08/22/2025: John Deere Illegally Refused to Furnish Information to Union
A "clear and unmistakable" waiver case.
Deere & Company D/B/a John Deere Harvester Works, JD-71-25, 25-CA-321689 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves a dispute between Deere & Company (Respondent) and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local Union 865 (Union) regarding the company's refusal to provide emails related to disciplinary action against a bargaining unit employee.
Background
In June 2023, Nick Toal, a forklift operator at John Deere's Harvester Works facility, collided with robotic equipment. A disciplinary hearing was held on June 28, 2023, resulting in Toal receiving a 30-day suspension. During this hearing, Union representative Gary Abbott requested a copy of an email written by Production Supervisor Thomas Campen regarding the incident. Labor Relations Representative Andrew Elias partially read the email during the hearing but refused to provide a complete copy.
Between June 29 and September 7, 2023, the Union repeatedly requested copies of "all emails" related to Toal's discipline. Respondent consistently refused to provide the emails, citing the Union representatives' failure to complete an online confidentiality training program. The Respondent did eventually provide video footage of the incident but maintained its refusal to provide the emails.
Confidentiality Training Dispute
In 2022, Respondent had implemented a mandatory online confidentiality training program for union officials who handled information requests. This followed discussions between Respondent's Senior Counsel Kevin Zimmerman and the International UAW's Assistant Director Robert Garland. While Garland had agreed to allow the training requirement, he had expressed concerns about Respondent classifying too much information as "confidential" and emphasized that the training was not a "bargained item."
Several union officials at the Harvester Works facility, including Abbott and Rhino Dotson, refused to complete the training. The Respondent maintained that union officials who did not complete the training could only view confidential information in the labor relations office but could not receive copies.
Legal Analysis
Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble analyzed three key issues:
Relevance of the Information: Judge Dibble found the requested emails were "presumptively relevant" as they concerned discipline of a bargaining unit employee, directly related to the Union's role in contract administration and grievance processing.
Confidentiality Concerns: Judge Dibble determined the Respondent failed to establish any "legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest" in the emails. The Respondent made only generalized claims of confidentiality without explaining why the emails required protection.
Waiver: The Respondent argued that the International UAW had waived the Union's right to receive confidential information without completing training. Judge Dibble rejected this argument, finding no evidence of a "clear and unmistakable waiver" of statutory rights, particularly given Garland's repeated insistence that the training requirement not be used to deny information the Union was legally entitled to receive.
Conclusion
Judge Dibble ruled that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing and refusing to provide the Union with emails related to Toal's discipline. The judge ordered Respondent to cease and desist from this practice, furnish the requested information within 14 days, and post notices acknowledging the violation.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956): Established employer's duty to provide unions with relevant information necessary for proper performance of representative duties.
Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979): Set standard for balancing disclosure of information against confidentiality and privacy interests.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967): Established that duty to bargain extends beyond contract negotiations to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement.
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983): Established that waiver of statutory rights must be "clear and unmistakable."
Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024): Reaffirmed the "clear and unmistakable waiver" standard for determining whether a union has waived statutory rights.
University of Pittsburgh Physicians, 06-RC-367606 (Regional Election Decision)
This NLRB decision addresses a petition filed by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania to represent a unit of Registered Nurses employed by University of Pittsburgh Physicians at UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital. The key dispute was whether Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) should be included in the petitioned-for unit of other Registered Nurses.
The Regional Director determined that the NLRB's Health Care Rule applies in this case since the employees work at an acute care hospital. However, the Rule itself does not resolve the specific issue of whether CRNAs must be included in an RN unit, as the Board's rulemaking left this question to case-by-case adjudication.
Using traditional community of interest analysis, the Regional Director found that the petitioned-for unit (which included Certified Registered Nurse Practitioners, Neonatal Nurse Practitioners, and Certified Nurse Midwives, but excluded CRNAs) was appropriate. The petitioned-for employees constitute a readily identifiable group sharing an internal community of interest based on:
Their classification as Advanced Practice Registered Nurses under Pennsylvania law
Their ability to practice autonomously and prescribe medication under collaborative agreements
Similar terms and conditions of employment (salaried status, similar career ladders)
Functional integration in providing team-based care for pregnancy and childbirth
The Regional Director rejected the employer's argument that CRNAs share an overwhelming community of interest with the petitioned-for unit, noting several distinguishing factors:
CRNAs belong to a separate department (Anesthesiology) with different supervision
CRNAs cannot practice autonomously under Pennsylvania law and work under medical direction
CRNAs are hourly employees who receive overtime and significantly higher wages
CRNAs have a unique "Tier Program" allowing pay increases for working at multiple facilities
CRNAs primarily work within an "anesthesia team" with minimal interaction with other APPs
Consequently, the Regional Director directed an election for the unit as petitioned by the union, excluding CRNAs.
Significant Cases Cited
American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022): Reinstated Specialty Healthcare framework for determining appropriate bargaining units, requiring "overwhelming community of interest" to add excluded employees.
Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, 357 NLRB 934 (2011): Established three-part test for unit determinations and "overwhelming community of interest" standard.
Casino Aztar, 349 NLRB 603 (2007): Emphasized importance of interchange, contact, and functional integration over separate supervision in unit determinations.
Jefferson Health System, 330 NLRB 653 (2000): Outlined factors considered in establishing registered nurse units under the Health Care Rule.
Child's Hospital, 307 NLRB 90 (1992): Clarified that "extraordinary circumstances" exception to the Health Care Rule requires case-by-case community of interest analysis.