Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2006

347 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
347 NLRB No. 47
524
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.1 and Painters and Allied
Trades District Council 35, a/w International
Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL–CIO,
CLC. Case 1–CA–42337
June 30, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On January 19, 2006, Administrative Law Judge
George Alemán issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the judge’s
decision.
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,2 findings,3 and conclusions
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Clear
Channel Outdoor, Inc., Stoneham, Massachusetts, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
“(a) Failing and refusing to furnish relevant and neces-
sary information requested by Painters and Allied Trades
District Council 35, a/w International Union Painters and
Allied Trades, AFL–CIO, CLC, on July 21, 2004, relat-

1 We have amended the caption to correct the name of the Respon-
dent consistent with the record and the judge’s recommended Order.
2 In affirming the information request violation, Chairman Battista
and Member Schaumber rely specifically on the judge’s finding that
both the grievance filed by the Union’s business agent, Fogell, on April
23 and the phone discussion between Fogell and the Respondent’s
operations manager, Shay, on April 22 would have put Shay on notice
that the Union needed the requested information to confirm its belief
that the contract had been violated. Member Schaumber also notes that
the Board’s Order should not be read to require the production of con-
fidential or proprietary information, or portions of documents that are
not relevant and necessary to the processing of the Union’s grievance.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
4 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to include the
date of the Union’s information request, as alleged in the complaint and
as found by the judge.
ing to the subcontracting work performed at the Al-
bany jobsite.”
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
“(a) Promptly furnish the information requested by
the Union on July 21, 2004.”
Don Firenze, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Glenn E. Plosa, Esq., for the Respondent.
Jonathan Conti, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE ALEMÁN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Boston, Massachusetts, on July 19, 2005, based
on a complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 1
of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on April
14, 2005, alleging that Clear Channel Outdoor (the Respon-
dent), had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing and refusing to pro-
vide Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35, a/w
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL–
CIO, CLC (the Union), which is the exclusive bargaining
representative of certain of its employees,1 with information
needed to perform its duties as said bargaining representa-
tive.2 The Respondent, by answer dated April 26, 2005, has
denied the allegation.
All parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity at the
hearing to call and examine witnesses, to present oral and
written evidence, to argue orally on the record, and to file
post-hearing briefs. On the entire record, including my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consid-
ering briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation with an office and place
of business in Stoneham, Massachusetts, where it is engaged
in the business of providing outdoor advertising.3 In the
course and conduct of its business operations, the Respon-
dent annually purchases and receives at its Stoneham facility
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Respondent
admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the

1 As set forth in a collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and the Union in effect from August 1, 2001–July 31,
2005, the unit of employees represented by the Union includes all of
the Respondent’s “Construction, Garage and Billposting employ-
ees.” (see GC Exh. 2). The Union, District Council 35, is an um-
brella organization comprising some 13 different locals, one of
which is Local 391. The Respondent’s bargaining unit employees
are part of Local 391.
2 The unfair labor practice charge which gave rise to the com-
plaint was filed by the Union on January 20, 2005.
3 The Respondent, also known as Clear Channel Outdoor, Boston
Division, is an admitted successor to A.K. Media.
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC. 525
Act. It further admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Factual Background
The Respondent, as noted, is in the business of leasing ad-
vertising space to advertisers on some 2200 billboards it owns
throughout the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Its opera-
tions include a real estate department which oversees the leas-
ing arrangements with landlords of the property on which its
billboard structures are located, and an operations department,
managed by Gary Shay, whose employees handle the installa-
tion of the advertising on the billboards. Said operations em-
ployees include construction journeymen and billposters. The
function of the billposter employees is to affix the advertising
display onto the billboards in a manner similar to the installa-
tion of wallpaper. The construction journeymen also install
displays but do so through the use of cranes to lift large sheets
of vinyl advertising to the display billboard and secure them by
strapping them down with ratchet straps.4
The operations department employees were represented by
the Union prior to Respondent’s acquisition of A.K. Media, and
continued to be so represented after the acquisition, as evident
by testimonial evidence presented at the hearing, and by a col-
lective-bargaining agreement entered into between the Union
and the Respondent on June 21, 2002, covering a period from
August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2005 (see GC Exh. 2). Under the
terms of that agreement, the Respondent agreed to recognize
the Union “as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of all of its Construction, Garage and Billposting employees.”5
It further agreed that as to said bargaining unit, “any new posi-
tions created as a result of technological changes and/or the
introduction of new posting, painting and/or construction meth-
ods shall be within the . . . bargaining unit” represented by the
Union. (See “Article 1-Recognition” on p. 5 of GC Exh. 2).
The parties’ agreement also contains a “work preservation”
clause that prohibits the subcontracting or assignment of work
covered by the agreement to nonbargaining unit personnel pro-
vision except under certain special circumstances. (See art. 26
of GC Exh. 2.) One such circumstance, listed in the second
paragraph of article 26, section 1(a) states that:
The COMPANY may continue to subcontract the excavation,
crane work and cement work involved in the construction of
one (1) and two (2) pole sign units, provided that a minimum
of two (2) regular bargaining unit employees are assigned to
work in composite with the subcontractor’s crews and pro-
vided further that the COMPANY continues to make every
effort to train its employees to perform the single and double
pole work so that the work can be taken over completely by
the EMPLOYER, without subcontractor involvement.

4 The billposting work done by billposters usually requires only one
employee to perform the work. Because the work done by construction
employees is more difficult, the construction employees work in teams,
often referred to as a “rotary crew” that might include anywhere from
3–5 employees depending on the complexity or difficulty of the job.
5 There were 35 unit employees as of the date of the hearing.
Shay testified that the work of digging the holes and pour-
ing the cement needed to install the posts required for the
construction of the billboards is always done by a subcon-
tractor. The job of installing the poles and erecting the bill-
board itself is essentially bargaining unit work (Tr. 112).
Further, consistent with the above provision, unit employees
are generally assigned to and paid for “stand[ing] around”
while the work to be done by subcontractors is being per-
formed. (Tr. 119).
On or around April 17, the Respondent began construction
of a new advertising structure or billboard on property owned
by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
on Albany St. in Boston (the Albany project). A company
named Quantum, which is a division of Clear Channel Out-
door, was assigned to do the work. (Tr. 80.) According to
Shay, the work of drilling the holes in the ground for installa-
tion of the billboard poles, and the pouring of cement, was
subcontracted out by Quantum to a firm in Tennessee known
as Gerald R. Page. (Tr. 99.) Shay admits that no unit em-
ployees were assigned to do “stand around” work at the Al-
bany project because he “couldn’t spare the guys at the
time.” He explained that he had “other jobs and client
needs” and that, if he had sent unit employees “to just stand
there,” his other jobs would suffer and result in delays.
Union Business Representative Charles Fogell testified to
receiving a call on April 22, from Union member Ronny
Jones informing him of the Albany project, and of not seeing
any of the Respondent’s unit employees at the jobsite. On
receipt of this information, Fogell asked Union Business
Agent Bill Doherty to visit the site. When Doherty reported
back that he had gone to the site and not recognized any of
the employees working on the project, Fogell called Shay to
find out what was going on. (Tr. 20.) Fogell testified that in
his phone conversation with Shay, the latter told him that
Quantum was doing the work. Fogell asked what Quantum
was doing there, that Respondent’s unit employees typically
performed such work, and that the Respondent was engaging
in the subcontracting out of unit work.
Shay, according to Fogell, denied that the work was being
subcontracted out, and told Fogell that the employees per-
forming the work were “Clear Channel” employees. Fogell
replied that regardless of whether or not the employees doing
the work at the Albany jobsite were “Clear Channel” em-
ployees, they nevertheless were not covered by the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, that such work was typically
done by bargaining unit employees, that the situation was not
a good one, and that the employees working at the site would
have to leave.6 Fogell threatened to file a grievance over the
matter, stating that he wanted his “guys” on the Albany job-
site, and that the Union had been damaged by Respondent’s
conduct. Shay purportedly told Fogell that he would have to
discuss the matter with Respondent’s president, Drew Hoff-

6 Fogell explained that his Union did not have a nationwide agree-
ment with Clear Channel and only represented employees at the
Clear Channel facility in Massachusetts, and the fact that the persons
on the job may have been employed by Clear Channel did not render
them unit employees or covered by the parties’ agreement.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD526
man, and would get back to him. He contends that Shay called
him later that day and informed him that the persons working
on the job were being pulled off and that unit employees were
being assigned to do the work. Unit employees were in fact put
on the job soon thereafter and continued working on the project
for another several days until completed.
Shay testified that construction on the Albany project began
on or around April 17, and recalls speaking by cell phone with
Fogell on April 22, regarding the work being done at that site.
Fogell, he contends, asked him during that conversation if there
were any unit employees working at the site, and Shay re-
sponded there were none. When Fogell asked why, Shay re-
plied that all the unit employees were “very busy,” that he had
them doing other work, and that the persons doing the work at
the Albany site were needed because he had deadlines to meet
and because the clients needed the sign up by a certain date.
Shay recalls Fogell stating that he wanted the nonunit employ-
ees removed from the Albany project right away because the
Respondent’s bargaining unit employees were the ones who
should be doing the work. He contends that Fogell threatened
to put up a picket line if unit employees were not assigned to
the project. (Tr. 82–84.) On hearing this, Shay agreed to pull
the nonunit workers off the job and to assign only unit employ-
ees to the site. Fogell in response agreed not to set up a picket
line at the jobsite.
On April 23, the day after his phone conversation with Shay,
Fogell filed a grievance over the subcontracting work at the
Albany project. Thus, by letter to Hoffman dated April 23,
Fogell advised that the Union wanted to proceed to Step 2 of
the grievance procedure. (GC Exh. 3.) In his letter, Fogell
states that the “alleged violation of the Agreement is that the
Company has subcontracted work that is normally performed
by bargaining unit employees, i.e., the installation of a new
billboard” at the Albany project “by a company called Quan-
tum.”
On July 21, the parties held a step 2 grievance meeting, at-
tended by Fogell and Doherty for the Union, and Shay and staff
accountant Koren Marsolais for the Respondent. At this meet-
ing, the parties exchanged accusations, with the Union accusing
the Respondent of violating the “work preservation” clause of
their agreement, and the Respondent accusing the Union of
violating the contract’s “no strike-no lockout” provision. When
Fogell asked why unit employees had not been assigned to the
Albany project, Shay, as he did during their earlier April 22,
phone conversation, reiterated that the unit employees were too
busy on other projects and that the Respondent “couldn’t afford
to put another crew” at the site (Tr. 90). Fogell recalls Shay
telling him that the Respondent had subcontracted out the work
at the Albany project “because of client requirements and safety
concerns.” Fogell claims that at this meeting, he sought certain
information regarding the Albany project work, such as who
were the employees doing the work and how long they had
been there, how they came to be hired, whether they were hired
by Clear Channel, or whether there were work orders or in-
voices containing such information, or payroll records available
for said employees.
Shay recalls attending this meeting and Fogell asking him
who was doing the work at the Albany project. Shay identified
Quantum as the subcontractor. He admits that, in response to
Fogell’s question as to why unit employees were not as-
signed to the project, he told Fogell that the unit employees
were too busy on other projects and that the Respondent
simply could not afford to put another crew on the site. He
contends he further explained to Fogell that this particular
billboard construction project was unique and that the Re-
spondent had not constructed any like it in the past. Shay
conceded, however, that unit employees have engaged in the
actual construction of billboards but that this particular work
was somehow different from prior projects.7 According to
Shay, while the subcontracted employees performed the job
of digging the holes and building the cement caissons, the
remaining work of constructing the billboard itself was done
by unit employees.8 It is unclear from his testimony, how-
ever, if Shay mentioned this fact to Fogell. Shay recalls that,
during this meeting, Fogell asked if the Respondent had pay-
roll records “and stuff like that” for the persons who had
worked at that project, because he was going to ask for their
production. Shay denied that Fogell gave him a reason for
wanting to see the payroll records and other related informa-
tion. Although Shay testified that he did not know whose
payroll records the Union was seeking, nothing in his testi-
mony suggests that he ever asked Fogell for clarification.
Called to corroborate Shay’s account of the July 21, meet-
ing, Marsolais testified she was asked by Hoffman to attend,
and take minutes of, the meeting. She recalls that the pur-

7 The billboard constructed at the Albany site was “vertical” in
style, that is, it was taller in size and narrower in width than other
billboards constructed by the Respondent in the past, which were
horizontally wider but vertically shorter than the Albany billboard.
It is unclear from the record whether the subcontracted employees
were being used only to dig the holes and build the cement caissons,
or whether they had been retained to do the entire project, including
erecting or putting up the actual “vertical” billboard. Shay, for ex-
ample, never claimed that the subcontractor’s work was limited to
the hole digging and cement caisson building operation. In fact, his
description of the “vertical” billboard at the Albany jobsite as
unique, and his assertion that unit employees had never before
erected a billboard like the one at the Albany project, leads me to
suspect that the Respondent’s intent, until objected to by Fogell, was
to have all the work at the Albany site, including the digging of
holes, construction of the cement caissons, and the actual erection of
the “vertical” billboard itself, performed by the subcontracted non-
unit employees.
8 Shay testified that following his April 22 conversation with
Fogell, he spoke with Jim Carlson, a Gerald R. Page supervisor on
the jobsite, to find out how much work had already been done at the
site. Carlson purportedly told him that “a pipe” had already been
installed and “cemented” into the ground. (Tr. 105.) It is unclear
just how many “pipes” had to be installed and cemented into the
ground before the construction of the billboard itself could proceed.
Nor, for that matter, is it clear if the pipe referenced by Carlson was
a pole of the kind generally installed by unit employees as part of
their bargaining unit work. Shay’s testimony, however, that the
subcontracted employees completed the installation of the pipes and
the caissons and that the unit employees built the billboard, suggests
that all the work that needed to be done before erection of the bill-
board itself could begin was more or less completed by the time
Fogell called him on April 22, to inquire about the project.
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC. 527
pose of the meeting was to discuss the subcontracting work at
the Albany project. Marsolais contends that at the meeting,
Fogell asked who was doing the work at the Albany project,
and that Shay responded that it was people working through
Quantum (Tr. 124). She recalls Shay then went on to describe
the work done by Quantum at the Albany project, stating that
while the Quantum employees drilled the holes and installed
the posts and cement footings or “caissons” for the billboard,
unit employees “put up the rest of the sign.” Asked if Fogell
ever requested anything at that meeting, Marsolais replied, “No,
he didn’t.” Her testimony in this regard, however, is somewhat
at odds with Shay’s own recollection of Fogell stating at the
meeting that he would be seeking “payroll records and stuff
like that” from the Respondent.9 She did recall Fogell asking
Shay if the Respondent had provided MBTA with “certified
payroll records” and Shay replied that he did not know. Marso-
lais further recalled Shay explaining to Fogell that the reason
why certain work at the Albany project was not done by unit
employees was because of “safety and because we had to meet
a deadline for them putting something up on the board.” (Tr.
128.) Marsolais made no mention of hearing Shay tell Fogell
that all unit employees were too busy with other client needs.
Having received none of the information requested at the
second step grievance meeting, Fogell wrote to Shay on Octo-
ber 5, asking that the Respondent provide him with “copies of
certified payroll records, invoices, work orders or other sup-
porting documentation for the work performed” at the Albany
project “in order to process our grievance to step 3.” (GC Exh.
7.) At the hearing, Fogell explained that he asked for the certi-
fied payroll records because they would show who performed
the work, how many people were involved, and how many
hours were worked by these employees at that jobsite. Such
information, he further explained, would help determine the
potential damage that had been done to the Union by having
other nonunit individuals performing the work. He further
testified that the information was needed to process the griev-
ance.
As to his request for invoices, Fogell explained that he re-
quested this information in case the payroll records he asked for
on the individuals who worked on the project were not avail-
able. This information, he contends, would reflect how much
had been paid to another company to do the work that should
have been done by unit members, and would aid the Union in
the processing of the grievance as it would help determine the
amount of damages suffered due to the loss of work and oppor-
tunities experienced by unit employees at the Albany project.
Fogell explained that he requested copies of any existing
work orders regarding the Albany project because he was ini-
tially told that the individuals working at that project were
Clear Channel employees. However, had the individuals actu-
ally been working for Quantum, there would have been work
orders issued to Quantum reflecting how much time had been
allocated to putting up the sign. Shay’s testimony, that he

9 The Respondent’s assertion, on brief (p. 4), that Fogell made a re-
quest at the July 21, 2004 meeting for “certified payroll records” and
“invoices,” further undermines Marsolais’ claim that no such request
was made by Fogell at that meeting.
faxed the work order on the Albany project to Quantum,
makes patently clear that a work order was indeed prepared,
and that the original work order was retained by Shay. The
record further makes clear, and the Respondent does not
deny, that Fogell was never provided with the information
requested on July 21, or October 5, nor given a reason or
explanation for its nonproduction.
Discussion
The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel contends,
that the Respondent’s failure and refusal to comply with the
Union’s July 21, information request was unlawful. The
Respondent at the hearing, and on brief, argues that it has no
obligation to provide the Union with the requested informa-
tion because the information sought pertaining to the subcon-
tracting of work at the Albany project is unrelated to the unit
employees, and the Union has not demonstrated the rele-
vancy of that information to its role as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the unit employees.10 I find merit in the
allegation.
The information being sought here by the Union, as noted,
relates to the subcontracting work performed at the Albany
project. The Board has held that information regarding sub-
contracting is generally not presumptively relevant to a union
seeking such information. SBC Midwest, 346 NLRB 62
(2005); Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259
(2004); Garcia Trucking Service, 342 NLRB 764 (2004);
Quality Building Contractors, Inc., 342 NLRB 429 (2004).
The Board has also held, however, that information relating
to subcontracting which impacts the working conditions of
unit employees is indeed relevant. SBC Midwest, supra,
Garcia Trucking Service, supra at 767.
The record here makes patently clear that Fogell’s purpose
in seeking from the Respondent all “certified payroll records,
invoices, and work orders” relating to the Albany project was
to ascertain whether the Respondent had violated or was
violating its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union
by subcontracting out the work at that site to nonunit em-
ployees, rather than assigning it to bargaining unit employ-
ees. As noted, the Albany project got under way on or
around April 17. However, as of April 22, no unit employ-
ees, as Shay readily admitted to Fogell that day, had been put
to work on the Albany project because, as claimed by Shay,
they were “too busy” working on other projects. Further,
while the evidence shows that the Respondent had assigned
the work at the Albany project to a Clear Channel affiliate,
Quantum, who in turn apparently subcontracted at least some
of the work (digging holes and installing cement caissons) to
subcontractor Gerald R. Page, Shay nevertheless told Fogell
during their April 22, conversation, misleadingly in my view,
that the work had not been subcontracted out.11

10 The Respondent has not contended, nor was any evidence pro-
duced to show, that the information sought by the Union raised
privacy, confidentiality, or proprietary concerns that prevented its
disclosure.
11 Fogell so testified. In his version of the April 22, phone con-
versation, Shay did not deny telling Fogell that the work at the Al-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD528
Several factors would reasonably have led Fogell to believe
that the Respondent was violating its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union by assigning the Albany project
work to nonunit employees. There is, first of all, Shay’s admis-
sion to Fogell on April 22, that unit employees were not as-
signed that work because they were too busy working on other
projects. Shay never challenged Fogell’s assertion during that
conversation that the work at the Albany site was work that
bargaining unit employees should be doing. Clearly, if, as he
suggested in his testimony, the work at the Albany project was
not bargaining unit work or of the type not previously per-
formed by unit employees, or if he believed that the work was
too dangerous for unit employees to perform, Shay, I am con-
vinced, would or should have made these facts known to Fogell
during their April 22, conversation in response to Fogell’s as-
sertion that the work at the Albany site properly belonged to
unit employees. Instead, Shay, as noted, simply explained that
unit employees were too busy elsewhere to be assigned to work
on the Albany project, or, for that matter, to be assigned to the
project as “stand around” employees. In short, Shay never
asserted to Fogell that unit employees were incapable of doing
the work required at the Albany project, including the digging
of the holes or the building of the cement caissons, nor did he
question the ability of the unit employees to operate the equip-
ment necessary for the performance of such work. Shay’s ac-
tions, soon after his conversation with Fogell, in replacing the
nonunit employees at the Albany project with bargaining unit
employees, after being asked to do so by Fogell, together with
his explanation for why unit employees were not assigned to
the Albany project, and his failure to dispute or deny Fogell’s
claim that the Albany project work was bargaining unit work,
would reasonably have convinced Fogell that the Respondent
had improperly subcontracted out bargaining unit work at the
Albany project in derogation of its collective-bargaining
agreement.
If, as Fogell reasonably suspected, the Respondent had sub-
contracted bargaining unit work to nonunit employees at the
Albany project in contravention of its collective-bargaining
agreement, its actions would have adversely affected the unit
employees’ working conditions as the subcontracting would
have effectively deprived them of work to which they would
otherwise have been entitled. The information sought by the
Union relating to the subcontracted work at the Albany project
was, therefore, relevant and necessary to the Union in determin-
ing whether the subcontracting arrangement entered into be-
tween the Respondent and Quantum amounted to a violation of
the collective-bargaining agreement.
Even if, as asserted by Shay, the actual construction of the
billboard at the Albany site was completed by unit employees,
it is not clear that, but for Fogell’s learning from Ronny Jones
that no unit employees were employed at the Albany project,
and Fogell’s insistence that unit employees be assigned to the
project immediately, unit employees would have been assigned
to do such work. As previously pointed out (see fn. 7 supra),
there is strong reason to believe, from Shay’s admission that
unit employees were too busy elsewhere to be assigned to the

bany project had not been subcontracted. Accordingly, I credit Fogell.
Albany site, and his further assertion that the Respondent
could not afford to have another team on the site, that it was
the Respondent’s intent to have all the work that needed to
be done at the Albany project, from the digging of the holes
and construction of the cement caissons, to the construction
or erection of the actual billboard itself. Support for this
proposition can be also gleaned from Shay’s claim that on
April 22, soon after Fogell demanded that unit employees be
put to work on the Albany project, he directed the Gerald R.
Page’s supervisor Carson “to stop what he’s doing” because
he had to “send my guys down there to start working on the
job.” There would have been no need for Shay to direct
Carson to cease working on the project if the work of digging
the holes and building the cement caissons had already been
completed, and the only work left to be done at the project
was the construction of the billboard itself.
Under article 26, section 1(a) of the parties’ agreement,
the work of digging the holes and installing cement caissons
in billboard construction projects could arguably be viewed
as work that the Respondent was free to subcontract out.
The actual construction of the billboard itself, however, was
clearly bargaining unit work. As noted, however, it is not
clear that the Respondent ever intended for the unit employ-
ees to be engaged in the Albany project, either as “stand
around” employees as required by the “work preservation”
clause of the parties’ agreement, or to construct the billboard.
That the Respondent, following Fogell’s April 22, protest to
Shay, relented and agreed to assign unit employees to the
project does not alter the fact that, but for Fogell’s demand,
all work at that site, including the construction and erection
of the billboard, arguably bargaining unit work, might very
well have been completed by the subcontracted employees.
In these circumstances, the Union was fully justified in ask-
ing the Respondent to provide it with the subcontracting
information relating to the Albany project, as such informa-
tion would help the Union determine if, in conjunction with
its subcontracting out of the “hole digging” and “cement
caisson” installation aspect of the project, the Respondent
also subcontracted out the work of erecting the billboard
itself.12
The Respondent does not deny, and indeed concedes on
brief, that Fogell made a request for information at the July
21, grievance meeting. It contends, however, that at no time
prior to the hearing did the Union provide it with a reason for

12 Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion on brief (R. Br. 10), a
finding that the information sought is relevant does not require the
General Counsel to show that the subcontracting provision of the
parties’ collective-bargaining agreement had been violated. Rather,
the Board applies a broad discovery-type standard for determining
what information is relevant. Under this standard, the Union need
demonstrate only a “probability that the desired information is rele-
vant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statu-
tory duties and responsibilities.” Pulaski Construction Co., 345
NLRB 931, 936 (2005); Contract Flooring Systems, 344 NLRB 925,
928 (2005). Thus, as noted in Pulaski Construction, supra, slip op.
5–6, “the Board does not pass on the merits of a union’s claim of
breach of a collective bargaining agreement in determining whether
information [sought] is relevant.”
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC. 529
wanting the information, and that it was not until the July 19,
2005, hearing that the Union, through Fogell, explained that the
information was needed “to see what the potential damage was
done to the union by having other people perform this work.”
Current Board law provides that a union requesting information
“need not inform the . . . employer of the factual basis for its
requests, but need only indicate the reason for its request.”
Pulaski Construction, supra, slip op. at 2, Contract Flooring,
supra, slip op. at 1. When, however, the circumstances sur-
rounding the request are reasonably calculated to put the em-
ployer on notice of a relevant purpose which the union has not
specifically spelled out, the employer is obligated to divulge the
requested information. Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1370
(2000); Brazos Electric Power, 241 NLRB 1016, 1018 (1979).
Assuming, arguendo, that Fogell never expressly told Shay
during their July 21, grievance meeting why the Union needed
certified copies of payroll records, invoices, work orders per-
taining to the Albany project, both the grievance filed by Fogell
on April 23, accusing the Respondent of violating its collective-
bargaining agreement by subcontracting out bargaining unit
work, and the phone discussion between Fogell and Shay the
day before the grievance was filed, in which Fogell complained
about the Respondent’s assignment of bargaining unit work at
the Albany project to nonunit employees, would clearly and
unequivocally have put Shay on notice that the Union needed
the information to confirm its belief that the contract had been
violated. Further, as evident from his October 4, 2004 letter to
Shay reiterating his demand for the information requested dur-
ing their July 21, step 2 grievance meeting, Fogell made clear
that the Union needed the information to process its grievance.
The Respondent’s assertion, therefore, that at no time prior to
the hearing did the Union say why it needed the information, is
patently false and without merit.
Despite evidence showing that Shay would reasonably have
known, from the circumstances surrounding the information
request, why the Union wanted the information, and that
Fogell, on two occasions, e.g., in his October 5, letter, and at
the July 19, 2005, hearing in this case, explained why the Un-
ion needed the information, the Respondent has, to date, re-
fused to comply with the Union’s information request. I find
that the Union has met its burden of demonstrating the rele-
vance of the requested information. By refusing to provide the
Union with the requested information, the Respondent, I find,
has violated, and is continuing to violate, Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act, as alleged.13

13 I find no merit to the Respondent’s affirmative defense in its an-
swer that the matter is barred under Section 10(b). The 6-month limita-
tions period under 10(b) period for the filing of charge begins to run
when an employer clearly and unequivocally denies a union’s informa-
tion request. Quality Building Contractors, 342 NLRB 429 (2004).
The Union’s request for information was made on July 21, and the
Respondent has, since that date and continuing to date, refused to pro-
vide the Union with the information requested. Both the Union’s in-
formation request, and the Respondent’s refusal to comply therewith,
therefore fall squarely within the 6-month statutory period.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing, since July 21, 2004, to provide the
Union with copies of certified payroll records, invoices,
work orders or other supporting documentation for the work
performed at its Albany, project, which information is rele-
vant to and necessary for the Union to perform its duties as
exclusive bargaining representative of its unit employees, the
Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5), and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy its unlawful conduct, the Respondent shall be
required to provide the Union with copies of certified payroll
records, invoices, work orders or other supporting documen-
tation relating to the subcontracting work performed at its
Albany, project, as requested by the Union on July 21, and
again on October 5, 2004.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended14
ORDER
The Respondent, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., Stoneham,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish relevant and necessary
information requested by Painters and Allied Trades District
Council 35, a/w International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades, AFL–CIO, CLC, on July 21, and October 5, 2004,
relating to the subcontracting work performed at the Albany
jobsite.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary, to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Promptly furnish the Union with the information found
to have been unlawfully withheld as set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
facility in Stoneham, Massachusetts, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD530
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to 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, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since July 21, 2004.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion, Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35, a/w In-
ternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL–CIO,
CLC, by failing and refusing to provide requested informa-
tion that is relevant and necessary to it as the collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the appropriate
unit as defined in the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Union and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., and WE
WILL promptly furnish the information requested by the Un-
ion on July 21, 2004.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.