SBC Midwest

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 346 NLRB No. 8 62 Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corporation d/b/a SBC Midwest and Communications Workers of America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO. Case 30–CA– 16442–1 December 15, 2005 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER On September 15, 2004, Administrative Law Judge George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel each filed exceptions, supporting briefs, answering briefs, and reply briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find- ings,1 and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.2 The complaint alleges that the Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to provide information requested by the Union that was relevant to grievances regarding the subcontracting of bargaining unit work. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide information on the extent of sub- contracting, but not by failing to provide copies of so- called contracts (described below) or information con- cerning pricing. Unlike the judge, however, we find that the Respondent complied with the Union’s request for information concerning the subcontractors’ identities and the nature and location of subcontracted work. We shall also modify the judge’s recommended Order in the man- ner suggested by the parties. I. FACTS The Respondent operates a telephone communications system in Wisconsin, with facilities in Milwaukee. The Communications Workers of America (the International Union) represents a bargaining unit of the Respondent’s employees. Although the International is the employees’ bargaining representative, Local 4603 (the Union) repre- sents them for grievance purposes.3 1 The Respondent has implicitly excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 Member Liebman did not participate in the decision on the merits. 3 Accordingly, we shall delete references to the Union as the unit employees’ collective-bargaining representative from the judge’s rec- ommended Order and notice. Contract Provisions. At the time of the events in this case, the Respondent and the International Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement effective from February 1, 2001, until April 3, 2004. Article 26.34 of the agreement provides, in relevant part, “There shall be no layoff of regular full-time employees if there are any outside contractors performing the same work, in the same group, at the same work location, as performed by the Surplus Employee Group.” The contract also includes a “Memorandum of Agree- ment: Contracting Out Review A11” (appendix 11), which provides for quarterly meetings of representatives of the Respondent and the Union to review work identi- fied by the Union as contracted out. Appendix 11 also provides for information sharing: In advance of any scheduled review meeting, the com- pany will provide the following information regarding the identified subcontracted work to be reviewed: the name(s) of the contractor(s); the nature of the work; the zip code(s) of the location(s) where the work was per- formed; and, if available, the number of hours of work subcontracted and associated costs, provided that in- formation is not considered proprietary information and the disclosure of such information is not detrimental to the operation of the business. The committee holding meetings pursuant to appendix 11 is jointly chaired by Larry Handley for the Interna- tional and Greg Glenn for the company. Glenn testified that, since 1992, when Handley requested information on subcontracting, Glenn would provide the “work order, the contractors, the nature of the work subcontracted, the city or municipality, minus costing.” Glenn testified that he never gave the Union pricing information because it is proprietary and disclosure could be detrimental to the company’s business. In the course of subcontracting, the Respondent gener- ated various kinds of documents: In the Respondent’s operations, a “contract” is an agreement between the Respondent and a contractor setting forth the rates at which the contractor has agreed to perform some 450 different tasks. It is not an agreement that the contractor will do any specific job. The actual awarding of work WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 63 assignments begins when a manager in the field submits a work request. Work requests from the field become purchase orders when entered into the Respondent’s computer system. Purchase orders show the name of the contractor, the quantity of work ordered, and the total cost of work. Change orders reflect subsequent changes to the purchase order. Once work is awarded, a work print is generated. Work prints give a detailed descrip- tion of the work to be done at a particular jobsite. As work is done, the contractor makes notations on the work prints. These notated work prints show precisely what work has been done at that exact location. Layoff Grievance. In September 2002, the Respondent declared that a layoff would occur after 90 days. In No- vember, the Union filed a general grievance (i.e., one not limited to any specific project, location, or work group) alleging that the Respondent was subcontracting the work of laid-off unit employees in violation of article 26.34. On December 2, the Union submitted a formal “Request for Relevant Data” related to that grievance, asking for “a complete list of where these contractors are working and the type of work they are doing.” Later, the Union filed 11 grievances related to specific subcon- tracts. As it had done with its December 2 grievance, the Union submitted formal requests for relevant data. In each of those requests, dated January 29, February 6 and 29, and April 8, 2003, the Union asked for “up-to-date lists of all contractors performing any bargaining unit work for S.B.C. in the Milwaukee area, as well as associ- ated job or requisition numbers, job descriptions, and locations where the contractors are working.” The Union also requested “the contract that was signed between S.B.C. and all contractors performing work for S.B.C. in Wisconsin.” The requests explained that the Union was seeking the information in order to determine whether a valid grievance existed or if an existing grievance should be taken to the next step in the grievance process. By way of response, the Respondent provided the Un- ion with job descriptions of unit employees and a blank form contract that SBC used with individual contractors.4 When the Union was able to specify particular work that had been subcontracted, the Respondent provided work prints for those jobs, but not for other work. March 13 Information Request. At a meeting on March 13, Union President George Walls informed the Respondent’s management that he “needed the contract- ing information in order to process and handle the griev- ances.” Bob Bareta, the Respondent’s construction man- ager, replied that he had been told by Peggy Texeira, the 4 The complaint does not challenge the adequacy of this response or otherwise allege that the Respondent unlawfully failed to provide in- formation requested before March 13. Respondent’s labor relations manager for Wisconsin, not to give the Union anything. A day or two after the meet- ing, Walls talked to Texeira by phone and was told, “that’s not what she told Bob Bareta.” Texeira subse- quently told Bareta that Walls “could have everything but the pricing information.” Texiera gave Walls no rea- son for not giving pricing information other than it was “proprietary.” She offered no alternative accommoda- tion. Walls never received any information from either Texeira or Bareta. March 31 Information Request. On March 31, Walls e-mailed Texeira, “I’m formally requesting an up to date list of all work contracted out by SBC . . . . This list should include the contractor performing the work, a description of all the work being done, location of the work being done, pricing of the work being done and a copy of the contract.” Texeira never responded to Walls’ e-mail. Information Produced on July 1. On July 1, 2003, at the quarterly contracting review meeting pursuant to ap- pendix 11, the Respondent gave the Union a thick stack of documents related to subcontracting in its Midwest region from February 1 through May 31, 2003.5 Accord- ing to the Respondent, those documents showed “(1) a list of contractors performing any bargaining unit work, (2) associated job or requisition numbers, (3) job descrip- tions of the jobs or type of work, and (4) locations where the contractors were working, by city and town.”6 Subsequently, Walls informed Texeira in writing that the July 1 documents were inadequate. According to Walls’ unrebutted testimony, he told Texeira that there was no way to tell from the information received what work was being contracted or how much work had been contracted. At the hearing, Walls testified that the docu- ments showed, for example, that a contractor was placing aerial cable, but “it doesn’t tell me if it’s 1 span or 20 spans, if there [are] terminals involved.” Similarly, Glenn admitted at the hearing that with those documents one could not tell whether a particular job was done by a crew of four employees working steadily for a month or by one employee working half a day. Texeira admitted that she knew Walls felt that he had not gotten the information he needed, but she never re- sponded to Walls’ repeated complaints. She refused to provide pricing information on the ground that it was proprietary, and never provided any other information. As a result, Walls continued to request the information. 5 The judge inadvertently stated that this meeting took place on July 3. We correct the error. 6 There is no allegation that the Respondent unlawfully delayed in providing this information. Cf. Tennessee Steel Processors, 287 NLRB 1132 (1988). DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 64 Indeed, as late as November 2003, at the third step griev- ance meeting, Walls was still complaining that he never received the information he needed. II. THE JUDGE’S DECISION The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide the Un- ion with a list of all subcontracted work, the identities of contractors performing the work, a description of the work and the location of the jobs, as well as information concerning the extent of subcontracting.7 (Although the Respondent had informed the Union of the cities and/or municipalities where the subcontracted work was being performed, the judge found that it had not provided the “specific location” of the work.) However, the judge found that copies of the contracts and information con- cerning pricing were not relevant and that the Respon- dent’s failure to provide them was not unlawful. To remedy the unlawful conduct, the judge ordered the Respondent to furnish the Union with the requested rele- vant information, including information concerning the extent of subcontracting. He found that the Respondent could discharge its obligation by providing copies of purchase orders for contracting within the Union’s juris- diction, with price information redacted, together with any applicable change orders. The judge further ordered that, if the information on the redacted purchase orders proves insufficient, the Respondent must provide rele- vant work prints. He ordered that the information be provided for the period beginning in February 2003 and continuing to the date of compliance. III. THE PARTIES’ EXCEPTIONS The Respondent argues in exceptions that it has al- ready provided all relevant information to the Union. Thus, the Respondent asserts that it already provided the Union with the names of subcontractors and the nature and location of the work they were doing. As for infor- mation concerning the extent of subcontracting, the Re- spondent contends that it is not relevant and that, in any event, the Union did not ask for it. 8 The General Coun- sel and the Union argue that the contracts and informa- tion concerning pricing are relevant and must be pro- vided. 7 The judge erroneously stated that only the failure to provide the in- formation requested on March 31 was alleged to be unlawful. The complaint also alleged an unlawful failure to provide the information requested on March 13. 8 In the alternative, the Respondent asserts that this case should be deferred to arbitration. We disagree. Although the Respondent raised deferral as an affirmative defense in its answer to the complaint, it failed to raise the issue subsequently at the hearing or in its brief to the judge. We therefore find that the Respondent waived that argument. Accordingly, we do not pass on the merits of the issue. With regard to the remedy, the General Counsel and the Union contend that if the information contained on purchase orders fails to show the quantity or the specific location of subcontracted work, the Respondent should be required to provide work prints bearing the contrac- tors’ notations showing exactly what work was done at each location. The Respondent argues that, if any rem- edy is imposed, it should terminate as of the date when all laid-off unit employees are recalled to their previous positions. IV. ANALYSIS An employer’s duty to bargain collectively under the Act includes an obligation to furnish information that allows a union to decide whether to process a grievance. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). Where the requested information involves matters out- side the bargaining unit, such as the subcontracting of unit work, a union bears the burden of establishing the relevancy of and necessity for such information. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186 (1997); NLRB v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 950 F.2d 1324, 1331 (7th Cir. 1991). In determining the relevance of requested information, however, the Board applies a broad, discovery-type standard. Shoppers Food Ware- house, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). Thus, as the Board has explained, the union’s burden is not an exceptionally heavy one, requiring only a showing of a “probability that the desired information is relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.” Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB at 1186, quoting NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. at 437. An employer is not relieved of its obligation to turn over relevant information simply due to confidentiality concerns, but must offer to accommo- date both its concern and its bargaining obligations. See, e.g., SBC California, 344 NLRB 243 fn. 3 (2005). We turn now to the application of the foregoing principles to the Union’s requests for information. A. Information on Subcontractor Identity and the Nature and Location of Subcontracted Work As stated above, the Union in its March 31 e-mail re- quested, among other things, an up-to-date list of subcon- tracted work, the identity of the contractor performing the work, and a description of the work and its location. The judge found that the information the Respondent provided on July 1 identified “contractors performing work and the nature and location, by city or municipality, of the work they are performing.” Nevertheless, because he found that the information provided did not show the amount of subcontracted work or its specific location, the judge found that the Respondent had violated Section WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 65 8(a)(5) and (1). The judge went on to hold, for unstated reasons, that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to comply with the Union’s request for infor- mation concerning the identity of the subcontractors and the type of subcontracted work. As discussed below, we agree with the judge that the Respondent unlawfully failed to furnish the Union with information regarding the amount of subcontracted work. Contrary to the judge, however, we find that the Respon- dent complied with the Union’s request for information concerning the identity of subcontractors and the type and location of subcontracted work. The judge himself acknowledged that the information provided by the Re- spondent on July 1 identified the subcontractors and the nature of the subcontract work performed. Furthermore, the judge found the work location information provided to be deficient only because it did not identify the “spe- cific location” of the work. But the Union asked only for the “location of the work being done,” without stating the degree of specificity desired—e.g., by city, zip code, or street intersection. In these circumstances, we cannot fault the Respondent for identifying the locations of sub- contracted work by city or municipality, particularly since the Union never objected that it needed more spe- cific information. Accordingly, we reverse the judge and dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the Re- spondent unlawfully failed to furnish information con- cerning the identities of subcontractors or the type and location of subcontracted work.9 B. Information on the Extent of Subcontracting The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide the Union with in- formation concerning the amount of work being subcon- tracted, which he found to be relevant to the processing of the Union’s grievances. In exceptions, the Respon- dent contends that this information is irrelevant to the establishment of a contract violation. It reasons as fol- lows. Article 26.34 of the collective-bargaining agree- ment provides that there shall be no layoff of regular full- time unit employees if outside contractors are performing “the same work, in the same work group, at the same work location” as the work performed by the laid-off employees. Unit work was subcontracted, and unit em- ployees were laid off as a result. Therefore, if any of the subcontracted work was “the same work, in the same work group, at the same location” as the work laid-off employees had previously performed, a contract viola- tion has been established and the Union’s grievance has 9 In any event, the documents we are requiring the Respondent to provide will contain this information. See discussion in the amended remedy section below. merit. The amount of work subcontracted (as distinct from the fact of subcontracting) is irrelevant to the estab- lishment of a contract violation, and therefore informa- tion regarding the amount need not be provided. We find no merit in this argument. Even assuming that, as the Respondent contends, the Union did not need information on the extent of subcontracting in order to prevail in a grievance proceeding, that information was relevant for other purposes. First, having a meritorious grievance does not mean that the Union would necessar- ily wish to pursue it. If the amount of subcontracted work at a given site was minimal, the Union might well decide that pursuing the grievance was not worth the time and expense involved. To make that decision, the Union would need to know not simply that unit work had been subcontracted at that location, but how much work was involved. Information concerning the amount of subcontracted work is relevant for that reason.10 Next, the extent of subcontracting is relevant to the remedy for any contract violation. If an arbitrator found that the Respondent had improperly subcontracted unit work, the amount of backpay due the displaced unit em- ployees would probably depend on the number of hours of work lost due to subcontracting. See Schrock Cabinet Co., 339 NLRB 182, 188 (2003) (information concerning hours of subcontracted work relevant to computation of relief that might be awarded for contract violation). The Respondent also argues that the Union never asked for information concerning the extent of subcon- tracting. Again, we disagree. Although the Union’s March 31 e-mail did not request such information with great clarity, Walls informed Texeira that the information the Respondent provided on July 1 did not show how much work was being contracted out. That statement certainly put the Respondent on notice that the Union was asking for such information. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the re- quested information regarding the extent of subcontract- ing was relevant to the Union’s grievance processing activities. The Respondent neither provided that infor- mation nor made any attempt at accommodation. Ac- cordingly, we agree with the judge that the failure to provide that information violated Section 8(a)(5). 10 The Board and courts have long recognized that information may be relevant because it helps weed out nonmeritorious grievances. Acme Industrial, supra, 385 U.S. at 437–438; DaimlerChrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1325 (2000). By the same reasoning, information may also be relevant if it weeds out grievances that, though possibly merito- rious, are not worth pursuing. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 66 C. Pricing Information and Copies of Subcontracts We affirm the judge’s finding that pricing information and copies of contracts were not relevant to the Union’s grievance handling duties. As the judge found, the Un- ion needed information concerning the kinds, amount, and location of the work being subcontracted for griev- ance handling purposes. Knowing the price of the work would not assist the Union in this respect. To be sure, if, as the General Counsel and the Union argue, the Union knew the total cost of a project and the rate charged for each part of the job, it might be able to use that informa- tion to calculate how much work was being performed. But, as we have held, the Union was entitled to receive specific information concerning the amount of work be- ing subcontracted. Had that information been provided, as it should have been, pricing information would have been superfluous. And because we are ordering the Re- spondent to inform the Union of the extent of subcon- tracting, the Union will not need to calculate for itself the amount of such work. As for copies of contracts, we agree with the judge that in the circumstances of this case, their relevance has not been demonstrated. As explained, in the Respondent’s parlance a “contract” is a document that sets forth a con- tractor’s rates for performing some 450 separate tasks— in other words, a price list. It is not an agreement be- tween SBC and the contractor that the latter shall per- form any of those tasks, and thus it does not reflect work actually being subcontracted, let alone its extent or loca- tion.11 Accordingly, copies of the “contracts” between SBC and its subcontractors would have been of no use to the Union in assessing or processing subcontracting grievances. V. AMENDED REMEDY To remedy the violations found, the judge ordered the Respondent to furnish the Union with purchase orders (with pricing information redacted), together with any applicable change orders, for all contracted work within the Union’s jurisdiction from February 2003 until the date of compliance with his decision. He also ordered that, if the information contained in those documents proves to be insufficient, the Respondent must provide work prints. We have found, contrary to the judge, that the Respon- dent did not unlawfully fail to provide the Union with information concerning the identities of subcontractors 11 As the judge suggested, the Union probably did not know that the Respondent used this unusual terminology, and the Respondent did nothing to clear up the confusion. and the type and location of subcontracted work. We nevertheless find that the judge correctly ordered the Respondent to provide purchase orders, change orders, and, if necessary work prints, because those documents contain information concerning the extent of subcontract- ing that the Respondent unlawfully failed to provide. We also find merit in the General Counsel’s and the Union’s contention that, if those documents fail to adequately disclose the extent of subcontracting, the Respondent must provide notated work prints if such exist. In ordering the production of these documents, we rec- ognize that the Respondent has already provided much of the other information contained in them concerning the identities of contractors and types and locations of work. In producing those documents, however, the Respondent should not redact information that it has already pro- vided, because that might leave the Union with docu- ments showing the extent of subcontracting but nothing else. Such information, if not keyed to subcontractors or locations, might prove useless. Finally, we agree with the Respondent that it should be required to provide information only for the period end- ing on the date when all laid-off employees represented by Local 4603 for grievance purposes are or were re- called to their previous positions. (Indeed, that was the extent of the remedy that the Union requested in its posthearing brief to the judge.) Because the Union’s subcontracting grievances would have merit, if at all, only for that period, information concerning such sub- contracting would be relevant to the Union’s grievance handling obligations only for that period as well. We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order accord- ingly. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corpo- ration d/b/a SBC Midwest, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to furnish relevant and neces- sary information relating to the extent of subcontracting requested by Communications Workers of America, Lo- cal 4603, AFL–CIO, on March 13 and 31, 2003. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Promptly furnish the Union with the information found to have been unlawfully withheld as set forth in the amended remedy section of this decision. WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 67 (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of its facilities at which employees are represented by the Union, copies of the attached notice marked “Appen- dix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceed- ings, 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 March 13, 2003. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at- testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 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 ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish relevant and necessary information relating to the extent of subcon- tracting requested by Communications Workers of America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO. 12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL promptly furnish the information the Union requested on March 13 and 31, 2003, as set out in the amended remedy section of the Board’s decision. WISCONSIN BELL, INC., AN AMERITECH CORPORATION D/B/A SBC MIDWEST Andrew S. Gollin, Esq., for the General Counsel. Andrew Slobodien and Brian R. Carnie, Esqs., for the Respon- dent. Marianne G. Robbins, Esq., for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on July 22 and 23, 2004, pursuant to an amended and corrected complaint that issued on April 14, 2004.1 The complaint alleges that the Respondent failed and refused to provide the Union with requested relevant information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National La- bor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent’s answer denies all violations of the Act. I find that the Respondent did fail to provide requested relevant information. I further find that the record does not establish that the pricing information sought is relevant to the Union’s request. On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by all parties, I make the following2 FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corpo- ration d/b/a SBC Midwest,3 the Company, is a corporation, engaged in operating a telephone communications system throughout the State of Wisconsin including facilities in Mil- waukee, Wisconsin. The Company, in conducting its business, annually derives gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and ships products and materials valued in excess of $5000 directly to customers located outside the State of Wisconsin. The Com- pany admits, and I find and conclude, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that Com- munications Workers of America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO, the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1 All dates are in 2003 unless otherwise indicated. The charge in Case 30–CA–16442–1 was filed on April 17. 2 There was no objection to receipt of the formal papers. Review of the transcript reveals that I failed to formally receive them. GC Exhs. 1(a) through (n) is received. 3 The name of the Company, which has changed, was amended at the hearing. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 68 II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Contractual Context of this Case This case arises under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement that was in effect between the Company and Interna- tional Union from February 1, 2001, until April 3, 2004. The Midwest area covered by the agreement includes employees in Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Separate local unions, all administratively a part of District 4 of the In- ternational, represent employees at various locations throughout the SBC Midwest system. In Wisconsin, Local 4603 represents employees in what is referred to as the Milwaukee expanded hometown job area, which includes the Milwaukee metropoli- tan area and adjacent counties. Under the contract, first step grievances are filed with the di- rect supervisor of the employee or employees affected. At the second step, the “the next higher level management representa- tive” responds. At the third step, the final step before arbitra- tion, the grievance is considered by the “appropriate Labor Relations Executive Director” or designee and a designee of the International Union. In Milwaukee, the company representative is Peggy Texeira, case manager for labor relations for the State of Wisconsin, and the union representative is George Walls, president of Local 4603. The Company, in its answer, admits that the appropriate unit consists of the employees of the Re- spondent described in article 1.01 and appendix B of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. The collective-bargaining agreement, article 26.34 provides as follows: The Company shall decide the necessity for and shall determine the extent of any force adjustment. . . . There shall be no layoff of regular full-time employees if there are any outside contractors performing the same work, in the same work group, at the same location, as performed by the Surplus Employee Group. A Memorandum of Agreement, A10, titled Contract- ing Out, provides, in pertinent part: While the Company cannot make specific commit- ments regarding the contracting out of work, it is the Company’s general policy that traditional telephone work will not be contracted out if it will currently and directly cause layoffs or part-timing of regular employees in the Bargaining Unit. A memorandum of agreement, A11, contracting out review, provides for quarterly meetings between the Company and the International Union to “review traditional telephone work iden- tified by the Union that has been contracted out.” The memo- randum states that the Company will provide “the following information regarding the identified subcontracted work:” The name(s) of the contractor(s), the nature of the work; the zip code(s) of the location(s) where the work was performed; and, if available, the number of hours of work subcontracted and associated costs, provided such information is not considered proprietary information and the disclosure of such information is not detrimental to the operation of the business. A document to which the parties refer as the “catch all let- ter,” signed on April 17, 2001, the date the contract was exe- cuted, contains miscellaneous matters including paragraph 2 which includes the provision that “[u]pon written request by the Local President, the Company will provide the Union with all information and documentation as required under the National Labor Relations Act for grievances and all other matters. If there is any dispute regarding the requested information, the matter will be decided by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).” In its answer, the Respondent pleads that “Local 4603 is not a proper party to this proceeding” and, in its brief, argues that Local 4603 did not have the “right to obtain contract information from the Company.” The Company contends that the catch all letter relates only to requests for personnel docu- ments and cites the testimony of Executive Director of Labor Relations Greg Glenn that, in 2001, discussion of paragraph 2 of the letter related to personnel files. The contract provides that grievances are handled by the local union through the sec- ond step. Glenn acknowledged that local union presidents are involved in grievances that do not relate to personnel files and that they “need information on those other grievances too.” President Walls testified that the language contained in para- graph 2 of the catch all letter is what the parties agreed to in 2001. Glenn did not dispute that the parties agreed, as stated in paragraph 2, that “[u]pon written request by the Local Presi- dent, the Company will provide the Union with all information and documentation as required under the National Labor Rela- tions Act for grievances and all other matters.” Manager Texeira, who consulted with Glenn before responding to the Union’s information requests, did not inform the Union that Glenn disputed the right of the local union president to request information. I reject any contention that Local 4603 did not have the right to request information relevant to the employees that it represents. B. The Information Request of March 31 1. Events preceding the request The complaint alleges the failure of the Company to provide relevant information relating to contracting that was requested by the Union in an e-mail dated March 31. Although various requests were made prior to March 31, it is the failure of the Company to respond to that request that is alleged in the com- plaint. That is the only issue before me in this proceeding. In September 2002, the Company announced that it was de- claring a “surplus” that would occur after 90 days. The declara- tion of the surplus, effectively the announcement of an impend- ing layoff, triggered the right of senior employees whose posi- tions were identified as “surplus” to bump junior employees whose jobs they were qualified to perform. The Company iden- tified the various positions that it was declaring as surplus, a total of approximately 200 in the Midwest area, approximately 60 in Wisconsin, and approximately 30 employees represented by Local 4603, the Union, in the Milwaukee expanded home- town job area. Included among those positions in Milwaukee was a 15-man construction line crew. In late November 2002, James Courchane, vice president of the Union, filed a grievance alleging violation of article 26.34 of the collective-bargaining agreement that stated: “There are WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 69 contractors working in Milwaukee and throughout the state of Wisconsin that are doing Bargaining Unit Work that our trained surplused employees could and should be doing.” The Union’s position was that “[a]ny and all work presently being done by contractors, as stated above, should be given to our surplused employees.” On December 2, 2002, Vice President Courchane signed an information request relating to the foregoing griev- ance in which he requested, among other information, a list of contractors performing work in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, where they were working and the type of work they were per- forming, and “cost breakdowns on the jobs they are working on.” The bulk of employees laid off as a result of the declaration of the surplus were laid off on December 27, 2002. Thereafter, on December 31, 2002, and on various dates in early 2003, the Union filed 11 individual grievances on occasions when it learned of contractors performing bargaining unit work. These grievances were accompanied by information requests includ- ing, in several instances, requests for, “[a]n up to date list of all contractors performing any bargaining unit work for S.B.C. in all Milwaukee EHJA [extended hometown job area], as well as all associated job or requisition numbers, job descriptions, and locations where the contractors are working. We are requesting the contract that was signed between S.B.C. and all contractors performing work for S.B.C. in Wisconsin.” President Walls began signing these requests and sent one by facsimile to Man- ager Texeira. The document states that the Union is seeking the information “[i]n order to make a determination as to whether a valid grievance exists, of [sic] if an existing grievance should be elevated to the next step . . . .” John McChesney, a first line construction manager, recalled that, when several of these information requests were filed with him, he consulted with Area Construction Manager Bob Bareta who informed him that he was “not to give them anything.” This position changed and, in response to the request for job descriptions, the Company provided the job descriptions of unit employees from the collective-bargaining agreement. The Company also provided a blank form contract that individual contractors entered into with the Company. When an “under- taking” number covering the contracted work was specified in a grievance, the Company provided work prints showing the particular work being performed by the contractor that was the subject of the individual grievance. McChesney acknowledged that the work prints given to the Union related to the specific work to which the grievance related, work that the Union al- ready knew was being performed by contractors. The Company did not provide work prints reflecting other work that the con- tractor was performing. At first-step grievance meetings, McChesney informed the union steward who presented the grievance that any additional information would be provided by Manager Peggy Texeira at the third step of the grievance pro- cedure. Several of the Company’s responses set out a Company posi- tion stating that article 26.34 was supplemented by appendix A- 10, that, “contractors have not caused layoffs or part timing of regular employees . . . and that contractors will continue to be utilized.” The response also refers to the quarterly contracting out review meeting and states that “at this Review the Union is given all relevant data pertaining to specific work, location and names of all contractors.” Manager Texeira testified that, prior to the foregoing response being presented to the Union, First Line Manager McChesney read it to her and that she approved it. Notwithstanding her approval of the foregoing response, Texeira testified that she was unaware that the Union was claiming that the Company had violated article 26.34 of the collective-bargaining agreement until the third-step grievance meeting, which was held on November 10. The foregoing inex- plicable testimony suggests that she did not recall the substance of the response that she approved or of the e-mail sent to her by President George Walls on March 31, the request that is the basis for this proceeding. Pursuant to directions that she re- ceived from her superior, Executive Director of Labor Rela- tions Greg Glenn, Texeira continually informed the Union that the Company would not provide information regarding pricing or individual contracts because “that was proprietary informa- tion and we were not going to give that information out.” Texeira could recall giving no explanation for the basis of the claim that the information was proprietary. She acknowledged that she made no proposal to seek an accommodation or pro- vide information in lieu of the specific information requested. On March 13, President Walls and two presidents of other Wisconsin local unions met with Bareta and other management officials including Bareta’s superior, Karen James, who ap- peared to be receptive to Wall’s request for information. On March 19, James provided Walls with the approved bidders contractors list but informed him that she had “been informed by labor” that the “associated bid prices” were “proprietary information” and could not be provided. On March 26, a second-step meeting on several of the Un- ion’s pending grievances was held. Construction Manager Ba- reta reiterated the Company position regarding pricing being proprietary. Vice President Courchane stated to Bareta that the information that the Union had received was “not what we were looking for,” and explained that it did not “give us any of the information we need to process our grievances and determine to what extent contracting was going on and how much work was being done.” Referring to the blank contracts that had been provided, Courchane noted that page 22 referred to attachments and bid documents, and asked for the signed agreements “that would contain the attachments and bid documents and specifi- cations” as noted on page 22 of the blank contracts that the Union had been given. As this meeting was concluding, there was discussion re- garding controlling the number of grievances being filed. An agreement was reached pursuant to which inspectors, unit em- ployees, would identify work being performed by contractors, and the Union would file only one grievance a month. This arrangement was not successful because most of the inspectors refused to fill out the documents. The list was kept at only one of five locations from which construction employees were dis- patched. Bareta admitted that he did not direct the inspectors to maintain the list. Rather, he gave them the document upon which the information was to be recorded and stated, “The Union would like you to fill this out.” Thereafter, Bareta and Shop Steward Dave Hillshiem discussed the failure of the ar- DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 70 rangement. Hillshiem commented that it appeared to be a man- agement problem. Bareta responded that he would begin taking disciplinary action. Bareta admitted that he understood that Hillshiem would not want him to do that and, predictably, Hill- shiem told him not to do so, that he would get back with him. There was no further discussion. Bareta testified that inspectors have access to a confidential software data system, the ACAS system, into which work requests for contractors are entered. He confirmed that any breach of security by employees having access to that system would result in disciplinary action. I find that the absence of a specific direction from Bareta in the con- text of the Company’s security procedures accounts for the failure of this arrangement. As of March 26, the Union had filed numerous information requests. Although filed with individual grievances, the re- quests sought information relating to the full extent of the con- tracting in which the Company was engaging. The Company had provided job descriptions of unit members, blank contracts, and work prints for jobs that the Union was aware were being performed by contractors. At the March 26 meeting, Vice President Courchane explained to Bareta that the information provided did not enable the Union to determine to what extent contracting was going on. It is in that context that the Union made its request of March 31. 2. The request of March 31 On March 31, 2003, President Walls sent Manager Texeira the following e-mail. As you know, the Union has made a number of infor- mation requests regarding the contracting of work. As you further know, the Union has filed a number of grievances charging a violation of Article 26.34 and Ap- pendix A-10. This information is relevant in the process- ing of these grievances. We have approximately 60 people laid off in the State of Wisconsin. The Union’s position is our laid off em- ployees should be given the opportunity to do this work before contracting this work. We believe the contracting is a direct violation of Article 26.34. Initially, when the information requests were made at the first step of the grievance procedure by the Stewards, they were told by first level management you advised them not to give the Union this information and you would decide at the 3rd step of the grievance procedure what in- formation would be given to the Union. I then made a second request for this information un- der my signature per the “Catch All Letter.” In a later conversation you, you told me this informa- tion was given to Larry Handley and I should get it from him per Fred Eder. In a meeting with the WI [Wisconsin] General Manag- ers on March 13, 2003, I again made this verbal request. Bob Baretta [sic] stated at this meeting he was told by Peggy Texeira not to give the Union this information. In a later conversation with you, you stated this is not what you told him. In a 2nd step grievance meeting on March 26, 2003, Bob Baretta [sic] furnished some limited inform [sic] to James Courchane. I’m formally requesting an up to date list of all work being contracted out by SBC in the following units, E&C [Engineering and Construction], I/M: [Infrastructure Maintenance], I/R [Installation and Repair] and NP&E [Network Planning and Engineering] starting in February of this year in the Milwaukee Expanded Hometown Job Area. This list should include the contractor performing the work, a description of all the work being done, loca- tion of work being done, pricing for the work being done and a copy of the contract. I believe we are legally entitled to this information. Please provide this information to me within (10) days. If you are unwilling to comply with this request, please respond in writing as to why you will not. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 3. Events subsequent to the request of March 31 Manager Texeira did not respond in writing. In a telephone conversation, she repeated to Walls that the company was not going to give the Union “the pricing . . . [or] the individual contracts.” Texeira could recall giving no explanation for the basis of the claim than the information was proprietary. No alternatives were discussed. Texeira acknowledged that she made no proposal to seek an accommodation or provide infor- mation in lieu of the specific information requested. The Union filed the charge herein on April 17. The reference to Larry Handley and Fred Elder in Walls’ let- ter relates to information regarding contracting given on a quar- terly basis pursuant to appendix A11. Wall attended that meet- ing on July 3 and was given copies of the multiple documents provided to all participants. Those documents identify contrac- tors performing work and the nature and location, by city or municipality, of the work they are performing. The documents do not quantify the work being performed, and Walls was un- able “to determine much of anything from them.” Walls testified that the documents were inadequate, explain- ing that they show that a contractor was placing aerial cable, but, “it doesn’t tell me if it’s one span or twenty spans, if there is terminals involved.” He informed Texeira that the informa- tion was inadequate, that there was no way that the Union “could determine what was being contracted or how much work was being contracted.” Manager Texeira acknowledged that she understood that Walls was seeking “a description of all work being done as described in his March letter.” She admitted that she knew that, after Walls returned from the quarterly meeting in July, that, “he believed that he had still not gotten a description of all work done . . . [and] he still wanted a description of all work done.” With regard to the inadequacy of the documents provided at the contract review, Director Greg Glenn was asked whether he would agree, from the documents, that the Union could not tell how much work was being performed, that “[y]ou can’t tell whether it was a crew of four guys working steady for a month WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 71 or it was a repair job that would be done by one guy in half a day?” Glenn answered, “I think that’s a fair statement.” The third-step meeting on the Union’s grievances was held on November 10. At the outset of that meeting, Walls pointed out that the Union, although having been provided some infor- mation, had still not received the information that would fulfill his March 31 e-mail request. Manager Texeira testified that, at that meeting, she realized that the layoff of the construction line crew was an issue under article 26.34 and stated her intention to investigate further. By letter dated December 8, the Company proposed a settlement of all 12 pending grievances by reestab- lishment of the line crew, but without recalling the specific employees affected. The proposal noted that the reestablished crew would be assigned 12 percent of the work. Walls wanted to know how the 12 percent was determined. Texeira did not provide the requested information. The Union rejected the pro- posal. After further discussions, the Company sent the Union a letter dated March 11, 2004, providing simply that the recalled crew would be assigned “the same percentage of line crew work that was done prior to the December 27, 2002, surplus.” Both letters contained a paragraph reiterating the Company’s position that it would not disclose “individual contracts and/or pricing of those contracts” to the Union. The Union denied being aware of the March 11, 2004 letter, until June 2004. None of the foregoing is of any relevance to the outstanding information request of March 31 because the Company with- drew the settlement offer on June 25, 2004, and denied all 12 grievances. C. Information Disclosed at the Hearing Associate director of contract administration, Kathy Fran- sens, explained that the “sample master agreement,” i.e., the blank form contracts provided to the Union, is similar to the contracts executed by the contractors. Only two contracts are executed. The Company keeps its copy of these contracts, a total of between 200 and 250, in a locked file cabinet at its main office in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Only Fransens and two other people have keys to the locked file cabinet in which they are kept. When executed, the contract has a cover page showing the name of the contractor, the signature page containing the appropriate signatures, and an attachment setting out the rates charged by that contractor for approximately 450 specific items of work such as digging a trench, burying cable, or installing a pedestal. The work items are identified by code numbers as- signed by the Company. Fransens testified that the code num- ber and the item of work that it identifies are not confidential. The contract does not establish what work the contractor will actually be doing. Rather, as Fransens explained, “[T]hey’re telling us they can do this work for what rate.” The actual awarding of work assignments occurs when a manager in the field submits a work request to a contract ad- ministration center (CAC). There are several centers in the SBC Midwest system including at least one in Wisconsin. The re- cord does not establish the total number of centers or their spe- cific locations. Area Construction Manager Bareta explained that the “CAC center collects all the work requests from the State and dishes out the work to the contractors through a com- puter system.” The computer system is referred to as the ACAS system, a software program specially designed for the needs of the Company. Manager Bareta explained that the work requests transmitted to the CAC would describe the work needed to be done using the code numbers related to the work item, “[i]t would be an item number, and—and by that I mean if they’re going to place cable it would be an item AP25 and the footage of the cable they’re going to place.” (Emphasis added.) Fransens confirmed that the construction managers cost out jobs by putting “a list of items they need” and submitting it to the CAC. She further explained that an item of work identified by its code number “describes what type of work they’re requesting, like an item signifies if they want a trench 36 inches deep, if they want a bore 2 inches.” Fransens, consistent with the testimony of Ba- reta, stated that, in addition to the code signifying the item of work, there is also designation of the quantity, “some numerical amount like the number of pedestals or the length of cable.” Work requests from the field become purchase orders when entered into the ACAS system. The purchase order reflects the code number for the type of work, the quantity, and the price. By simple division, e.g., $1000 to lay 1000 feet of cable, it could be determined that the contractor’s bid price was $1 a foot. Fransens testified that the “initial awarded purchase order” contains the quantity of work being ordered, and that change orders are reflected on the purchase order but do not show quantity or cost. As hereinafter noted, work prints do reflect the quantity of work performed. A typical purchase order, accord- ing to Fransens, would contain between three to eight item numbers, i.e., specific work tasks such as digging a trench and laying cable in the trench. The quantities, as such, are not con- sidered to be confidential. Fransens testified that work prints, the documents provided to the Union regarding the work the Union had identified as being performed by contractors, are considered confidential and are returned to the Company upon completion of the work so that the Company can “see what work was done.” The work prints show the quantity of work performed, e.g., the number of feet of cable that has been laid. They also show the specific location where the work was performed. Work prints are identi- fied by an EWO number, referred to by Managers John McChesney and Bob Bareta as an undertaking or UT number. D. Analysis and Concluding Findings The complaint alleges that the Company failed to provide relevant information relating to contracting that was requested by the Union in Walls’ e-mail dated March 31. The Respondent contends that the Union was not entitled to pricing information. I agree. The request of the Union alleged in the complaint was, as set out in the e-mail, for “an up to date list of all work being contracted out by SBC . . . [that] should include the contractor performing the work, a description of all the work being done, location of work being done, pricing for the work being done and a copy of the contract.” The pricing information is not relevant to the quantity of contracting that was occurring. The information the Union needed was the pur- chase orders which would show the amount of work being con- tracted. The testimony of Fransens and Bareta establishes that the pricing information and copies of the contracts would not DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 72 fulfill that request. The pricing information and contracts, con- sidered proprietary by the Respondent, even if provided, would not have been relevant. Although information unrelated to unit employees is not pre- sumptively relevant, information relating to subcontracting which impacts the working conditions of unit employees is relevant. See Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 337 NLRB 1239 (2002), and Pratt & Lambert, Inc., 319 NLRB 529, 533 (1995). Furthermore, the information sought need not be sought with respect to a specific grievance insofar as the information is related to “the possible processing of . . . [potential] griev- ances.” Schrock Cabinet Co., 339 NLRB 182 fn. 6. (2003). The Respondent argues that the Union never established the relevance of information relating to the quantification of the contracting that was occurring. I disagree. From the initial grievance filed in November, citing the Union’s position that unit work was being performed by contractors and that the surplused unit employees should be given that work, the Union clearly explained the relevance of the information being sought. Walls, in his e-mail request of March 31, stated, “As you know, the Union has made a number of information requests regarding the contracting of work. As you further know, the Union has filed a number of grievances charging a violation of Article 26.34 and Appendix A-10. This information is relevant in the processing of these grievances. We have approximately 60 people laid off in the State of Wisconsin. The Union’s position is our laid off employees should be given the opportunity to do this work before contracting this work. We believe the contract- ing is a direct violation of Article 26.34.” Case Manager Texeira, when asked whether, to prevail upon the Union’s grievances, Walls was “going to need to establish . . . the extent of the work?” answered that “he needs to from his point of argument.” The Union established the relevance of its informa- tion requests. It appears that the Union, in requesting copies of the con- tracts, thought that the contractor performing a particular job had bid upon it and been awarded it pursuant to the terms of an individual contract. It is unclear whether Manager Texeira was aware of the information in the possession of the Respondent. When asked whether, “sitting here today the only information the—that the Company has identified that will show the extent [of the contracting] involves pricing?” Texeira answered, “From what I know of, yes.” The testimony of Bareta and Fran- sens establishes that, although purchase orders reflect pricing, they also reflect the quantity of the work being contracted. Texeira did not state to the Union the basis for the Company’s claim that pricing and contract information was proprietary. She did not explain to the Union that, in asking for the con- tracts, it was asking for documents that reflected each contrac- tor’s rate for performing 450 particular tasks. Nor did she ex- plain that there were no separate contracts reflecting the spe- cific work that any contractor was doing at a particular site on any given day. Texeira acknowledged that she contacted Director Greg Glenn about what action she should take regarding the Union’s request. In further testimony regarding her contacts concerning refusing to turn over the information, Texeira testified that “they didn’t want to do that. It was proprietary.” When asked who “they” were, Texeira answered that, “there was a bunch of people who were looking at this.” The record does not establish whether the Union’s request of March 31 was sent to the “bunch of people.” If it was, the “bunch of people,” which should have included Glenn, certainly should have read that the Union was seeking “an up to date list of all work being con- tracted out by Respondent” in specific areas. Even if the docu- ment was not provided, Glenn, before advising Texeira regard- ing the Company’s response, should have ascertained exactly what the Union was seeking before responding that the infor- mation was proprietary. If the Respondent had addressed the request for “all work being contracted out,” the Respondent should have known that the information that would fulfill the Union’s request could be provided by redacting the pricing information. In addition to the request for “all work being contracted out,” the Union specifically requested a “description of all the work being done” and its location. The information provided at the quarterly meeting in July provided the name of the contractor and city or municipality, but not the amount of work or its spe- cific location. In order to determine whether article 26.34 was being violated, the Union needed information showing that there were “outside contractors performing the same work, in the same work group, at the same location” as the laid off unit employees. The testimony of Fransens and Bareta establishes that the specific work being done can be identified by the code number relating the work item. The location, which according to McChesney might appear on the purchase order, does appear on the work prints which are identified by a EWO number, referred to as an undertaking or UT number. The Charging Party concedes that the information disclosed at the hearing reveals that the Union’s request can be accom- modated without revealing pricing. As noted in the Charging Party’s brief at footnote 14: “If the quantity and identity of the work were clear from the purchase order without the aggregate pricing, this could be redacted.” Similarly, the General Counsel points out that the “Respon- dent also could have proposed providing Local 4603 with print outs from the ACAS system for each job that was contracted- out with the description codes and quantity amounts, with the pricing information redacted.” The testimony of Fransens and Bareta suggests that Texeira was not fully aware of the manner in which the Respondent handled contracting. The record further suggests that Glenn did not seek to determine specifically what the Union was request- ing but simply responded to questions from Texeira regarding pricing and contracts. Regardless of any failures in communica- tion among the Respondent’s management regarding what the Union was seeking, the Union’s request of March 31 clearly states that it was requesting a “list of all work being contracted out by Respondent” in specified areas. The Respondent did not provide the information. Nor did the Respondent seek an ac- commodation by explaining to the Union that, although the information that it requested was available, it was only avail- able in conjunction with purchase orders which stated the cost and was proprietary information. “An employer is not relieved of its obligation to turn over relevant information simply by invoking concerns about confidentiality, but must offer to ac- WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 73 commodate both its concerns and its bargaining obligation . . . .” Metropolitan Edison Co., 330 NLRB 107 (1999), citing U.S. Testing Co. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 14, 20–21 (D.C. Cir. 1998). I have found that the pricing information, which can be re- dacted from the purchase orders, is not relevant to the request of the Union relating to the amount of contracting by the Re- spondent. On the basis of the foregoing acknowledgements by the General Counsel and the Charging Party, I find no need to direct disclosure of the individual contracts executed by the contractors performing work in the jurisdiction of the Union. The Respondent sought no accommodation with the Union regarding providing the requested information. The Respon- dent, in failing and refusing to provide “an up to date list of all work being contracted out by Respondent,” the contractor per- forming the work, and a description of the work and its loca- tion, as specified in the Union’s e-mail of March 31, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the infor- mation it requested regarding subcontracting, the information being relevant and necessary to the Union as the collective- bargaining representative of the unit employees it represents, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and post an appropriate notice. The Respondent having failed and refused to provide the Un- ion with information it requested on March 31, 2003, for an up- to-date list of all work being contracted out by the Respondent in the Milwaukee expanded hometown job area in the E&C [engineering and construction], I/M: [infrastructure mainte- nance], I/R [installation and repair] and NP&E [network plan- ning and engineering] work units, including the identity of the contractor performing the work, a description of all the work being done, and the location of the work being done, it must provide that information. The Respondent has failed since March 31, 2003, to respond to the Union’s request. Insofar as that request was not limited to the pending grievances and in view of the denial of the pending grievances on June 25, 2004, the Respondent must provide the foregoing information from February 2003 until the date of compliance with this decision. I find that the foregoing information can be provided by provid- ing the purchase orders for contracting within the jurisdiction of the Union from February 2003 to the date of compliance with this decision, with the price being redacted, together with any applicable change orders.4 If the information provided on the redacted purchase orders is insufficient, such as work per- formed pursuant to a change order that does not specify the quantity of work or insufficient specificity regarding the loca- tion at which the work was performed, work prints must be provided. Consistent with my decision, the Respondent does not need to provide the pricing for the contracted work or the contract between the Respondent and the contractor. The Re- spondent also need not provide information regarding employ- ees not represented by the Union.5 [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 4 There is reference in Fransens’ testimony to an item usage report. I do not order its production because the record does not establish that it would fulfill the Union’s request. 5 Walls acknowledged that that NP&E is “[s]ometimes . . . and sometimes . . . not” a part of “network.” The foregoing does not estab- lish whether, when not part of the “network,” these employees were represented by Local 4603. If they were, I intend for the recommended order to include them.