06/05/2025: Information Request Not Mooted By Signing Collective Bargaining Agreement
Also, a failed decertification petition.
Entergy Operations, Inc., JD(SF)-13-25, 16-CA-328659 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves Entergy Operations, Inc. and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 2286. Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee found that Entergy violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to provide information requested by the union during contract negotiations.
Entergy operates four nuclear power plants, including River Bend and Waterford III in Louisiana. IBEW Local 2286 represents a bargaining unit at River Bend but does not represent employees at Waterford III. During contract negotiations in October 2023, IBEW presented evidence about wages of Waterford III employees who held positions identical to unit employees at River Bend. Entergy's Labor Relations Manager, Charles MacLeod, claimed the union's information was incorrect. This led the union's Business Manager, Johnny Johnson, to request wage data for Waterford III employees in positions equivalent to bargaining unit positions at River Bend.
Johnson explained that the information was needed to verify MacLeod's assertion and to evaluate Entergy's benefits proposal. The union was open to accepting Entergy's proposal to replace certain employee benefits with "Entergy System Benefits," contingent upon Entergy agreeing to pay unit employees higher wages to close the pay disparity between the facilities. Entergy refused to provide the requested information, claiming it was proprietary and privileged, and that the company had not made any proposal based on such information.
Despite Entergy's refusal, the parties continued negotiations and reached a successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in January 2024. After ratification, Entergy asked if the union would withdraw its unfair labor practice charge. The union declined, stating "It will help the relationship if we receive the data and it shows what the company claimed in negotiations turns out to be true."
Judge Gee determined that although information about non-unit employees is not presumptively relevant, the union met its burden of establishing relevance. The requested information was "contextually relevant" because the union needed it to assess the veracity of claims made by Entergy during bargaining and to evaluate Entergy's benefits proposal. The judge rejected Entergy's defenses that the information was not relevant at the time of the request and that the issue was moot after the parties signed a successor CBA.
On the remedial question of whether Entergy should still be required to provide the information after contract conclusion, Judge Gee found that Entergy failed to meet its burden of showing the union no longer needed the information. The judge determined that the union's stated reason – that receiving the information would "help the relationship" if it verified Entergy's claims – related directly to its representational duties and could lead to smoother future negotiations.
Judge Gee ordered Entergy to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the union by refusing to furnish requested information, to provide the requested information about Waterford III employees, and to post appropriate notices.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967): Established that an employer's duty to bargain collectively includes providing requested information necessary to the union's performance of its representational duties.
Management & Training Corp., 366 NLRB No. 134 (2018): Held that information about nonunit personnel can be "contextually relevant" when needed to assess employer claims made during bargaining.
Boeing Co., 364 NLRB 158 (2016): Established the framework for determining whether a union still needs requested information after events like reaching a new collective bargaining agreement.
Borgess Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1105 (2004): Clarified that violation determinations are based on facts at the time of the union's request, and the employer bears the burden of proving the union no longer needs the information.
Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159 (2006): Affirmed that an employer's duty to bargain includes providing information needed by the union to assess claims made by the employer relevant to contract negotiations.
Student Transportation of America, 19-RD-366628 (Regional Election Decision)
On June 5, 2025, NLRB Regional Director Ronald K. Hooks issued a Decision and Order dismissing a decertification petition filed by Angela Arriaga on May 30, 2025. The petition sought an election among employees of Student Transportation of America who are currently represented by Teamsters Local 206.
The Region dismissed the petition without prejudice after reviewing payroll records and determining that the showing of interest was insufficient. The showing of interest is a threshold requirement that must be met before a decertification election can proceed. The Region noted that it is essential to check the adequacy of the showing of interest shortly after a petition is filed to resolve any issues before the case progresses beyond initial stages.
As a result of the dismissal, the Region also cancelled the representation hearing that had been scheduled for June 9, 2025.
The decision outlines the right to request review of this action. Any party seeking review must file a request with the NLRB's Executive Secretary in Washington, DC by June 20, 2025. The request must contain a complete statement of facts and reasons on which it is based and must comply with specific formatting requirements. Requests must be filed electronically through the Agency's website unless the party lacks access to electronic filing means or would face an undue burden.
Parties opposing the request for review may file a statement in opposition within 5 business days after the last day for filing the request. The Board may grant or deny the request without waiting for opposition statements, and no reply to an opposition may be filed except with special permission from the Board.
Significant Authorities Cited
Casehandling Manual (Part Two) Representation Proceedings, Sections 11030 and 11032