California Nurses Assn.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 1362 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1362
California Nurses Association and Alta Bates Medical
Center. Case 32–CB–4545
September 30,1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On December 31, 1996, Administrative Law Judge
Burton Litvack issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and Charging Party each filed cross-
exceptions with supporting arguments, and the Respon-
dent filed an answering brief to the cross-exceptions.
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, and conclusions as
modified by this Decision and Order,1 and to substitute
the attached notice for that of the administrative law
judge.
For the reasons stated by the judge, we agree that the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3), as alleged in the
complaint, by refusing to provide the Employer with the
facts and documents relevant to each incident on which
the Respondent is relying to support its grievance and the
names of persons involved in each incident. See, e.g.,
Asarco, Inc., 316 NLRB 636, 643 (1995); Fairmont Ho-
tel, 304 NLRB 746 (1991); Transport of New Jersey, 233
NLRB 694, 695 (1977); Firemen & Oilers Local 288
(Diversy Wyandotte), 302 NLRB 1008, 1008–1009
(1991). We further agree with the judge that as to those
documents that the Employer already possesses, the Re-
spondent need only identify them to the Employer, with-
out physically providing them or disclosing the specific
facts in them on which it relies or the theories it will pur-
sue at arbitration.
Contrary to the judge, however, we find no 8(b)(3)
violation with respect to the Respondent’s refusal to pro-
vide the Employer with the names of witnesses it intends
to call, and the evidence on which it intends to rely, at
the arbitration hearing. Thus, it is well settled that there
is no general right to pretrial discovery in arbitration pro-
ceedings. Tool & Die Maker’s Lodge 78 (Square D Co.),
224 NLRB 111, 112 (1976); Cook Paint & Varnish Co.,
246 NLRB 646 (1979), enf. denied on other grounds 648
F.2d 712 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

1 We have deleted the general injunctive language from the recom-
mended Order and notice because no violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) has
been found and Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) is not a derivative violation of a Sec.
8(b)(3) violation. National Maritime Union, 78 NLRB 971 (1948),
enfd. 175 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied 338 U.S. 954 (1950),
cited with approval in NLRB v. Drivers Local 639 (Curtis Bros.), 362
U.S. 274 (1960).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, California Nurses Association, Oakland,
California, its officers, agents, and representatives shall
1. Cease and desist from failing and refusing to fur-
nish Alta Bates Medical Center, pursuant to its August
16, 1995 information request and, in advance of the arbi-
tration hearing on its August 29, 1994 grievance, as
amended, the names of witnesses and other facts and
documents relied on by it in support of its grievance, as
amended, including any documents on which it relied to
support factual assertions in its July 28, 1995 information
response, and notice of specific incident reports and
other documents in the possession of Alta Bates Medical
Center on which it relied to support the grievance as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish Alta Bates Medical Center with the facts
and documents relevant to each incident on which it is
relying to support its August 29, 1994 grievance, as
amended, and the names of persons involved in those
incidents, including any documents on which it relied in
support of factual assertions in its July 28, 1995 informa-
tion response, and notice of specific incident reports and
other documents in possession of Alta Bates Medical
Center on which it is relying to support its August 29,
1994 grievance, as amended.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its business offices and meeting halls in Berkeley and
Oakland, California, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order sign and
return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the
notice for posting by Alta Bates Medical Center, if will-
ing, at all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official, on a form provided by the Region,
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

2 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.”
326 NLRB No. 142
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSN. 1363
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Alta Bates Medi-
cal Center by failing and refusing to furnish it, pursuant
to its August 16, 1995 information request and, in ad-
vance of the arbitration hearing on its August 29, 1994
grievance, as amended, the facts and documents on
which we are relying in support of our grievance, as
amended, including the names of persons involved in the
incidents and any documents on which we relied to sup-
port factual assertions in our July 28, 1995 information
response, and specific incident reports and other docu-
ments in the possession of Alta Bates Medical Center on
which we are relying to support the grievance as
amended.
WE WILL furnish to Alta Bates Medical Center the
names of witnesses and other facts and documents on
which we relied in support of our August 29, 1994 griev-
ance, as amended, including any documents on which we
relied to support factual assertions in our July 28, 1995
information response, and notice of specific incident re-
ports and other documents in the possession of Alta
Bates Medical Center on which we relied in support of
our August 29, 1994 grievance, as amended.

CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION

Elaine Climpson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Pamela Allen, Esq. (Eggleston, Siegel, & Levitter), of Oakland,
California, for the Respondent.
Mark Theodore, Esq. (Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krump-
man), of San Francisco, California, for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge, Alta Bates
Medical Center (Alta Bates) filed the unfair labor practice
charge in the above-captioned matter on January 10, 1996.
Based on the unfair labor practice charge, the Regional Director
for Region 32 of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board) issued a complaint, alleging that California Nurses As-
sociation (Respondent) had engaged in, and was engaging in,
acts and conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent timely filed an an-
swer, essentially denying the commission of any of the alleged
unfair labor practices and alleging certain affirmative defenses.
Pursuant to a the notice of hearing, which accompanied the
complaint, the above-captioned matter was scheduled for trial
and heard by me on May 28, 1996, in Oakland, California. At
the trial, all parties were afforded the opportunity to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to offer into the record any rele-
vant documentary evidence, to argue their legal positions
orally, and to file posthearing briefs. The latter documents
were filed by counsel for all parties, and each post-hearing brief
has been carefully considered. Accordingly, based on the entire
record herein,1 including the posthearing briefs, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Alta Bates, a State of California corporation, is engaged in
the operation of an acute-care hospital facility in Berkeley,
California. During the 12-month period, which preceded the
issuance of the complaint in the above-captioned matter, in the
normal course and conduct of its above-described business
operations, Alta Bates derived gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 and purchased and received goods and services, val-
ued in excess of $5000, which originated outside the State of
California. Respondent admits that Alta Bates is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admits that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ISSUES
The General Counsel alleges that, in response to a grievance
filed by Respondent on August 29, 1994, subsequently
amended four times, alleging various violations of the parties’
existing collective-bargaining agreement related to a work re-
design program proposed by Alta Bates, by letters dated August
16 and 21, 1995, the latter requested that Respondent provide it
with certain factual information including dates of incidents,
names of witnesses, and other facts and documents relating to
the grievance’s assertion that Alta Bates’ work redesign pro-
posal jeopardized nurse licensure and patient safety and that
Respondent engaged in conduct, violative of Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act, by delaying in responding to Alta Bates’ information
requests until December 19, 1995, and by failing and refusing
to furnish the requested information to Alta Bates since the
date. Respondent denies the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices and alleges that the instant unfair labor practice
allegations are time barred by Section 10(b) of the Act; that
Alta Bates already possesses the requested information; and
that Alta Bates is not entitled to information beyond which had
previously been produced.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Alta Bates operates an acute-care hospital facility in Berke-
ley, California. Respondent has had a collective-bargaining
relationship with Alta Bates since, at least, 1980, with the for-
mer as the representative for purposes of collective bargaining
of the hospital’s graduate nurses, registered nurses, assistant

1 None of the parties called any witnesses. Rather, they presented
the matter to the undersigned by way of numerous exhibits including
legal filings, letters between the parties, and other documents. Bearing
in mind that the documents contain much barely understandable techni-
cal jargon and that several facts are not clearly delineated, based upon
the documentary record, I have, nevertheless, formulated, what I be-
lieve is, a coherent and accurate factual account of the parties’ dispute.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1364
head nurses, and charge nurses, who are performing nursing
services as defined in the parties’ successive collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective
from June 22, 1994, through June 30, 1997. Joanne Carder is
the director of employee labor relations for Alta Bates and Lori
Liederman, a labor representative, is an agent of Respondent.
The record establishes that the genesis of the labor dispute,
which precipitated the instant alleged unfair labor practices,
occurred on December 28, 1993, when, based upon statements
of management officials and other information, Joe Lindsay,
then a labor representative for Respondent, wrote to Carder that
Respondent had become aware that two of the hospital’s wings,
the 4East family care center and the 4West medical-surgical
unit, would be merged; that Alta Bates “contemplated changes”
in the responsibilities of bargaining unit nurses and those of
patient care assistants; and that the changes in the increased
responsibilities of the latter employees, who are in a separate
bargaining unit, involved direct patient care and were, there-
fore, violative of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.
Further, Lindsay requested certain information, regarding his
contentions, from Carder. Slightly more than 2 weeks later, on
January 12, 1994, Carder wrote to Lindsay that Alta Bates was,
indeed, contemplating changes in the above-hospital units but
that “we are still in the analysis stage and nothing has been
finalized” and that job descriptions also were in “the develop-
ment stage” and no changes had as yet been approved. In addi-
tion, Carder denied any violation of the collective-bargaining
agreement with regard to patient care assistants and promised to
“contact” Lindsay when Alta Bates completed its planning. On
February 1, Lindsay, in writing, responded to Carder, stating
that management officials had informed bargaining unit nurses
that “restructuring plans would be implemented in April and
that such included eliminating the charge nurse position and
creating a new job classification–case manager. Further, he
accused Carder of failing to accurately reflect the current status
of Medical Center restructuring” and demanded immediate
bargaining as what Alta Bates contemplated involved “funda-
mental changes in the scope and nature of CNA-represented
positions as well as transfers of bargaining unit work to non-
unit personnel . . . .” Included in Lindsay’s letter was a lengthy
information request, consisting of 25 items. Within 2 weeks,
on February 14, Carder responded in writing, acknowledging
that Alta Bates was contemplating “a number of possible” re-
structuring changes including the role of the charge nurse.
While denying any plans to create a case manager position,
Carder stated that the hospital did desire to make changes in
4East and 4West as well as other units, adding that “because we
have not completed our analysis, bargaining is premature” and
no proposals had been formulated for discussion. In her letter,
Carder included answers to Lindsay’s information request.
During the next several months, further communications re-
garding Alta Bates’ plans for its 4East and 4West wings and for
restructuring the role of its bargaining unit nurses, both of
which were now incorporated in what was termed the hospital’s
“work redesign” program, seem to have been held in abeyance
while the parties completed negotiations on their 1994–1997
collective-bargaining agreement. Upon final agreement on the
successor agreement in June, on July 18, Carder wrote to Lori
Liederman, stating that Alta Bates anticipated that Respondent
desired to commence formal negotiations on the hospital’s
work redesign plans and suggesting available dates for the bar-
gaining. In two reply letters, Liederman set forth detailed in-
formation requests and stated that Respondent would be ready
for negotiations upon review of the requested information and
that, as Alta Bates’ work redesign would also impact upon the
patient care assistant bargaining unit, Respondent and the labor
organization, which represented the patient care assistants,
desired joint negotiations.
While various dates were suggested, the record reveals that
the parties met on August 5, in order to discuss Alta Bates’
work redesign concept and that, at this meeting, the hospital’s
representatives presented a written proposal to Respondent’s
representatives, detailing its scheme for eliminating the regis-
tered nurse positions in 4West, in the family care center, in the
medical-surgical float pool, and in the perinatal float pool and
replacing them with individuals in a new, supervisorial posi-
tion, entitled “care coordinator.” The proposal established the
selection process for this position and an accompanying job
description, and the hospital’s representatives stated that the
hospital had a “target date” for implementing work redesign—
September 6. Respondent’s representatives expressed their
opposition to Alta Bates’ work redesign proposal at the August
5 meeting and at another meeting on August 25, and, on August
22, Liederman wrote to Carder, requesting specified informa-
tion in order to evaluate the proposal. Subsequently, on August
29, Respondent filed a grievance, pursuant to the existing col-
lective-bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure, alleging
contract violations in that, by scheduling the distribution of
work redesign materials for August 30, Alta Bates was unilat-
erally implementing a new application process and creating
positions “that would require the nurse to practice in a manner
which is inconsistent with the highest level of patient care in
terms of the patient’s health and safety and in a manner which
would place the nurse’s license in jeopardy.”2 The next day,
Carder wrote to Liederman, informing Respondent that the
hospital would delay implementation of its work redesign plan
for 2 weeks—until September 20. On September 6, Liederman
submitted a “supplemental information request” to Carder,
seeking such information as “copies of all written patient com-
plaints and copies of documents reflecting oral patient com-
plaints concerning treatment received.” On September 9, rep-
resentatives of the parties met again to discuss the hospital’s
work redesign concept; however, nothing was resolved.
Besides the aforementioned contract grievance, Respondent
engaged in other activities to thwart Alta Bates’ implementa-
tion of its work redesign program. Thus, on September 13, it
engaged in picketing and handbilling outside the hospital, and,
on the same date, filed a class action lawsuit, in Alameda
County Superior Court, against Alta Bates, alleging unfair
business practices in connection with the impact of hospital
industry restructuring upon patient care. Thereafter, on Sep-
tember 16, Carder wrote to Liederman, informing the latter of
the hospital’s decision to again postpone implementation of its
work redesign program from September 20 until October 4 “in
order to provide [Respondent] another opportunity to get in-
volved and bargain” over the program.” At the same time, Alta
Bates informed Respondent that it would not agree to submit
Respondent’s August 29 grievance to arbitration, and, on Octo-
ber 3, Respondent filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior

2 Subsequently, Respondent amended this grievance on November 3
and December 13, 1994, and February 27 and March 31, 1995, to in-
clude further alleged violations of the collective-bargaining agreement
with regard to Alta Bates’ implementation of its work redesign pro-
gram.
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSN. 1365
Court, seeking either a preliminary injunction prohibiting im-
plementation of the work redesign program or an order compel-
ling immediate arbitration of the above grievance.3 In re-
sponse, Alta Bates asserted that the lawsuit was premature and
Respondent’s grievance was not arbitrable as its work redesign
program remained the subject of negotiations and that, in any
event, implementation was not scheduled until some time in
1995. Shortly thereafter, the Employer successfully removed
this lawsuit to United States District Court in which forum Alta
Bates continued to oppose Respondent’s demands for arbitra-
tion of its grievance. On December 21, Carder wrote to Lied-
erman, offering to Respondent an “alternative” work redesign
proposal, which addressed Respondent’s objection that Alta
Bates’ plan transformed registered nurses into supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. Carder stated that “the main
feature” of the alternative plan eliminated the nurses’ authority
to hire, fire, and discipline and that, in contrast to the original
proposal, the alternative plan provided for selection of appli-
cants for the position of “registered nurse care coordinator” by
seniority and qualifications. Subsequent to the hospital’s an-
nouncement of its alternative work redesign proposal, the par-
ties held, at least, six bargaining sessions without reaching
agreement. Thereafter, on February 1, 1995, Carder wrote to
Liederman, announcing that Alta Bates had decided to “move
forward on the basis of the alternative proposal” and to imple-
ment it on March 6. The implementation occurred as sched-
uled.
During the next 3 months, Liederman and Carder and the re-
spective attorneys for Alta Bates and Respondent engaged in
exchanges of correspondence. The crux of the Alta Bates let-
ters to Respondent’s representatives was a desire to meet and
discuss the latter’s August 29, 1994 grievance and amendments
in order for Respondent to inform Alta Bates “of the specific
allegations and detailed facts of how [the hospital’s] work re-
design proposal . . . violates the [collective-bargaining agree-
ment] . . . .” In a letter dated April 3, the hospital’s counsel
advised counsel for Respondent that this information was nec-
essary for the “collective bargaining arena.” On April 11,
counsel for Respondent wrote to counsel for Alta Bates, stating
that the theory, underlying the grievance, was Respondent’s
contention that “[Alta Bates’] plan has required and continues
to involve a significant transfer of RN duties to non-RNs and
unlicensed personnel which threaten patient safety and jeopard-
ize nurse licensure.” On April 18, counsel for Alta Bates sub-
mitted a written reply to Respondent’s counsel, terming his
letter a formal request for detailed and specific information
regarding how, and in what manner, the work redesign plan
implemented on 4West and the Family Care Center threatens or
even negatively impacts patient care and nurse licensure. On

3 In conjunction with this lawsuit, Respondent filed a discovery mo-
tion in conjunction with its “unfair business practice” lawsuit against
the Respondent, not as part of its suit to compel arbitration. It sought,
among other items, from Alta Bates, documents known as “incident
reports,” summaries of the reports, and related documents from January
1992 to the present and complaints, reports, and other documents con-
cerning the quality of patient care subsequent to implementation of the
hospital’s work redesign plan. The record discloses that the incident
reports are generated by Alta Bates’ bargaining unit employees, con-
cern any incidents relating to patient care and safety on the work redes-
ign units, and contain all relevant information regarding the incidents
including dates, the names of witnesses, and descriptions of what oc-
curred.
April 25, counsel for Respondent responded, stating that the
details of his client’s grievances had been explained to the hos-
pital during the various meetings, between the parties, in 1994
and in correspondence between their representatives. He then
averred that litigation of grievances neither was subject to for-
mal pleading rules nor was subject to the requirements of Fed-
eral civil procedure.
With matters in the foregoing posture and with Respondent’s
lawsuits, seeking an order to compel arbitration and alleging
unfair business practices, pending, on May 17, Joanne Carder
wrote to Lori Liederman, requesting specific information con-
cerning Respondent’s evidence as to how and in what manner
the hospital’s work redesign program jeopardized nurse licen-
sure and threatened patient safety. In addition, in her letter,
Carder requested specific information as to which RN duties
were being transferred to unlicensed, nonbargaining unit per-
sonnel in violation of the existing collective-bargaining agree-
ment, as to which provisions of the contract were being violated
by the hospital’s implementation of work redesign, and as to
the allegations of the various grievance amendments. Thereaf-
ter, on July 28, in an eight page letter to Carder, Liederman
responded to the foregoing information request, stating that
much of the requested nurse licensure and patient care informa-
tion had been orally transmitted to the hospital by Respondent’s
representatives during meetings concerning work redesign in
August, September, and October 1994, and January 1995.4
Then, Liederman addressed Carder’s May 17 information re-
quest point by point, stating that the hospital’s work redesign
program adversely impacted upon nurse licensure and patient
safety “in theory and in fact,” setting forth numerous assertions
of fact and, as sources for Respondent’s allegations, generally
pointing to previous correspondence between the parties, arti-
cles and accompanying bibliographies in Respondent’s news-
letter, State of California health care rules and regulations, and
reports of unnamed experts. In addition, Liederman averred
that Respondent had not yet decided who would be witnesses in
its behalf and stated that, while she believed she had responded
with sufficient information to clarify the grievance, “we are not
required to conduct our entire case in advance.”

Approximately 3 weeks later, on August 16, 1995, Carder
responded to Liederman’s letter with her own 16-page letter in
which she requested more specific information on 33 subjects
raised by Liederman in her letter. Thus, 30 of the information
requests involve assertions of fact by Liederman regarding the
effect of the hospital’s work redesign program upon nurse li-
censure and patient safety and, for each, Carder sought the
following: the dates of the alleged precipitating incident or
incidents, the names of Respondent’s members who personally
observed the incident or incidents, the names of Respondent’s
members who complained to Alta Bates management regarding
the incident or incidents, the number of patients involved, iden-
tification of any substantiating documents, and the specific
facts which substantiate Respondent’s conclusions. Next,
Carder requested that Liederman identify each of Respondent’s
witnesses, who would testify at the arbitration of the grievances
regarding the threats to nurse licensure and patient safety posed
by the work redesign program. Further, Carder requested “an-
ecdotal information” as to the threats to nurse licensure, posed
4 Of course, the hospital’s work redesign program had not, as yet,
been implemented at the time of these meetings.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1366
by the hospital’s work redesign program and closed her letter by
stating, “.[W]e do not ask that you conduct your case at this time.
Nevertheless, we are entitled to this information so that we can
evaluate your claim.”5 Liederman offered no reply to Alta Bates’
information request until December 19 when, by letter to Carder,
she wrote that “we believe that our previous response of July 28,
1995 [to Carder’s May 17 information request] more than satisfies
CNA’s obligations under the National Labor Relations Act.”
Thereafter, on or about February 29, 1996, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the order of a
district court judge, granting Respondent’s lawsuit to compel
Alta Bates, which has never evinced any desire to settle the
matter, to arbitrate its August 29, 1994 grievance, and, on April
10, in Respondent’s unfair business practices lawsuit, an arbi-
trator, who was appointed by the Alameda County Superior
Court, granted Respondent’s discovery motion, including that
Alta Bates produce all its incident reports from 1992 to date.6
Thereafter, the arbitration of Respondent’s amended grievance
was scheduled for July 16, 1996, with Respondent continuing
to refuse to transmit any further information, beyond what
Liederman stated in her July 28 letter, to Alta Bates with regard
to its assertions underlying the grievance. With regard to po-
tential witnesses, at the instant hearing, counsel for Respondent
stated that her client had not yet decided upon its witnesses but
that Alta Bates has access to the each of Respondent’s potential
witnesses by virtue of the unfair business practices lawsuit.
B. Legal Analysis
There is no dispute herein as to the applicable legal princi-
ples. At the outset, the Board has long held that a labor organi-
zation’s duty to furnish information pursuant to Section 8(b)(3)
of the Act is parallel to that of an employer’s obligation to fur-
nish information pursuant to Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Firemen & Oilers Local 288 (Diversy Wyandotte), 302 NLRB
1008, 1009 (1991); Service Employees Local 144 (Jamaica
Hospital), 297 NLRB 1001, 1003 (1990); Northern Air Freight,
283 NLRB 922 (1987). In this regard, it has long been estab-
lished that, generally, an employer is under a statutory obliga-
tion to, upon request, provide a labor organization, which is the
collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employ-
ees, with information which is necessary and relevant for the
proper performance of the labor organization’s duties in repre-
senting the bargaining unit employees. NLRB V. Acme Indus-
tries Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg Co., 351
U.S. 149 (1956); Aerospace Corp., 314 NLRB 100 (1994).
This duty to provide information encompasses not only mate-
rial necessary and relevant for the purpose of contract negotia-
tions but also information necessary for administration of a

5 Five days later, Carder wrote to Liederman and amended her in-
formation requests, stating that rather than the names of Respondent’s
members, Respondent should provide the names of bargaining unit
employees who complained to Respondent about incidents demonstrat-
ing the threats to nurse licensure and patient safety posed by the hospi-
tal’s work redesign program.
6 At the instant hearing, counsel for Respondent maintained that,
while the issues involved in the lawsuit and in the grievance are differ-
ent, the identical “body of evidence” is being utilized by Respondent to
establish Alta Bates’ culpability in both actions. Thus, in connection
with discovery procedures in the lawsuit, extensive depositions were
taken from registered nurses in Respondent’s bargaining unit, and,
apparently, significant portions of the depositions concern issues re-
lated to Respondent’s grievance. There is no dispute that Alta Bates has
access to these depositions.
collective-bargaining agreement, including information re-
quired by the labor organization to process a grievance through
arbitration. Acme Industrial, supra; Jewish Federation Council
of Greater Los Angeles, 306 NLRB 507 (1992); Bacardi Corp.,
296 NLRB 1220 (1989); Howard University, 290 NLRB 1006
(1988). The furnishing of information, which is probably rele-
vant to a disposition of the grievance, to the party not in posses-
sion of that information is required so that the parties to the
grievance procedure have the opportunity to “‘evaluate the
merits of the claim’” and work toward settlement. Firemen &
Oilers, supra at 1008. The standard for relevancy is a “liberal
discovery-type standard,” with the sought-after evidence not
having to be necessarily dispositive of the issue between the
parties but only of some bearing upon it and of probable use to
the labor organization in carrying out its statutory responsibili-
ties. Bacardi Corp., supra; Howard University, supra; Pfizer,
Inc., 268 NLRB 916 (1984). Necessity is not a guideline in
itself but rather is directly related to relevancy, and only the
probability that the requested information will be of use to the
labor organization need be established. Bacardi Corp., supra.
Finally, “part of the duty to supply relevant information in-
cludes the duty to do so in a timely manner,” and the failure to
do so constitutes a violation of . . . the Act.” San Francisco
Newspaper Agency, 309 NLRB 901 (1992); Mary Thompson
Hospital, 296 NLRB 1245, 1250 (1989).
Respondent filed its grievance, regarding Alta Bates’ work
redesign program, on August 29, 1994, and, at all times thereaf-
ter prior to February 29, 1996, the latter contended the griev-
ance was not arbitrable, fought Respondent’s lawsuit to compel
arbitration, and revealed no indication of an amenability to
settle the dispute. In these circumstances, I harbor qualms as to
whether, as of December 19, 1995, Respondent was under any
bargaining obligation to have provided information, regarding
the said grievance and subsequent amendments, to Alta Bates
in excess of what Lori Liederman had provided in her July 28,
1995 information response letter to Joanne Carder. Neverthe-
less, as the instant complaint alleges continuing unfair labor
practices, I believe that, subsequent to February 29, 1996, Re-
spondent clearly was under a bargaining obligation to furnish
Alta Bates with much of the information requested, by Carder
in her letter dated August 16, 1995, and additional information
and that, by failing and refusing to do so, it engaged in acts and
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Thus, given
Liederman’s December 19 letter to Carder, in which she belat-
edly refused to provide the requested information, it is clear
that Carder’s information request remained viable and unsatis-
fied. Moreover, on February 29, 1996, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals issued its decision, upholding an earlier district
court decision, compelling Alta Bates to arbitrate Respondent’s
August 29, 1994 grievance and subsequent amendments, and
the parties eventually selected an arbitrator and scheduled an
arbitration hearing for July 16, 1996. Further, approximately
six weeks after the Ninth Circuit ruling, on April 10, pursuant
to a discovery motion in conjunction with Respondent’s unfair
business practices lawsuit against Alta Bates, the latter was
ordered to provide numerous documents to Respondent includ-
ing incident reports, which information Respondent conceded
would be helpful in establishing the validity of its grievance.
Accordingly, an arbitration hearing on Respondent’s grievance
had been scheduled for July 16; at least 3 months prior to the
scheduled commencement of the hearing, Respondent pos-
sessed all of the information sought by Carder in her August 16
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSN. 1367
letter to Liederman; and, as the Board has long held, “. . . the
existence of an arbitration proceeding does not relieve a party
from its duty to furnish relevant information requested by the
other party.” San Francisco Newspaper Agency, 309 NLRB
901 at 901 (1992).7
As set forth above, in her August 16, 1995 information re-
quest to Liederman, for each of the latter’s approximately 30
assertions of fact in her July 28 information response letter,
Carder requested that Respondent specify the dates on which
incidents occurred, state the names of bargaining unit employ-
ees who observed what occurred, identify all documents relat-
ing to the incident, and set forth all relevant facts. In addition,
Carder requested the names of all witnesses, who Respondent
intended to call as witnesses at the arbitration hearing and “an-
ecdotal information” about each of the above incidents. Ini-
tially, there can be no doubt that, prior to the arbitration hear-
ing, Alta Bates was entitled to the names of all individuals,
whom Respondent intended to call as witnesses at the proceed-
ing and that Respondent’s failure and refusal to transmit such
information, which was plainly relevant to Alta Bates for pur-
poses of its preparation prior for the arbitration hearing, vio-
lated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Fairmont Hotel, 304 NLRB
746 (1991); Transport of New Jersey, 233 NLRB 694, 695
(1977). Moreover, I believe that, in advance of the arbitration
hearing, as well as to the specific depositions of potential wit-
nesses, transcripts of which both parties undoubtedly possessed,
and other documents, upon which Liederman relied in her July
28, 1995 information response letter and Respondent would
rely for evidence at the arbitration hearing, Alta Bates was enti-
tled to receive from Respondent notice of the specific incident
reports and other materials, copies of which were received from
the hospital by Respondent during the discovery process in the
unfair business practices lawsuit and upon which Respondent
would rely for evidence at the arbitration hearing. Obviously,
said information was necessary and relevant to Alta Bates for
its preparation for the pending arbitration hearing of Respon-
dent’s grievance. The Board has held that similar reports and
documents must be provided prior to the arbitration of griev-
ances, and Respondent’s failure and refusal to provide this
information was unlawful. Postal Service, 305 NLRB 997, 998
(1991); New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 300 NLRB 42, 43
(1980).8 However, I agree with counsel for Respondent that its

7 In my view, the oblique nature of the Board’s language represents
tacit recognition that establishing the rules and regulations for discov-
ery during an arbitration proceeding is the province of the arbitrator and
that the Board law regarding a party’s bargaining obligation to transmit
requested information to the opposing party may conflict. While I am,
of course, obligated to apply Board law in this area, there does not
appear to be a Board decision which demarcates the precise point of
conflict. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the Board has ever meant to
intrude upon the authority of arbitrators in this regard, and my conclu-
sions herein are reflective of such a view.
8 Counsel for Respondent argues that it should not be required to
specify upon which incident reports it shall rely in the arbitration pro-
ceeding as Alta Bates has not specified any particular incidents about
which it seeks information and as the hospital’s demand is burdensome
and open-ended. Of course, said defense is ludicrous on its face. Thus,
by placing the burden upon the hospital to specify the precise incidents,
about which it seeks information, counsel for Respondent is demanding
that the hospital exhibit clairvoyance and divine information about
which only Respondent has knowledge—a magic trick beyond the
Board’s power to command. Moreover, counsel for Respondent chose
obligations with regard to the reports and other documents did
not extend beyond providing documents, which Alta Bates does
not possess, and specifying the particular incident reports9 and
other documents upon which it was relying. Thus, in my view,
prior to the arbitration hearing itself, requiring Respondent to
disclose to Alta Bates the particular facts, contained in the re-
ports and documents, which form the basis for its evidence at
the arbitration hearing, to explain and define its theories, or to
describe its evidence with precision would intrude upon the
authority of the arbitrator to establish the rules for discovery
preceding the arbitration hearing and violate the Board’s own
admonition that “there is . . . no statutory obligation on the part
of [each party] to turn over to the other evidence of an undis-
closed nature that the possessor of the information believes
relevant and conclusive with respect to its rights in an arbitra-
tion proceeding.” Tool & Die Makers’ Lodge 78, IAM, 224
NLRB 111 at 111 (1976).10 Based upon the foregoing, I find
that Respondent engaged in conduct, violative of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act, by, pursuant to Carder’s August 16, 1995
information request letter and in advance of the arbitration
hearing on its August 29, 1994 grievance and amendments,
failing and refusing to provide to Alta Bates the names of all
individuals, whom it intended to call as witnesses at the arbitra-
tion hearing, any documents upon which Lori Liederman relied
for support for her statements in her July 28, 1995 letter and it
would rely for evidence at the arbitration hearing, and notice of
the particular incident reports and documents, which were in
the possession of Alta Bates and upon which it would rely in
support of its allegations at the arbitration hearing .11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Alta Bates is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.

not to call any witnesses; therefore, there has been no showing that
providing the requested information would unduly burden Respondent.
9 As I stated above, the incident reports apparently contain the dates
of the occurrence and the names of individuals, who witnessed the
event, and descriptions of what occurred.
10 I find without merit Respondent’s affirmative defense that the fil-
ing of the instant unfair labor practice charge was outside the 6-month
statute of limitations period established by Sec. 10(b) of the Act. Thus,
the 6-month period did not commence running until Respondent noti-
fied Alta Bates of its refusal to furnish requested information—
December 19, 1995—just a month prior to the filing of the unfair labor
practice charge. Put another way, Alta Bates had no notice of Respon-
dent’s unfair labor practice until Liederman’s above letter. New Jersey
Bell Telephone Co., 289 NLRB 318 at 318 fn. 2 (1988).
11 I shall recommend dismissal of the allegation that Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act by unlawfully delayed in responding to
Alta Bates’ August 16 information request. Thus, in Teamsters Local
921, supra, the Union provided information 4 months after such was
requested. Likewise, in Top Job Bldg. Maintenance Co., 304 NLRB
902 (1991), the respondent provided information after a delay and
offered no excuse that the delay was unavoidable. Herein, rather than
merely delaying in doing so, Respondent has never provided the re-
quested information to Alta Bates, and Lori Liederman’s December 19,
1995 letter constituted an outright refusal to do so. In these circum-
stances, as any delay by Respondent appears to have been subsumed by
its outright refusal to provide any of the requested information, this
particular allegation appears to be superfluous, and I shall recommend
dismissal of the applicable paragraph of the complaint.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1368
3. Respondent is the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act of cer-
tain of Alta Bates’ employees in the following appropriate unit:

All graduate nurses, registered nurses, assistant head
nurses, and charge nurses employed by Alta Bates at its
Berkeley, California facility performing nursing services
as set forth in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement;
excluding all other employees, supervisors as defined in
the Act, administrative and executive personnel having the
authority to hire, discipline, discharge, or determine per-
sonnel policies, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

4. By failing and refusing to furnish to Alta Bates, pursuant
to Carder’s August 16, 1995 information request letter and in
advance of the arbitration hearing of its August 29, 1994 griev-
ance and related amendments, the names of all individuals
whom it intended to call as witnesses in its behalf at the arbitra-
tion hearing, any documents upon which Lori Liederman relied
for her assertions of fact in her July 28, 1995 information re-
sponse and it would rely for evidence at the said arbitration
hearing, and notice of specific incident reports and other docu-
ments which were in the possession of Alta Bates and upon
which it would rely for evidence at the said arbitration hearing,
Respondent engaged in acts and conduct violative of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act.
5. Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Unless specifically found above, Respondent engaged in
no other unfair labor practices.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in serious unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Specifically,
inasmuch as Respondent failed and refused to furnish to Alta
Bates the requested names of all individuals whom the former
intended to call as witnesses at the arbitration hearing on its
August 29, 1994 grievance and related amendments, documents
upon which it would rely for evidence at the arbitration hearing,
and notice of specific incident reports and other documents
which were in the possession of Alta Bates and upon which it
would rely at the arbitration hearing, I shall recommend that,
upon request, Respondent be ordered to furnish the information
to Alta Bates.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended12
ORDER
The Respondent, California Nurses Association, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish to Alta Bates Medical
Center, pursuant to Alta Bates Medical Center’s August 16,
1995 information request and in advance of the July 16, 1996

12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended 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.
arbitration hearing on its August 29, 1994 grievance and related
amendments, the names of all individuals whom it intended to
call as witnesses at the said arbitration hearing, all documents
upon which it relied for the assertions of fact in its July 28,
1995 information response letter and would rely for evidence at
the said arbitration hearing, and notice of specific incident re-
ports and other documents, which remained in the possession of
Alta Bates Medical Center and upon which it would rely for
evidence at the arbitration hearing.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees of Alta Bates Medical Center in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) On request, furnish to Alta Bates the names of any indi-
viduals whom it intends to call as witnesses at the July 16 arbi-
tration hearing, any documents which it utilized as support for
the assertions of fact in its July 28, 1995 information response
and upon which it would rely for evidence at the arbitration
hearing, and notice of the specific incident reports and other
documents upon which it would rely at the arbitration hearing.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
business offices and meeting halls in Berkeley and Oakland,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”13
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor of Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent has
ceased representing the bargaining unit employees or Alta
Bates has closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current bargaining unit employees and for-
mer bargaining unit employees employed by the Alta Bates at
any time since January 10, 1996.
(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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by delaying in responding to a re-
quest for necessary and relevant information.

13 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.”
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSN. 1369
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
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 the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Alta Bates Medical Cen-
ter by failing and refusing to furnish to it, pursuant to its infor-
mation request, datd August 16, 1995, and in advance of the
arbitration hearing of our August 29, 1994 grievance and re-
lated amendments, the names of all individuals who we intend
to call as witnesses at the arbitration hearing, any documents
which we utilized as support for our assertions of fact in our
July 28, 1995 information response and upon which we intend
to rely at the arbitration hearing, and notice of the specific inci-
dent reports and other documents which are in the possession of
Alta Bates Medical Center and upon which we intend to rely at
the arbitration hearing.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL , upon request, furnish to Alta Bates Medical Cen-
ter, pursuant to its August 16, 1995 information request and in
advance of the arbitration hearing on our August 29, 1994
grievance and related amendments, the names of all individuals
whom we intend to call as witnesses at the arbitration, any
documents upon which we relied as support for our assertions
of fact in our July 28, 1995 information response and upon
which we intend to rely for evidence at the arbitration hearing,
and notice of the specific incident reports and other documents,
which are in the possession of Alta Bates Medical Center and
upon which we intend to rely for evidence at the arbitration
hearing.

CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION