Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV

370 NLRB No. 72 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV and Na- tional Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Televi- sion Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO. Case 19–CA–240187 January 14, 2021 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND EMANUEL On August 27, 2020, Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued the attached decision. The Respond- ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions1 and to adopt the judge’s recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.2 AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusion of Law 3. 1 We have amended the judge’s conclusions of law consistent with her findings. 2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our recent decision in Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68 (2020), and we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. We will also modify the recommended Order in the following respect. While the remedy section of the judge’s decision states that the Respond- ent “is ordered to provide” the requested information it unlawfully with- held, her recommended Order would permit the Respondent to either fur- nish the requested information or engage in accommodative bargaining. Accommodative bargaining is required only if the respondent has estab- lished a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest, however, see Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105–1106 (1991), and the Respondent failed to do so. The judge correctly noted that any claim of confidentiality was undermined by the Respondent’s assertion that its proposed dues check-off processing cost provision is contained in col- lective-bargaining agreements it negotiated with other NABET locals and by the absence of any record evidence that these agreements are treated by the Respondent as confidential. Accordingly, we shall modify the recommended Order to require the Respondent to furnish the infor- mation, removing the accommodative bargaining alternative. We deny the Charging Party’s request for various extraordinary rem- edies, as there has been no showing that the remedies the Charging Party “Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to provide the Union with infor- mation requested since December 18, 2018, which was necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.” ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., d/b/a KOIN-TV, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL– CIO (Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with re- quested information that is necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective- bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit em- ployees. (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) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor- mation it requested on December 18, 2018. (b) Post at its Portland, Oregon facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, requests are warranted. We note, however, that this case marks the fourth time the Respondent has been found to have violated the Act in less than two years. See Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, 370 NLRB No. 68 (2021) (unlawful discipline of employee and refusal to provide information regarding discipline); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, 369 NLRB No. 61 (2020) (unilateral change in employees’ terms and conditions of employment); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV, 367 NLRB No. 117 (2019) (unlawful delay in providing and refusal to provide information to union during collective bargaining). Although we do not order extraordinary remedies at this time, we will be forced to consider further appropriate remedies if this pattern of unlawful conduct persists. 3 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility involved in these pro- ceedings is closed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work, and the notices may not be posted until a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. Any delay in the physical posting of paper notices also applies to the electronic distribution of the notice if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by elec- tronic means. 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 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no- tices, 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. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If 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 em- ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since December 18, 2018. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply. Dated, Washington, D.C. January 14, 2021 ______________________________________ John F. Ring, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member _____________________________________ William J. Emanuel, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 vi- olated 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 bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Na- tional Association of Broadcast Employees & Techni- cians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (Union), by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that is necessary for and rel- evant to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of our unit employ- ees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested by the Union on December 18, 2018. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING,INC. D/B/A KOIN-TV The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-240187 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. National 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.” NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. D/B/A KOIN-TV 3 Sarah C. Ingebritsen, Esq., for the General Counsel. Charles W. Pautsch, Esq., for Respondent. Anne I. Yen, Esq., for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE AMITA BAMAN TRACY, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried based on a joint motion and stipulation of facts I ap- proved. The National Association of Broadcast Employees & Techni- cians (NABET), the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (the Union or the Charging Party) filed the original charge on April 24, 2019. The General Counsel issued the com- plaint on November 25, 2019. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all mate- rial charges. The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information relevant and necessary for the Union to discharge its duties. Spe- cifically, Respondent refused to provide the Union with infor- mation related to its proposal during negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement on reimbursement for dues checkoff processing costs. On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Party,1 I make the following, relying on the parties’ stipulation of facts. FINDINGS OF FACTS I. JURISDICTION At all material times, Respondent, an Oregon corporation with an office and place of business in Portland, Oregon, operates a television station (the facility).2 During the 12-month period ending December 31, 2018, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000, and purchased and received at the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Oregon. The parties admit and I find that Respond- ent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is 1 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Exh.” for stip- ulated record exhibits; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; “CP Br.” for the Charging Party’s brief; and “R. Br.” for Respondent’s brief. 2 On or about January 17, 2017, Respondent purchased the business of LIN Television Corporation, a Media General Company, d/b/a KOIN- TV (Media General KOIN-TV), and since then has continued to operate the business of Media General KOIN-TV in basically unchanged form, and has employed as a majority of its employees individuals who were previously employees of Media General KOIN-TV. Respondent has continued as the employing entity and is a successor to Media General KOIN-TV. 3 Within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act, the following descrip- tion of employees, of which there are approximately 45, comprise bar- gaining units (the Units) for the purposes of collective bargaining: The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects com- merce and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Respondent and the Union Bargain a Successor Agreement to the Expired Collective-Bargaining Agreement At all material times until January 17, 2017, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Units3 employed by Media General KOIN-TV and, during that time, recognized as such representative by Media General KOIN-TV. This recognition was embodied in successive collec- tive-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was in ef- fect from July 29, 2015, to August 18, 2017, with the last exten- sion having expired on September 8, 2017 (expired CBA) (Exh. D). The parties stipulated that based upon specific facts as well as Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Units. At all material times, Respondent and the Union were engaged in or were preparing to engage in bargaining for a successor agreement to the expired CBA. Respondent and the Union began bargaining for a successor agreement on June 21, 2017, where Respondent proposed to delete the dues checkoff clause, found at Article 3.1 of the expired CBA. Respondent and the Union met for a bargaining session on about December 14, 2018. Dur- ing this session, Respondent proposed that the Union pay an off- set of $10 per member per month to cover Respondent’s payroll processing of dues checkoff costs, and Respondent, by Vice President‒General Manager Patrick Nevin (Nevin),4 stated that Respondent had a practice of charging other unions set dollar amounts to cover dues checkoff costs in their respective collec- tive-bargaining agreements. B. Timeline of Events Regarding the Union’s Information Request Although the Union did not provide a counterproposal to the dues checkoff processing costs between December 14, 2018 and April 23, 2019,5 it did request information from Respondent re- lated to its December 14, 2018 proposal.6 On December 18, 2018, by emailed letter, Union President Carrie Biggs-Adams guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV. The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time news, creative services employ- ees, and web producers, but excluding news producers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”), office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees of KOIN- TV. 4 The parties stipulated, and I find that Vice President‒General Man- ager Patrick Nevin (Nevin) is a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and/or agent of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act. 5 All dates hereinafter are in 2019, unless otherwise noted. 6 This proposal states, “Union will reimburse the company $10 per employee on a monthly basis for services rendered by the company for dues checkoff practice” (Exh. E). 4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Biggs-Adams) requested information from Respondent related to its proposal for dues checkoff processing costs. In this letter, the Union requested the following information: 1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract) that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff practice. 2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations. 3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff pro- cessing at Respondent. Please itemize the costs. (Exh. E.) The Union requested the above-listed information since Respondent contended during bargaining that it has a prac- tice of charging unions the amount of $10 per employee on a monthly basis in its other union-represented locations (Exh. E). The Union requested the response by January 2 to have enough time to review this information prior to the next scheduled bar- gaining sessions of January 24 and 25 (Exh. E). On January 3, by emailed letter, Nevin responded to the Un- ion’s December 18, 2018 information request. Respondent failed to provide the requested information detailed in items 1 and 2, and provided a general, cursory response to the requested information detailed in item 3 (Exh. F). Respondent replied that items 1 and 2 of the requested information was not relevant and necessary as it called for information outside the bargaining unit, did not involve the terms and conditions of employment of bar- gaining unit employees, and sought proprietary confidential in- formation (Exh. F). As for item 3, Respondent opined that it spends 4 to 5 hours per pay period assembling and distributing dues check off processing information (Exh. F). Respondent did not offer any accommodation for items 1 and 2. C. Bargaining Sessions Between Respondent and the Union Concerning Dues Checkoff Processing On January 24, the parties resumed bargaining for the succes- sor agreement to the expired CBA. During this bargaining ses- sion, Respondent’s negotiators informed Biggs-Adams that sev- eral other NABET-represented bargaining units agreed to a $50 per month fee to process dues deduction. On April 23, Respondent revised its December 18, 2018 dues checkoff processing proposal.7 Respondent reiterated that other NABET locals had agreed to similar processing fees in other lo- cations. Respondent’s negotiator Business Administrator Casey Wenger (Wenger)8 spoke to the Union about the time it takes him to process payroll, including dues checkoff, due to the var- ying hours, pay, other cash compensation and the variability of dues amounts monthly based on gross compensation percent- ages. During bargaining sessions held on June 27 and October 7, the Union reiterated its December 18, 2018, request for information. 7 The April 23 proposal offered by Respondent states, in relevant part: Section 3.1 The Company shall make a check-off of union dues from each paycheck provided that the Company shall receive from the employee concerned a written assignment in the form at- tached hereto as Exhibit A. The Company assumes no financial obligation arising out of the provisions of this article. The Union Wenger reiterated that he spent approximately 5 hours per pay period to process payroll, including the dues checkoff, and that NABET locals agreed to the $50 processing fee in at least two other locations. These relevant collective-bargaining agree- ments, as requested in item 1 of the December 18, 2018, infor- mation request, were never provided to the Union. The Union informed Respondent that after conducting its own research, it found only one location in which a NABET local agreed to a dues checkoff processing fee; the Union also explained why that NABET local’s situation differed from the situation involving the Union and Respondent, including the fact that the dues checkoff processing fee at that local was contingent on the bank being unable to process dues checkoff via automatic debit. On August 2, Respondent unilaterally discontinued dues checkoff. As of the date of the stipulated facts, Respondent and the Union have not reached a successor agreement to the expired CBA. Issue Presented The parties stipulated that this case presents the following is- sue: Whether the information requested by the Union on December 18, 2018 was relevant and necessary for the Union to discharge its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of Re- spondent’s employees in the Units and, if so, whether Respond- ent’s failure and/or refusal to fully respond to that information request since on or about January 3 violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Discussion The General Counsel argues that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide the Union infor- mation it requested in connection to bargaining a successor agreement to the expired CBA on behalf of employees in the Units. Specifically, the requested information affects the Un- ion’s ability as to how to evaluate Respondent’s proposal regard- ing dues checkoff processing as well as how to formulate coun- terproposals. The General Counsel argues that Respondent’s in- itial proposal to the Union regarding the dues checkoff process “opened the door” as to the relevance of Respondent’s similar process with other locals as well as the related collective-bar- gaining agreements. This information affects the Union’s ability to bargain. The General Counsel further argues that Respond- ent’s generalized response to the information requested is an in- sufficient basis on which to determine the actual costs incurred by Respondent or how Respondent’s proposal should be evalu- ated. Moreover, according to the General Counsel, Respond- ent’s claim of proprietary and confidential information fails as Respondent justified its contract proposal with the claim that other locals have agreed to such terms. Finally, it is argued, will pay the Company fifty dollars ($50.00) per month for the pro- cessing of dues. 8 The parties stipulated, and I find that Business Administrator Casey Wenger (Wenger) is a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act and/or agent of Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. D/B/A KOIN-TV 5 Respondent failed to offer any accommodations for information claimed to be confidential.9 Respondent argues that the Union failed to prove relevance regarding items 1 and 2 (R Br. at 12‒16). Furthermore, Re- spondent argues that it provided the information sought in item 3 (R Br. at 16‒18). Legal Standard Each party to a bargaining relationship is required by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to bargain in good faith. An employer’s duty to bargain includes a general duty to provide information needed by the bargaining representative to assess claims made by the employer relevant to contract negotiations as well as administra- tion of the contract. In addition, an employer is required to fur- nish the union representing its employees with information that is relevant to the union in the performance of its collective-bar- gaining duties. Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC, 357 NLRB 2344, 2355 (2012); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435– 436 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). Generally, a union’s request for information pertaining to em- ployees in the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant and an employer must provide the information. CVS Albany, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 2 (2016). However, where the infor- mation requested concerns non-unit employees, the union bears the burden of establishing relevancy. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256 (2007); Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186 (1997). A union satisfies its burden to do so, if it demonstrates either “a reasonable belief, supported by ob- jective evidence, that the requested information is relevant,”10 or “a ‘probability that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.’”11 The required showing is subject to a lib- eral, “discovery-type standard” and is not an exceptionally heavy one. DirectSat USA, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 40, slip op. 1, fn. 2 (2018). “The union’s explanation of relevance must be made with some precision; and a generalized, conclusory explanation is insufficient to trigger an obligation to supply information.” Disneyland Park, supra at 1258, fn. 5 (2007). The determination of relevance “depends on the factual circumstances of each par- ticular case.” San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 867 (9th Cir. 1977). Specific to the stipu- lated facts here, an employer’s duty to bargain includes a general duty to provide information by the bargaining representative to assess claims made by the employer relevant to contract negoti- ations. Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159 (2006) (citing NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra at 152‒153 (“Good-faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims made by either bargainer should be honest claims. . . . If such an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy. And it would certainly not be farfetched for a trier of fact to reach the 9 The Union concurs with the General Counsel’s arguments, adding that Respondent’s complaints about the time it takes to calculate employ- ees’ hours, wages, and overtime pay are irrelevant as Respondent must perform these calculations to process payroll regardless of dues checkoff. 10 Disneyland Park, supra at 1257–1258. 11 Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 355 NLRB 753, 754 (2010) (quoting NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., supra at 437). conclusion that bargaining lacks good faith when an employer mechanically repeats a claim . . . without making the slightest effort to substantiate the claim.”). Respondent Failed to Provide Relevant and Necessary Infor- mation to the Union in the Performance of its Duties as the Collective-Bargaining Representative of Employees in the Units Applying the foregoing standards, I find that the Union has satisfied its burden by showing that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the Union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities. Again, the Union’s bur- den is “not an exceptionally heavy one.” SBC Midwest, 346 NLRB 62, 64 (2005). In this matter, during the parties’ negotia- tions for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, Respond- ent proposed that the Union pay an offset per month for Re- spondent’s payroll processing costs for the dues checkoff. Re- spondent justified its proposal by explaining that this monthly monetary amount had been agreed to by other unions. Only 4 days later, the Union requested information as to the specific contracts that contain the dues checkoff practice proposed by Re- spondent, along with actual costs to Respondent for dues checkoff at the other locals as well as at the facility. Items 1 and 2 of the information request concern subjects not directly related to the bargaining unit, and thus, the Union must establish relevance. The Union established relevance by repeat- edly explaining that it sought the other collective-bargaining agreements with similar provisions as proposed by Respondent to formulate its own counterproposal. Even during subsequent bargaining sessions, the Union requested this information as its own research did not match what Respondent had conveyed dur- ing the bargaining sessions. However, Respondent insisted that other NABET locals agreed to similar processes proposed by Re- spondent but continued to refuse to provide information re- quested at items 1 and 2, claiming proprietary confidential infor- mation. In this instance, the information is relevant to assist the Union in assessing the accuracy of Respondent’s proposals and developing its own counterproposals. The Union’s request fo- cused directly on Respondent’s bargaining proposal regarding reimbursement for dues checkoff processing. “Information is relevant under Caldwell only if the union is seeking ‘specific in- formation to evaluate the accuracy of the Respondent’s specific claims and to respond appropriately with counterproposals.’” Arlington Metals Corp., 368 NLRB No. 74, slip op. at 3 (2019) (quoting Caldwell, supra at 1160).12 Item 3 directly concerns information related to the bargaining unit, and is therefore pre- sumptively relevant. Rather than providing specific information, Respondent provided estimates from Wenger to the Union. Again, the Union has established relevance since Respondent sought to receive a fee for processing the dues checkoff. The Union justifiably sought to learn the exact, itemized cost to 12 Respondent cites to a decision issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mara-Louise Anzalone where Respondent filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union for refusing to provide requested in- formation (R Br. at 14‒15). 2020 WL 1156844 (March 10, 2020). How- ever, this decision is non-binding as no exceptions were filed to the ALJ’s decision. See Colorado Symphony Assoc., 366 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2018). 6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent currently to process dues. Thus, the Union has proven that items 1, 2, and 3 are relevant and necessary. Despite the Union proving relevance for the requested infor- mation, the Board is required to balance a union’s need for in- formation against any “legitimate and substantial” confidential- ity interest established by the employer. Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105–1106 (1991) (citing Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979)). Under those circum- stances, the employer has a duty to seek to bargain toward an accommodation between the union’s information needs and the employer’s justified interests. Id. at 1105–1106. Respondent claims that it has no obligation to provide the information sought in items 1 and 2, even if the Union proves relevance, due to pro- prietary confidential information. It is unclear in this matter how the information requested by the Union is confidential and pro- prietary as Respondent claims that its proposed dues check off processing cost provision is found in other collective-bargaining agreements it negotiated with other labor organizations; there is no record evidence that these collective-bargaining agreements are actually treated by Respondent as confidential. In any event, even if Respondent had proven a “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality interest in these documents, this defense could not prevail, because Respondent failed to offer to engage in bar- gaining for an accommodation. For these reasons, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it failed and refused since December 18, 2018 to list the collective-bargaining agreements, with broadcast call letters, union name and local number and copies of the current provisions with effective contract dates; the actual costs to Re- spondent for dues checkoff practice at each of those locals, and the actual current costs, itemized, to Respondent for dues checkoff practice at the facility; Respondent failed to offer to bargain over an accommodation to address its confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN-TV (Respondent) is, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. National Association of Broadcast Employees & Techni- cians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (Charging Party or the Union) is, has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and represents the following bargaining units, appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act: The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV. 13 Charging Party requests numerous additional remedies, including a reading of the notice, which I decline to recommend (CP Br. at 9‒10). Such remedies are not appropriate or justified in this matter. The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time news, creative ser- vices employees, and web producers, but excluding news pro- ducers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”), office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees of KOIN-TV. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to provide the Union with information re- quested since December 18, 2018, which was necessary and rel- evant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective- bargaining representative of the unit employees, or to bargain in good faith with the Union in an attempt to reach an accommoda- tion of interests in response to the Union’s request for relevant information that Respondent considers confidential. 4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the information requested, and thereby engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.13 Respondent is ordered to provide the following information to the Union: 1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract) that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff practice. 2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations. 3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff pro- cessing at Respondent. Please itemize the costs. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, I issue the following recom- mended14 ORDER Respondent, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., d/b/a KOIN-TV, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to furnish National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and Ca- ble Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO with information requested since December 18, 2018, that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargain- ing representative of Respondent’s unit employees, or refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union in an attempt to reach an 14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or- der 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. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC. D/B/A KOIN-TV 7 accommodation of interests in response to the Union’s request for relevant information that Respondent considers confidential. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Furnish to the Union, in a timely manner, the information requested since December 18, 2018, or bargain in good faith with the Union to reach an accommodation of interests in response to the Union’s request for relevant information that Respondent considers confidential, described as follows: 1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract) that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff practice. 2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations. 3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff pro- cessing at Respondent. Please itemize the costs. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa- cility in Portland, Oregon, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the Re- spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by Re- spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 Respondent customarily communicates with its em- ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent shall dupli- cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur- rent and former employees employed by Respondent at any time since December 18, 2018. (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 Re- spondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. August 27, 2020 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 15 If the facility is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility is closed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have re- turned to work, and the notices may not be posted until a substantial com- plement of employees have returned to work. Any delay in the physical posting of paper notices also applies to the electronic distribution of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the National Associa- tion of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (the Union) with in- formation requested since December 18, 2018, which is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the col- lective-bargaining representative of our employees in the follow- ing bargaining units: The first, as certified by the National Labor Relations Board, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees, but excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV. The second, as voluntarily recognized by the parties, consists of all regular full-time and regular part-time news, creative ser- vices employees, and web producers, but excluding news pro- ducers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”), office clericals, professionals, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees of KOIN-TV. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the national Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, in a timely manner, furnish the Union with the in- formation requested since December 18, 2018, or will bargain in good faith with the Union to reach an accommodation of inter- ests in response to the Union’s request for the following relevant information that Respondent considers confidential: 1. A list of specific contracts, with broadcast call letters, union name and local number, and copy of the current provision (with effective dates of the contract) that contain provisions where the union reimburses Respondent for dues checkoff practice. notice if Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by electronic means. Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68, slip op. 4 (2020). If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in each of the notices referenced herein 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.” 8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The actual cost to Respondent for the dues checkoff practice at each of the aforementioned broadcast stations, spelling out the costs and stations. 3. The actual current cost to Respondent for dues checkoff pro- cessing at Respondent. Please itemize the costs. WE WILL bargain in good faith with the Union and timely pro- vide it with information that is relevant and necessary to its role as your bargaining representative. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING INC., D/B/A KOIN-TV The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-240187 or by using the QR code be- low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.