Dover Hospitality Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 2013

359 N.L.R.B. 1103 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

DOVER HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC. 1103

359 NLRB No. 126
Dover Hospitality Services, Inc. a/k/a Dover Caterers,
Inc. a/k/a Dover College Services, Inc. a/k/a Do-
ver Group of New York a/k/a Dover Group
a/k/a Quick Snack Foods, Inc. and Local 1102 of
the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Un-
ion, United Food & Commercial Workers Un-
ion. Case 29–CA–063398
May 31, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
On February 22, 2013, Administrative Law Judge
Mindy E. Landow issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
1
find-
ings, and conclusions as amended,
2
and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order as modified.
We have amended the Conclusion of Law to include
the Respondent’s failure to respond in a timely manner to
the Union’s information request along with its failure and
refusal to provide the requested information as the bases
on which it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
We have modified the judge’s recommended Order, as
set forth below, to conform to the amended Conclusions
of Law and to the Board’s standard remedial language.
We have substituted a new notice to conform to the mod-
ified Order.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
We substitute the following for the Conclusion of Law.

1 The Respondent excepts to the judge’s denial of its petition to re-
voke the Acting General Counsel’s subpoena. This exception is unsup-
ported by argument. In any case, our review of the record shows that
the denial was not in error.
2 In adopting the judge’s conclusions, we agree with the judge that
the Respondent did not satisfy its obligation to provide relevant re-
quested information to the Union by providing certain documents to the
Acting General Counsel on the eve of the hearing. It is well established
that “the duty to supply relevant information is a duty to supply such
information in a timely fashion . . . to the Union, not to the Board.”
Geiger Ready-Mix Co. of Kansas City, 315 NLRB 1021, 1033 (1994)
(adopting judge’s conclusion that employer unlawfully refused to pro-
vide union with requested relevant information despite fact that much
of the information was introduced into evidence at the hearing); accord:
Walt Disney World Co., 359 NLRB No. 73, slip op. at 1 fn. 3, 17
(2013).
In considering the lawfulness of the Respondent’s failure to prompt-
ly furnish the requested information, we do not rely on American Bene-
fit Co., 354 NLRB 1039 (2010), or National Broadcasting Co., 352
NLRB 90 (2008), both of which were issued by a two-Member Board.
See New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010); Hospital
Pavia Perea, 355 NLRB 1300, 1300 fn. 2 (2010) (recognizing that the
two-Member Board “lacked authority to issue an order”).
“By failing to respond in a timely manner to the Un-
ion’s request for information in its letter of August 3,
2011, and by failing to provide the Union with the in-
formation requested in that letter, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its unit employees, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respond-
ent’s unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.”
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Dover
Hospitality Services, Inc. a/k/a Dover Caterers, Inc. a/k/a
Dover College Services, Inc. a/k/a Dover Group of New
York a/k/a Dover Group a/k/a Quick Snack Foods, Inc.,
Plainview, New York, 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) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 1102
of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union,
United Food & Commercial Workers Union by failing to
respond in a timely manner to its requests for infor-
mation and by failing and refusing to furnish it with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-
bargaining representative of the Respondent’s employees
in the following appropriate unit:

All regularly employed kitchen, dining room, bar, cafe-
teria, kiosk and cart employees employed by the Em-
ployer at the Suffolk County Community College Sel-
den Campus and the grill employees employed by the
Employer at the Suffolk County Community College
Brentwood Campus, excluding, however, all cooks,
custodians, university students, casual employees as de-
fined in Article 2, office and clerical employees, super-
visors and guards as defined in the Act.”

2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c).
“(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 29 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.”
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
1104 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local
1102 of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Un-
ion, United Food & Commercial Workers Union by fail-
ing to respond in a timely manner to its requests for in-
formation or by failing and refusing to furnish it with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit:

All regularly employed kitchen, dining room, bar, cafe-
teria, kiosk and cart employees employed by us at the
Suffolk County Community College Selden Campus
and the grill employees employed by us at the Suffolk
County Community College Brentwood Campus, ex-
cluding, however, all cooks, custodians, university stu-
dents, casual employees as defined in Article 2, office
and clerical employees, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on August 3, 2011.

DOVER HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC. A/K/A
DOVER CATERERS, INC. A/K/A DOVER COLLEGE
SERVICES, INC. A/K/A DOVER GROUP OF NEW
YORK A/K/A DOVER GROUP A/K/A QUICK SNACK
FOODS, INC.

Michael Berger, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel.
Dennis J. Romano, of Westbury, New York, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
MINDY E. LANDOW, Administrative Law Judge. This case is
an outgrowth of a prior proceeding before the Board based
upon an alleged failure and refusal to provide information nec-
essary and relevant to the collective-bargaining process. As
will be discussed below, the Board has previously concluded
that the named Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by failing to do so
and ordered that such information be provided to the Union.
The instant case involves the same principals, ongoing bargain-
ing for a successor contract and an updated information request.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Based on a charge filed on August 23, 2011, by Local 1102
of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, United
Food & Commercial Workers Union (the Union) in Case 29–
CA–063398, the Regional Director for Region 29 issued a
complaint and notice of hearing (the complaint) on November
2011, alleging that Dover Hospitality Service, Inc. (Dover or
Respondent) and five other entities (alleged as “a/k/a’s”)1 en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to provide the Union
with certain information necessary and relevant to the perfor-
mance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of certain of Respondent’s employees. The Respond-
ent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint and further asserting that none of the alleged entities
listed as “a/k/a’s” performed any work at the named locations
relative to the instant matter, are not parties to any collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union and that they have not
employed any bargaining unit member for purposes of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Dover and the Union.
A hearing with respect to the allegations of the complaint
was held before me in Brooklyn, New York, on September 20,
2012.2 As will be discussed in further detail below, no repre-
sentative of Respondent appeared at that time. Based on the
record adduced at the hearing, the brief filed by counsel for the
Acting General Counsel,3 and other documentary submissions,4

1 These additional named entities: Dover Caterers, Inc.; Dover Col-
lege Services, Inc., Dover Group of New York; Dover Group and
Quick Snack Foods, were not alleged as single or joint employers with
or alter egos of Dover Hospitality Services, Inc.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates are in 2012.
3 Hereafter referred to as the General Counsel.
4 As raised by the General Counsel at the outset of the hearing, on
September 12, counsel for the General Counsel subpoenaed certain
documents from the Respondent including (1) documents generally
relating to the ownership and control of the five listed “also known as”
entities; (2) all documents which had been provided by Respondent to
the Union in response to the Union’s information request of August 3,
2011; and (3) all correspondence sent by the Respondent to the Union
regarding the Union’s information request of August 3, 2011. Thereaf-
ter, Respondent timely filed a petition to revoke the subpoena (petition)
raising general objections, i.e., that the subpoena does not relate to any
matter under investigation, is unreasonable in scope and overly broad,
constitutes harassment and is unduly burdensome in seeking documents
not relevant to this matter. Respondent further asserted that it had al-
ready provided certain documents responsive to items 2 and 3 of the
subpoena to the Region. Respondent’s general objections, as outlined
DOVER HOSPITALITY SERVICES 1105

discussed below, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with its principal office and
place of business in Plainview, New York, with operations at
campuses at Suffolk County Community College located in
Selden and Brentwood, New York, where it is involved in
providing retail food services. Respondent has admitted that
during the 12-month period preceding the hearing in this mat-
ter, a period which is representative of its operations generally,
Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased and received at its New York locations goods valued
in excess of $5000 from other enterprises located within the
State of New York, each of which enterprises had received
those goods directly from points located outside the State of
New York. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is and has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It is also admitted, and I
find, that the Union is and has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE PRIOR BOARD DECISION
In Dover Hospitality Services, 358 NLRB 709 (2012), a prior
case involving the Charging Party and the Respondent, the
Respondent was found to have committed unfair labor practices
substantially similar to those at issue here. In particular, the
Board found that, by failing and refusing to provide the Union
with information it had requested by letter on January 5, 2011,
the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.5
In so concluding, the Board affirmed certain findings made by
the administrative law judge which form relevant background

above, are unsubstantiated and insufficient to support its Petition. I
find that items 2 and 3 of the subpoena seek documents arguably rele-
vant to the matters under consideration here. To the extent such docu-
ments have not already been provided to the General Counsel, I accord-
ingly deny the Respondent’s Petition. The information sought by item
1 of the subpoena, i.e., documents showing ownership and control of
the five named “also known as” entities raises questions of relevance
particularly inasmuch as none of these entities are named as joint or
single employers or alter egos of the principal named Respondent.
However, I have concluded that Respondent’s answer has raised certain
questions pertaining to the relationship among these entities and the
extent to which they conduct business at the facilities at issue here. The
Board’s standard in evaluating whether subpoenaed documents should
be produced is a broad one. Sec. 102.31 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations states that a subpoena shall be revoked if, “the evidence
does not relate to any matter under investigation or in question in these
proceedings.” Here, based on the representations contained in Re-
spondent’s answer to the complaint, I cannot conclude that the material
sought by the subpoena clearly does not relate to any matter under
investigation or in question here. With regard to any contention that
some of the documents sought do not exist or are unavailable, Re-
spondent was obliged to make that information available to the General
Counsel. Accordingly, the Respondent’s Petition is denied in its entire-
ty.
5 In that case, the status of Dover Caterers, Inc. and Dover College
Services, Inc. as “also known as” entities was neither challenged nor
litigated.
to the instant proceeding.
As the judge found, since 2005, the Union has been recog-
nized as the collective-bargaining representative of certain food
service employees employed at Suffolk County Community
College at its Selden and Brentwood campuses. Such recogni-
tion has been embodied in a series of collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which expired on January 31,
2010 (the 2010 agreement). Isaac (Butch) Yamali has been an
owner of Respondent and responsible for the negotiation of
contracts between Respondent and the Union. The ALJ, af-
firmed by the Board, found that on several occasions during the
negotiation for a successor to the 2010 agreement, Respondent
asserted that it could not afford to pay the wages and benefits
set forth in the expiring collective-bargaining agreement and
could not, therefore, meet the Union’s demands for increases in
these terms and conditions of employment. 358 NLRB 709,
711, 714.6 The Board found that on January 5, 2011, the Union
had made a request for information that was relevant to sub-
stantiating Respondent’s claim of inability to pay and that Re-
spondent had ignored the Union’s request and failed to provide
any of the requested information. Id. at 4, 6. The information
request, sent to Yamali by the Union’s director of collective
bargaining, Dennis Romano, sought the following information:

Annual tax returns Federal/State for years 2005–2009
Audited Income Statements and balance sheets for years
2005–2009
Copies of all W-2/W-3 for years 2005–2009

The letter sent by Romano specified that the information
sought was “to verify your continued position at the bargaining
table that the current labor agreement is an impediment to your
continued existence at SCC Selden and Brentwood Campuses.”
The administrative law judge further relied on Romano’s tes-
timony that he asked for the foregoing information in order to
verify Yamali’s assertions of not making a profit and the unaf-
fordability of the current contract and any increases going for-
ward; and that he consulted with the Union’s accountant who
would be more familiar with the sort of documents necessary to
verify the Employer’s assertions prior to making the infor-
mation request.
III. THE CURRENT CASE
As of the date of the hearing, the parties had not reached
agreement on a successor collective-bargaining agreement. I
further note that there is no evidence that the Respondent had
changed its position regarding its asserted inability to pay under
the current contract or the Union’s bargaining proposals. In
furtherance of continuing bargaining, on August 3, 2011, Ro-
mano sent a letter addressed Yamali, which provides as fol-
lows:

Re: Renewal Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations

6 In particular, the administrative law judge found that: “Yamali, at
two meetings, informed the Union that Respondent could not afford the
current union contract, let alone any increases in the new contract.
These assertions made on behalf of Respondent have consistently been
held to convey an ‘inability to pay.’” Id., slip op. at 6 (citations omit-
ted).
1106 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Between Local 1102 RWDSU/UFCW—and—Dover Hospi-
tality Services, Inc., a/k/a Dover Caterers, Inc., a/k/a Dover
College Services, Inc., a/k/a Dover Group of New York, a/k/a
Dover Group, a/k/a Quick Snack Foods, Inc.

As a follow up to my January 5, 2011 letter, I am writing to
notify you that the Union is requesting that the additional fol-
lowing information be provided during the current on-going
negotiations between the parties:

1. Annual tax returns Federal/State for year 2010 for
Dover Hospitality Services, Inc., Dover Caterers, Inc.,
Dover College Services, Inc., Dover Group of New York,
Dover Group and Quick Snack Foods.
2. Audited Income statements and balance sheet for
year 2010 for Dover Hospitality Services, Inc., Dover Ca-
terers, Inc., Dover College Services, Inc., Dover Group of
New York, Dover group and Quick Snack Foods.
3. Copies of all W-2/W-3 for year 2010 for Dover
Hospitality Services, Inc., Dover Caterers, Inc., Dover
College Services, Inc., Dover Group of New York, Dover
group and Quick Snack Foods.

Again, this information is needed to verify your con-
tinued position at the bargaining table that the current
labor agreement is an impediment to your continued
existence at SCC Belden and Brentwood campuses.

In addition, the Union reserves its right to ask for addi-
tional information and to request that information from
additional companies under your custody and control
as it deems necessary to support your position in these
negotiations.

Once I have had an opportunity to review this infor-
mation I will provide additional dates for negotiations.

Thus, the instant information request differs from the prior
one in two respects: it requests the information be updated to
include the year 2010 and specifically lists certain “also known
as” entities about which information is sought. Romano testi-
fied that the August 3 information request added additional
“also known as” entities because the Union, through research,
had reason to believe they were related to Dover Hospitality
Services, Inc. For example, Romano testified that Quick Snack
Foods, Inc. was Respondent’s vending operation at Suffolk
Community College. Romano failed, however, to offer any
specific reason for or particularized evidence as to why the
other “also known as” entities were added to the Union’s in-
formation request.
There was no response to the Union’s information request
for approximately 13 months.
On the morning of the date prior to the instant hearing, coun-
sel for the Respondent called Romano and asserted that Re-
spondent would provide the information sought. Romano re-
plied that it was less than 24 hours prior to the date and time set
for the unfair labor practice hearing and asked what information
would be provided. Counsel for Respondent replied that the
information provided would be the W-2 forms and Federal and
state income tax forms for the year requested. Romano replied
that that was not fully responsive to what had been requested in
his letter. Romano specifically asked about the audited income
statements and counsel for Respondent replied that he did not
have those. Romano replied that that was not acceptable.
As it happened, Respondent did not actually send any infor-
mation to the Union; rather, it was forwarded to the regional
office for Region 29 of the NLRB. Once the information was
received, counsel for the General Counsel inquired as to wheth-
er the information had been sent to the Union and Respondent
counsel responded that it had not been sent directly to the Un-
ion. The regional office then forwarded the information to the
Union, stating it was doing so as a matter of courtesy; however,
counsel for the General Counsel informed counsel for Re-
spondent that it was Respondent’s obligation, under the Act, to
provide the information directly to the Union.
Once having received the information through the auspices
of the General Counsel, Romano confirmed that it was not
wholly responsive to the information request, in any event.
While, as represented, Respondent had sent the W-2 forms and
Federal and State income tax returns for 2010, the audited in-
come statements were not provided. Romano testified that,
although he was not an accountant, he had reason to believe
that such information would and did exist and that this belief
was based on the fact that the Respondent conducted business
in both the public and private sector where it would be required
to submit bids before being selected. In connection with such
bids, it can reasonably be assumed that Respondent possesses
and would be required to submit such standard financial docu-
ments. In addition, as Romano testified, the Employer’s re-
sponse fails to address the request for W-3 forms and no W-2
forms or other responsive information was provided for any of
the “also known as” entities. The one income tax return that
was provided was for an entity known as “Dover Gourmet
Corp. & Subsidiary Dover Hospitality Services, Inc.” Thus, no
income tax information was received for any of the “also
known as” entities referenced in Romano’s information request
and no response as to any of these other entities was received.
Later that evening, counsel for Respondent notified counsel
for the General Counsel that it had produced all documents in
its possession which were responsive to the Union’s infor-
mation request, stated that it would not be appearing at the
hearing and requested that the matter be “closed.”
The General Counsel has argued that the Respondent’s late
and insufficient response to the Union’s information request
constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain in violation of the
Act.
Analysis and Conclusions
General Legal Principles
It is well settled that Respondent has a statutory obligation to
provide the Union, on request, information that is relevant and
necessary to enable the Union to intelligently and effectively
carry out its statutory obligations as the employees’ exclusive
bargaining representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S.
149, 152 (1956); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432,
435–436 (1967); American Benefit Corp., 354 NLRB 1039
(2010); Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979). Re-
spondent’s statutory obligation includes furnishing the Union
with requested information related to contract negotiations.
DOVER HOSPITALITY SERVICES 1107

Day Automotive Group, 348 NLRB 1257, 1262 (2006).
More particularly, as was found in the prior case involving
these parties, Respondent’s duty to bargain includes the obliga-
tion to provide the Union with requested information that
would enable the Union to assess the validity of claims that
Respondent made in contract negotiations. National Extrusion
& Mfg. Co., 357 NLRB 127 (2011).
Information that relates directly to employees in the bargain-
ing unit and their terms and conditions of employment is pre-
sumptively relevant and Respondent must provide the requested
information. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 110 NLRB 2097
(1954), enfd. 223 F.2d 58 (1st Cir.1955); Pfizer, 268 NLRB
916, 918 (1984), enfd. 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985).
However, where a union has requested information with re-
spect to employees or matters outside the bargaining unit, the
Union has the burden of demonstrating that the information is
potentially relevant to its representative duties. National
Broadcasting Co., 352 NLRB 90, 97 (2008); Ohio Power Co.,
216 NLRB 987 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976). In
particular, the Board has held that information about the finan-
cial condition of an employer is not presumptively relevant.
Nielsen Lithographing Co., 305 NLRB 697 (1991), affd. sub
nom. Graphic Communications Local 50B v NLRB, 977 F.2d
1168 (7th Cir. 1992). As stated in ConAgra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117
F.3d 1435, 1438 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Ohio Power Co., su-
pra):

Although the relevance of information concerning the
terms and conditions of employment is presumed, no such
presumption applies to an employer’s information regard-
ing its financial structure and condition, and a union must
demonstrate that any requested financial information is
relevant to the negotiations in order to require the employ-
er to turn it over.

To meet this burden of establishing relevance, the Union
need only demonstrate a reasonable belief based on objective
facts that the requested information is relevant. Disneyland
Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1258 (2007). The Union is not required
to show the precise relevance of the requested information to
particular bargaining unit issues. AK Steel Corp., 324 NLRB
173, 183 (1997). The burden for demonstrating relevance is not
a heavy one, requiring only a broad, “liberal discovery-type
standard.” Acme Industrial, supra, 385 U.S. at 437; American
Benefit Corp., 354 NLRB 1039, 1050 (2010). In order to be
relevant under this liberal standard, the information sought need
not be dispositive of the issues between the parties, but must
only have some bearing on the issues, showing a probability
that the requested information would be of use to the Union in
carrying out its representative functions. Pennsylvania Power
& Light Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105 (1991); National Broad-
casting Co., supra at 97.
Even absent a showing by the Union of probable relevance,
Board law holds “that an employer is obligated to furnish re-
quested information where the circumstances should put the
employer on notice of a relevant purpose which the union has
not spelled out.” KLB Industries, Inc., supra (quoting Allison
Co., 330 NLRB 1363, 1367 fn. 23 (2000)).
Further, a party’s statements and bargaining proposals may
make other information relevant to negotiations. The Board has
noted that if a party asserts a claim and then refuses to provide
requested information to substantiate the claim, collective bar-
gaining is frustrated and rendered ineffective. Leland Stanford
Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 145 (1982).
In NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra the Supreme Court held
that an employer violated Section 8(a)(5)of the Act by refusing
to provide the Union with information requested in order to
substantiate the employer’s claim that it could not afford to
grant its employees the wage increase sought by the union and
that such an increase would put the employer out of business.
The Court explained that:

Good-faith bargaining necessarily requires that claims made
by either bargainer should be honest claims. This is true about
an asserted inability to pay an increase in wages. If such an
argument is important enough to present in the give and take
of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of
proof of its accuracy. [Id. at 152–153.]

While no magic words are required to establish an obligation
to provide general financial information, the obligation arises
where, as has been previously found here, Respondent’s state-
ments and actions have conveyed an inability to pay. Dover,
358 NLRB, supra, slip op. at 6 (and cases cited therein); see
also Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271 NLRB 1600, 1602 (1984).
The General Counsel has alleged that Respondent’s unex-
plained failure to respond to the Union’s August 3, 2011 infor-
mation request for a period of some 13 months constitutes a
violation of its duty to bargain. I agree. It is well settled that
under Board law, the duty to furnish information requires a
reasonable good-faith effort to respond to the request as
promptly as circumstances allow. Good Life Beverage Co., 312
NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). See also Valley Inventory Ser-
vice, 295 NLRB 1163, 1166 (1989). (“An unreasonable delay
in furnishing such information is as much of a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) as a refusal to furnish the information at all.”) Ab-
sent evidence justifying an employer’s delay in furnishing a
union with relevant information, such a delay will constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(5). Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735,
737 (2000). Moreover, this has been found to be the case even
where the underlying complaint alleges a blanket refusal to
provide information rather than a delay in doing so. Shaw’s
Supermarkets, 339 NLRB 871 (2003);7 see also Care Manor of
Farmington, 318 NLRB 330, 333–334 (1995).

7 In Shaw’s Supermarkets, it was alleged that the respondent had
failed and refused to provide relevant information. As is the case here, a
portion of the requested information was provided shortly prior to the
hearing and still other information was provided subsequent to the
hearing. Nevertheless, the administrative law judge concluded that a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(5), as alleged, had occurred, reasoning as follows:
“The issue then is whether the Act was violated by the dilatory manner
in which [the] requested information was turned over. Once a good
faith demand is made for relevant information, it must be made availa-
ble promptly and in useful form. Even though an employer has not
expressly refused to furnish the information, its failure to make diligent
effort to obtain or to provide the information ‘reasonably’ promptly
may be equated with a flat refusal.” 339 NLRB 875 (and cases cited
therein).
1108 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

As noted above, Respondent belatedly argued to the Union
that some of the information sought does not exist. Assuming
that to be the case (a matter which has not been proven and to
which the General Counsel has offered some rebuttal testimo-
ny), the evidence shows that Respondent failed to notify the
Union of that fact in a timely manner or explain why it would
not have maintained such standard financial documents in the
ordinary course of business.
Recently, the Board has clarified that under Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act, a unionized employer must respond, in some man-
ner, to a request for information, even when an employer may
have a justification for not actually providing the requested
information. Iron Tiger Logistics, Inc., 359 NLRB 236, 237
(2012).8
As the Board noted, it had previously found that:

[A]n employer must respond to a union’s request for relevant
information within a reasonable time, either by complying
with it or by stating its reason for noncompliance within a rea-
sonable period of time. Failure to make either response in a
reasonable time is, by itself, a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act. Some kind of response or reaction is mandato-
ry.

Id. (citing Columbia University, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990)).
Consistent with this logic, in Iron Tiger, supra, a Board panel
majority found that the employer had a duty to timely respond
to the union’s information request, even where the information
sought was ultimately found not to be relevant.
Here, Respondent’s answer raises the issue of the applicabil-
ity of the Union’s information request with regard to the “also
known as” entities. Assuming that the Employer were to take
the position, as indicated by its answer to the complaint, that it
was under no obligation under the Act to provide such infor-
mation regarding those other entities to the Union, it was never-
theless obliged to advise the Union, in a timely manner, of that
position and the underlying facts which support it.9 The same
obligation obtains with regard to information which Respond-
ent may claim or has claimed does not exist. Clearly, it did not
do so.
Moreover, as the General Counsel has noted, Respondent did
not satisfy or cure any delay in its obligation to provide the
Union with information by subsequently, on the eve of trial,
providing certain items to the General Counsel. The Respond-
ent’s bargaining obligation is with the Union. In this regard, the

8 In that case, a Board panel majority found that the employer had a
duty to timely respond to the union’s information request, even though
the information sought was ultimately found not to be relevant. That is
not an issue here, where (as has been previously found by the Board)
the financial information sought by the Union is clearly relevant to the
Employer’s claim of inability to pay.
9 As to the other recently-named “also known as” entities, the Gen-
eral Counsel has requested that I draw an adverse inference from Re-
spondent’s failure to comply with item 1 of its subpoena which seeks
documents showing the ownership and control of those named in the
complaint. Under the particular circumstances of this case, I decline to
do so. See CPS Chemical Co., 324 NLRB 1018, 1019 (1997), enfd. 160
F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998) (absence of documents did not prevent the
Respondent from proving any relevant part of its case).
Board has held that although information may be available to a
union through other means, employer is not relieved of its obli-
gation, under the duty to bargain, to supply such information
directly to the collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees. To the contrary, the duty of an employer to provide
relevant information in its possession is not excused by the fact
that it may be obtained elsewhere. Kroger Co., 226 NLRB 512,
513–514 (1976); People Care, Inc., 327 NLRB 814, 824
(1999); Orthodox Jewish Home for the Aged, 314 NLRB 1006,
1008 (1994).
Here, Respondent has failed to offer any legally sufficient
explanation, supported by probative evidence, for its non-
response and subsequent delay in providing information rele-
vant to its ongoing claim of “inability to pay” to the Union.
Accordingly, I find that by failing to respond to the Union’s
request for information, the relevance of which has previously
been established, and is reaffirmed by the evidence here, Re-
spondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in
good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the infor-
mation requested in its August 3, 2011 letter, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to supply
information as set forth in the complaint, it is recommended
that Respondent, to the extent it has not done so, be ordered to
furnish such information to the Union.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondent, Dover Hospitality Services, Inc. a/k/a Do-
ver Caterers, Inc. a/k/a Dover College Services, Inc. a/k/a Do-
ver Group of New York a/k/a Dover Group a/k/a Quick Snack
Foods, Inc., Selden and Brentwood, New York, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with Local
1102 of the Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union, Unit-
ed Food and Commercial Workers Union (the Union) by failing
and refusing to furnish information relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees in the following

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DOVER HOSPITALITY SERVICES 1109

appropriate unit:

All regularly employed kitchen, dining room, bar, cafeteria,
kiosk and cart employees employed by the Respondent at the
Suffolk County Community College Selden Campus and the
grill employees employed by the Respondent at the Suffolk
County Community College Brentwood Campus, excluding,
however, all cooks, custodians, university students, causal
employees as defined in Article 2, office and clerical employ-
ees, supervisors and guards as defined in the Act.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide the Union with the information requested by its
letter of August 3, 2011.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Selden and Brentwood, New York facilities copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on

11 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-
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distribut-
ed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, 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 August 3, 2011.

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.”