
Complaint paragraphs 286 and 28715
In reviewing the Union’s requests using these same repeated categories of documents,
there are, however, instances where Respondent’s ability to adequately respond was
significantly hampered by the Union’s use of these nonspecific requests. The circumstances
of such requests lend further support for Respondent’s argument concerning the Union’s 20
motivations. Examples of such circumstance arose when the Union filed grievance #10133
(Complaint par. 286) and grievance #10134 (Complaint par. 287) on May 3, 2011, and simply
added the same skeleton list of document to the bottom of each grievance in hand-written
script. Both grievances were filed by Steward David R. Williams. On May 20, 2011,
Respondent provided staffing reports, timecards, and a WOR in response to the two 25
grievances and the nonspecific requests for information. On February 7, 2012, Respondent
provided the payroll history for Williams. Thereafter on March 7, 2012, Respondent
additionally provided information concerning staffing reports, timecards, and the WOR.
Finally, 10 months after simply hand-writing a skeleton information request at the bottom of
these grievances, the Union made a specific request on March 11, 2012, for the shift reports 30
and payroll histories for 2 days for employee Greg White. The Union repeated this request 3
days later and the Respondent provided the requested payroll histories on March 22, 2012.
The Union repeated its March 11, 2012 request on March 27, 2012. While the General
Counsel alleges that since March 11, 2012, Respondent ultimately failed to furnish the shift
report for Greg White for April 27, 2011 and April 28, 2011, it is apparent that Respondent 35
made a good faith effort to respond to the vague initial request and then later responded to the
Union’s more specific request that was not given until 10 months later. I also note that within
15 days after the Respondent provided its fourth response to the Union’s request for
information, the Union filed its charge in 26-CA-78241 alleging that Respondent had failed
and refused to provide information. After considering the entire interchange between the 40
Union and the Respondent, it is apparent that from the time of the Union’s initial unspecified
request on May 3, 2011, Respondent furnished information on four separate occasions even
without the benefit of knowing what specific data that the Union was seeking until March 11,
2012. Although I cannot conclude that the Union acted in bad faith in these requests on May
3, 2011, it is apparent that the Union’s actions contributed to Respondent’s failure to furnish 45
all of the requested information by the time that the charge was filed. Accordingly, I am not
JD(ATL)–5–13
24
convinced that Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to furnish information as alleged in
paragraphs 286 and 287.
Complaint paragraphs 301 and 302
5
On May 27, 2011, in connection with grievances 15933 and 15934, the Union
requested only the five nonspecific categories of documents. Without waiting for any
additional clarification as to specific documents sought by the Union, Respondent provided
shift reports, staffing reports, timecards, weekly operation reports, and payroll histories for the
employee who filed the two grievances on December 7, 2011. On February 7, 2012, 10
Respondent additionally provided the payroll history for another employee referenced in the
two grievances. On March 11, 2012, Hughes then submitted a specific information request
for payroll histories and time cards for an employee who did not file grievances 15933 and
15934. Three days later, Hughes requested the same information that was requested on
March 11, 2012. With respect to grievance 15933 (complaint par. 301), Hughes also requested 15
the same information on March 27, 2012. On April 13, 2012, Respondent provided part of
the information requested on March 11, 2012, and in response to both grievances 15933 and
15934. The General Counsel alleges that Respondent unreasonably delayed from March 11 to
April 13, 2012, in providing the requested information. Having considered the record as a
whole, I do not find that Respondent unlawfully delayed in furnishing information as alleged 20
in paragraphs 301 and 302.
Complaint paragraphs 288 and 289
On May 27, 2011, in connection with grievances 10135 and 10136, the Union 25
requested its customary five nonspecific categories of documents. Even without any
additional clarification as to the specific documents that the Union was seeking, the
Respondent provided information on February 7 and March 7, 2012. On March 11, 2012,
however, the Union revised the information request to clarify that it was seeking a shift report
and a payroll history for two employees in connection with these two grievances. Three days 30
later, the Union again requested the same information. On March 22, 2012, Respondent
provided the payroll histories requested on March 11, 2012. Paragraphs 288 and 289 of the
consolidated complaint allege that Respondent failed and refused to provide all of the
information requested on March 11, 2011. Based on the actions of both Respondent and the
Union, I find no merit to these allegations. 35
Complaint paragraphs 296, 297, and 298
On July 2, 2011, the Union requested the five nonspecific categories of documents in
connection with grievances 14210, 14211, and 14212. On July 26, 2011, and without any 40
additional information from the Union that would clarify what specific documents that the
Union was seeking, Respondent provided shift reports, staffing reports, and weekly operations
reports. On February 7, 2012, Respondent additionally provided weekly operations reports
and payroll histories. On March 7 and 8, 2012, Respondent also provided shift reports, and
additional staff reports and weekly operations reports. Finally, and after Respondent had 45
provided information on three separate occasions, Hughes requested Respondent to provide
JD(ATL)–5–13
25
payroll histories, and timecards for specific employees on specific dates on March 11, 2012.
Three days later, Hughes again requested this information. On March 27, 2012, Hughes
additionally requested this same information. On April 13, 2012, Respondent furnished time
cards in response to the March 11, 2012 request with respect to grievances 14211 and 14212.
Paragraphs 296, 297, and 298 allege that Respondent has failed and refused to provide all the 5
information requested by the Union on March 11, 2012. Based on the actions of both
Respondent and the Union, I find no merit to these allegations.
Complaint paragraphs 318, 319, 320, and 321
10
Paragraphs 318, 319, 320 and 321 allege that the Union requested its five nonspecific
categories of information on April 18, 2011, in connection with grievances 16656, 16657,
16659, and 16660. For each grievance and initial information request, Respondent provided
information. In response to the information request for grievance # 16656, Respondent
provided information on May 20, 2011, February 7, and March 7, 2012. As with all of the 15
complaint allegations discussed in this section, Hughes eventually submitted a request for
information on March 11, 2012 that identified the specific documents that the Union was
seeking. Furthermore, as with the other information requests described above, Hughes again
requested the same information within 3 to 4 days. In regard to grievances 16656, 16657, and
16660, Hughes again requested the information on March 27, 2012. With respect to 20
grievance 16656 and 16660, Respondent provided some of the requested information on
March 22, 2012. Complaint paragraphs 318, 319, 320, and 321 allege that Respondent has
failed and refused to provide all of the information requested on March 11, 2012. Noting that
the Respondent attempted to furnish information to the Union on multiple occasions before
the Union ultimately provided a specific and unambiguous request; I do not find merit to these 25
allegations.
d. Information requests that generated duplicate responses
Paragraphs 334, 335, 336, and 33930
Paragraph 334 alleges that on April 18, 2011, the Union filed grievance # 15702,
alleging that a Feeder was performing shifting work. At the bottom of the grievance form, the
following documents were listed as information requested by the Steward:
35
1. Shifting Reports
2. Staffing Reports
3. Time cards
4. WOR’s
5. Payroll History40
Despite the fact that the Union provided no other information as to what time periods,
employee records, or departments were requested for the identified records, Respondent
furnished items 2, 3, and 4 on May 20, 2011. There is no evidence that there was any
response from the Union or any additional communication identifying the specific documents 45
JD(ATL)–5–13
26
that the Union was seeking. On January 27, 2012, Respondent again furnished documents in
response to items 2, 3, 4, and a portion of the requested documents for item 5.
On March 11, 2012, Hughes requested that Respondent provide the payroll history for
Troy Moran for the week ending April 14, 2011. Three days later on March 15, 2012, Hughes 5
requested the same information. Although the complaint alleges that since March 11, 2012,
the Respondent has failed and refused to provide the payroll history for Moran for the week of
April 11, 2011, the record reflects that Respondent provided information twice in response to
the original request of April 18, 2011, and the Union waited almost a year after the first
request to identify specific information that it was seeking.10
A similar sequence of communication is reflected in the information requests
identified in complaint paragraphs 335 and 339. As alleged in paragraph 335, the Union filed
grievance #16702 on April 11, 2011 listing the same 5 generic categories of documents at the
bottom. On May 20, 2011, Respondent furnished staffing reports, time cards, and the WOR. 15
Even though the Union had never provided any specific information concerning time periods,
employees, or departments, the Respondent again provided staffing reports, timecards, and the
WOR on March 8, 2012. Finally, on March 11, 2012, Hughes requested shift reports for
David Williams and George Gilbert for the week ending April 9, 2011. Three days later,
Hughes requested the same information. Although the complaint alleges that Respondent has 20
failed and refused to provide shifting reports since March 11, 2012, the record reflects that
Respondent responded to the original request despite the Union’s failure to identify the
specific records that it was seeking until almost a year after the initial request. Based on the
actions of both Respondent and the Union, I find no merit to these complaint allegations.
25
The Union filed grievance #17125 on July 1, 2011, listing the same five generic
categories of documents at the bottom of the grievance, as shown in complaint paragraph 339.
Within 5 days Respondent furnished the Union staffing reports, shift reports, and the weekly
operation report. On February 7, 2012, Respondent furnished payroll histories and on March
8, 2012, Respondent again furnished staffing reports, shift reports, and the weekly operation 30
report. Finally, on March 11, 2012, and almost a year after the initial nonspecific request for
documents, Hughes submitted a request for information seeking the timecard and the payroll
history for (out of town feeder) James Gidcumb for June 28, 2011. Three days later, Hughes
submitted another request for the same information. Although the complaint alleges that
Respondent has as yet failed to provide the time card for Gidcumb, the complaint also 35
confirms that Respondent responded to the initial non-specific request for information within
5 days and then subsequently provided additional information three more times, including a
duplication of information that was initially provided. Accordingly, I find no merit to the
allegations in complaint paragraph 339.
40
Complaint paragraphs 241 and 242
On July 26, 2010, in connection with grievance #13607 and Grievance 13608, the
Union filed requests for information seeking six categories of information including its
standard five shifter-related categories. The Union included specific requests for time periods 45
and individual employee records. For both grievances, the Respondent and the Union engaged
JD(ATL)–5–13
27
in the same actions on the same dates. On August 9, 2010, Respondent provided all of the
information requested with the exception of shift reports for two employees. Over a year after
receiving the information from the Respondent, Hughes simply repeated his original July 26,
2010 request. The Union did not acknowledge that they had already received virtually all of
the requested information and did not modify its request to cover only the remaining shift 5
reports. On October 10, and November 3 and 16, 2011, the Union repeated this same request
for all the information that it had initially requested on July 26, 2010. On December 14, 2011,
the Respondent again provided all of the same information that it had initially provided on
August 9, 2010, as well as the requested shift reports. Despite the fact that Respondent
provided all of the requested information to the Union, as well as almost all of the information 10
twice, Hughes repeated the Union’s July 26, 2010 request on December 15, 2011; the next
day after Respondent duplicated its initial response. Complaint paragraphs 241 and 242 allege
that from July 25, 2010, until December 14, 2011, Respondent unreasonably delayed in
furnishing the Union with the requested shift reports. In viewing the Union’s initial request
for information, there is nothing that would indicate that the requested shift reports for only 15
these two employees were of such a controversial matter that Respondent would have
intentionally sought to deny furnishing the information or to delay in furnishing this
information. Respondent, in fact freely provided timecards, payroll histories, staffing reports,
Weekly Operations Reports, the Feeder Coverboard Lists, and the Daily Call Lists within 14
days of the initial request. The series of events would indicate that apparently the Union did 20
not review the information provided to it at any time during this 16-month period, despite
making five additional requests after the Respondent initially responded on August 9, 2010.
It is apparent that any delay in providing the shift reports was likely inadvertent. Based on the
Union’s duplicative requests, it is also apparent that the Union made no attempt to assess or
review the information that it received and its interest appeared to be more toward 25
documenting its requests for information than in obtaining the requested information.
Accordingly, I find no merit to complaint paragraphs 241 and 242.
Complaint paragraphs 273-279 and 110
30
This absence of communication that is described above was not an isolated incident.
The Union also made similar requests for information on July 26, 2010 in connection with
grievances 14025, 14028, 14043, 14046, 14051, 14204, 14229 and 10197 as alleged in
complaint paragraphs 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, and 110. In each instance,
Respondent provided virtually all of the information on August 9, 2010, with the exception of 35
some individual employee shift reports.15 Furthermore, for each grievance the Union repeated
its requests for information on September 27, October 10, and November 3 and 16, 2011. On
December 14, 2011, the Respondent again furnished all of the same information that it had
provided on August 9, 2010. In each instance, the Union repeated its December 15, 2011
initial request without any acknowledgment that the Respondent had already provided 40
information twice in response to the Union’s request for information. While it would appear
that Respondent failed to provide every single document covered by these separate requests
on July 26, 2010, there is also no evidence that the Union read, reviewed, or modified its

15 With respect to complaint par. 278, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent also failed to
provide Daily Call Lists for a 4-day period.
JD(ATL)–5–13
28
requests in response to the information that was furnished by the Respondent. Overall, the
Union’s response to the Respondent’s production of records raises a question as to whether
the Union’s priority was the receipt of the requested information or the opportunity to assail
Respondent with additional information requests during a 10-week period in the months prior
to the filling of the first charge. Inasmuch as Respondent substantially complied with the 5
Union’s request within 14 days, in addition to providing this same information a second time,
and in light of the Union’s conduct in response, I do not find that Respondent failed and
refused to furnish information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) as alleged in complaint
paragraphs 273-279 and 110.
10
e. The Union’s disproportionate number of requests
It is well settled that a union requesting relevant information to which it is entitled
does not need to repeat the request. De Palma Printing Co., 204 NLRB 31, 33 (1973); Aero-
Motive Mfg., 195 NLRB 790, 792 (1972), enfd. 475 F.2d 27 (6th Cir., 1973); Bundy Corp., 15
292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989). The Board observed in DePalma Printing that if a union is
entitled to the information at the time it made the request, the employer is obligated to furnish
the information and there is no obligation for the union to repeat such request any given
number of times. The obligation falls to the employer to furnish the information as promptly
as practical. In the instant case, however, the Union did not apparently heed the Board’s 20
assurance. The record, in fact, reflects that for each grievance identified in the complaint, the
Union made multiple requests for information. As discussed above, the record supports a
finding that Respondent unlawfully delayed in providing requested information in response to
some of these requests and the Respondent has also unlawfully failed and refused to provide
information in response to some of these requests. What the record also reflects, however, is 25
that a disproportionate number of requests are unnecessarily duplicated. The requests appear
to have no correlation to Respondent’s responses and provide no reasonable time period for a
response. The timing and repetition of these requests raises a question concerning the Union’s
motivation and lends support to Respondent’s claim that the Union’s motives included more
than simply obtaining information for grievance processing. It is also apparent that as a result 30
of the barrage of these repetitive requests, the Respondent may not have been able to respond
as promptly as the Board anticipated in De Palma.
As the record reflects, the Union typically made its repetitive requests by email. In the
body of these emails, there was no listing of what the Union was seeking or any reference to 35
what the Respondent may have already provided. In order to fully comply with each email
request for information, Respondent had to go back to each pending grievance to see what had
previously been requested and what had already been furnished to the Union. I have included
a discussion of these successively filed requests for information because these requests
epitomize the absence of communication between the parties and the pronounced40
disintegration of their working relationship. I have listed below some examples of these
information requests.
JD(ATL)–5–13
29
Paragraphs 353, 354, 475, and 480
The Union filed its first charge in this matter on January 23, 2012. On March 7, 2012,
Hughes submitted an information request in conjunction with grievance #18390. As reflected
in paragraph 353, the Union requested the following:5
1. Names of each employee from the outside service (“A-Team”) who
performed work at Whites Creek during any day of weeks ending 2-4-
12 and 2-11-12.
2. Time cards for each employee identified in Line Item 1 above for each 10
day of weeks ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12.
3. Payroll History for each employee identified in Line Item 1 for weeks
ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12.
4. Copy of any current and valid contract/sub-contacts between UPS and
the “A Team” since October 2010 until present. 15
5. Copies of any previous contracts/sub-contracts between UPS and the “a
Team,” Diversified/Diversity, Inc. and any other outside services for
which the Company offered work specific to ‘pallet’ related work,
recording trail numbers from the Whites Creek yard, cleaning trash
from/around pallet doc and on the yard and cleaning out trailers (to 20
include trash removal and sweeping) prior to the SRAPGC (2010-10-
091) ruling on this same subject.
6. Verification of any termination, regardless of length of time (including
specific dates) of any previous and/or current contracts/subcontracts
identified in Line Items 4 and 5 above.25
7. Copy of the work schedules for each employee identified in Line Item
1 above, to include their scheduled work week, hours of work including
overtime and the specific work performed by each employee on each
day during weeks ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12.
8. Copies of all Trailer Sheets for which employees (current bargaining 30
unit or subcontractors) recorded trailer numbers on Whites Creek
property during Peak Season (October through December) 2011 until
present.
9. Copies of Time Cards and Payroll History for each Feeder Driver
(seniority or pre-senior) who performed CPU work during each day of 35
weeks ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12.
10. Copy of the current and complete Feeder CPU Bid in effect during
weeks ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12.
11. All ‘General Conditions’ attachments as referenced in the 3-27-03 ‘A
Team Service Agreement.’40
12. Copies of any/all ‘Termination Notices’ associated with this Agreement
from 2003 through present.
13. Any/all ‘Purchase Orders,’ ‘Agreement Forms,’ ‘UPS Purchasing
Cards,’ applicable ‘Riders’ associated with this Agreement which
defines the scope of this Agreement and the commencement and 45
completion of work assigned.
JD(ATL)–5–13
30
14. List of any/all ‘Various Locations’ for which this Agreement and
applicable Riders apply and the dates of effect.
15. Time cards and work performed by “A-Team” employees at other UPS
locations within the Local 480 jurisdiction by employees of the A-
Team during weeks ending 2-4-12 and 2-11-12. 5
On March 9, 2012, and only two days after making this comprehensive 15-item
request, Hughes made an additional request for this same information. On March 13, 2012,
Hughes sent another request seeking this same information. On March 18, 2012, and 3 days
after filing its second charge in this matter, Hughes sent an additional request for this 10
information. On April 6, 2012, the Union filed its third charge in this matter. Thus, as of the
date of the Union’s third charge, the Union had already submitted four successive requests for
this same extensive listing of information in less than a month.
The Union filed a parallel request for information in connection with grievance 15
#21822 on March 7, 2012. (Complaint par. 475) The request included a 15-item request
covering generally the same kinds of information for weeks ending 3-3-12 and 3-10-12. As
with the previous grievance, the Union followed up its March 7, 2012 request with additional
requests for the same information on March 13 and 18, 2012. Hughes additionally filed a
request for information in connection with grievance #62872 on March 7, 2012, seeking 17 20
categories of documents. (Complaint par. 480) As with the other requests of information
discussed above, Hughes also submitted this same request again on March 13 and 18, 2012.
This succession in requests is also seen following an initial information request that
the Union made on March 12, 2012. This request that is identified in paragraph 354 contains 25
a request for seven groupings of information. Hughes then repeated this same request for
information on March 20, 23, 29, and April 4, 2012. Similar to the request described above,
the Union made 5 requests for the same information within a 23-day period.
In paragraph 353 and 354, the General Counsel alleges that since March 7, 2012, and 30
March 12, respectively, Respondent failed and refused to furnish information. Complaint
paragraph 475 and 480 also allege that Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the
information requested on March 7, 2012. Although there is no evidence that Respondent
provided this information prior to the filing of the third charge on April 6, 2012, I cannot
ignore the nature and the timing of these requests and I question whether the Respondent 35
could have adequately and promptly responded before the filing of this charge. I do not find
that the record supports a finding that Respondent violated the Act as alleged in complaint
paragraphs 353, 354, 475, and 480.
Complaint paragraphs 418, 442, 443, and 42740
Three days before filing its second charge in this matter, the Union submitted three
requests for information in connection with grievances 19065, 19140, and 191941.
(Complaint pars, 418, 442, and 443) Each request included four to five categories of
documents and information. After making each of these multi-part requests on March 11, 45
JD(ATL)–5–13
31
2012, Hughes requested the information again on March 20 and then again on March 23,
2012.
This same sequence of successive requests is also seen in the Union’s request for
information in connection with grievance 19111 on December 11, 2011. (Complaint par. 5
427) The initial request included only a request for the 5 core documents without specificity
for time periods, employee records, etc. On January 20, 2012, Hughes requested the
production of 23 categories of documents that included shift reports, payroll histories, time
cards, weekly operation reports, and staffing reports for seven different employees. On
January 28, 2012, Hughes repeated this same request. Three days later on January 31, 2012, 10
Hughes again repeated this same request. On February 10, 2012, the Union once more
requested this same information. On February 7and again on February 22, 2012, Respondent
provided part of the requested information. The complaint alleges that Respondent delayed in
furnishing information from January 20 until February 22, 2012 and also failed to provide all
of the information requested on January 20, 2012. 15
The Union’s practice of successive requests is also seen in connection with the
Union’s request for information on March 29, 2012, and related to grievance 21454
(Complaint par. 477). The request contained eight subparts requesting the following:
20
1. Any/all statements (from management or hourly employees) in the
Company’s possession which are associated with this grievance
concerning any/all dates between 2-27-12 and 3-2-12.
2. Monthly Interest List/Bid Sheet for extra/coverage work in the Hub for
February 2012.25
3. Monthly Interest List/Bid Sheet for extra/coverage work in the Hub for
March 2012.
4. Steward Call Verification List identifying any/all employees who were
called and offered extra work (whether they worked or not) on 2-27-12.
5. Steward Call Verification List identifying any/all employees who were 30
called and offered extra work (whether they worked or not) on 2-28-12.
6. Steward Call Verification List identifying any/all employees who were
called and offered extra work (whether they worked or not) on 2-29-12.
7. Steward Call Verification List identifying any/all employees who were
called and offered extra work (whether they worked or not) on 3-1-12. 35
8. Steward Call Verification List identifying an/all employees who were
called and offered extra work (whether they worked or not) on 3-2-12.
Six days later on April 4, 2012, Hughes requested that Respondent provide this same
information. Five days later on April 9, 2012, Hughes again requested the same information. 40
Two days later, on April 11, 2012, Hughes again requested the same information. On April
19, 2012, the Union again requested the same information and finally on April 24, 2012,
Hughes requested this same information again. Thus, in less than a month, Hughes requested
the same information on six different dates. I also note that two of these requests were made
after the Union’s first two charges and four requests were made after the Union’s third charge 45
was filed.
JD(ATL)–5–13
32
Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Respondent furnished the requested information
related to the above-identified grievances by the time that the Union filed its third charge on
April 6, I find merit to those related complaint allegations. Because there was not an
unreasonable delay in furnishing information as alleged in complaint paragraph 427, I have 5
not found merit to that portion of the complaint paragraph.
f. The Union’s barrage of information requests in late 2011
On October 16, 2011, in connection with a grievance titled “This Pertains to all 10
Outstanding Information Requests,” Hughes requested that Respondent provide the Union
with:
1. Shift Reports
2. Payroll History15
3. Time Cards
4. WOW (Weekly Operations Report)
5. Staffing Report (Including Coverage of absent employees, Call In’s,
Vacations, etc….)
6. Copy of Feeder Coverboard20
7. Feeder Call Sheets
Hughes provided no dates, employee records, departments, shifts, or anything that would
provide specific information. Hughes then repeated this request for information on December
21 and 27, 2011. Paragraph 10 of the consolidated complaint alleges that since October 16, 25
2011, Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the requested information.
On December 14, 2011, in connection with another grievance titled “This Pertains to
all Outstanding Information Requests,” Hughes requested that Respondent provide the
following:30
1. Time Cards
2. Payroll Histories
3. Shift Reports
4. WOR’s (Weekly Operations Reports)35
5. Coverboard (Call Sheets)
6. Staffing Reports
7. Employee Records
8. DIAD Text Messages
9. DIAD Delivery and Pick Up Records40
10. SPARCS Reports, etc….
No additional information was provided to Respondent to identify time periods, employees,
departments, shifts, or anything else provided to narrow the scope of the request to allow for
an appropriate response. Hughes then repeated this request on December 21 and on 27, 2011. 45
JD(ATL)–5–13
33
Paragraph 11 of the consolidated paragraph alleges that since December 14, 2011,
Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the requested information.
In each of these requests for information, the Union essentially requested every single
document encompassed by the term ‘outstanding information requests.” In each instance, the 5
initial request demanded the production of 7 to 10 categories of documents without
identifying any specific employee records, departments, time periods, or any other identifying
information for which an appropriate response could be made. Despite the fact that the Union
repeated these same generic and non-specific requests on December 21 and 27, 2011, no
specific requests were ever made. The Union could not have reasonably expected that 10
Respondent could process these requests. The requests were not tied to any specific
grievances and appear to serve as essentially two more demands to which Respondent could
not reasonably respond. Accordingly, I find no merit to the allegations in either of these
complaint paragraphs.
15
As discussed above, the Union commonly requested the same information more than
once and often as many as three or more times. This practice alone may not demonstrate the
Union’s bad faith as alleged by Respondent. The overall record, however, demonstrates that
the Union implemented a barrage of requests during the time period just prior to filing its
charges in this matter. There is no direct evidence that the Union did so to harass the 20
Respondent, however, the extent of information requests during a particular period of time
prior to the filing of charges certainly brings into question the Union’s motivation in
requesting information in the manner that it did.
The Union’s requests for information during the time period between 2009 and 2012 25
as covered by the consolidated complaint include a variety of forms including handwritten
requests added to the bottom of grievances, emails setting out specific documents to be
furnished, and simply emails that recite grievance numbers with corresponding requests to
produce information that has previously been requested for those individual grievances.
Whether the requests were the initial requests or were duplicated requests, each request in 30
these various forms constitutes a separate request for information. In order to adequately
respond to the request in any form, the Respondent was required to not only review the
information requested, but to also determine whether any information had already been
provided. This was true whether the Union’s request specifically listed the documents sought
or simply referred the Respondent to an individual grievance in the body of an email. 35
Regardless of the form of the request, the Respondent had to conduct the same kinds of
searches in order to respond. By inundating the Respondent with multiple and duplicative
requests for information, the Union was able to essentially paralyze Respondent’s ability to
adequately respond to such an inordinate number of multiple requests.
40
Although there is a continuous pattern of filing information requests throughout the
period between 2009 and 2012, it is apparent that the Union stepped up its flood of
information requests in September 2011. Over a 6-day period between September 23, 2011,
and September 29, 2011, the Union submitted approximately 272 information requests. In the
11-day period between October 6 and October 17, 2011, the Union sent Respondent 45
approximately 353 requests for information. In the 13 days between November 3, and
JD(ATL)–5–13
34
November 16, 2011, the Union submitted 210 requests for information. Thus, for the period
of time between September 23 and November 16, 2011, the Union sent approximately 821
requests for information. For the most part, these were not initial requests, but were
duplicative requests for information that had already been requested. The consolidated
complaint reflects that the Union followed up by submitting initial or duplicates requests for 5
information during December, 2011; the month before the Union filed its first charge. The
Union also submitted requests for information in January, February, and March 2012. In
December 2011, and the month prior to the filing of the first charge in this matter, the Union
made 122 requests for information. The Union submitted 159 requests in January 2012 and
80 requests in February 2012. In March 2012, and the month prior to filing the third charge in 10
this case, the Union submitted 100 requests for information. Although the duplicative or
repeated requests were primarily made through emails that simply listed the grievance
numbers and the dates of previous requests, they nevertheless constituted separate and distinct
requests for information and are pled as individual requests for information in the
consolidated complaint. 15
F. Summary and Conclusions
Respondent relies on a number of factors in its assertion that the Union acted in bad
faith by making the information requests in issue. Respondent argues that the Union 20
improperly uses the information request process as an offensive weapon to force concessions
on bargaining issues the Union was unable to obtain through the collective bargaining
process. Respondent also argues that the Union uses the information request process to force
Respondent to settle every grievance in its favor regardless of the merit. Respondent contends
that when Respondent does not capitulate, the Union inundates it with overly broad 25
information requests.
In support of its argument that the Union manipulates through the information request
process, Respondent cites the circumstances involved in connection with grievance 10088 and
referenced in complaint paragraph 283. This grievance was initially filed on April 3, 2009, by 30
Travell Hughes alleging that he was sent home for wearing the wrong shoes. Although the
grievance was unresolved at the local hearing on April 3, 2009, the grievance was not sent to
Len Hughes until August 5, 2009. Len Hughes did not, however, submit a request for
information until August 31, 2011; 2 years later. The Union requested the payroll history for
Travell Hughes for the week ending April 4, 2009 and the “Employee Record (Attendance 35
and Talk-Withs) for calendar years 2009 and 2010.” During his testimony, Len Hughes
admitted that the requested payroll history was not relevant to what shoes Travell Hughes was
wearing. Len Hughes also testified that he requested the employee record for Travell Hughes
to determine whether Respondent had previously counseled Travell Hughes for wearing
improper shoes. Respondent asserts that the employee’s 2010 record is meaningless when the 40
grievance arose in 2009.
Although the circumstances surrounding the request for information described above
does not establish that the Union’s requests were made for harassment and totally in bad faith,
this example certainly depicts the spirit of some of the Union’s requests. It demonstrates that 45
the requests were often untimely and the requested documents were arguably not useful or
JD(ATL)–5–13
35
even relevant to the issue of the grievance. In reviewing all of the requests included in the
consolidated complaint, I must question what held the most significance for the Union; the
requested information or the “requests” for the information.
As I discussed with the parties prior to the hearing, my role as a judge is a narrow one. 5
I can only determine whether Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to furnish information
or unreasonably delayed in furnishing requested information. I have done that for each of the
533 complaint paragraphs. My decision, however, cannot direct a remedy that will resolve
the underlying problems and the clearly dysfunctional working relationship that exists
between these parties. Despite Respondent’s arguments concerning the Union’s motivation 10
behind these requests, I cannot conclude that all of these requests were generally made in bad
faith or solely for purposes of harassment. The timing, the duplicity of requests, and the
overly broad nature of many of these requests, however, support a finding that there are
issues at hand that are totally separate and unrelated to the Union’s interest in obtaining the
requested information. Because these parties have had a working relationship for a significant 15
period of time, they are the only ones who know how to fashion a remedy that will resolve the
fundamental problems that have brought the parties to this point. No judicial or
administrative body can do that for them. I step out of my role as a finder of fact to urge the
parties to work together to find a resolution for these underlying issues.
20
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, United Parcel Service, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
25
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing to
furnish information to Teamsters Local Union No. 480, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unreasonably delaying in 30
furnishing information to Teamsters Local Union No. 480, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
REMEDY
35
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is
recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 40
following recommended:16

16 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
purposes.
JD(ATL)–5–13
36
ORDER
The Respondent, United Parcel Service, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:5
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters Local Union No. 480
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, by failing to provide the Union with10
requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s role as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters Local Union No. 480
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, by unreasonably delaying in 15
furnishing the Union with the requested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Union’s role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise o the rights guarantee them by Section 7 of the Act. 20
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Provide all outstanding information that has been unlawfully withheld 25
in accordance with the findings set forth above in this Decision.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Nashville,
Tennessee facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”17 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by the 30
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places where notices 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 35
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other materials. 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 July 14, 40
2008.

17 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.”
JD(ATL)–5–13
37
(c) 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.
5
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2013.
____________________________
Margaret G. Brakebusch10
Administrative Law Judge
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 protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide Teamsters Local Union No. 480, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters request information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s role as your collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT unreasonably delay in furnishing Teamsters Local Union No. 480, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters requested information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s role as your collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL furnish any outstanding information that has been found to be relevant and
necessary to the Union in their role as your collective bargaining representative.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated_____________________ By_____________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representative and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
233 Peachtree Street, N.E., Harris Tower, Suite 1000, Atlanta, GA 30303-1531
(404) 331-2896, Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (205) 933-3013.