Johns Manville Corporation

372 NLRB No. 45 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. Johns Manville Corporation and International Broth- erhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 20. Case 08–CA–270764 January 25, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS WILCOX AND PROUTY On February 15, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the Gen- eral Counsel and the Charging Party Union each filed an- swering briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply 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 the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom- mended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Johns Manville Corporation, Waterville and Maumee, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Replace paragraph 2(a) with the following. 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis- trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand- ard 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 The Respondent argues, among other things, that par. 2(a) of the judge’s recommended Order is overly broad. We agree and shall modify that paragraph to conform to the violation found, namely, that the Re- spondent unlawfully failed and refused to furnish the Union with the in- formation it requested on July 31, 2020, as set forth in complaint par. 7(a). In addition, we shall modify the recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104 (2022). We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. Member Wilcox joins her colleagues in affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to furnish the Union with relevant requested information. She further observes that this case is distinguishable from FCA US LLC, 371 NLRB No. 32, slip op. at 3–4 (2021), cited by the Respondent. In that case, the union’s only explana- tion for the relevance of its requested information was that such infor- mation might be needed to process future, unspecified grievances. Here, by contrast, the Union established that the requested information was (a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor- mation requested by the Union on July 31, 2020, as set forth in complaint paragraph 7(a). 2. Replace paragraph 2(b) with the following. (b) Post at its facilities in Waterville and Maumee, Ohio copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Cop- ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 8, after being signed by the Respond- ent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed elec- tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re- spondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. The Respondent shall take reasonable steps 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 facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em- ployees and former employees employed by the Respond- ent at any time since July 31, 2020. 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin- istrative law judge. Dated, Washington, D.C. January 25, 2023 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman relevant to its investigation of an outstanding grievance and its consider- ation of whether the Respondent had violated the collective-bargaining agreement. Member Wilcox also notes that she would consider revisit- ing the Board’s framework for analyzing union requests for nonunit in- formation in a future appropriate proceeding. See id., slip op. at 4 fn. 12. 3 If the facilities involved in these proceedings are open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facilities involved in these proceedings are closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pan- demic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after the facilities reopen and a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employ- ees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member ______________________________________ David M. Prouty, 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 Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 20 by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor- mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per- formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining rep- resentative of our unit employees. 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 July 31, 2020. JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/08-CA-270764 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor 1 All dates are in 2020, unless otherwise indicated. 2 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for tran- script; “GC Exh.” for General Counsel’s exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Respond- ent’s exhibit; “CP Exh.” for Charging Party’s exhibit; “ALJ Exh.” for administrative law judge’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh.” for joint exhibit; “GC Br.” Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. Kelly Freeman, Esq., for the General Counsel. Ruth L. Goodboe, Esq., for the Respondent. John R. Doll, Esq., for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHRISTINE E. DIBBLE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried, by agreement of the parties, using Zoom technology on July 12, 2021. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 20 (the Union/Charging Party) filed charge case number 08–CA–270764 on December 29, 2020.1 (GC Exh. 1(a).)2 The General Counsel issued the complaint and notice of hearing for case 08–CA–270764 on April 15, 2021. (GC Exh. 1(c).) Johns Manville Corporation (Respondent) filed a timely answer to the complaint denying all material allegations. (GC Exh. 1(e).) The complaint alleges that since about September 18, Re- spondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with (a) copies of the contract between Global One Distribution or Global Distribution Center, Maumee Assembly and Respondent or any of its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, or divisions for the work being performed at Global One Distribution or Global Distribu- tion Center and Maumee Assembly; and (b) copies of all corre- spondence, including electronic correspondence, between or among hourly and management personnel at Respondent, Global One Distribution or Global Distribution Center and Maumee As- sembly that deal with, concern or are related to the work being performed by Global One Distribution or Global Distribution Center and Maumee Assembly. On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manu- facture of building products, with offices and places of business located in Waterville and Maumee, Ohio. Respondent purchases for General Counsel’s brief; “R. Br.” for Respondent’s brief; and “CP Br.” for Charging Party’s brief. My findings and conclusions, including my credibility determinations, are based on my review and consideration of the entire record. JOHNS MANVILLE CORP. 3 and receives at its Waterville, Ohio facility goods valued in ex- cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio. I find, and Respondent admits, that at all material times, it has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. At all material times the Union has been labor organizations within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Stipulations The following joint stipulations from the General Counsel and Respondent were accepted into evidence: 1. Lauren Polk works for Respondent in the position of in- house counsel and is Respondent’s agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) for pur- poses of communicating with the Union. Ms. Polk held this po- sition on September 23, 2020. 2. Since at least September 29, 2020, Ruthie Goodboe, an at- torney, has been retained by the Respondent, in part, to respond to the Union’s July 31, 2020, information request on behalf of the Respondent and served as the Respondent’s agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act for this purpose. 3. Since at least September 23, 2020, John Doll, an attorney, has been retained by the Union, in part, for purposes of com- municating with Respondent regarding the Union’s July 31, 2020, information request on the Union’s behalf and served as the Union’s agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act for this purpose. 4. Joint Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the collective- bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union, which has effective dates of August 1, 2019, to April 19, 2024. 5. Joint Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of grievance 165042, filed by bargaining unit employee Ramon LaBiche on July 3, 2020. 6. Joint Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the July 31, 2020, information request sent by the Union’s Vice President and Business Representative Paul Konwinski to Respondent’s Human Resources Manager Tom Sampson. Sampson received this letter. 7. Joint Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of Respondent’s September 18, 2020, response to the Union’s July 31, 2020, in- formation request, sent by Respondent’s Complex Human Re- sources Manager Gail Threet to the Union’s Vice President and Business Representative Paul Konwinski. This letter was re- ceived by Konwinski. 8. Joint Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of a September 23, 2020, letter sent by Jon Doll to Lauren Polk. This letter was received by Lauren Polk by electronic mail. 9. On September 30, 2020, Respondent’s attorney Ruthie Goodboe spoke with the Union’s attorney John Doll by tele- phone. During this call, Doll asserted the Union required the information requested in its July 31, 2020 letter to determine if the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement was applicable to Maumee Assembly and Global One Distribution or Global Dis- tribution Center, LLC. 3 Respondent is owned by the Berkshire Hathaway Company. (Tr. 67.) 10. Joint Exhibit 6 are true and accurate copies of emails ex- changed between Respondent attorney’s, Ruthie Goodboe, and the Union’s attorney, John Doll, between September 29, 2020, and October 12, 2020. 11. Joint Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of an October 9, 2020 letter sent by Respondent’s attorney, Ruthie Goodboe, and the Union’s attorney, John Doll. This letter was received by John Doll by electronic mail and first-class United States mail. 12. Joint Exhibit 8 are true and accurate copies of emails ex- changed between the Respondent’s attorney, Ruthie Goodboe, and the Union’s attorney, John Doll, between September 29, 2020, and November 1, 2020. 13. Joint Exhibit 9 are true and accurate copies of an October 21, 2020 email and attached documents sent by Respondent’s at- torney, Ruthie Goodboe, to the Union’s attorney, John Doll. John Doll received this email. B. Overview of Respondent’s Operation Respondent has 27 to 30 facilities in North America and op- erates three facilities in Ohio.3 Its Ohio operation comprises plant 1 and plant 7 located in Waterville, Ohio, and the Kings- bury warehouse located in Maumee, Ohio. Plant 1 and plant 7 also have warehouses on the premises. The three facilities are within five miles of each other. Fiberglass reinforcements for household goods and automotive applications are produced at plant 1. Shipping and receiving and some warehousing are also performed at the warehouse. Plant 7 manufactures reinforce- ment products, hospital-grade filtration fibers, heat-resistant ma- terials fiber, glass fiber, and melts marbles. Plant 7 uses its ware- house for shipping and receiving product, and storage. The Kingsbury warehouse is used for “warehousing, shipping, re- ceiving, storage of materials.” (Tr. 27.) Approximately 20 bar- gaining unit employees work at the Kingsbury warehouse. Each of the three locations employs bargaining unit workers as checker drivers and shift leaders who, among other duties, load and unload product from tractor trailers, complete and organize paperwork, and move product within the warehouses. In addi- tion to the facilities in Waterville, Respondent utilizes a ware- house named 920 Illinois Avenue but referred to by the parties as “Maumee Assembly”. (Jt. Exh. 9, p. 2–5.) C. Collective-Bargaining Agreement The Union and Respondent have entered into successive col- lective-bargaining agreements (CBA) since about 1970. The current CBA is effective August 1, 2019, to April 19, 2024. Ar- ticle III of the CBA governs the recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance em- ployees and defines what constitutes an appropriate unit for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. It reads in relevant part: The Company hereby recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the employer in Waterville, Ohio, but excluding all office cler- ical employees, watchmen, plant guards, machinists, electri- cians, welders and related apprentices and professional 4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees and supervisors as defined for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment as set forth in this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the foregoing is applicable to existing facilities, normal expansion to those facilities, and to any and all operations including the designation of any new Fi- ber Glass Plants at Waterville, Ohio, as an accretion to this Agreement and Bargaining Unit. (Jt. Exh. 1, p. 6.) The CBA lists specific “Class A and Class B” jobs, with pay rates, that are included as part of the bargaining unit. (Tr. 33–34; Jt. 1, p. 44–46.) The warehouse Class A posi- tions of checker driver and warehouse shift leader are also listed. The current CBA between the parties covers production and maintenance employees at plant 1, plant 7, and the Kingsbury warehouse. Since January 2019, Paul Konwinski (Konwinski) has been the vice president and business representative for the Union.4 He oversees the daily operations of the local, including contract ne- gotiations and their enforcement and the local’s business agents. D. Grievance Leading to Request for Information On or about January 16, 2009, the Ohio Office of Secretary of State certified receipt of the Articles of Organization for the company 920 Illinois Avenue, LLC, also known as Maumee As- sembly and Stamping (Maumee Assembly). David W. Zoll is listed as the agent for the business. On or about July 18, 2016, the Articles of Organization for Global Distribution Center, LLC (GBC) were filed with the Ohio Office of Secretary of State and became effective. The purpose of GBC is listed as “[w]arehous- ing, distribution and all other legal purposes.” (Jt. Exh. 9, p. 7.) Both Maumee and GBC have multi-tenant warehouse facilities located in Maumee and Perrysburg, Ohio, respectively. (GC Exhs. 2–5; Jt. Exh. 9; Tr. 65.) In about 2015, Respondent notified Konwinski, “the commit- tee”, and the business agent at the time, Jay Martin (Martin), that it would store product at Maumee Assembly. The Union did not file a grievance over the action because it was the Union’s un- derstanding that “the material was only being stored at Maumee Assembly and Stamping and then making its way back to the Kingsbury warehouse.” (GC Br. 3; Tr. 35–36.) In 2020, Re- spondent also started using a GBC warehouse for storage. Both Maumee and GBC use third-party labor in their warehouses. On July 3, Ramon LaBiche (LaBiche), a checker driver, filed a grievance charging that since 2015, Respondent had been using nonbargaining unit employees at the Maumee warehouse; and since 2020 had been using nonbargaining unit workers at the GBC warehouse “to handle and store” Respondent’s products. (Jt. Exh. 2.) According to the grievance, the parties’ CBA re- quired Respondent use bargaining unit workers to “handle and store” Respondent’s product at third-party warehouses. Id. Prior to the step-three grievance meeting, LaBiche showed Konwinski copies of bills of lading to prove his point that Respondent was shipping product directly from Maumee and GBC. (Tr. 37–41; GC Exh. 2–5.) Consequently, the Union, through Konwinski, 4 Konwinski was employed by Respondent from March 1991 to Oc- tober 2017. During his tenure with Respondent, Konwinski was quali- fied in every position, except two, in the direct melt department. Further, was concerned that Respondent was not only storing materials at the third-party warehouse but also shipping products directly from them using nonbargaining unit employees in violation of the CBA. (Tr. 43–44.) Based in part on Konwinski’s interpreta- tion of the CBA, the Union believed product Respondent stored at Maumee or GBC should first be transported to the Kingsbury warehouse for bargaining unit workers to then send to its cus- tomers. As part of his investigation into LaBiche’s allegations, Konwinski went to the GBC warehouse and saw Respondent’s products through the open bay warehouse doors. Although he was denied entry, a man inside the GBC warehouse told him that material was stored there and then sent to a building across the street for shipping. (Tr. 49–50.) Konwinski also went to the Maumee warehouse to verify LaBiche’s claims but was not al- lowed inside because he did not have the “proper credentials.” (Tr. 49.) Based on these observations and the documents he re- ceived from LaBiche, Konwinski decided he needed more infor- mation from Respondent, so he filed the request for information at issue. E. Union’s RFI: July 31, 2020 By letter dated July 31, Konwinski sent Respondent’s human resources manager, Tom Sampson (Sampson), a request for the following information: I am requesting the contracts between Global One Distribution, Maumee Assembly and Johns Manville or any of its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries or divisions for the work being per- formed at Global One Distribution and Maumee Assembly. I am also requesting copies of all correspondence, including electronic correspondence, between or among hourly or man- agement personnel at Johns Manville, Global One Distribution and Maumee Assembly that deal with, concern or are related to the work being performed by Global One Distribution and Maumee Assembly. (Jt. Exh. 3.) Konwinski felt that he needed the information to aid in LaBiche’s grievance on the issue. By correspondence dated September 18, Gail Threet (Threet), Respondent’s human re- sources manager, responded to the Union’s request for infor- mation. Threet wrote in part, The company objects to these requests as they seek information and documents related to non-bargaining unit/non-Johns Man- ville employees and operations. Therefore, the information sought is not relevant to the Union’s role as bargaining repre- sentative or the collective bargaining agreement to which the Company is a party. Unless and until the Union establishes the relevance of the information requested through objective evi- dence, the Company is relieved of its obligation to provide in- formation and documents related to non-bargaining unit/non- Johns Manville employees operations. (Jt. Exh. 4.) Consequently, on September 23, John Doll (Doll), attorney for the Union, sent a letter to Respondent’s in-house counsel, Lauren Polk (Polk) expounding on the reasons why the as a bargaining unit employee for Respondent, Konwinski also served as the Union’s committeeman-at-large, unit secretary, and chief steward. (Tr. 23.) JOHNS MANVILLE CORP. 5 requested information is relevant to the Union’s role as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of its members and Respond- ent’s obligation to produce the requested information. Doll writes in part, . . . the information requested by Local 20 is relevant to the collective bargaining agreement to which the Company is a party, specifically Article III, Section 4 of the collective bar- gaining agreement. (Jt. Exh. 5.) In an attempt to resolve the grievance and infor- mation request, legal representatives for the Union and Respond- ent exchanged several emails between September 29 and Octo- ber 12. On September 29, Ruthie Goodboe (Goodboe), Re- spondent’s counsel, reached out to Doll to introduce herself and asked to schedule a time for them to talk. (Jt. Exh. 6.) As stipu- lated to by the parties, on September 30, Goodboe spoke with Doll on the telephone. “During this call, Doll asserted the Union required the information requested in it July 31, 2020 letter (Jt. Ex. 3) to determine if the parties’ collective bargaining agree- ment was applicable to Maumee Assembly and Global One Dis- tribution or Global Distribution Center, LLC.” (Jt. Exh. 10.) Goodboe again contacted Doll via letter dated October 9, set- ting forth Respondent’s position that the Union’s request for in- formation was not relevant “to the administration of the CBA or the Union’s representational role.” (Jt. Exh. 7.) In response to Goodboe’s letter to him, on October 12, Doll emailed Goodboe objecting to Respondent interpretation of Article III, Section 4 of the CBA and noting “[s]ince there appears to be a dispute as to the interpretation of Article III, Section 4, the grievance pro- cedure is [the] agreed upon method to resolve this dispute under Section 84 of the collective bargaining agreement. Since the re- quested information is related to this interpretation dispute, the Shoppers Food Warehouse5 case as well as may (sic) other Board cases support the Unions (sic) position that the requested information is relevant and necessary.” (Jt. Exh. 8.) In an email dated October 21, Goodboe responded by reiterating Respond- ent’s stance that the CBA limits recognition to Waterville, Ohio and because neither Global nor Maumee are in Waterville, the CBA does not apply to those locations. She did, however, pro- vide Doll with publicly available information confirming “no common ownership between the two warehouses and Johns Manville.” Id. Goodboe attached the Articles of Organization for the two warehouses and website links to a couple of articles that purportedly show the warehouses are not owned by Respondent. (Jt. Exhs. 8, 9.) Respondent has not produced the requested in- formation. III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Section 8(a) (5) of the Act mandates that an employer must provide a union with relevant information that is necessary for the proper performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co. 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). “. . . [T]he duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement.” NLRB v. Acme 5 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967). Information requests regarding bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment are “presumptively relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp., 352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a three-member Board, 355 NLRB 649 (2010), enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005). If the requested information is not directly related to the bargaining unit, the information is not presumptively rele- vant, and the requesting party has the burden of establishing the relevance of the requested material. Disneyland Park and Dis- ney’s California Adventure (Disneyland Park), 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); Earthgrains Co., 349 NLRB 389 (2007). The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discov- ery-type standard.” Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37, 40 (2012), citing and quoting applicable authorities. In Leland Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992), the Board summarized its application of the principles as follows: [T]he Board has long held that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act obli- gates an employer to furnish requested information which is potentially relevant to the processing of grievances. An actual grievance need not be pending nor must the requested infor- mation clearly dispose of the grievance. It is sufficient if the requested information is potentially relevant to a determination as to the merits of a grievance or an evaluation as to whether a grievance should be pursued. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985); TRW, Inc., 202 NLRB 729, 731 (1973). The requested information does not have to be dispositive of the issue for which it is sought, but only has to have some rela- tion to it. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1104–1105 (1991). The Board has also held that a union may make a request for information in writing or orally; and a delay is unreasonable when the information requested is easily and readily accessible from an employer’s files. Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989). 1. The requested information is relevant and necessary to the Union’s representational role in the grievance process and en- forcing the CBA The General Counsel contends that objective evidence and a union official’s personal observation that Respondent was stor- ing and shipping goods from both warehouses are sufficient to establish that the requested information is relevant to “pro- cessing the grievance and ascertaining whether bargaining unit work had been subcontracted or the contractual recognition clause was otherwise violated.” (R. Br. 8.) Moreover, the Gen- eral Counsel argues that the contracts between Respondent and the third-party warehouses (GBC and Maumee) and other corre- spondence are relevant because the information could reveal the entities’ business relationship and “whether Respondent had simply leased space from them or actually had expanded its own operations into the space.” Id. Last, the General Counsel points to the similarities in the facts in this case to those in Postal Ser- vice6 where the Board held that the requested information was necessary “in order for the Union to determine whether it had a right to invoke the provision in its collective-bargaining 6 364 NLRB 230 (2016). 6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement with the Respondent concerning bargaining over the Respondent’s potential outsourcing initiatives.” Respondent counters that the Union (1) failed to state a legit- imate basis for the requested information; and (2) the requested contracts are not needed to determine if there has been a violation of the CBA. Respondent cites Conn. Yankee Atomic Power Co.7 to support its argument that the Union is not entitled to the re- quested information because it “has presented no evidence it ac- tually lost work due to Respondent’s contractual relationships” with GBC and Maumee. (R. Br. 12.) Based on the record, I find that the Union articulated legiti- mate reasons for the requested information: to evaluate and in- vestigate the grievance allegations, prepare for the grievance process that was initiated by LaBiche, and ensure Respondent’s compliance with the recognition clause of the CBA. Respondent argues that the Union’s articulated need for the requested infor- mation is based on nothing more than “unsupported assertions” and “mere suspicion” that Respondent used non-bargaining unit employees to perform work at GBC and Maumee. I, however, reject Respondent’s contention on this point. The evidence es- tablished that Konwinski did not take at face value LaBiche’s allegation that Respondent was using non-bargaining unit work- ers at the third-party warehouses. Rather, Konwinski went to GBC where he personally observed Respondent’s product at the facility and spoke with a man inside the warehouse who told him Respondent’s product was stored there then sent to a building across the street for shipment, presumably by nonbargaining unit employees. Moreover, LaBiche showed Konwinski copies of bills of lading to corroborate his charge that Respondent was shipping products directly from GBC and Maumee in contraven- tion of the CBA. Although he was unable to see into or access Maumee, Konwinski assumed, based on documents LaBiche provided, the same activity was occurring there as it was at GBC. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Union’s articulated rea- sons for the requested information is based on more than “un- supported assertions” and “mere speculation.” Respondent also argues that the requested information is not relevant and necessary for the Union to perform its representa- tional role. In support of its argument Respondent contends: (1) the requested information is not relevant because it “relates to agreements with entities not covered by the CBA and involve employees not included in the bargaining unit;” (2) since GBC and Maumee and their employees are not covered by the CBA, the Union’s representational duties are not implicated; and (3) the “factfinder needs only to review the provisions of the CBA, not the contracts with the Third-Party Warehouses or Respond- ent’s correspondence with third-party entities.”(R. Br. 8, 14.) Based on the record, I find that the requested information is relevant and necessary for the Union to perform its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees. Board law supports a finding that the Union is entitled to the in- formation at issue to determine if it is prudent and appropriate to file and proceed with a grievance. Ohio Power, 216 NLRB 987 (1975). In Leland Stanford Junior University, 307 NLRB 75, 80 (1992), the Board summarized its application of the principles as: 7 317 NLRB 1266, 1266 (1995). [T]he Board has long held that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act obli- gates an employer to furnish requested information which is potentially relevant to the processing of grievances. An actual grievance need not be pending, nor must the requested infor- mation clearly dispose of the grievance. It is sufficient if the requested information is potentially relevant to a determination as to the merits of a grievance or an evaluation as to whether a grievance should be pursued. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 504 (1985); TRW, Inc., 202 NLRB 729, 731 (1973); Beth Abraham Health Services, 332 NLRB 1234, 1234 (2000). Respondent first claims that since the contracts between the third-party warehouses and Respondent relate to non-bargaining unit employees and entities not covered by the CBA, the infor- mation is not relevant. According to Respondent’s reasoning, the contracts and other correspondence, therefore, cannot be rel- evant to the Union’s representational duties because neither the third-party warehouses nor those employed by the warehouses are part of a bargaining unit covered by the CBA. I do not find Respondent’s argument persuasive. It is precisely because Re- spondent might be, through the third-party warehouses, using non-bargaining unit employees to perform work normally per- formed by bargaining unit workers that gives the Union a legiti- mate reason to be concerned that Respondent is using these third- party warehouses to circumvent provisions of the CBA which reserves certain job functions for bargaining unit employees. The CBA contains language that warehouse work is reserved for bargaining unit employees and that expansion of Respondent’s facilities is covered by the CBA. In requesting the information, the union is seeking to protect its members from being denied work that may rightfully be theirs under the agreement. The in- formation sought would reveal the type of work Respondent moved to GBC and Maumee and the extent of Respondent’s business relationship with them. None of the information Re- spondent provided (the articles of organization for both ware- houses, and links to articles about the opening of the facilities with the names of the “owners”) discloses the types work Re- spondent moved to the warehouses. Likewise, the articles of or- ganization do not reveal whether Respondent has a financial or other interest in the warehouses. The information would be rel- evant in helping the Union to establish if Respondent hid its fi- nancial interest in those warehouses to hide an unlawful transfer of bargaining unit work to GBC and, or Maumee in violation of the CBA. I also reject Respondent’s argument that I, as the factfinder, need only review the provisions of the CBA for insight into whether Respondent is allowed to use non-bargaining unit work- ers to ship its product directly from GBC and Maumee. To bol- ster its argument, Respondent claims the publicly available in- formation it gave the Union sufficiently established it has no ownership in the third-party warehouses; and its admission that it uses the warehouses to store goods shows its intent is not in dispute. (R. Br. 14–15.) However, Board precedent has estab- lished that it is the Union and not the employer who determines what information it finds useful. See, FirstEnergy Generation, LLC., 362 NLRB 630, 636 (20215). Moreover, I have already JOHNS MANVILLE CORP. 7 found that the publicly available information Respondent gave the Union failed to sufficiently address the Respondent’s possi- ble financial or other interest in GBC and Maumee. The article named the warehouses “owners” without objective evidence to support it. Respondent’s admission that it uses the warehouse to store goods does not answer the Union’s question of whether those goods are being shipped directly from the warehouses to customers using nonbargaining unit employees in violation of the CBA. Respondent also argues that the requested information is not relevant because there is no evidence the union lost work, citing Conn. Yankee Atomic Power Co. to support its argument. I find, however, that the facts in that case are distinguishable from those in this matter. In Conn. Yankee Atomic Power Co., the union explicitly made clear that a reason for requesting the contract was to ascertain, as the union suspected, whether the employer and contractor were in actuality a joint employer. The record in this case does not show that the Union ever posited this as a rea- son for requesting the information. Rather, the Union was chal- lenging Respondent’s narrow interpretation of the CBA’s recog- nition clause as limiting its terms to the Waterville location. Moreover, the CBA in Conn. Yankee Atomic Power Co., specif- ically allowed the employer to subcontract work to an outage contractor unless there would be a loss of work or loss of oppor- tunity for permanent promotion for unit employees. Unlike Conn. Yankee Atomic Power Co., in this case, the CBA appears to be silent on the issue. Second, the Board has consistently held that the Union has a vested interest in monitoring the contract to ensure the employer remains in compliance. Purple Commc’ns, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 26 (2020) (“a requesting union is entitled to data requested in order to properly administer and police a collective-bargaining agreement”); Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 358 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (it is neces- sary for an employer to furnish relevant data for a union to properly administer and police a collective-bargaining agree- ment); Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979) (obligation to bargain in good faith includes furnish- ing information to a Union during the administering and policing of a contract); J. I. Case Co. v. Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd., 253 F.2d 149, 153 (7th Cir. 1958) (“the Union not only has the duty to negotiate collective bargaining agreements but also the statutory obligation to police and administer the existing agreements”); Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 239 NLRB 106, 108 (1978) (request for race and sex data is a legitimate effort by the Union to mon- itor and police the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement). The union is empowered by the Act with enforcing Respondent’s obligations under the CBA through the grievance process or any other legal means. Consequently, a copy of the contract and correspondence be- tween Respondent and the warehouses (GBC and Maumee) is relevant in the Union’s attempt to discern whether Respondent has subcontracted bargaining unit work in violation of the CBA. See Finch, Pruyn & Co., 349 NLRB 270, 275–277 (2007), enfd. 296 Fed. Appx. 83 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s failure to provide the information requested violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Johns Manville Corporation, is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 20, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By its failure and refusal to provide the necessary and rel- evant information requested by the Union on or about July 31, 2020, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice in vi- olation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not violated the Act except as set forth above. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. Respondent will be ordered to produce the requested and rel- evant information, and post and communicate by electronic post to employees the attached Appendix and notice. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended8 ORDER Respondent, a Delaware corporation with office and places of business located in Waterville and Maumee, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by failing and refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is necessary and relevant to its role as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in following unit: The Company hereby recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the employer in Waterville, Ohio, but excluding all office cler- ical employees, watchmen, plant guards, machinists, electri- cians, welders and related apprentices and professional em- ployees and supervisors as defined for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with respect to wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment as set forth in this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the foregoing is applicable to exist- ing facilities, normal expansion to those facilities, and to any and all operations including the designation of any new Fiber Glass Plants at Waterville, Ohio, as an accretion to this Agree- ment and Bargaining Unit. (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the purposes and policies of the Act. (a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, furnish the Union with all information it has requested since on or about July 31, 2020. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa- cilities in Waterville and Maumee, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employ- ees and members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electron- ically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps 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 Re- spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 31, 2020. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 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 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 do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 20 (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with re- quested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of our unit employees at our Waterville and Maumee, Ohio, and the facilities they may encompass. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the ser- vicing representative of the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of our employees in the Unit described above. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL provide the Union with the information as requested by the Union on about July 31, 2020. JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/08-CA-270764 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. 9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”