Cannelton Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 996 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 996
Cannelton Industries, Inc. and Princess Beverly Coal
Company and Kanawha Corporation and Dunn
Coal and Dock Company and International Un-
ion, United Mine Workers of America. Cases 9–
CA–37785–1, 9–CA–37785–2, 9–CA–38277–1,
and 9–CA–38277–2
August 14, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND ACOSTA
On March 14, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Ben-
jamin Schlesinger issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The
General Counsel and Charging Party filed reply briefs.
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 and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.
The complaint alleged, and the judge found, that the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to furnish the Union with information rele-
vant to its collective-bargaining responsibilities.
Background
This case concerns the Respondents’ refusal to comply
with several information requests made by the Union.
The Union and the Respondents were signatories to a
memorandum of understanding (MOU), effective
through December 31, 2002. The MOU incorporated by
reference article II of the National Bituminous Coal
Wage Agreement (NBCWA) entitled “Job Opportunity
and Benefit Security.”1 That provision states in relevant
part:
[T]he first three out of every five new job openings
covered by this Agreement at any existing, new, or
newly acquired non-signatory bituminous coal opera-
tion of the Employer shall be filled by classified laid-
off Employees of the Employer’s operations.
In December 1999, one of the Respondents, Dunn
Coal, laid off several employees. The Union subse-
quently learned that a new company, CC Coal, was be-
ginning to hire in the area. Union Attorney Douglas
Parker investigated the relationship between the Respon-
dents and CC Coal. During his investigation, Parker
discovered information that suggested an interrelation-

1 Respondent Princess Beverly is signatory to an even broader provi-
sion, which covers new coal mining operations of nonsignatory compa-
nies.
ship between CC Coal and the Respondents. As a result,
on June 2, 2000,2 Parker submitted an information re-
quest to Cannelton Industries, Inc. and Princess Beverly
Coal Company.3 In that request, he stated that there ap-
peared to be a significant degree of interrelation between
CC Coal and other of the Respondents.
After the Respondents failed to supply the requested
information and questioned the relevance of the request,
the Union, on July 26, and again on August 23, wrote to
the Respondents setting out in more detail the reasons for
its request. The August 23 request was the most specific.
That letter stated that the Union had reason to suspect
that there was a single, joint-employer, and/or alter-ego
relationship between CC Coal and one of the Union’s
signatory companies. The letter included nine separate
bullet points delineating specific evidence possessed by
the Union that suggested such a relationship.4 Finally, on
November 30, 2001, 4 days before the hearing, the Union
sent another letter to the Respondents to clarify further
the relevance of the information request. The Respon-
dents nonetheless refused to provide the requested in-
formation, claiming primarily that the relevance of the
Union’s request was unclear.
The Judge’s Decision
The judge found that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide the Union with the
requested information. According to the judge, the Un-
ion’s information requests were clearly directed at show-
ing the sharing of functions necessary to prove a single-
employer or alter-ego relationship, the result of which
would be that CC Coal was bound under the Respon-
dents’ MOU with the Union. The judge further found
that the Union had a reasonable objective basis to inquire
whether CC Coal was a single employer with, or alter
ego of, the Respondents. Finally, according to the judge,
a union is not required, at the time of an information re-
quest, to share with the employer the factual basis of its
claim that requested information is relevant and neces-
sary. It is sufficient, the judge stated, that the factual
basis be shown at the unfair labor practice hearing.
2 All dates hereafter are 2000 unless otherwise indicated.
3 Subsequently the Union requested the same information from the
other two Respondents, Kanawha Corporation, and Dunn Coal and
Dock Company.
4 These bullet points are reproduced in the judge’s decision. In-
cluded among them is evidence that Respondents shared a common
address with CC Coal; that Respondents and CC Coal shared some of
the same officers; that Respondents and CC Coal shared personnel and
equipment; and that radio communications indicated the coal mined at
CC Coal’s Skitter Creek operation was being shipped to Cannelton’s
prep plant, where it was blended and processed with coal from the other
Respondents.
339 NLRB No. 124
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 997
The Respondents’ Exceptions
The Respondents except to the judge’s findings. The
Respondents primarily argue they need not have com-
plied with the request because the Union, at the time that
it made its information request, failed to provide the Re-
spondents with specific facts giving rise to its belief that
a single-employer/alter-ego relationship existed. Citing,
inter alia, NLRB v. Postal Service, 18 F.3d 1089 (3d Cir.
1994), and Hertz Corp. v. NLRB, 105 F.3d 868 (3d Cir.
1997), the Respondents argue that the obligation to turn
over the information was never triggered. Alternatively,
the Respondents argue that the Union did not satisfy its
obligation to present the requisite evidence until 4 days
before the hearing, in the Union’s November 30, 2001
letter, or at the hearing itself. Thus, the Respondents
contend, they should have been given sufficient time to
respond after the hearing.5 We find no merit in the Re-
spondents’ exceptions.
Analysis
When a union requests information relating to an al-
leged single-employer or alter-ego relationship, the union
bears the burden of establishing the relevance of the re-
quested information. Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625
(1993); Bentley-Jost Electric Corp., 283 NLRB 564, 568
(1987), citing Walter N. Yoder & Sons, 754 F.2d 531,
536 (4th Cir. 1985). A union cannot meet its burden
based on a mere suspicion that an alter-ego or single-
employer relationship exists; it must have an objective,
factual basis for believing that the relationship exists.
See M. Scher & Son, Inc., 286 NLRB 688, 691 (1987).
Under current Board law, however, the union is not obli-
gated to disclose those facts to the employer at the time
of the information request. Baldwin Shop ‘N Save, 314
NLRB 114, 121 (1994); Corson & Gruman, 278 NLRB
329, 333–334 fn. 3 (1986). Rather, it is sufficient that
the General Counsel demonstrate at the hearing that the
union had, at the relevant time, a reasonable belief.
Knappton Maritime Corp., 292 NLRB 236, 238–239
(1988). Ultimately, it is the Board’s role, not the em-
ployer’s, to act as the arbiter of whether the union’s evi-
dence supports a reasonable belief. Bentley-Jost, 283
NLRB at 568.

5 Although it is not entirely clear, the Respondents also appear to ar-
gue that, even if the Union presented the Respondents with evidence of
its reasonable objective basis for believing the requested information
was relevant at the time it made the requests, the Respondents were not
legally obligated to provide the information until the judge made a
finding at the hearing that the Union’s evidence did, indeed, present a
reasonable objective basis for the Union’s request. The Respondents
have not cited any support for such a proposition, and we are aware of
none. To the extent that Respondents have presented such an argu-
ment, we find no merit in it.
As the Respondents point out, the Third Circuit has
taken a different approach. The Third Circuit has held
that for there to be an obligation to furnish information,
the union, at the time of the request, must disclose to the
employer sufficient facts to demonstrate its claim of
relevance. Hertz Corp., supra, citing NLRB v. Postal
Service, supra.6 On the facts before us, however, we find
a violation of the Act under either standard.
We find that, by the time of its August 23 letter, the
Union had demonstrated to the Respondents both the
relevance of the previously requested information and the
existence of evidence that gave rise to a reasonable belief
in the relevance of that information.7 As shown, by the
time of the August 23 letter, the Union had provided the
Respondents with specific evidence of their suspected
alter-ego or single-employer relationship with CC Coal.
This included, but was not limited to, evidence that: the
Respondents shared a common address with CC Coal;
the Respondents and CC Coal shared some of the same
officers; the Respondents and CC Coal shared personnel
and equipment; and radio communications indicated that
coal mined at CC Coal’s Skitter Creek operation was
being shipped to Cannelton’s prep plant and blended
with the Respondents’ coal.
The Respondents’ refusal to supply the information at
that point had no lawful justification.8 Accordingly, we
agree with the judge that the Respondents violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to furnish the
Union with the requested information.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below.
A. Respondent Cannelton Industries, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information which was
and is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
6 Neither Hertz Corp. nor Postal Service was an alter-ego case.
7 We shall modify the conditional notice-posting requirement in our
Order to refer to this August 23 date for all Respondents.
8 We observe that the Respondents raised no objection to the scope
of the information requests.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 998
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated June 2, 2000.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix B.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent at any
time since August 23, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
B. Respondent Princess Beverly Coal Company, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information which was
and is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated June 2, 2000.

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 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.”
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix C.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent at any
time since August 23, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
C. Respondent Kanawha Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information which was
and is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated August 23, 2000.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix D.”11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
10 See fn. 9, supra.
11 See fn. 9, supra.
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 999
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent at any
time since August 23, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
D. Respondent Dunn Coal and Dock Company, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information which was
and is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its function as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated July 28, 2000.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix E.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any material. In the event that, during the pend-
ency of these proceedings, Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent at any
time since August 23, 2000.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-

12 See fn. 9, supra.
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.

Engrid Emerson Vaughan, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Merritt J. Green, Esq., of McLean, Virginia, for the Respon-
dent.1
Mark March, of Charleston, West Virginia, and Phillip Cam-
den, of Trusberry, West Virginia, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER, Administrative Law Judge. This is
an information case. The Charging Party, International Union,
United Mine Workers of America (Union), requested from the
four Respondents, Cannelton Industries, Inc. (Cannelton), Prin-
cess Beverly Coal Company (Princess Beverly), Kanawha Cor-
poration (Kanawha), and Dunn Coal and Dock Company
(Dunn), replies to extensive questions and demands for produc-
tion of documents. Each refused. The complaint alleges a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondents deny
that they violated the Act in any manner.2
Each Respondent is a corporation and has been engaged in
operating a surface coal mine in Fayette County (except Prin-
cess Beverly, which operates in Kanawha County), West Vir-
ginia. During the 12 months ending May 17, 2001, each Re-
spondent purchased and received at its Fayette (for Princess
Beverly, Kanawha) County facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside West Virginia. I conclude
that each has been an employer within the meaning of Section
(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Respondents are signatory to and bound by collective-
bargaining agreements, or memoranda of understanding, with
the International, which I conclude is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Each of the
memoranda incorporates by reference the National Bituminous
Coal Wage Agreement (NBCWA), which includes the follow-
ing provision:

the first three out of every five new job openings covered by
this Agreement at any existing, new, or newly acquired non-
signatory bituminous coal operation of the Employer shall be
filled by classified laid-off Employees of the Employer’s op-
erations.

In addition, Princess Beverly is also a signatory to the memo-
randurn of understanding regarding job opportunities, which
expands job opportunities for classified employees of Princess
Beverly at “existing, new, or newly acquired nonsignatory bi-
tuminous coal mining operations of the nonsignatory Compa-
nies.”
1 William B. Cowen, Esq., having been appointed a member of the
Board, withdrew from representing Respondent on January 23, 2002.
2 This case was tried in Charleston, West Virginia, on December 4,
2001. The charges in Cases 9–CA–37785–1 and 9–CA–37785–2 were
filed against Cannelton and Princess Beverly on July 3, 2000; and the
charges in Cases 9–CA–38277–1 and 9–CA–38277–2 were filed on
February 21, 2001. A third amended consolidated complaint was issued
on May 17, 2001.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1000
This case has its genesis with the layoffs of the employees of
Dunn in December 1999, as well as layoffs of some employees
from some of the other Respondents. The Union learned that a
new company, CC Coal, was beginning to hire employees and
union attorney Douglas Parker began to investigate whether CC
Coal was simply a continuation of Dunn, but operating outside
the parameters of the Union’s collective-bargaining agreement.
He thought that he had enough hints of an interrelationship, so
he wrote to Cannelton and Princess Beverly on June 2, 2000,3
requesting information (Appendix A attached to this decision),
and explaining his reasons:

It has come to the attention of the Union that CC Coal
Company (CC Coal) recently initiated mining operations
in Kanawha and Boone County, West Virginia. It has also
come to the Union’s attention that there appears to be a
significant degree of interrelation between the CC Coal
operation and the UMWA signatory operations of Cannel-
ton Industries, Inc. and Princess Beverly Coal Company.
In order to effectively administer and enforce the cur-
rent collective bargaining agreement, further prepare for
negotiation of a successor agreement, intelligently repre-
sent UMWA bargaining unit employees employed at AEI
subsidiaries, and determine which entity or entities con-
stitute “employers” with whom the Union has a contrac-
tual and/or bargaining relationship, we ask that you re-
spond to the following information request by close of
business, June 30, 2000.

On June 20, Respondents’ then counsel, William B.
Cowen, wrote to Parker, confirming receipt of the demand
and questioning the relevance of many of the requests, noting
that many of them sought information about companies, actu-
ally only CC Coal, with whom the Union had no collective-
bargaining relationship. To that extent, Cowen wrote that he
was unclear how the information would be relevant to the
legitimate interests of the Union in representing the employ-
ees of Cannelton and Princess Beverly. The essence of
Cowen’s position was not with the specific items sought, but
with the principle that the Union was entitled to anything
related to a company not under agreement with it. Parker
answered Cowen on June 26, referring to the relationship of
Cannelton and Princess Beverly with CC Coal “and possibly
other AEI-related companies,” as follows:

The purpose of the information request is to ascertain the na-
ture of the relationship between the UMWA signatory com-
panies and other AEI affiliated companies, in particular CC
Coal. The Union wishes to evaluate whether CC Coal has a
single employer, joint employer and/or alter ego relationship
with a UMWA signatory company.

3 All dates are in 2000, unless otherwise indicated. On July 28 and Au-
gust 23, the Union demanded the same information from Dunn and Ka-
nawha, respectively. In the interest of brevity, the recitation of facts in this
Decision relates specifically to Cannelton; but Parker’s demand for in-
formation from Kanawha and Dunn and Cowen’s letters on behalf of the
other parties have substantially the same content, and the issues raised are
identical.
In his reply of June 30, Cowen recognized that Parker was
investigating “the alleged relationship between various compa-
nies” and wrote that he would address that matter in his re-
sponse to the specific questions contained in Parker’s June 2
demand. In the meantime, however, regarding “AEI,” which he
correctly identified as “AEI Resources, Inc.” (AEI), he ex-
plained that Cannelton was a corporation engaged in the mining
and preparation of bituminous coal at its Stockton Mine and
Lady Dunn Preparation Plant in Kanawha County, that Cannel-
ton had been in existence as a coal mining company for well
over 30 years, and that Cannelton was a wholly owned subsidi-
ary of Cannelton Inc., which also had other subsidiaries. He
also explained that in the summer of 1998, the stock of Cannel-
ton Inc. was purchased by West Virginia Indiana Coal Holding
Company, Inc. (West Virginia Indiana), a holding company that
also owned other companies and was owned by AEI, also ac-
quired the stock of Princess Beverly in the first quarter of 1999.
Parker wrote to Cowen on July 18 that he used AEI

as a generic term referring to companies known commonly as
“AEI” or “Addington,” much as “AEI” or “Addington” are
used in industry publications, because the Union does not
want to wager a guess as to the corporate structure, and every
company therein, that links CC Coal and any UMWA signa-
tory. In essence, the term could include any company that is
requested to provide information or is named in response to
any of the Union’s information requests.

It is not at all clear why this distinction makes a difference or
why the identity of “AEI” is relevant to the Employer’s obli-
gation to respond to the Union’s request for information. If
the Union had perfect information about the relationship be-
tween UMWA signatories and other related companies, it
could be more specific.

Despite the fact that Parker had advised Cowen that he was
seeking to prove that CC Coal was an alter ego of, and thus
the same entity as, both Cannelton and Princess Beverly,
Cowen repeatedly insisted that the Union was asking for items
not related to his clients. In his letter of July 21, Cowen wrote
that Parker’s requests sought information from or about other
companies, some of which had agreements with the Union, and
others did not, which were unrelated “to the wages, hours or
other employment conditions of Cannelton’s classified employ-
ees, and therefore it is not clear how this information is relevant
to the UMWA’s role as the representative of those employees.”
Finally, although Parker’s letters were perfectly clear in assert-
ing his alter ego theory, Cowen repeated that he was unaware
of any interrelationship between the operations of CC Coal and
Cannelton and Princess Beverly. Furthermore, Cowen charged
that Parker’s letters did “not actually state that the UMWA
claims or believes that such a relationship may exist, nor [did
it] identify any objective factual basis substantiating any such
claim or belief.” Cowen objected to Parker’s “mere conclusory
statements regarding alleged relationships [which] do not assist
[him] in identifying relevant information.” He asked Parker for
“the factual basis supporting [his] belief that the requested in-
formation is relevant to the UMWA’s representative role.”
On August 23, Parker wrote to Cowen, enclosing attach-
ments to support his allegations:
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1001

I write in response to your request for information regarding
the Union’s good faith, objective basis for requesting informa-
tion regarding the relationship between CC Coal Company
and the UMWA signatory companies from whom the Union
has made information requests. As explained in previous cor-
respondence, the Union believes that a single, joint employer,
and/or alter ego relationship may exist between CC Coal
Company and one or more UMWA signatory companies af-
filiated, owned or controlled by AEI Resources, Inc., Adding-
ton Enterprises, Inc., or a related company.

The Union’s requests for information have been based in part
on the following information:

According to the most recent filing, dated April 29, 1999,
made by “AEI Resources, Inc. and AEI Holding Company,
Inc.” with the Securities and Exchange Commission (a single
company based upon the filing) the principle [sic] executive
offices of all AEI-related companies, including (among oth-
ers) CC Coal, Coal Ventures Holding Co., Inc., Cannelton,
Inc., Cannelton Industries, Inc., Dunn Coal and Dock Com-
pany, Kanawha Corporation, Inc., West VirginiaIndiana Coal
Holding Company, Princess Beverly Coal Company, and
Princess Beverly Coal Holding Company, is 1500 North Big
Run Rd, Ashland, KY 41102.

• CC Coal Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Coal Ventures Holding Co., which is in turn a
wholly-owned subsidiary of AEI Resources, Inc.
AEI Resources, Inc. also owns Princess Beverly
Coal Company, a signatory company, as well as
West Virginia-Indiana Coal Holding Company.
West Virginia-Indiana Holding Company owns
Cannelton, Inc. as well as Kanwaha Corporation, a
signatory company. Cannelton, Inc. in turn owns
Cannelton Industries, Inc. and Dunn Coal and
Dock, both of which are signatory companies.

• Resource Data International, in a document entitled
“Mine Controlling Company Profile: 1-Addington
Enterprises, Inc.-Operations Page,” lists together all
the operations of AEI-affiliated signatory opera-
tions, as well as CC Coal Company’s Skitter Creek
operation. The listing, from 1999, indicates that
Skitter Creek was owned at that time by Battle
Ridge Co., and that Battle Ridge was a company
controlled by Addington Enterprises (Addington
Enterprises owns AEI Resources, either as a
wholly-owned subsidiary, or through another
wholly-owned subsidiary, AEI Resources Holding
Inc.). Operations controlled by Addington Enter-
prises that are also listed include Cannelton Indus-
tries Inc.’s Lady Dunn Prep Plant and Stockton
Mine, Cyprus Kanawha Corp.’s (currently Ka-
nawha Corp.) Armstrong Creek mine, Dunn Coal
and Dock’s mines 150 and 155, and the Princess
Beverly mine (listed as an operation of “Orion Re-
sources”). Some time in November of 1999, Battle
Ridge Companies apparently transferred the per-
mits of the Skitter Creek mine to another AEI-
controlled company, CC Coal Company.

• CC Coal Company has the following officers: Di-
rector, Stephen Addington; CFO, John E. Baum;
CEO, Donald Paul Brown; President, Kevin
Crutchfield; Treasurer, Vic Grub; Vice President,
Coy K. Lane, Jr.; Secretary, Albert Eugene Lynch.
These individuals all hold the identical posts for
CC Coal Company’s parent, Coal Ventures Hold-
ing Co.. They also hold these identical posts for
AEI Resources, Inc., the common parent of Coal
Ventures Holding Co. and West Virginia-Indiana
Holding Co. These individuals are also all officers
and/or directors of AEI Holdings, Inc., the com-
pany which originally purchased Kanawha Corp.,
Cannelton Industries, and Dunn Coal and Dock Co.
from Cyprus Amax Corporation in a stock sale be-
fore these entities were transferred to AEI Re-
sources subsidiary West Virginia-Indiana Holding
Co.
• In addition to sharing principal offices in Ash-
land, Kentucky, CC Coal Company, Cannelton
Industries, Inc[.], Kanawha Corp., and Dunn
Coal and Dock Co. all operate out of the offices
of West Virginia Indiana Holding Co.’s
Chelyan, WV offices. All of these companies are
listed on an internal telephone directory of West
Virginia-Indiana Holding Co.

• AEI Resources, Inc., which filed a consolidated
filing with the Securities and Exchange Com-
mission for all its affiliated companies in 1999,
indicated that the intention of the company was
to integrate its various operations in order to
provide coal from multiple sources to satisfy its
long-term sales contracts and to save expenses
by closing unneeded offices, reducing personnel,
and taking advantage of “mining and material
sourcing synergies.” The SEC report discusses
all the AEI-affiliated operations and their impact
on that goal.

• UMWA members have heard CB radio commu-
nications indicating that coal mined at CC Coal
Company’s Skitter Creek operation is being
shipped to Cannelton Industries Inc.’s Lady
Dunn Prep Plant by trucks contracted to 4Way
Trucking Company. The coal is then being
blended with coal from other AEI-affiliated
companies, including Cannelton Industries,
Dunn Coal and Dock, and Kanawha Corp., and
possibly Princess Beverly Coal Company.

• Mr. James Wills, Local Union President for the
classified employees of Cannelton Industries,
Inc., has received correspondence addressed to
him on letterhead from Princess Beverly Coal
Company in an envelope with the logo of AEI
Holdings Co., Inc. as the return address. The let-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1002
ter indicates payment of contributions to the
401K Plan under the UMWA collective bargain-
ing agreement. It is not clear whether the pay-
ments reflect payments on behalf of employees
at Cannelton Industries or Princess Beverly Coal
Company, but it does reflect that for purposes of
benefits and payroll that the AEI-affiliated com-
panies appear to have some form of integrated,
centralized accounting and payments source at
AEI Holdings, Inc.

• During previous settlement discussions between
you and myself regarding Cannelton Industries
Inc. v. Dist. 17, UMWA and Local Union 8843,
UMWA, 2:98-0894 (S.D.W.Va.), Cannelton In-
dustries offered a written settlement agreement
in which it sought the UMWA to forego en-
forcement of any rights it may have against “any
and all affliated corporations and/or entities” re-
garding the mining of coal in an area described
by property description “North of Jennie Creek
in Mingo County, West Virginia.” That settle-
ment agreement was offered to the Union in
March of 1999. Attached please find information
taken from the Website of the West Virginia Di-
vision of Environmental Protection which pro-
vides the permit details from CC Coal’s “Jennie
Creek Haulroad.” This permit appears to be on
or in close proximity to the property described in
Cannelton Industries, Inc.’s settlement offer.
Marrowbone Development Co., another AEI-
owned signatory company, has permits and op-
erations on and/or around this property as well.
Cannelton Industries never had any proprietary
interest in that property. At the same time that
this settlement offer was provided to the Union,
your firm also presented the Union with a draft
copy of a civil RICO lawsuit to be filed against
present and former officers and representatives
of District 17 and Local Union 8843 by West
Virginia-Indiana Coal Holding Company, Inc[.],
Cannelton, Inc., Cannelton Industries, Inc., and
Dunn Coal and Dock Company if the Union did
not accept the terms of the settlement offer. This
settlement offer, made by Cannelton Industries,
Inc., regarding property owned and/or controlled
by Marrowbone Development and/or CC Coal
Company, indicates an integration of the busi-
nesses of all of these companies as well as an
apparent desire to avoid any Union claims to the
work at issue.

The Union has served information requests on Cannelton In-
dustries, Dunn Coal and Dock Co., Princess Beverly Coal
Company, and Kanawha Corp. These information requests
were served because the above information gives it a good
faith, objective basis for believing that CC Coal may consti-
tute a single, joint, employer, and/or alter ego company with
one or more UMWA signatory operations of AEI Resources,
Inc. and/or its affiliated companies. [Reference to attachments
omitted.]

Parker’s reply was not enough to convince Cowen, who
again denied that Parker was seeking relevant information be-
cause Respondents were unaware of any interrelation whatso-
ever between their operations and that of CC Coal. Parker’s
August 23 letter “did not clarify Respondents’ confusion” nor
have “relevance to the[ir] alleged operational integration.”
Cowen disputed the legal sufficiency of Parker’s allegations.
For example, Cowen wrote on September 29:

[Y]our August 23, 2000 letter contains nine (9) unnumbered
items. Items 1, 2, 3 and 5 merely suggest that Cannelton and
CC Coal Company have the same ultimate parent company -
AEI Resources, Inc. As you know, the mere fact that two
companies may be part of the same corporate structure, alone,
never constitutes single employer status and is not sufficient
to establish an “objective factual basis” for believing that
Cannelton and CC Coal Company are a single employer, joint
employer and/or alter egos.

Items 4, 6, 7 and 8 appear to be irrelevant to whether there is
operational integration sufficient to support a single employer,
joint employer and/or alter ego relationship between the op-
erations of CC Coal Company and Cannelton. For example,
item 4 discusses corporate officers, but notably absent is any
suggestion that Cannelton and CC Coal Company share any
corporate officers or directors. Therefore, the relevance of this
item is confusing. Only item 7 appears to have any possible
relevance to the operations of Cannelton, but, even if the
events you describe are accurate, as you know, the processing
of coal is not evidence of a single employer relationship. See
Boich Mining Co. v. NLRB, 955 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1992).

Finally, with regard to item 9, notwithstanding Cannelton’s
surprise that the UMWA would ignore the confidentiality of
settlement discussions and violate the parties’ understanding
that these settlement discussions were “off the record,” Can-
nelton fails to comprehend how the UMWA’s pattern of ille-
gal activity and conjecture regarding settlement negotiations
is evidence of operational integration between Cannelton and
CC Coal sufficient to support a single employer, joint em-
ployer and/or alter ego relationship.

Cowen ended by renewing his request that the Union

provide a “factual basis” to support its claim that there existed
sufficient operational integration between Cannelton and CC
Coal Company to support an “objective factual basis” for be-
lieving that a single employer, joint employer and/or alter ego
relationship existed. Absent an “objective factual basis” for
such claims, it does not appear that the requested information
is relevant to the UMWA’s role in representing Cannelton’s
classified employees.

Finally, 4 days before the hearing in this proceeding, on No-
vember 30, 2001, Deborah Feliks, staff attorney of the Union,
wrote to Cowen to clarify the relevance of the information re-
quests the Union served on Respondents:

CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1003
If alter ego status is imposed upon two business entities, the
labor obligations of the original employer will be carried over
to the subsequent entity. Therefore, if the Union establishes
such a relationship between CC Coal and any signatory Can-
nelton company, then the collective bargaining agreement
would also apply to CC Coal. Similarly, if a single employer
relationship exists, then the contract would apply if the Union
can establish that CC Coal employees share enough of a
community of interest with the signatory employees to consti-
tute an appropriate bargaining unit.

If the UMWA can establish such an alter ego or single em-
ployer relationship, then any number of important contract
provisions could apply to CC Coal’s presently nonsignatory
employees. For instance, the employees of Armstrong Creek
were covered by the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agree-
ment (“NBCWA”). Section A of Article II of the NBCWA
covers Job opportunities “at any existing, now or newly ac-
quired non-signatory bituminous coal operation of [the Com-
pany].” Therefore, if a. single employer relationship exists,
laid off signatory Cannelton employees could have job rights
at CC Coal and any other Cannelton operations functioning as
an alter ego or sharing a single employer relationship. Simi-
larly, the Union needs the requested information to determine
whether there exists potential for the negotiation of a jobs
provision similar or identical to the NBCWA’s Memorandum
of Understanding Regarding Job Opportunities.

Article XVII of the NBCWA, entitled “Recall of Persons on
Layoff Status,” sets out a definition of seniority, and describes
layoff procedures, recall rights, the procedure for recall of
employees on layoff, and the rights of employees to transfer
to an employer’s other mines. Section (h) specifies that
“[s]ignatory companies and coal producing divisions thereof,
and wholly owned and controlled coal producing subsidiaries
and wholly owned arid controlled coal producing affiliates,
shall be treated as one and the same Employer for panel rights
purposes.” Since a wholly owned subsidiary is a company to
which the Union has panel rights, then the Union has the right
to determine whether CC Coal or any other Cannelton com-
panies are wholly owned coal-producing affiliates of a signa-
tory company. If the information requested bears this out,
former Armstrong Creek employees could be in a position to
take advantage of some of the provisions of Article XVII. For
example, if Cannelton is found to be a single employer or to
have an alter ego relationship with a parent company, and CC
Coal is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary or affiliate
of that company, then the contract could allow former Arm-
strong Creek employees to obtain immediate reemployment at
the Company’s operations, or at least to be on the panel for
CC Coal.

Because every scenario presented in this letter directly im-
pacts the UMWA’s ability to negotiate, administer, and en-
force the collective bargaining agreement, there can be no
doubt that the information the UMWA has requested satisfies
the applicable legal definition of “relevance.” Therefore, the
UMWA once again implores Cannelton Industries, Princess
Beverly, Dunn Coal & Dock, and the Kanawha Corporation
to respond to the above-referenced information requests.

Cowen did not respond to this letter.
The Board wrote in Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB
258, 259 (1994):

[I]t is well settled that an employer, on request, must provide a
union with information that is relevant to its carrying out its
statutory duties and responsibilities in representing employ-
ees. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). This
duty to provide information includes information relevant to
contract administration and negotiations. Barnard Engineer-
ing Co., 282 NLRB 617, 619 (1987); and Leland Stanford
Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 139 (1982), enfd. 715
F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . [W]here, as here, the informa-
tion sought concerns matters outside the bargaining unit, such
as those related to single employer or alter ego status, a union
bears the burden of establishing the relevance of the requested
information. Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993); and
Duquesne Light Co., 306 NLRB 1042 (1992). A union has
satisfied its burden when it demonstrates a reasonable belief
supported by objective evidence for requesting the informa-
tion. Knappton Maritime Corp., 292 NLRB 236, 238-239
(1988). See also Postal Service, 310 NLRB 391 (1993). The
Board uses a broad, discovery-type standard in determining
relevance in information requests, including those for which a
special demonstration of relevance is needed, and potential or
probable relevance is sufficient to give rise to an employer’s
obligation to provide information. Reiss Viking, supra; Chil-
dren’s Hospital of San Francisco, 312 NLRB 920, 930
(1993); and Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916, 918 (1984), enfd.
763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985). In this regard, the Board does
not pass on the merits of a union’s claim of breach of a col-
lectivebargaining agreement in determining whether infor-
mation relating to the processing of a grievance is relevant.
Reiss Viking, supra; and Island Creek Coal Co., 292 NLRB
480, 487 (1989), enfd. mem. 899 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir. 1990).

See also Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1367 (2000).
The Union represented the employees of each of Respon-
dents. If it could prove that CC Coal were merely a single em-
ployer with or an alter ego of Respondents, then it would repre-
sent the employees of CC Coal, too. Separate firms may be
regarded as a single employer under the Act where there is
interrelation of operations, together with centralized control of
labor relations, common management, and common ownership
or financial control. Radio Technicians Local 1264 v. Broad-
cast Service of Mobile, 380 U.S. 255 (1965); NLRB v. M. P.
Building Corp., 411 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1969). An alter ego
relationship is much the same. The line seems to be drawn be-
tween the two concepts when it is found that one entity is the
“disguised continuance” of the other. Then, one is the alter ego
of the other. Radio Technicians Local 1264 v. Broadcast Ser-
vice of Mobile, 380 U.S. at 256; Southport Petroleum Co. v.
NLRB, 315 U.S. 100, 106 (1942). To determine the existence of
an alter ego relationship, the Board focuses on whether the
entities share “substantially identical management, business
purpose, operation, equipment, customers, and supervision, as
well as ownership.” Crawford Door Sales Co., 226 NLRB 1144
(1976).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1004
The Board does not require the presence of each factor to
conclude that alter ego status is warranted. Dow Chemical Co.,
326 NLRB 288 (1998); Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB
1301 (1982), enfd. 725 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984). For exam-
ple, actual common ownership is not an essential element of an
alter ego relationship. All Kind Quilting, 266 NLRB 1186 fn. 4
(1983). Nor is nominal, as distinguished from real common
management and supervision. American Pacific Concrete Pipe
Co., 262 NLRB 1223, 1226 (1982), enfd. mem. 709 F.2d 1514
(9th Cir. 1983). Rather, single employer status depends on all
the circumstances4 and is characterized by the absence of the
arms’-length relationship found between unintegrated entities.
Operating Engineers Local 627 v. NLRB, 518 F.2d 1040, 1046
(D.C. Cir. 1975), affd. in pertinent part sub nom. South Prairie
Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 627, 425 U.S.
800 (1976). Dow Chemical Co., 326 NLRB 288 (1998); Denart
Coal Co., 315 NLRB 850, 851 (1994), enfd. sub nom. Vance v.
NLRB, 71 F.3d 486 (4th Cir. 1995); Hydrolines, Inc., 305
NLRB 416, 417 (1991). Each case must turn on its own facts.
Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001, 1002 (1984).
All the Union’s demands were aimed at showing the interre-
lationship of Respondents with the operation of CC Coal. As
such, they were directed to show the very sharing of functions
necessary to prove a single employer or alter ego relationship,
the result of which would be that CC Coal would be bound
under the Union’s subsisting collective-bargaining agreements.
The relevance was patent, especially to an experienced counsel
such as Cowen. Leonard B. Herbert, Jr., & Co., 259 NLRB 881
(1981), enfd. 696 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464
U.S. 817 (1983).5 Parker clearly stated the relevance of the
requests; and, even if he had not, a reading of his letters, to-
gether with the material that he sought, had to make the rele-
vance clear to Cowen, no matter what he might have written.
Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987, 995 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d
1381 (6th Cir. 1976); Beth Abraham Health Services, 332
NLRB 1234 (2000). Feliks’ letter, quoted at length above, only
made clearer what should have been obvious.
The Union also established that the requested information
was relevant to the Union’s grievance processing. There had
been a grievance filed on January 17, 2000, claiming that the
employees who had been laid off by Dunn should be placed on
the panel of persons to be hired at “all of the Co. operations,”
referring to all of the AEI or West Virginia Indiana interests.
That claim was made under the provision in the NBCWA that,
at the very least, the first three out of every five new job open-
ings, which included CC Coal, if the Union proved it to be an
alter ego, should be filled by classified laid-off employees of

4 Because a consideration of all the circumstances is critical, Boich
Mining Co. v. NLRB, 955 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1992), which found that
there were no other indications that two companies were interrelated,
declined to find that their blending of a relatively small amount of coal
could transform them into a single employer. Although the Union’s
questions seek information about blending, that refers to only one pos-
sible indicia of their relationship.
5 Respondents’ reliance on Island Creek Coal Co., 292 NLRB 480
(1989), enfd. mem. 899 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir. 1990), is misplaced. There,
the union never made it clear, other than by an empty generalization,
the reason that it was seeking information.
Dunn. The fact that Parker made no reference to the specific
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements does not
diminish the strength of the General Counsel’s case. Feliks’
letter made clear exactly what should have been well under-
stood by Respondents.
In addition, assuming arguendo that Feliks’ letter was un-
timely, as Respondents contend, Cowen was certainly aware of
the Union’s contentions in early 2001, because the counsel for
the General Counsel asked in March for his position regarding
the specific provisions that Feliks and the General Counsel
relied on in prosecuting the complaint in this proceeding.
Cowen argued that the provisions were “not applicable in the
circumstances of this case.” I do not hold that he was incorrect.
He may succeed before an arbitrator or another body, if the
Union seeks to pursue its claim that the laid-off employees of
Dunn, as well as the other Respondents, are entitled to jobs
from CC Coal. But the General Counsel need not establish an
actual violation to show relevance.6 This is not a proceeding to
determine that issue. Southeastern Brush Co., 306 NLRB 884
fn. 1 (1992). It is a proceeding to determine the Union’s right to
information to aid it in determining whether it has enough facts
to support its claim. Oklahoma Fixture Co., 333 NLRB 804,
807 (2001); Associated General Contractors of California, 242
NLRB 891, 893–894 (1979), enfd. 633 NLRB 766, 771 fn. 6.
(9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 452 U.S. 915 (1981). In that in-
stance, the information sought is clearly relevant.
In any event, I find that Feliks’ letter was not untimely. The
facts show that the Union repeatedly demanded the same in-
formation for essentially the same reason, to prove, inter alia,
that CC Coal was an alter ego and to support the claims of Re-
spondents’ laid-off employees to other jobs. General Electric
Co. v. NLRB, 916 F.2d 1163 (7th Cir. 1990), relied on by Re-
spondents, is distinguishable. There, the union asked for cost
information on certain maintenance subcontracts 16 months
prior to the expiration of its collective-bargaining agreement
and 13 months before it could serve notice that it wished to
terminate or modify the agreement. The Union never explained
the reason that it wanted the information, and the court held
that its first-time explanation at the hearing before the adminis-
trative law judge 9 months after its demand was too late.
Bamard Engineering Co., 282 NLRB 617 (1987), distinguished
by the court in General Electric, 916 F.2d at 1169, held that
there was a continuing request, as the facts demonstrate here, is
still good Board law.
Accordingly, I find that the Union’s demands are relevant to
its collective-bargaining functions, and I turn to the second
issue concerning whether the Union had “a reasonable belief
supported by objective evidence for requesting the informa-
tion.” The Union must offer more than mere suspicion, Shera-
ton Hartford Hotel, 289 NLRB 463, 464 (1988); and the suffi-
ciency of “a slight suspicion” is subject to question. Corson &
6 I find that Parker’s testimony, relied on by Respondents, does not
support a finding that, under no circumstances, an arbitrator could not
grant rights to Respondents’ laid-off employees to jobs at CC Coal,
especially if CC Coal were found to be an alter ego of Respondents.
Rather, Parker’s testimony seems to indicate that the Union has not
been successful in sustaining its claims under art. II of the NBCWA. He
did not concede that the grievance had no merit.
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1005
Gruman Co., 278 NLRB 329 (1986), enfd. mem. 811 F.2d
1504 (4th Cir. 1987). On the other hand, the Union is not re-
quired to show that the information which triggered its request
was accurate or ultimately reliable, and its information request
may be based on hearsay. Magnet Coal, 307 NLRB 444 fn. 3
(1992), enfd. mem 8 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Even rumors
may be pursued, providing that there is at least some demon-
stration that the request for information is more than pure fan-
tasy. Sheraton Hartford Hotel, supra.
CC Coal Company is wholly owned by Coal Ventures Hold-
ing Company, Inc., which was wholly owned by AEI Re-
sources Holding, Inc., which was wholly owned by AEI, which,
in turn, was the owner of West Virginia Indiana Coal, which,
by itself or other holding companies, is the owner of Respon-
dents. The SEC filings stated that all of these companies had
the same address in Ashland, Kentucky. The officers of CC
Coal occupy identical offices in its immediate parent and in
AEI. The only common officer in CC Coal and Respondents is
William H. Haselhoff, who was a director of Cannelton and
Dunn beginning March 28, 2000, and secretary-treasurer of
each from October 5, 1998. He was also a vice president of CC
Goal from June 29, 1998, to October 23, 1998. The offices of
CC Coal and Respondents are presently located in the same
building in Cheylan, West Virginia. At least one person affili-
ated with Respondents knows what is happening at CC Coal.
Terry Whitt, vice president of labor and employee relations
with West Virginia Indiana, knew enough to deny that he was
the same person who works for CC Coal, but knew that there
was a “Whitt” or “Witt” employed there. Mike Fugate was in
charge of running the mine at Dunn, yet he too knew enough
about CC Coal to tell the Dunn employees that CC Coal was
about to open.
Wayne Bennett was employed by Dunn but was issued pay-
checks by Coal Ventures, Inc., not otherwise identified, but
whose name is strikingly similar to the name of the holding
company that owns CC Coal. Bennett was hired to work at CC
Coal; but when he was sent to take his physical examination, he
was identified as a prospective employee of West Virginia
Indiana, the owner of Respondents, and was issued a health
benefit plan card by West Virginia Indiana. At CC Coal, he was
issued clothing with the name “Addington” on it. Dunn em-
ployee Philip Camden was also issued paychecks from West
Virginia Indiana and Coal Ventures, Inc., and he was listed as
an employee of West Virginia Indiana on a bill for an X-ray he
took. He complained that he had lost money from one of his
paychecks that was supposed to be deducted for the purchase of
savings bonds and was referred by Dunn to the office of AEI in
Ashland, Kentucky, where the telephone was once answered
“Addington.” On another occasion, he had a problem with a
wage payment and tried to telephone Dunn, but was told that
there was no working number. He knew that the office had
moved to Cheylan and asked the information operator whether
there was a number there for a coal company. He was told that
there was, CC Coal, and called there and asked to speak to the
payroll person from Dunn. The employee, presumably from CC
Coal, transferred him to the Dunn employee. There were re-
ports of employee interchange, shared equipment, and sharing
of common contractors by Respondents to CC Coal. CC Coal’s
coal was being blended with coal mined by others of Respon-
dents.
I find that these facts present a reasonable objective basis to
believe that CC Coal may be a single employer with or alter
ego of Respondents. The fact that the Union may not have suf-
ficient proof at this time to sustain its belief and support such a
finding is unimportant. If it had absolute proof, there would
have been little reason for it to have made its request for infor-
mation in the first place.7 Furthermore, the General Counsel
was entitled to prove at the hearing the Union’s objective basis
for making its information request. Contrary to Respondents’
contention, Board law requires only that the Union give them a
showing of relevance when making its demand. There is no
Board authority—and I am bound by Board decisions, until the
United States Supreme Court rules to the contrary—which
holds that a union is required to show its objective basis, as
opposed to relevance, at the time that it makes its demand. As
Respondents’ brief concedes, Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth has twice held that objective facts not be stated
that early. Baldwin Shop `N Save, 314 NLRB 114 (1994), and
Corson & Gruman Co., 278 NLRB 329, 333–334 fn. 3 (1986).
Beside his cogent discussion of the law, with which I agree,8
his conclusion makes eminent good sense in an alter ego case.
If anyone should know the facts that underlie the Union’s re-
quest, Respondents presumably know. After all, an alter ego
case is based on there being a disguised continuance. An em-
ployer does not want the existence of an alter ego known, be-
cause frequently the purpose of its establishment is to divert
work and undercut the terms of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. To force a union to reveal its objective facts at the outset
merely permits an employer to change and correct its unsuc-
cessful methods of disguise. On the other hand, by requiring
that a union support its request with objective facts at the hear-
ing, the Board ensures that a union is not engaged in a mere
fishing expedition.
Here, the Union provided Cowen with many objective facts
long before the hearing. The factual bits and pieces that I have
found it now possesses, combined with the material that it has
asked for, may as a whole constitute sufficient proof of an alter
ego relationship. The Union is entitled to obtain that informa-
tion. Respondents’ objection to the Union’s demand for infor-
mation rests solely on its claim that the Union proved neither
the relevance of an alter ego relationship nor an objective basis
for making its demands. I reject their defense. But even had
they objected to the relevance of individual demands for infor-
mation, I credit Parker’s testimony and note that the Board has
required employers to produce information similar and even
identical to the information that the Union requested, in the
specific context of the NBCWA. Magnet Coal, supra; Consoli-
dation Coal Co., 307 NLRB 69 (1992), enfd. mem. 979 F.2d
847 (4th Cir. 1992); Arch of West Virginia, 304 NLRB 1089
(1991); Westmoreland Coal Co., 304 NLRB 528 (1991); Ma-
ben Energy Corp., 295 NLRB 149 (1989).

7 For this reason, Respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint on
this basis, denied at the hearing, is denied once again.
8 For this reason, Respondents’ motion to limit the proof at the hear-
ing is denied.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1006
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to produce the requested
information.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, I will order Re-
spondents to answer fully the Union’s requests for information.
To the extent that they answered some requests based on their
understanding that the relationship between CC Coal and them
was irrelevant, or directing the Union to another company to
provide the information, or denying the relevance of the Un-
ion’s request, Respondents shall answer those requests again,
based on the findings in this decision that the relationships are
relevant, as are the questions.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
Definitions and Instructions
1. This request is being simultaneously directed to Cannelton
Industries, Inc. (Cannelton) and Princess Beverly, Inc. (Princess
Beverly). The named companies may respond collectively or
separately, but should so indicate in their response(s).

2. “You” refers to Cannelton, Princess Beverly and all agents or
representatives responding on behalf of either company to this
information request.

3. Please provide all requested information. If you do not have
knowledge sufficient to answer a question, you are requested to
take diligent measures to obtain knowledge sufficient to answer
that question from your representatives, attorneys, accountants,
or other agents. You are also requested to take diligent meas-
ures to obtain knowledge sufficient to answer any such question
from any company which has a proprietary interest in you,
either directly (your immediate parent company) or indirectly
(your ultimate parent company as well as any intermediate
companies, for example). You are also requested to obtain such
information necessary to provide full and complete answers to
these requests from any company in which you or any parent
company has a direct or indirect proprietary interest (for exam-
ple a “sister” company with a common parent at some point in
your shared corporate tree). By “indirect” the Union means any
corporate or proprietary relationship regardless of the number
of intermediary entities or the particulars of the whole or partial
propriety interest. The purpose of these instructions and defini-
tions is to prevent you from claiming a lack of knowledge in
response to a request for information when the requested in-
formation can be obtained from a related company.

4. Please provide all requested documents. If you do not have
documents responsive to a request, you are requested to take
diligent measures to obtain and provide responsive documents
from your representatives, attorneys, accountants, or other
agents. You are also requested to take diligent measures to
obtain responsive documents from any company which has a
proprietary interest in you, either directly (your immediate par-
ent company) or indirectly (your ultimate parent company as
well as any intermediate companies, for example). You are also
requested to obtain such documents from any company in
which you or any parent company has a direct or indirect pro-
prietary interest (for example a “sister” company with a com-
mon parent at some point in your shared corporate tree). By
“indirect” the Union means any proprietary relationship regard-
less of the number of intermediary entities or the particulars of
the whole proprietary interest. The purpose of these instructions
and definitions is to prevent you from claiming a [sic] that you
do not have documents responsive to a request when you can
obtain those documents from a related company.

5. “Concerning” or “concerns” means reflecting, related to,
involving, describing, evidencing, or constituting.

6. “Document” means the original and copies of any written,
printed, typewritten, or otherwise recorded material known to
the person or company served with this request, or his attorney,
including but not limited to letters, memoranda, bulletins, tele-
grams, notes, notebooks, transcripts, diaries, charts, diagrams,
graphs, photographs, minutes and other records of meetings,
tapes, maintenance of data in electronic data processing sys-
tems, and any other recordings or other data compilations con-
taining the requested information; briefs, affidavits, position
statements, and other legal documents; correspondence and
other written communication; books, pamphlets, manuals, bro-
chures and guides; contracts, reports, invoices and receipts; and
all other documentary material, including any nonidentical
copy (whether different from the original because of alterna-
tions, [sic] notes, comments, or other material contained
thereon or attached thereto, or otherwise) and drafts as well as
final versions.

7. “Identify” or “identification” means
(a) with respect to a document, to specify the author and recipi-
ent of the document, the date of the original document, the
nature of the document by title (or, if no name or title applies,
by other description), and the location and custodian of the
document (if the document sought has been destroyed or no
longer exists, state all facts known about the document, specify
the date it was destroyed or ceased to exist, and describe all the
circumstances relating to its destruction or ceasing to exist);
(b) with respect to an individual, to state the person’s name,
home and business addresses and telephone numbers, name of
employer, and relationship to any UMWA signatory or related
company.
(c) with respect to an entity, to state its name, business address
and telephone number, and relationship to any UMWA signa-
tory or related company.

8. “Person” means any natural individual, governmental entity
or agency, business entity (including but not limited to a corpo-
ration, firm, partnership, joint venture, association or sole pro-
prietorship), organization, association, federation, trust; estate,
group or other entity of any type.

9. “UMWA signatory” refers to Cannelton and Princess Bev-
erly, as well as any subsidiary, division, or operation controlled
by either company.

CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1007
10. Whenever used herein, the singular shall be deemed to in-
clude the plural and vice versa; the present tense shall be
deemed to include the past tense and vice versa; the masculine
shall be deemed to include the feminine and vice versa; the
disjunctive “or” shall be deemed to include the conjunctive
“and” and vice versa; and each of the words “each,” “every,”
“any,” and “all” shall be deemed to include each of the other
words.

11. As to any document withheld from production on any
ground, including privilege, or any document which has been
destroyed, please: (a) identify the document; and (b) state with
particularity the facts and grounds on which you base your
refusal to produce a and (c) if the document sought has been
destroyed or no longer exists, state all facts known about the
document, specify the date it was destroyed or ceased to exist,
and describe all the circumstances relating to its destruction or
ceasing to exist.

12. To the extent that any document request requires you to
duplicate the production required by a previous request, you
may so state and reference the previously provided documents
without providing duplicate copies of the same documents.
13. Any requested document or information should be produced
at the UMWA Headquarters, 8315 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA
22031.

14. Unless otherwise stated, the relevant time period for this
request is from June 1, 1999 to the present.
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RESPONSES
1. With respect to CC Coal, state
a. Full name of company;
b. Date of incorporation or formation;
c. Address of principal office;
d. Reason for formation;
e. Source of initial capitalization;
f. Business activity performed;
g. Each geographical area where business is performed
or transacted;
h. Officers and directors at time of formation and at
present;
i. Any other names by which the company is known.

2. Please provide all documents which contain any organiza-
tional charts, bulletins, or explanations of “corporate trees”
which concern the corporate relationship between CC Coal, the
UMWA signatory companies, and any and all commonly re-
lated companies. This request includes but not limited to arti-
cles of corporation with all amendments and attachments, mine
permits, and legal identity reports filed with any federal or state
agency. If a organization chart, bulletin, or other document
does not exist that clearly outlines the “corporate tree,” in the
alternative please draft such an organizational outline.

3. Please provide all deeds, leases, licenses, contracts, permits,
reports, bonds, or other similar instruments which identify
lands or coal reserves in West Virginia in which CC Coal has a
proprietary interest.

4. Please provide all deeds, leases, licenses, contracts, permits,
reports, bonds, or other similar instruments which identify or
relate to land or coal reserves in West Virginia on which CC
Coal operates or intends to operate.

5. Produce all contracts, agreements, memoranda of under-
standing, or similar instruments which concern

a. The development of coal resources by, for, or on behalf of
CC Coal;
b. The marketing of coal by, for, or on behalf of CC Coal;
c. The acquisition or use of coal lands, coal mining, processing
or transportation facilities, or equipment for, by, or on behalf of
CC Coal.

6. Produce all documents which describe or dictate the terms
and conditions of employment for employees of CC Coal, in-
cluding but not limited to personnel manuals, policy memo-
randa, benefit and pension plans and their plan descriptions,
and copies of forms such as job applications, employee evalua-
tions, incident or discipline report forms, grievance forms, etc.

7. Provide all documents concerning the discipline of employ-
ees of CC Coal.

8. Provide all documents concerning the hiring procedures of
employees at CC Coal.

9. For CC Coal, identify (or in the alternative provide docu-
ments which reflect) the person or persons responsible for per-
forming duties and making management decisions in connec-
tion with
a. Coal sales;
b. Accounting and payroll;
c. Hourly and/or salaried employee benefit plans, including, but
not limited to, pension plans, health plans, disability plans,
sickness and accident plans, insurance plans, and profit sharing
or financial bonus plans in which officers, managers, supervi-
sors, or employees may or do participate.
d. Grievance handling;
e. Collective bargaining;
f. Labor relations;
g. Human resources or personnel;
h. Preparation of federal and state income tax returns;
i. Engineering;
j. Coal production;
k. Purchasing, leasing, contracting or any other manner of con-
veying or transferring mining supplies and equipment;
I. Liability insurance;
m. Laboratory services;
n. Legal representation or legal counsel;
o. Auditing;
p. Credit;
q. Purchasing of equipment;
r. Estimating;
s. Land or mineral right acquisition, sale, transfer or other con-
veyance;
t. Transportation services;
u. Obtaining bonds, permits, and other licenses;
v. Contracting for services and administration of commercial
contracts;
w. Maintenance;
x. Secretarial duties.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1008
10. For Cannelton, identify (or in the alternative provide docu-
ments which reflect) the person or persons responsible for per-
forming duties and making management decisions in connec-
tion with
a. Coal sales;
b. Accounting and payroll;
c. Hourly and/or salaried employee benefit plans, plans, health
plans, disability plans, sickness and profit sharing or financial
bonus
employees may or do participate.
d. Grievance handling;
e. Collective bargaining;
f. Labor relations;
g. Human resources or personnel;
h. Preparation of federal and state
i. Engineering;
j. Coal production;
k. Purchasing, leasing, contracting mining supplies and equip-
ment;
l. Liability insurance;
m. Laboratory services;
n. Legal representation or legal counsel;
o. Auditing
p. Credit;
q. Purchasing of equipment;
r. Estimating;
s. Land or mineral right acquisition, sale, transfer or other con-
veyance;
t. Transportation services;
u. Obtaining bonds, permits, and other licenses;
v. Contracting for services and administration of commercial
contracts;
w. Maintenance;
x. Secretarial duties.

11. For Princess Beverly, identify (or in the alternative provide
documents which reflect) the person or persons responsible for
performing duties and making management decisions in con-
nection with
a. Coal sales;
b. Accounting and payroll;
c. Hourly and/or salaried employee benefit plans, including, but
not limited to, pension plans, health plans, disability plans,
sickness and accident plans, insurance plans, and profit sharing
or financial bonus plans in which officers, managers, supervi-
sors, or employees may or do participate.
d. Grievance handling;
e. Collective bargaining;
f. Labor relations;
g. Human resources or personnel;
h. Preparation of federal and state income tax returns;
i. Engineering;
j. Coal production;
k. Purchasing, leasing, contracting or any other manner of con-
veying or transferring mining supplies and equipment;
l. Liability insurance;
m. Laboratory services;
n. Legal representation or legal counsel;
o. Auditing;
p. Credit;
q. Purchasing of equipment;
r. Estimating;
s. Land or mineral right acquisition, sale, transfer or other con-
veyance;
t. Transportation services;
u. Obtaining bonds, permits, and other licenses;
v. Contracting for services and administration of commercial
contracts;
w. Maintenance;
x. Secretarial duties.

12. Please provide a copy of a W-2 form, a paycheck, and a pay
stub for each individual identified in response to 9, 10, and 11,
above, issued during the relevant time period. If the issuer of
the W-2 form, paycheck, or pay stub has changed in the rele-
vant time period, please provide a set of documents issued by
each of those entities. You may redact social security numbers
and entries on the forms related to wages and benefits.

13. Identify the officers and/or directors of CC Coal, Cannel-
ton, and Princess Beverly. Identify any positions each individ-
ual holds with any related companies.

14. Please provide a list of all equipment used by CC Coal in its
mining operation, including the serial number, name of
manufacturer, model description, class description, model year,
and AEI equipment number.

15. Describe and identify the assets, if any, of CC Coal and/or
any other AEI subsidiary or affiliate acquired from Cannelton
Industries and/or Princess Beverly.

16. Produce all documents reflecting the transfer of any pro-
prietary interest in real property, between CC Coal, Cannelton,
and/or Princess Beverly.
17. Produce all documents reflecting the transfer of any pro-
prietary interest in real property between CC Coal and any
parent or related company.

18. Produce all documents concerning the sale, transfer, leas-
ing, lending, or transport of personal property, including but not
limited to equipment, supplies, and spare parts, between
UMWA signatories [and] CC Coal. This request encompasses
both direct transactions and transactions by, with, or through
intermediary entities or persons which resulted in the transfer of
possession, interest in, or control of personal property between
any UMWA signatory and CC Coal.

19. Regarding all contractual relationships for the sale, produc-
tion, delivery, or brokerage of coal which have been entered
into by, for or on behalf of CC Coal, Cannelton, and Princess
Beverly, provide a copy of each contract. Supplement that pro-
duction with any other documents necessary to reflect the full
and complete terms of each contractual relationship. You may
redact pricing data and data which reflect the chemical compo-
sition of coal, unless the contract is with a related company, in
which case the Union requests that you do not redact pricing
data.
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1009
a. For each document provided pursuant to this request, please
identify the source of all coal (by mine, owner and operating
entity) sold or transported pursuant to that agreement.

b. If coal from either CC Coal or a UMWA signatory is sold
or transferred to a related corporate entity or person prior to
being sold or transferred to an unrelated company or person,
provide all contracts, sales or brokerage agreements, or simi-
lar instruments which reflect the terms and conditions for the
sale, production, delivery, or brokerage of coal by and be-
tween all related companies. The Union requests that pricing
data be included (not redacted) on any documents requested
herein that concern transactions between related companies,
though data related to the chemical composition of coal may
be redacted.

20. Regarding docks, coal load out or transport facilities, coal
testing laboratories, or coal prepping or blending plants (collec-
tively “facilities”) used by either CC Coal, Cannelton and Prin-
cess Beverly
a. State the legal relationship between each facility mid each
of the following companies: CC Coal, Cannelton and Princess
Beverly.
b. Identify tire individuals responsible for engaging in busi-
ness transactions or managing matters on behalf of each facil-
ity. For each such individual, describe his or her particular
function, and identify the entity who makes social security,
federal and slate tax payments on his or her behalf.

21. Provide all documents concerning the transport, delivery, or
sale of coal which has been mined by CC Coal. You may redact
pricing data and data reflecting the coal’s chemical composi-
tion, unless the documents concern a transaction with a related
company, in which case the Union requests that you do not
redact pricing data.

22. Regarding the impact that the formation of CC Coal has on
Cannelton or Princess Beverly
a. Describe how the formation of CC Coal has affected, if at
all, the corporate structure of Cannelton and Princess Beverly.
b. Do Cannelton and Princess Beverly maintain the same offi-
cers, directors, and management personnel as they did prior to
the formation of CC Coal? If not, specify the changes which
have occurred with respect to these personnel and/or their po-
sitions.

23. What is the relationship between CC Coal and the UMWA
signatory companies? Do the companies share office equip-
ment, operations equipment, or other assets?
a. If equipment and supplies are shared, please identify
it/them.
b. If equipment or supplies not identified in a previous request
have been transferred from one company to another, please
identify the date of transfer and terms of any transfer of equip-
ment.
c. Provide all documents which reflect the transfers described
in “b,” above.
d. Identify all persons employed by CC Coal, Cannelton and
Princess Beverly, that perform work or provide services for
another related company. For each, state the companies
worked for, the functions and services performed for each
company, and the company who pays each person, pays so-
cial security, handles taxes and benefits.
e. 1f the terms and conditions for the provision of any services
identified in “d,” above, are memorialized or described in any
documents, please provide all such documents, including but
not limited to contracts, agreements, leases, memoranda, or
directives from parent companies,
f. Please identify and produce all contracts, agreements, or
similar instruments under which at least two of the following
receive services or equipment: CC Coal, Cannelton, Princes
Beverly.

24. For Cannelton describe how the formation of CC Coal af-
fects or may affect its operations, including coal production,
day-to-day management of its operations, and marketing and
blending of its coal.

25. For Princess Beverly describe how the formation of CC
Coal affects or may affect their operations, including coal pro-
duction, day-to-day management of its operations, and market-
ing and blending of its coal.

26. Provide all documents which concern the blending of coal
mined by CC Coal with coal mined by a UMWA signatory.
You may redact data related to chemical composition of coal.

27. Identify and briefly describe any lease, license, contract
service agreement, or subcontract arrangements which exist or
are contemplated between
a. CC Coal and any UMWA signatory company,
b. CC Coal and any other AEI subsidiary;
c. Any UMWA signatory and any other AEI subsidiary;
d. CC Coal and any third party, including but not limited to
security, engineering, office support, sanitation (both office
and mining), medical clinics, drug testing laboratories,
equipment maintenance, food and beverage services, supplies
(both office and mining), cleaning services, travel services,
computer services and communication services. Where no
agreement exists for one of these services, identify the per-
son(s) or entity that provides the service.
e. Any UMWA signatory comany [sic] and any third party,
including but not limited to security, engineering, office sup-
port, sanitation (both office and mining), medical clinics, drug
testing laboratories, equipment maintenance, food and bever-
age services, supplies (both office and mining), cleaning ser-
vices, travel services, computer services and communication
services. Where no agreement exists for one of these services,
identify the person(s) or entity that provides the service.
f. Identify the entity that issues the checks which regularly pay
for the services described in “d” and “e” above, if it is not CC
Coal. Provide a copy of one such check written to each person
or entity. You may redact the amount of payment.
g. Provide all documents which reflect the agreements and
contractual arrangements described in “a-e,” above. Financial
terms may he redacted unless the document reflects dealings
with a related entity.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1010
28. Identify the bank account(s) by bank account number,
holder, and name of account in which the revenues or proceeds
of CC Coal and each UMWA signatory company is presently
deposited, the person(s) who opened the account(s), and the
person(s) authorized to make deposits or withdraw funds from
each such account.

29. Identify the bank account(s) by bank account number,
holder, and name of account from which CC Coal and each
signatory company presently pay their expenses of operation,
including, but not limited to the payments of employees’ wages
and benefits. Identify the person(s) who opened the account(s)
and the persons authorized to make deposits and/or withdrawal
funds from each account.

30. Produce all documents which concern the relationship or
potential relationship between CC Coal and the UMWA, in-
cluding but not limited to documents concerning the potential
application of a UMWA collective-bargaining agreement or
part thereof at CC Coal operations, potential bargaining rights
of the UMWA at CC Coal operations, or the potential employ-
ment of UMWA members at CC Coal operations.

31. Produce all documents which concern the management of
CC Coal and that also concern employees or agents of a
UMWA signatory.

32. Produce all documents concerning the terms and conditions
of employment at CC Coal which also concern employees or
agents of a UMWA signatory.

33. State the reasons for all layoffs at operations of Cannelton
and/or Princess Beverly within the last year. Provide all docu-
ments which support the veracity of the provided reasons.

34. Please identify the person or persons who are responding to
this information request.

35. Identify by name, title, and employer(s) the persons con-
sulted in the course of responding to this informatitn request.

36. Produce all documents not otherwise requested which have
been referenced or used by any person to provide answers to
these requests.
APPENDIX B
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 any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the
United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the exclusive
bargaining agent of our employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain requested information, which was and is necessary and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its function as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated June 2, 2000.
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INC.
APPENDIX C
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 any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the
United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the exclusive
bargaining agent of our employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain requested information, which was and is necessary and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its function as the ex-
clusive-bargainin agent of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated June 2, 2000.
PRINCESS BEVERLY COAL COMPANY
CANNELTON INDUSTRIES 1011
APPENDIX D
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 any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the
United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the exclusive
bargaining agent of our employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain requested information, which was and is necessary and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its function as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated August 23, 2000.
KANAWHA CORPORATION
APPENDIX E
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 any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the
United Mine Workers of America (Union) as the exclusive
bargaining agent of our employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain requested information, which was and is necessary and
relevant to the Union’s performance of its function as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Union all the information requested
in the Union’s letter, dated July 28, 2000.
DUNN COAL AND DOCK COMPANY