International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 (GNLV Corp. d/b/a Golden Nugget Las Vegas)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 2018

366 NLRB No. 62 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 62
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
501 and GNLV Corp. d/b/a Golden Nugget Las
Vegas. Case 28–CB–182296
April 20, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND EMANUEL
On May 25, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Mara-
Louise Anzalone issued the attached decision. The
Charging Party-Employer filed exceptions and a support-
ing brief, the Respondent-Union filed an answering brief,
and the Charging Party filed a reply brief.
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,1 and conclusions2
and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 20, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

1 In adopting the judge’s dismissal of the complaint, Members
McFerran and Emanuel rely on the judge’s finding that the Charging
Party-Employer failed to establish the relevance of the requested extra-
unit information, and thus find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s
additional finding that the Charging Party-Employer’s requests were
too vague to obligate the Respondent to respond. Member Pearce
would adopt the judge’s dismissal of the complaint on both relevance
and vagueness grounds. Regarding the latter ground, Member Pearce
relies on the Charging Party-Employer’s failure to respond to the Re-
spondent’s request that it specify which of the Respondent’s bargaining
proposals it sought extra-unit information about, not on the wording of
the information request itself.
2 In adopting the judge’s decision, we do not rely on Lithographers
Local One-L (Metropolitan Lithographers Assn.), 352 NLRB 906
(2008), enfd. 344 Fed.Appx. 663 (2d Cir. 2009), cited by the judge, a
decision that issued at a time when the Board lacked a quorum.
See New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010). We rely
instead on Southern Nevada Builders Assn., 274 NLRB 350, 351
(1985).
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stephen Kopstein, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Adam Stern and Justin Crane, Esqs. (The Meyers Law Group),
for the Respondent.
Kaitlin H. Ziegler, Esq. (Kamer Zucker Abbott), for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARA-LOUISE ANZALONE, Administrative Law Judge. I
heard this case on January 23, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
GNLV Corp. d/b/a Golden Nugget Las Vegas (Golden Nugget,
the Employer or Charging Party) filed a charge on August 15,
2016, and the Regional Director for Region 28 issued a com-
plaint on November 8, 2016 (the complaint). The General
Counsel alleges that Respondent International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Local 501 (Local 501, the Union or Respond-
ent) refused to provide information requested by the Employer,
in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act).
At trial, all parties were afforded the right to call, examine,
and cross-examine witnesses, to present any relevant documen-
tary evidence, to argue their respective legal positions orally,
and to file posthearing briefs. On March 13, 2017, posthearing
briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent and
have been carefully considered.1 Accordingly, based upon the
entire record herein, including the posthearing briefs and my
observation of the credibility of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
At all times material herein, Charging Party, a Nevada cor-
poration with a principal place of business located in Las Ve-
gas, Nevada, has been engaged in the operation of a hotel and
casino, providing gambling, lodging, entertainment, and dining
services. During the 12-month period immediately preceding
the issuance of the instant complaint, the Charging Party, in the
normal course and conduct of its above-described business
operations, purchased and received at its Las Vegas facility
goods in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Nevada. It is alleged, Respondent admits, and I find
that Charging Party is an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and
further that Respondent is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects com-

1 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for tran-
script; “GC Exh.” for General Counsel’s Exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Re-
spondent’s Exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s posthearing
brief and “R Br.” for Respondent’s posthearing brief.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merce and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board)
has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the
Act.
B. Factual Background
Respondent represents a unit of employees at GNLV’s Las
Vegas hotel and casino and was certified as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of that unit in 2015. In Janu-
ary 2016,2 the parties commenced negotiations for an initial
collective-bargaining agreement. Local 501’s lead negotiator
was its president and lead business representative, Tom
O’Mahar (O’Mahar); GNLV was represented by its outside
counsel Greg Kamer (Kamer), along with his associate Kaitlin
Ziegler (Ziegler). (GC Exh. 1(c), (g); Tr. 16–17, 55, 97.)
While the parties offered scant witness testimony3 regarding
their bargaining (and no bargaining notes), two facts are undis-
puted: first, during the first bargaining session in January, the
Union presented GNLV with a complete, proposed collective-
bargaining agreement; and second, on February 25, GNLV,
through its counsel, requested that Local 501 provide the fol-
lowing:
1. Copies of all labor contracts, side letters, and/or memoran-
dum agreements between Local 501 and any company operat-
ing in Las Vegas, Nevada and/or the surrounding area that are
currently in place and/or expired within the last two (2) years
and feature similar language to that proposed by Local 501 to
[GNLV];
2. A listing of all grievances filed by Local 501 within the
last five (5) years concerning similar language to that pro-
posed by Local 501 to [GNLV] against any company operat-
ing in Las Vegas, Nevada and/or the surrounding area, includ-
ing the nature of the grievance and the resolution, including
whether the matter was resolved through arbitration; and
3. Copies of all arbitration decisions involving Local 501 and
any company operating in Las Vegas, Nevada and/or the sur-
rounding area, which interpret similar language to that pro-
posed by Local 501 to [GNLV].
(GC Exh. 2)
According to O’Mahar, the Union maintains closed griev-
ance files, including any related arbitration decisions, at its Las
Vegas office. At the time of GNLV’s information request,
approximately 2 years’ closed grievances (including approxi-
mately 8 to 12 related arbitration decisions) were located in that
cabinet.4 Older grievance files were archived and stored in
banker boxes in a storage shed. Local 501 does not maintain
any listing or index of grievances that describes the individual
nature of each grievance. (Tr. 20–22, 41–42.)
The information requests were drafted by Ziegler, at Ka-
mer’s direction. At hearing, Respondent presented evidence

2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to the year 2016.
3 Counsel for the General Counsel presented limited testimony from
O’Mahar and Ziegler, who were each present during the course of the
negotiations, but failed to call GNLV’s lead negotiator Kamer.
4 O’Mahar testified that, in a typical year, the Union receives be-
tween four and six arbitration decisions regarding employees represent-
ed at Las Vegas properties. (Tr. 18.)
that Kamer’s law firm maintains an online database of private
arbitration decisions from which it derives revenue. (Tr. 69–
71; R. Exh. 1) As Kamer did not testify, there is no first-hand
explanation as to his rationale for requesting the grievance in-
formation and arbitration decisions at issue in this case.
1. Bargaining table discussions regarding Local 501’s contracts
with other employers
Ziegler and O’Mahar agreed that, during the negotiations,
Local 501 took the position that certain of its proposed lan-
guage should be acceptable to the Golden Nugget because it
was “similar” to language Local 501 had in contracts with other
employers. Ziegler further testified (without contradiction by
O’Mahar) that, on more than one occasion, GNLV counter-
proposed language only to be told that Local 501’s original
proposal was similar to the language it maintained in contracts
with other employers. (Tr. 58, 64–65, 95.) According to Zieg-
ler, this was followed by Kamer expressing interest in whether
Local 501’s language had historically generated grievances.
Originally, she testified that:
Anytime that [O’Mahar] had raised the fact that he has similar
language at other places, [Kamer] has raised the fact that we
would like to see if any issues have come from these pro-
posals.5
On cross-examination by Charging Party’s counsel, however,
Ziegler admitted that Kamer only once identified a concrete
portion of the Union’s professed “similar” language—an un-
specified provision regarding overtime pay—that he was con-
cerned might have been the subject of grievances with another
employer. O’Mahar, for his part, insisted that Kamer never
specified any proposed language with which he was concerned.
(Tr. 36, 86–88.)
At hearing, Ziegler offered two, somewhat related rationales
for GNLV requesting information regarding extra-unit griev-
ances and arbitrations over such similar language. First, she
claimed that, in order to evaluate Local 501’s proposals, GNLV
needed to understand how “similar” language had been grieved
and interpreted in cases with other employers. Second, as she
explained, the Employer’s overarching interest in the negotia-
tions, according to Ziegler, was to avoid future grievances by
rejecting contractual terms that had been proven unpopular with
employees, as evidenced by past grievances. As she put it, the
goal was to get the “best contract and probably least grieved
contract” possible. (Tr. 58, 64–65, 95.)
Apart from these after-the-fact explanations by Ziegler, the
record is devoid of evidence to support Respondent’s stated
rationales for its information requests. Specifically absent from
the record is direct evidence of: (a) specific contractual terms
agreed to between Local 501 and other employers, (b) specific
Local 501 proposals to GNLV; or (c) the alleged “similarity”
between the two.
2. Local 501’s initial response
Three weeks following GNLV’s request, O’Mahar respond-

5 The record is silent as to when or how often GNLV made such a
request (or requests), and the General Counsel does not allege any
complaint allegation regarding any oral request for information.
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 501 3
ed to GNLV’s first numbered request by providing copies of
Local 501’s current collective-bargaining agreements with
companies operating in the Las Vegas area (approximately 50
contracts). With respect to the Union’s second and third re-
quests, O’Mahar raised two, related objections. First, he ob-
jected to GNLV’s use of his own bargaining table phrase, “sim-
ilar language” as a reference point for GNLV’s requests, adding
that “almost anything could be considered as ‘similar in na-
ture,’ depending on how you define the phrase.”
O’Mahar then stated that responding to the requests would
be cost prohibitive because Local 501 did not maintain a listing
of grievances or organize its arbitration decisions by subject
matter. At hearing, O’Mahar explained that the concern over
cost was compounded by the vagueness of GNLV’s requests, in
that the Union would be required to review each of Local 501’s
grievance/arbitration files for the past 5 years and determining
it concerned or interpreted language “similar” to that proposed
to GNLV. That said, he offered to meet with Kamer to clarify
which documents were being sought. (GC Exh. 3; Tr. 34–3.5)
3. GNLV requests “readily available” documents and access to
Local 501’s archived files
There is no indication that GNLV accepted the Union’s offer
to meet and discuss the February 25 requests. However, on
April 21, Kamer did propose a compromise of sorts; “prior [to]
any discussions related to ‘prohibitive costs,’” he suggested, the
Union should provide arbitration decisions that were “readily
available” or, alternately, allow GNLV to “sign out” selected
documents (presumably for copying) for 24 hours. (GC Exh.
4.) The record indicates that the parties verbally discussed the
information requests on May 18, but no witness testified as to
what was said at this time. (See GC Exh. 5.)
On May 31, O’Mahar responded to Kamer’s letter, reiterat-
ing that the Union still had no idea how to determine “if lan-
guage in one labor agreement is or isn’t ‘similar’ to what was
proposed at the negotiations and therefore warrant inclusion
under your request.” He did not, however, address Kamer’s
offer to review Local 501’s archived files to identify the griev-
ance and arbitration files it considered responsive to its request.
(GC Exh. 5; Tr. 23, 43.)
4. GNLV narrows its requests to documents related to casino
and hotel employers, and Local 501 refuses to grant
access to its files
Following their April/May correspondence, the parties ap-
parently discussed the information requests again, although
again the record is devoid of detail as to what was said. In any
event, on August 1, Kamer clarified in writing that he was only
interested in cases involving hotel and casino employers. He
added:
[O]ur conversations have detailed instances wherein you have
conceded language in the proposals is similar, even if slightly
nuanced, to other contracts in existence, so we hope you are
able to provide documents matching that level of similarity.
He then referred to “dialogues during negotiations” during
which O’Mahar had referenced “arbitrations that addressed a
discussed scenario.” GNLV, Kamer stated, considered these
“types of documents” to be readily available and therefore sub-
ject to production before negotiating the cost of producing ar-
chived documents. He concluded that GNLV remained willing
to review the Union’s files for “relevant grievances and arbitra-
tion decisions,” to be signed out for a 24-hour period for copy-
ing at GNLV’s expense. (GC Exh. 6(a).)
O’Mahar responded 4 days later. Conceding that Local 501
had “in some instances” proposed language “similar to that
agreed to at other properties in Las Vegas,” he noted Kamer’s
continuing failure to identify the specific proposal(s) towards
which his request was aimed. With respect to GNLV’s offer to,
as he put it, “just rifle through [Local 501’s] files, O’Maher
flatly refused. As he testified, the Union’s concern over giving
GNLV access to its files was that they contained confidential
health information. O’Mahar, however, admittedly never in-
formed GNLV of this concern. (GC Exh. 7; Tr. 52–53.)6
On August 12, Kamer responded. In contrast to Ziegler’s
claim that GNLV’s information request aimed to reduce griev-
ances by individual employees dissatisfied with specific con-
tractual terms, he framed the issue as follows:
Past negotiations with other properties have shown a realized
risk of the Union distorting the agreed-upon language, result-
ing in numerous grievances. Sample grievances and arbitra-
tion decisions of comparable language could show us which
proposed language requires clarifying language or a complete
redraft.
(GC Exh. 8) Three days later, GNLV filed the unfair labor
practice charge underlying this case. (GC Exh. 1(a))
II ANALYSIS
A. The Parties’ Positions
The complaint alleges that, since about March 17, 2016, Lo-
cal 501 has unlawfully failed to provide the arbitration deci-
sions and listing of grievances requested by GNLV on February
26, 2016. This information, according to the General Counsel,
is relevant because it would inform GNLV’s evaluation of un-
ion proposals held out by O’Mahar as “similar” to language in
contracts between Local 501 and other employers. In its de-
fense, Local 501 asserts that the requests as drafted were unrea-
sonably vague and that, despite being provided with copies of
Local 501’s hotel and casino industry contracts, GNLV consist-
ently refused to identify the proposals with which it was con-
cerned. Furthermore, the parties disagree over whether the
Union lawfully refused GNLV’s offer to inspect its files in
order to determine which documents were responsive to its
request. Finally, as an affirmative defense, Local 501 asserts
that the February 25 requests were made in bad faith in an ef-
fort by GNLV’s counsel to compile private arbitration deci-
sions for an online library it curates.
B. Credibility
The key aspects of my factual findings above incorporate the
credibility determinations I have made after carefully consider-

6 Local 501 agent-organizer Richard Lyle (Lyle) testified that he dis-
cussed the confidentiality concern with Kamer. I found this testimony
unconvincing and unreliable, especially considering that Lyle claimed
that the conversation had taken place in December 2016 (more than a
month after the complaint issued in this case). (Tr. 97–101)
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the record in its entirety. The testimony concerning the
material events regarding Charging Party’s information request
and Respondent’s response thereto contain certain conflicts. I
have based my credibility resolutions on consideration of a
witness’ opportunity to be familiar with the subjects covered by
the testimony given; established or admitted facts; the impact of
bias on the witness’ testimony; the quality of the witness’ recol-
lection; testimonial consistency; the presence or absence of
corroboration; the strength of rebuttal evidence, if any; the
weight of the evidence; and witness demeanor while testifying
and the form of questions eliciting responses.
C. The Applicable Law
The Board has long held that a labor organization’s duty to
furnish information pursuant to Section 8(b)(3) of the Act is
parallel to that of an employer’s obligation to furnish infor-
mation pursuant to Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Califor-
nia Nurses Assn., 326 NLRB 1362, 1366 (1998) (citations
omitted). This duty to bargain includes a general duty to pro-
vide information needed by the requesting party to engage in-
telligently in contract negotiations and administration. See
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152–153 (1956). That
said, the duty to provide information related to bargaining pro-
posals is not unlimited, and a party is not required to disclose
the legal theories behind its proposals or to create them upon
demand. See Lithographers Local One-L (Metropolitan
Lithographers), 352 NLRB 906 (2008).
At the outset, a party that seeks information regarding extra-
unit employees must establish the relevance of such infor-
mation. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 259
(1994). This burden is not exceptionally heavy, and potential
or probable relevance is sufficient to trigger an obligation to
provide information. Leland Stanford Junior University., 262
NLRB 136, 139 (1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983).
The burden is satisfied when the requesting party demonstrates
a reasonable belief, supported by objective evidence (which
may include hearsay reports) that the information requested is
relevant. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., supra at 259 (cita-
tion omitted); Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993).
The relevance of extra-unit information to bargaining may be
established by statements made by the non-requesting party in
bargaining. See Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159, 1159–
1160 (2006); Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1367 (2000).
Specifically, a party that puts extra-unit information “at issue”
by relying on it as support for a bargaining claim must provide
such information, if requested, to substantiate that claim. Le-
land Stanford Junior University, supra at 145; see also Tubari
Ltd., 299 NLRB 1223, 1229 (1990) (employer that claimed in
bargaining it paid more than “other employers” obligated to
provide union with names of those employers to allow verifica-
tion of such claim). A party requesting information to confirm
or refute a claim made in bargaining need not exactly tailor its
request to the claim at issue (i.e., in order to definitively con-
firm or deny it); it suffices that the information sought would
“cast considerable light” on the veracity of the non-requesting
party’s statement. Paccar, Inc., 357 NLRB 47 (2011).
Relevance of extra-unit information may also be established
based on a logical link between that information and a bargain-
ing position or proposal made by the non-requesting party. For
example, the Board has recognized that information regarding
pension and insurance costs and benefits received by current
retirees (considered extra-unit, pursuant to Board law) must be
provided to a union on request, in that they would allow it to
bargain intelligently about benefits for the unit’s future retirees.
See, e.g., FirstEnergy Generation LLC, 362 NLRB No. 73
(2015). In the same vein, the Board has also found arbitration
decisions concerning extra-unit employees relevant to assist an
employer-association in preparing for and defending arbitra-
tions where the record evidence established that those decisions
effectively bound the association’s member employers. See
Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 226 (Ceasars Palace),
281 NLRB 284 (1986).
Regardless of what rationale is offered for an information re-
quest, it must be more than a “hypothetical theory” about the
requested relevance of requested documents; “mere suspicion
or surmise” will not suffice. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB
1256, 1258 fn. 5 (2007); Sheraton Hartford Hotel, 289 NLRB
463, 464 (1988); Southern Nevada Builders Assn., 274 NLRB
350, 351 (1985). Nor is a party granted “carte blanche” to en-
gage in a wholesale exploration into the records of its bargain-
ing partner merely because it “can articulate some bargaining
strategy that will render the information pertinent in some pe-
ripheral or theoretical fashion to the bargaining process.” See
E.I. du Pont & Co. v. NLRB, 744 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1984).
This standard prevents fishing expeditions; without it, a party
requesting documents would effectively have “unlimited access
to any and all data” in possession of its bargaining partner.
Southern Nevada Builders Assn., supra.
D. The General Counsel Failed to Establish a Violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
GNLV’s requests call on Local 501 to create a summary of
grievances and provide arbitration decisions involving any
language held out by O’Mahar to be “similar” to that he pro-
posed to GNLV, contained in contracts with the Union’s other
local hotel and casino employers. Applying the above-recited
principles to the instant facts, I conclude that the record evi-
dence is insufficient to establish that GNLV was entitled to the
requested information. Specifically, I find that the information
requests were not reasonably specific, supported by objective
evidence or explicated with the precision required by the
Board’s standards. Accordingly, I conclude that the Union’s
actions did not violate Section 8(b)(3).
1. The information requested lacked probable relevance
to bargaining
Insofar as relevance is concerned, it is true that, to the extent
that Local 501 made specific representations about its pro-
posals, it was obligated to respond to requests by GNLV for
extra-unit information sufficient for GNLV to “fact check”
those representations. In this regard, O’Mahar did “pitch” cer-
tain of Local 501’s language as having been at least initially
agreed to by other industry employers, a claim susceptible to
verification once the Union had provided GNLV with its local
industry contracts. But nothing indicates that O’Mahar held out
Local 501’s proposed language as having effectively insulated
other employers from grievances. Thus, because O’Mahar did
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 501 5
not take a position on whether any of Local 501’s “similar”
language had ever generated friction with other employers, I
find that he made no bargaining claim on which the requested
grievance and arbitration documents could have cast any light.
The General Counsel nonetheless contends that GNLV’s re-
quest sought information that would assist it in vetting of the
Union’s proposals; learning whether grievances had been filed
throughout the local industry “concerning” language similar to
that Local 501 had proposed, he contends, would inform
GNLV’s decision whether to be bound by such language. In
addition, the General Counsel argues, the outcome of such
grievances, including arbitrators’ interpretation of the meaning
of such “similar” language, would assist GNLV’s formulation
of counter offers that would be less grievance-prone. While I
cannot find fault with these rationales in theory, a valid infor-
mation request requires more. Specifically, the General Coun-
sel must prove that, in making the requests, GNLV’s concern
over grievances was more than speculative and, if so, that it
stated its requests with sufficient particularity to obligate Local
501 to respond. Based on the credible record evidence, I find
each of these elements lacking.
As to the first, I note that GNLV’s February 25 information
request, on its face, did not state a factual basis for its request
for the extra-unit information. Nor did the General Counsel
present evidence at hearing that GNLV in fact had an objective
factual basis for the requests beyond its posited goal of avoid-
ing industrial strife. However laudable, this rationale merely
amounts to a generalized bargaining strategy to which the re-
quested extra-unit grievance and arbitration documents—to the
extent they even exist—relate in only a purely theoretical fash-
ion. A comparison to the Ceasars Palace case cited by the
General Counsel is helpful in this regard. In that case, the em-
ployer association requested copies of arbitration decisions
between its union bargaining partner and other local employers
after such decisions were cited by the union and determined by
an arbitrator to be binding on the association’s members. See
Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 226 (Ceasars Palace),
281 NLRB 284 (1986).
Here, by contrast, the record fails to establish that GNLV
was motivated by more than a vague suspicion about certain
contractual language being the subject of, or somehow related
to, grievances and arbitrations within the local industry. Other
than anecdotal reference to a single Las Vegas employer receiv-
ing grievances related to overtime, the General Counsel simply
presented no testimony or documentary evidence of objective
facts supporting GNLV’s premise for the requests, i.e., that,
throughout the local industry, Local 501’s proposed language
had been especially grievance prone.7 Most notably, the Gen-
eral Counsel offered no direct evidence of the claimed similari-
ty between Local 501’s proposal and any extra-unit contractual
language, i.e., the very cornerstone of the General Counsel’s

7 Also absent from the record was a coherent explanation as to how
reviewing the requested documents would actually assist the bargaining
process; while Ziegler postulated that it would allow GNLV to propose
contractual terms less likely to cause individual employees to file
grievances, Kamer’s correspondence suggested that the documents
were necessary because of Union had historically “distorted” agreed-
upon contractual language.
relevance theory. Without this critical link, the possibility that
the requested documents could shed light on a specific Local
501 proposal is merely that: a possibility. As such, I find that
the General Counsel has failed to demonstrate that GNLV had a
reasonable, objective basis for its requests, which is fatal to
establishing the probable relevance of the information it sought.
2. The requests were not made with reasonable specificity
I further find that, even had GNLV’s requests been based on
more than mere speculation, their vagueness excused Local
501’s compliance. In this regard, despite Ziegler’s claim that
O’Mahar had explicitly held out individual proposals as having
been agreed to by other employers, the February 25 request
failed to delineate which proposals these were. While the rec-
ord indicates that the “similar language” concept was discussed
on more than one occasion during bargaining, there is no credi-
ble evidence that, with the exception of a single, unspecified
proposal regarding overtime, Kamer ever verbally identified the
proposals with which he was concerned. Kamer’s failure to
clarify the requests became even more inexplicable after Local
501 provided copies of its contracts with other employers for
comparison and, on multiple occasions, asked Kamer for such
clarification.8
The absence of such clarification rendered GNLV’s requests
the equivalent of contention interrogatories to which Local 501
was not required to respond. Indeed, GNLV in effect demand-
ed that Local 501 conduct an analysis of its proposals and for-
mulate an opinion as to which met a standard that Kamer him-
self struggled to identify as “similar, even if slightly nuanced,
to other contracts in existence.” Responding to these requests
would have required the Union to stake out its position on what
arbitration decisions it might rely on in a future arbitration with
GNLV, as well as to articulate its legal theory regarding what
constituted “similar, even if slightly nuanced” language. Such
information goes beyond the permissible scope of an infor-
mation request. See Lithographers Local One-L (Metropolitan
Lithographers Assoc.), 352 NLRB at 916 (party not required to
respond to information request demanding it articulate its legal
theories of contractual interpretation).
3. The requests were not made in bad faith
As an affirmative defense, Respondent claims that GNLV’s
request for information was “inappropriate and in bad faith and
not for the purpose of bargaining.” (GC Exh. 1(e).) A party
requesting information is presumed to have acted in good faith
until the contrary is shown. See Island Creek Coal Co., 292
NLRB 480, 489 and fn. 14 (1989), enfd. mem. 899 F.2d 1222
(6th Cir. 1990); Hawkins Construction Co., 285 NLRB 1313,
1314 (1987), enf. denied on other grounds 857 F.2d 1224 (8th
Cir. 1988); International Paper Co., 319 NLRB 1253, 1266
(1995), enf. denied on other grounds 115 F.3d 1045 (D.C. Cir.
1997). As evidence of a bad-faith motive, Local 501 offers the
fact that Kamer’s law firm earns income from an online data-

8 Kamer’s offer to review the Union’s entire archive of grievances
and arbitrations does not substitute for properly refining his request. To
find otherwise would simply encourage parties to leave requests in-
comprehensively vague in order to gain unlimited access to their bar-
gaining partner’s data.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
base of private arbitration decisions. Beyond rank speculation,
however, there is no evidence to suggest that this pecuniary
interest in fact motivated the February 25 requests. As such, I
reject this defense as lacking factual support.
To summarize, absent evidence that GNLV had a reasonable
factual basis for requesting Local 501 to supply the requested
extra-unit information, I find that the General Counsel did not
meet its burden of showing probable relevance. Moreover,
based on the record as a whole, I find that, despite multiple
requests by the Union, GNLV failed to identify with sufficient
particularity which grievances and/or arbitrations it sought, in
that, despite repeated requests for clarification, it never identi-
fied the specific “similar” language with which he was alleged-
ly concerned. I therefore shall recommend the dismissal of the
complaint in its entirety.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 25, 2017

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
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 pur-
poses.