AT&T Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 2018

366 NLRB No. 48 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 48
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.
AT&T Services, Inc. and Communications Workers
of America, AFL–CIO, CLC, District 4. Case
13–CA–185708
March 27, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN KAPLAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND MCFERRAN
Upon a charge filed on October 5, 2016, by Communi-
cations Workers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC, District 4
(the Union), the General Counsel issued a complaint and
notice of hearing on February 22, 2017, alleging that,
since about September 23, 2016, AT&T Services (the
Respondent) has been violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
certain requested information concerning the results of
the Respondent’s Technical Mechanical Tests (TMTs)
administered to bargaining unit employees. Specifically,
the Union requested that the Respondent provide the
names, work location, current title, Net Credited Service,
test date, and test result for all unit employees taking the
TMT II test for the period of January 1, 2014, through
implementation of the TMT III, and the same infor-
mation for unit employees taking the TMT III test for the
period of October 1, 2015, through the present. The Re-
spondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying
in part the complaint allegations, and raising certain af-
firmative defenses.
On June 16, 2017, the Respondent, the Union, and the
General Counsel filed a joint motion to waive a hearing
and a decision by an administrative law judge and to
transfer this proceeding to the Board for a decision based
on a stipulated record. On August 15, 2017, the Board
granted the parties’ joint motion. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union each filed a
brief, and the Respondent and the Union each filed an
answering brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
On the entire record and briefs, the Board makes the
following

1 The Respondent labeled its brief answering the initial briefs of the
General Counsel and Union as a “reply brief.”
2 Member Emanuel took no part in the consideration of this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with an of-
fice and a place of business in Chicago, Illinois, has been
engaged in the retail sale of home internet devices and
related products. In conducting its business operations
during the 12 month-period prior to the June 16, 2017
stipulation of facts, a representative period, the Respond-
ent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased and received goods and services in excess of
$5000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
The Respondent has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. The Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Stipulated Facts
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative for bargaining unit employees who work
in the Respondent’s telephone operations in Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois. The parties’
current collective-bargaining agreement, effective from
April 12, 2015 through April 14, 2018, guarantees layoff
protection to otherwise-qualified bargaining unit em-
ployees who pass the Respondent’s Technical Mechani-
cal Test (“TMT”) or Technical Mechanical Test–Field
(“TMTF”).
In 2005, the Respondent concluded that the TMT and
TMTF had been compromised by a local union affiliate
and suspended their use.3 As a result, the Respondent
developed a replacement test, the TMT II and TMTF II.
As with the TMT and TMTF, the Respondent adminis-
tered the TMT II and TMTF II in a proctored environ-
ment using pencil and paper, where employees were re-
quired to put away personal belongings before taking the
test and were observed throughout testing. Beginning in
2015, the Respondent decided to develop the TMT III
and TMTF III to keep abreast of industry standards and
attract the necessary pool of qualified job candidates.
Instead of testing job knowledge, the TMT III and TMTF
III would assess employees’ general mechanical aptitude,
personality, and overall job fit. And, in contrast to the
previous versions of these tests, the TMT III and TMTF
III would be administered unproctored, online at a loca-

3 According to the Respondent, a member of its Human Resources
Research Department was provided with a document that was substan-
tially similar to one of the tests and was told that it had been confiscat-
ed from a represented employee, who said he had received it “from the
union.” The Union does not concede that its affiliate in fact compro-
mised the test and recreated it.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
tion of the employee’s own choosing, utilizing computer-
ized adaptive technology. To access the new tests, em-
ployees would enter their name and company email ad-
dress. The TMT III and TMTF III were also structured
so that, prior to accessing the TMT III and TMTF III, test
takers would have to agree that they would not copy,
post, record, videotape, distribute, upload, modify, or
otherwise reproduce any portion of the test for any pur-
pose.4
On about July 21, 2015, the Respondent informed the
Union that it was implementing the TMT III and TMTF
III. On July 30, 2015, after the Respondent answered
several questions from the Union about the TMT III and
TMTF III, Union Representative Ron Honse requested
the pass rate of those who had taken the TMT II and
TMTF II since January 1, 2014, and, in the future, quar-
terly reports with the pass rates for the TMT III and
TMTF III. On August 19, 2015, Respondent Director of
Labor Relations Stephen Hansen5 responded that, even
though the Respondent considered the test proprietary
and needed to maintain its integrity, he would provide
the pass rates for the TMT II and TMTF II since January
1, 2014, and for the TMT III and TMTF III for the four
quarters following its implementation.
The Respondent implemented the TMT III and TMTF
III at the end of August 2015. Since administering the
new tests, neither the Respondent nor the developer of
the TMT III and TMTF III has informed employees that
their test results are confidential. However, as a matter
of course, the Respondent does not share test results with
the Union or other employees.
In the latter part of 2015, local union presidents noti-
fied Honse that fewer employees were passing the TMT
III than the TMT II. On January 7, 2016,6 in response to
earlier union requests, Hansen provided the TMT III and
TMTF III pass rates for October through December
2015, the first quarter following implementation of the
revised test. On April 8, Honse broadened his request to
include the names, titles, and work locations of all em-
ployees who took the TMT III. On April 13, Hansen
provided the pass rate for January through March 2016,
but did not break down the results by employee; instead,
he expressed concerns that providing that information
would jeopardize test confidentiality and requested that
Honse explain the need for that information. On April
14, Honse notified Hansen that the TMT III appeared to

4 Test takers must also acknowledge that the developer of the TMT
III and TMTF III may use test data for research purposes after redacting
identifying information.
5 The parties stipulated that Hansen is a supervisor and agent of the
Respondent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
6 All dates hereinafter are in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
be negatively impacting bargaining unit employees and
that the Union needed the names and results to determine
which employees should be included in a possible griev-
ance and also to verify the accuracy of the Respondent’s
figures. On April 20, in declining to provide the request-
ed information, Hansen stated that the Respondent is not
challenging the relevancy of the information. Instead, he
asserted that the requested information is confidential
and that the Respondent “has offered an accommodation
[by providing the pass rates] that balances the Union’s
need for the information with the [Respondent’s] confi-
dentiality interests.” He asked that the Union propose
some mechanism for verification that would not under-
mine the Respondent’s confidentiality concerns. That
same day, the Union responded that, although the re-
quested information is presumptively relevant, it has ex-
plained to the Respondent the relevance of its request
and that it will file an unfair labor practice charge if the
Respondent refuses to provide the information.
On May 5, Hansen informed Honse of a possible mis-
take in the TMT II and TMT III pass rates that he previ-
ously provided, because they inadvertently included the
results of employees in a different bargaining unit. On
June 17, Hansen provided Honse revised pass rates that
removed the results for the nonunit employees and for
duplicate test takers. On June 22, Honse responded that
“[i]n light of the errors in the information originally pro-
vided, and in an effort to validate the provided data, I am
still requesting the names and work locations of those
members tested and their results” as reflected in the pass
rates previously supplied by the Respondent.
On July 28, Hansen offered to provide a list detailing
the date and the result for each test taken with the test
taker’s name redacted, but added that the Union could
opt to have the Respondent reveal the names of some of
the test takers. In furtherance of its proposal, the Re-
spondent supplied Honse with a list detailing the test
dates and results for every TMT III and TMTF III admin-
istered by the Respondent for which data was available at
that time. The Respondent redacted the names of the test
takers. After Honse responded that he wanted to think
over Hansen’s proposal, Hansen reiterated the Respond-
ent’s concerns about confidentiality and security. Honse
replied that he did not understand the Respondent’s posi-
tion because the Union sought neither a copy of the test
nor the answers. On August 17, Honse informed Hansen
that the Union was entitled to the information requested,
but agreed “to accept information in the redacted format
you have proposed with the ability to submit dates for
cross checking with you.” The Union also requested to
receive the test results through at least December 2017.
On August 31, Hansen clarified that the Respondent’s
AT&T SERVICES 3
offer was not to allow the Union to submit dates for cross
checking the results of all test takers on a specific date,
but only to unredact two names on the quarterly list of
test results, which it would provide through December
2016.
By written reply sent to Hansen on September 6,
Honse recounted their past discussions over the replace-
ment of the TMT II and TMTF II with the TMT III and
TMTF III and repeated his request that the Respondent
furnish the names, work location, current title, Net Cred-
ited Service, test date, and test results for all employees
who took the TMT II for the periods of January 1, 2014
through implementation of the TMT III (TMT II Re-
sults), and the TMT III test for the period of October 1,
2015 through December 31, 2018 (TMT III Results).7
He did not request any information about the content of
the test. On September 23, Hansen responded that, de-
spite his attempts at compromise, Honse continued to
insist on expanding the Union’s request by seeking to
have the Respondent unredact more than two names each
quarter and to receive the quarterly reports through De-
cember 31, 2018. Hansen renewed the Respondent’s
concerns that providing “the requested information could
compromise the security, confidentiality, and integrity of
the test.” Hansen offered to provide the list of test re-
sults, with two names unredacted per quarter, through
September 30, 2017. The Respondent has continued to
provide quarterly pass rates, but not a list of the test tak-
ers’ names and test results.
B. The Parties’ Contentions
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to
furnish the Union with the information it requested to
perform its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s bargaining unit em-
ployees. The General Counsel asserts that the infor-
mation requested is relevant to bargaining unit employ-
ees’ terms and conditions of employment because pass-
ing the TMT III protects them from layoff. The General
Counsel states that the Union requested the information
to determine whether to file a grievance over the re-
placement of the TMT II with the TMT III after suspect-
ing that a higher proportion of bargaining unit employees
were failing the revised test. Moreover, the General
Counsel argues that the Respondent’s claims of confi-
dentiality to protect the security and integrity of the TMT

7 Beginning with 2014, and for each successive quarter for which the
Respondent provided employee pass rates to the Union, the Respondent
notified the Union that no bargaining unit employees had taken the
TMTF II or the TMTF III because the Respondent had not made any
internal job postings for the prem tech position that required passage of
the TMTF II or TMTF III.
III are baseless. At no time has the Union requested a
copy of the test or the answers. Further, because the test
is unproctored and may be taken at any location of the
employee’s choosing that has a computer, the Respond-
ent’s own processes make it possible for any individual
to directly disseminate its contents. The General Coun-
sel also points out that test takers are given no assurances
that their results would be kept private, nor have test tak-
ers themselves requested that their results not be provid-
ed to the Union.
The Respondent contends that it has a legitimate and
substantial confidentiality interest in maintaining the
integrity of the TMT III—which includes the requested
test-taker data, and that this interest outweighs the Un-
ion’s right to the requested information. In addition to
historically keeping the requested information confiden-
tial, the Respondent notes that it developed the TMT III
at great expense and that, if compromised, it would be
rendered ineffectual. The Respondent asserts that it of-
fered the Union an accommodation that would meet the
Union’s needs while also protecting the integrity of the
TMT III by providing redacted test results from which
the Union could request two entries be unredacted for
data verification. The Respondent also points to Detroit
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979), in which the
U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer had a legiti-
mate interest in protecting the integrity of its employee
test, which in that case justified the employer’s refusal to
provide certain testing information to the union. The
Respondent avers that providing the Union with names
and results of test takers puts at risk the integrity of the
TMT III because the Union could interview those em-
ployees to reconstruct the content of the test.
The Union contends that it has demonstrated a strong
interest in obtaining the requested information because it
relates to the continued employment of bargaining unit
employees at risk of layoff. The Union counters that the
Respondent has not demonstrated that the substantial
resources it devoted towards developing the test consti-
tute a “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality interest
that outweighs the bargaining unit employees’ interest.
The Union argues that Detroit Edison, above, relied on
by the Respondent, turned on the employees’ confidenti-
ality interest in the results of a psychological aptitude test
relating to sensitive personal employee information, not
an employer’s purported financial investment in the test.
The Union notes that it has not sought and does not seek
the test questions or answers, even though employees on
their own could easily reproduce them because the test is
unproctored, and that the Respondent provides no assur-
ances to employees of confidentiality in their test results.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
C. Discussion
In NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., the U.S. Supreme
Court stated that “[t]here can be no question of the gen-
eral obligation of an employer to provide information
that is needed by the bargaining representative for the
proper performance of its duties,” including deciding
whether to process a grievance. 385 U.S. 432, 435–436
(1967). Where the employer asserts that the requested
information is confidential, the Board balances the un-
ion’s need for the information against any legitimate and
substantial confidentiality interests established by the
employer. Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104,
1105 (1991); Washington Gas Light Co., 273 NLRB 116,
116 (1984). The party claiming confidentiality has the
burden of proof. Pennsylvania Power Co., above; Wash-
ington Gas Light Co., above.
In this case, the information requested by the Union to
assess whether to pursue a contractual grievance for bar-
gaining unit employees is presumptively relevant. See
Allied Mechanical Services, 332 NLRB 1600, 1601
(2001).8 On the other hand, the Respondent asserts a
confidentiality interest in protecting the integrity of its
test, which it spent significant resources in developing, to
measure employee aptitude and ensure that only quali-
fied employees receive the contractual layoff protection.9
As the party asserting confidentiality, the Respondent
bears the burden of proof. In the abstract, the Respond-
ent has cited an indisputably important interest regarding
its need to protect the integrity of its test. The Respond-
ent notes that it has historically kept information about
who has taken the TMT II and TMT III confidential out
of concern that, once it reveals to the Union who took the
TMT III, the Union could interview those individuals
about the test questions to reconstruct the content of the
TMT III. However, in practice, the Respondent has
failed to demonstrate how the Union’s information re-
quest implicates—much less imperils—that interest. Not
only is its argument that the Union’s information request
could jeopardize the integrity of the test highly specula-
tive, the Respondent’s heightened concerns about the
Union’s potential use of the requested information are

8 We note that, although the Respondent disputed the relevance of
the requested information in its August 19, 2015 correspondence with
the Union, it stated explicitly that “[t]he Company is not challenging
the relevance of the request” in an April 20, 2016 email to the Union.
Moreover, in its answering brief to the Board, the Respondent stated
that it “conceded from the start that the information requested is rele-
vant.”
9 Although the Respondent stated in its September 23 response to the
Union’s information request that, in addition to its asserted confidenti-
ality interest, it would be burdensome to compile the quarterly test
result reports, the Respondent has not claimed burdensomeness in its
statement of position or in its briefs to the Board.
divorced from the reality of how it administers the TMT
III. The TMT III is unproctored and taken on a computer
at a location of the employee’s choosing. The Respond-
ent suggests that the protective measures it has imple-
mented to safeguard the TMT III’s integrity demon-
strates the sincerity of its confidentiality concerns. The
Respondent notes, for example, that it requires all test
takers to agree not to disclose test questions and the test
uses computer adaptive technology that rearranges the
test questions, which makes recreating the test more dif-
ficult. But the Respondent has failed to explain how
these protective measures would be less effective if the
Union knows the employees who took the test.10
The Respondent’s reliance on Detroit Edison is also
unavailing. The Respondent correctly points out that
Detroit Edison provides that an employer has a legiti-
mate interest in protecting the integrity of an employee
test. 440 U.S. at 315. However, in Detroit Edison, the
Court considered the much narrower issue of whether the
Board can order an employer to directly provide a union
a copy of an employee test and the answer sheet. Here,
in contrast, the Union is seeking the names and results of
those unit employees who took the TMT III—not a copy
of the TMT III—greatly reducing any potential risk to
the Respondent’s confidentiality interest. Moreover,
with respect to the request for test results, in Detroit Edi-
son, the employer assured test takers that their test scores
would be confidential, and the prior disclosure of test
scores resulted in the harassment of low scoring test tak-
ers who felt compelled to leave the employer. Id. at 319.
These circumstances are not present here where assur-
ances of confidentiality were neither requested nor given.
Notably, the Court in Detroit Edison also implicitly rec-
ognized the right of the union to know the test takers’
names so that it could seek their consent to obtain their
test scores. Id. at 317.
Conversely, the Union explained that it needs the re-
quested information to determine whether the change to
the TMT III negatively impacted bargaining unit em-
ployees. The TMT III affects one of the most important
aspects of the employer-employee relationship and em-
ployees’ rights under their collective-bargaining agree-
ment—whether the Respondent can put employees out of
work by laying them off. See First National Mainte-
nance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 677 (1981) (order or

10 The Respondent does not specifically argue that it has any confi-
dentiality concern with providing the requested information regarding
the TMT II, which it last administered in 2015. In any event, we find
that the Respondent has failed to raise a valid confidentiality concern
with providing the names and test results of employees who took the
TMT II from January 1, 2014 through the implementation of the TMT
III or show how providing this information would in any way compro-
mise the integrity of the TMT III.
AT&T SERVICES 5
succession of layoffs “are almost exclusively ‘an aspect
of the relationship’ between employer and employee”
that requires bargaining under the Act) (quoting Chemi-
cal Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157,
178 (1971)). More broadly, the employees also have an
interest in ensuring that the Union is adequately policing
the collective-bargaining agreement and protecting their
rights. See Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Un-
ion No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 358 (D.C. Cir.
1983) (“[The] fundamental obligation to furnish relevant
information is ‘rooted in recognition that union access to
such information can often prevent conflicts which ham-
per collective bargaining,’ and it undoubtedly extends to
data requested in order properly to administer and police
a collective bargaining agreement.”) (quoting Florida
Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 601 F.2d 125, 129 (4th Cir. 1979)).
Especially after the Respondent had initially provided
erroneous pass rates, the Union reminded the Respondent
that it needed the requested information to verify the
accuracy of the Respondent’s quarterly reports.11
Even if it had demonstrated a legitimate and substan-
tial confidentiality interest, the Respondent has the bur-
den of formulating a reasonable accommodation that
addresses its concerns and the Union’s need for the re-
quested information. See Borgess Medical Center, 342
NLRB 1105, 1106 (2004). The Respondent argues that
the Union repeatedly rebuffed its efforts to reach an ac-
commodation. It cites its offer to provide the Union a
quarterly list of test results with the names of two of the
test takers unredacted to allow the Union to verify the
accuracy of the reported pass rates. However, this pur-
ported accommodation is demonstrably insufficient. For
instance, in one quarter, 30 bargaining unit employees
took the TMT III. With so many test takers, the Union
would simply be unable to confirm that the Respondent
accurately reported the pass rate if it could only verify
two of the results. Instead, the Union informed the Re-
spondent that it would accept a list of test results with the
test takers’ names redacted if it could submit dates for
which the Respondent would reveal the names of all of
the test takers. This would have increased the Union’s

11 The Respondent asserts that the Union does not need the names of
bargaining unit employees affected by the implementation of the TMT
III because the Union could file a grievance “for the good of the un-
ion.” This fails to appreciate the benefit to the Union of discussing the
matter with the affected bargaining unit employees prior to filing a
grievance. The Respondent’s approach would not allow the Union to
ascertain such important factors as whether the unit employees who
failed the TMT III have voluntarily left the Respondent, have been laid
off by the Respondent, have considered or are in the process of retaking
the TMT III, support the filing of a grievance, and other similar consid-
erations. Moreover, the Respondent is in no position to instruct the
Union how it should police the Respondent’s adherence to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
ability to double-check the Respondent’s reporting of the
quarterly pass rates. The Respondent rejected that pro-
posal.
In balancing the competing interests, the Respondent
has not shown that providing the Union with the request-
ed information would legitimately put at risk the integrity
of its TMT III test. None of the limited evidence in the
stipulated record supports the Respondent’s claim that
providing the requested information would genuinely put
at risk the integrity of the TMT III. In sum, the Re-
spondent has failed to prove that it has a legitimate and
substantial confidentiality interest that outweighs the
Union’s need for the information. Accordingly, we find
that, by failing and refusing to provide the Union with
the requested information, the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing, since about September 23,
2016, to furnish the Union with the requested infor-
mation, described above, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent shall provide the Union with the in-
formation that it has to date failed and refused to provide
that was requested by the Union in its September 6,
2016 information request to the Respondent, as described
in this decision.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, AT&T Services, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Commu-
nications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC, District
4 (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit
employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(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 requested by the Union on September 6, 2016.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Chicago, Illinois facility copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
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 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 September 23, 2016.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 27, 2018
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

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.”
(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
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, CLC,
District 4 (the Union) by failing and refusing to furnish it
with requested information that is relevant and necessary
to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative 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
set forth above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on September 6,
2016.
AT&T SERVICES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-185708 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.