National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Wor

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 10, 2020

19-CB-234944 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 10, 2020)

JD(SF)–08–20
Portland, Oregon
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST
EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS, THE
BROADCASTING AND CABLE TELEVISION
WORKERS SECTOR OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 51, AFL–CIO
and Case 19–CB–234944
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.
d/b/a KOIN–TV
Sarah C. Ingebritsen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Anne I. Yen, Esq. (Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld),
for the Respondent.
Charles W. Pautsch, Esq. (Nexstar Media Group, Inc.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
MARA-LOUISE ANZALONE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was submitted to me on a
joint motion and stipulation of facts dated October 3, 2019. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a
KOIN–TV (KOIN–TV, the Employer or Charging Party) filed a charge on January 29, 2019, and
the Regional Director for Region 19 issued a complaint on May 30, 2019 (the complaint). The
General Counsel alleges that Respondent National Association of Broadcast Employees &
Technicians, The Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications
Workers of America, Local 51, AFL–CIO (Local 51, the Union or Respondent) refused to
provide information requested by the Employer, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint, denying any
wrongdoing.
JD(SF)–08–20
2
By their joint motion and stipulation, the parties waived their right to a hearing in this matter.
On November 8, 2019, post-hearing briefs were filed by each of the parties and have been
carefully considered.1 Accordingly, based upon the entire record herein, including the post-
hearing briefs and my observation of the credibility of the witnesses, I make the following
5
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
At all times material herein, Charging Party, a corporation with an office and place of 10
business located in Portland, Oregon (Respondent’s facility), has been engaged in the operation
of a television station. During the 12-month period ending January 29, 2019, Charging Party, in
the normal course and conduct of its above-described business operations, derived gross
revenues in excess of $100,000, and purchased and received at its Portland facility goods in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Oregon. At all material times,15
Charging Party has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and Respondent has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects commerce and that the National Labor20
Relations Board (the Board) has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act.
B. Factual Background
Respondent represents two units of employees at Charging Party’s Portland television station25
(the unit employees).2 This recognition was embodied in in successive collective-bargaining
agreements between Respondent and Charging Party’s predecessor, LIN Television Corporation
(LIN), the most recent of which was in effect from July 29, 2015, to August 18, 2017, with the
last extension expiring September 8, 2017 (“expired CBA”). On January 17, 2017, Charging
Party purchased the station from LIN, continued its operations in basically unchanged form and 30
continued to employ a majority of the station’s employees, thereby succeeding to LIN’s
bargaining obligation to the Union. (Stip. ¶¶ 5, 6.)
The parties have stipulated that, as of the date of the Employer’s information request, they
were engaged in bargaining for a successor contract to the expired CBA and had reached35
tentative agreements on several issues, including non-discrimination language, but not wages or
severance. Local 51’s lead negotiator was its president, Carrie Biggs-Adams (Adams); KOIN–
TV was represented by its in-house attorney, Charles Pautsch (Pautsch), who additionally served
as its counsel in this proceeding. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 16, 19, 22.)
40

1 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Stip.” for the parties’ stipulation of facts; and
“Jt. Exh.” for joint exhibits.
2 The first unit consists of Respondent’s engineering and production employees; the second consists
of news, creative services employees and web producers, in each case with certain exclusions not
pertinent here. (Stip. ¶ 12.)
JD(SF)–08–20
3
On November 20, 2018, an article appeared on the website “peoplesworld.org”; it was titled,
“TV chain Nexstar splits workers with different raise offers, shifts cash to shareholders” and
stated as follows:
In another example of enormous corporate greed, a rich Texas-based TV chain—5
one whose own financial statements point to close to $2 billion in revenue in the
first nine months of this year—is offering raises of 1 percent to workers at one of
its New York state TV stations, and 0.1 percent to workers at KOIN-TV in
Portland, Ore.
And those skimpy sums get put on the bargaining table only when Nexstar Media 10
Group is forced to hold talks with the National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians (NABET)-CWA locals who represent the workers at
its stations in Buffalo and Syracuse, N.Y., Portland, Erie, Pa., and Youngstown,
Ohio. In Syracuse, the National Labor Relations Board had to do exactly that,
leaders of the NABET locals say.15
Needless to say, the workers aren’t happy with this state of affairs. Nexstar
offered the 84 Syracuse workers the 1 percent raise for each year of a 3-year
pact—and demanded givebacks from the workers on company hiring rights and
premiums to be paid for workers temporarily in higher-grade jobs.
That offer, the first in months after NABET won that NLRB ruling, was rejected. 20
Meanwhile, the old Syracuse contract, which expired 18 months ago, stays in
effect, but key worker protections, such as grievances, are stalled.
At Buffalo’s WIVB-TV, bargaining has foundered over Nexstar’s about-face on
paid leave to work out management-labor differences.
When it bought WIVB, Nexstar inherited a policy from the former owner that said 25
where the two sides were working on a cooperative project—such as
negotiations—the station would still pay the union bargainers. If the two were in
an adversarial face-off, it wouldn’t.
Five months ago, Nexstar dumped that policy—and presented the union with an
$8,700 bill to cover back pay for NABET’s own employee bargainers. 30
Negotiations covering the station’s 60 workers have stalled.
The situation is even worse—if you can believe it—at KOIN, says local President
Carrie Biggs-Adams, whose local represents TV station workers from San
Francisco northwards.
Biggs-Adams also has a basis for comparison nationwide. Until recently she was 35
a top worker at NABET-CWA headquarters in D.C. and has 45 years of
experience negotiating for workers and organizing them, too.
JD(SF)–08–20
4
KOIN offered its workers the 0.1 percent hike, and that wasn’t all, she said. It
wants to cut severance pay to two weeks. And in the first quarter of this year,
Nexstar yanked company-paid cell phones, which gave stored numbers for
sources and stored locations for stories, from broadcast reporters and techs who
need both.5
Staffers can now check out company phones one by one, “or use their own
phones, for which they get $45 a month” from Nexstar to pay for texts, stories,
and downloads. Since TV downloads are expensive, workers “have to eat” any
extra costs, Biggs-Adams says.
Nexstar would impose more extra costs on NABET by making the union—not the 10
company—responsible for precisely checking and following every single state,
local, and federal law before filing grievances on various issues, including
discrimination. One slip-up or small omission and the grievance gets tossed.
The coup de grace, however, is in a non-financial area. In the #MeToo era, where
opposition to sexual harassment on the job has become a nationwide cause, 15
Nexstar wants to eliminate the current contract’s protections against job
discrimination, by sex, race, or anything else. “They won’t go beyond federal
law,” Biggs-Adams says.
The company, meanwhile, has other uses for its millions. In its public financial 20
statement, Nexstar’s revenue totaled $693 million in the third quarter of the year,
13.3 percent more than in the third quarter of 2017. It earned $485 million in the
first nine months of this year—a 31.4 percent jump—on $1.97 billion in overall
revenue nationwide since Jan. 1.
As for what it wants to do with the money, besides not paying workers, Nexstar 25
CEO Perry Sook said in the statement the network would “apply our growing free
cash flow to drive shareholder returns… In the third quarter we allocated a total
of approximately $180 million to return of capital, leverage reduction, and
strategic M&A initiatives.”
“M&A” stands for “mergers and acquisitions,” and Biggs-Adams suspects she 30
knows where. From broadcast industry sources, she believes Nexstar is angling to
buy the Tribune Company’s stations, after federal regulators quashed a prior big
Tribune sale.
Biggs-Adams doubts Nexstar would succeed, though, because its acquisition of
Tribune’s stations would put it over Federal Communications Commission limits 35
on market concentration, just as the prior Tribune sale that collapsed did.
Still, “the impact on workers is pretty massive, and it’s a structural problem with
the capitalist system,” she says. It’s especially acute, she notes, when hedge
JD(SF)–08–20
5
funds take over media chains, run them for 18 months while milking profits by
slashing staff, then selling them.
That’s what’s happened, Biggs-Adams notes, at KOIN.
(Jt. Exh. E.)
5
Approximately 3 weeks later, on December 14, 2018, Charging Party presented Respondent
with a letter entitled, “Request for information—peoplesworld.org article,” signed by KOIN’s
Vice-President and General Manager (Nevin).3 Specifically, Nevin’s letter stated as follows:
On November 20, 2018 an article was published which contained materially false 10
statements regarding our current negotiations at KOIN-TV. In order to assess the
impact of these statements on our bargaining we send you this Request for
Information. Please review and respond to the following requests for information
below:
15
1. Any and all correspondence to and from representative Carrie Biggs-Adams to
agents or representatives of peoplesworld.org including but not limited to Mark
Gruenberg from January 1, 2017 to present.
2. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 20
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by KOIN TV to
NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.
3. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by KOIN TV 25
to NABET Local 51 from January 1, 2017 to present.
4. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages, referring or relating to any proposals made by other Nexstar owned
Stations to NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.30
5. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals made
by KOIN TV to NABET from January I, 2017 to present.
35
6. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by NABET to KOIN
TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
7. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 40
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by NABET
local 51 to KOIN TV from January 1, 2017 to present.

3 I adduce that this is Nevin’s title and position from the letter itself, as these issues were not
addressed in the parties’ joint stipulation.
JD(SF)–08–20
6
8. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to any proposals made by NABET to other
Nexstar Owned Stations from January 1, 2017 to present.
5
9. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals made
by NABET to KOIN TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
10. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, 10
emails, text messages referring or relating to your apparent assertion in the
November 20, 2018 edition that “when hedge funds take over media chains, run
them for 18 months while milking profits by slashing staff, then selling them.
That’s what’s happened, Biggs-Adams notes at KOIN.”
15
11. Any and all correspondence, including letters, leaflets, posters, emails and
text messages from any NABET agent, including, but not limited to,
Representative Carrie Biggs-Adams, to any bargaining unit employee at KOIN-
TV, relating to or referring to the peoplesworld.org article dated November 20,
2018.20
(Jt. Exh. F.) The record is devoid of any first-hand explanation of Charging Party’s rationale for
requesting this information, other than that stated in the request itself.
As of January 25, 2019, the Union had failed to respond to the request for information. On 25
that date, Biggs-Adams verbally informed Attorney Pautsch that she believed that the
information request was “improper” because it sought a journalist’s sources. On January 29,
2019, Charging Party filed the unfair labor practice charge underlying this matter. (Stip. ¶ 19; Jt.
Exh. A.)
30
The parties had no further communication regarding the request until April 30, 2019, when
Biggs-Adams emailed a letter to Nevin, in which she stated:
NABET-CWA Local 51 does not believe that points 1, 10 or 11 relate to
information that the employer needs for bargaining purposes.35
As to requests 2–9, please clarify whether you are seeking the communications
and proposals that these parties have already exchanged. These should already be
in your possession, but if you have reason to believe otherwise, please advise.
There would be no other communications in the categories described in requests 40
2–9 except privileged communications, if any, between myself as the Union's
representative and affected members or the Union's counsel.
(Id. at ¶ 20; Jt. Exh. G.) There was no further communication between the parties regarding the
information request. (Stip. ¶ 21.)45
JD(SF)–08–20
7
II. ANALYSIS
A. The Parties’ Positions
5
The complaint alleges that, since about December 14, 2017, Local 51 has unlawfully failed to
provide the information requested by KOIN–TV, other than Items 1, 10 and 11, which Biggs-
Adams challenged as irrelevant to bargaining. This consists of two categories of information:
(a) documents related to bargaining over the unit employees (Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9); and
(b) documents related to bargaining between Local 51’s sister locals who represent Charging 10
Party’s Buffalo, NY, Syracuse, NY, Erie, PA and Youngstown, OH employees (Requests 4 and
8).
In its defense, Local 51 asserts that it was privileged to not respond to the requests, because
they were made in bad faith in an effort to harass Biggs-Adams, and alternately that Charging 15
Party was already in possession of any non-privileged information, rendering the Union’s April
30 correspondence a full and timely response to the requests.
B. The Applicable Law
20
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 information
pursuant to Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. California Nurses Assn. 326 NLRB 1362, 1362,
1366 (1998) (citing Service Employees Local 144 (Jamaica Hospital), 297 NLRB 1001, 1003
(1990)); Northern Air Freight, 283 NLRB 922 (1987)); Printing & Graphic Communications 25
Local 13 (Oakland Press), 233 NLRB 994, 996 (1977). The refusal of a party to refuse to
provide its bargaining partner with relevant information upon request constitutes a per se
violation of the Act without regard to that party’s subjective good or bad faith. Piggly Wiggly
Midwest, LLC, 357 NLRB 2344 (2012), Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 220 NLRB 189, 191 (1975);
30
Generally, information pertaining to terms and conditions of employees within the bargaining
unit is considered “so intrinsic to the core of the employer-employee relationship” as to be
presumptively relevant. San Diego Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 867 (9th Cir.
1977); see also Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); Sands Hotel & Casino, 324
NLRB 1101, 1109 (1997). Where, by contrast, a party seeks information that does not concern 35
the terms or conditions within the bargaining unit, such as information regarding extra-unit
employees, there is no presumption of relevancy, and the “probable or potential relevance of the
information must be shown.” Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159, 1166 (2006) (citations
omitted). Essentially, this means that the burden is satisfied when the requesting party
demonstrates a reasonable belief, supported by objective evidence (which may include hearsay 40
reports) that the information requested is relevant. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB
258, 259 (1994); Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993); Leland Stanford Junior University.,
262 NLRB 136, 139 (1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983).
Extra-unit information will be found relevant where it is needed by the requesting party to 45
engage intelligently in contract negotiations and administration. See NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co.,
351 U.S. 149, 152–153 (1956); see also Plasterers Local 346 (Brawner Plastering), 273 NLRB
JD(SF)–08–20
8
1143, 1144 (1984) (finding information requested by the employer “unquestionably relevant to
collective bargaining”). Documents related to bargaining proposals are deemed relevant where
they would assist the requesting party in assessing the accuracy of its bargaining partner’s
proposals and developing its own counterproposals. See, e.g., Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB at
1160. Likewise, in the broader context of collective-bargaining negotiations, where a party puts 5
a particular matter in issue, good faith requires it furnish such information as is requested
relevant to that issue. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra.
The burden to show relevance for extra-unit information is not especially high. That said, a
requesting party must offer more than a “hypothetical theory” about the relevance of requested 10
documents, and “mere suspicion or surmise” will not suffice. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB
1256, 1258 fn.5 (2007); Sheraton Hartford Hotel, 289 NLRB 463, 464 (1985); Southern Nevada
Builders Assn., 274 NLRB 350, 351 (1985). Nor is a party granted “carte blanche” to engage in
a wholesale exploration into the records of its bargaining partner merely because it “can
articulate some bargaining strategy that will render the information pertinent in some peripheral 15
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.
20
C. The General Counsel Has Established a Violation of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act with Respect to Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9
1. Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 were presumptively relevant and made in good faith
25
As a preliminary matter, Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 seek presumptively relevant
information; on their face, each of these requests seeks documents related to specific bargaining
proposals affecting unit employees (wages, severance pay and nondiscrimination/harassment)
made by one of the parties during their ongoing bargaining. As noted, information regarding the
terms and conditions of unit employees is presumptively relevant and the non-requesting party 30
has the burden of rebutting that presumption. Certco Distribution Centers, 346 NLRB 1214,
1215 (2006); AK Steel Corp., 324 NLRB 173, 183 (1997). Local 51 argues that it was privileged
not to respond to KOIN-TV’s request for information because it was made in bad faith. As set
forth below, I disagree.
35
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). The requirement that an 40
information request be made in good faith is satisfied if at least one reason for the request can be
justified. Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788, 788 (2005); Hawkins Construction Co., supra at 1314.
Here, Local 51 contends that Charging Party’s information request amounts “an attempt to
harangue and harass [Biggs-Adams] in retaliation for the opinions attributed to her in the 45
article.” As evidence of a bad-faith motive, Local 51’s post-hearing brief relies heavily on
hearsay statements that Biggs-Adams herself subjectively believed the request to be an attempt at
JD(SF)–08–20
9
harassment, as well as conjecture that Charging Party was likely already in possession of the
information it sought. Such diffuse speculation does not meet the standard for a showing of bad
faith.4
Local 51 additionally argues that, because certain items of the request (not alleged by the 5
General Counsel) sought communications with unit members and the press, I should find that the
entire request was made in bad faith. I disagree. To the extent Local 51 (albeit belatedly) raised
privilege objections to these very items, its interests were protected and I do not find that
Charging Party’s requests amounted to an abuse of the information request process warranting
the denial of relief in this matter. 10
Accordingly, I find that Local 51 has failed to rebut the presumption that these the
information requests were made in good faith. Rather, I find that KOIN–TV’s stated purpose—
to “fact check” Biggs-Adams’ statements to the press about the parties’ ongoing negotiations—
was reasonable and lawful and therefore the information sought must be provided. Electrical 15
Workers IBEW Local 292 (Sound Employers Assn.), 317 NLRB 275, 275 (1995) (“it is well
settled that where a party requests information that is relevant to that party’s collective
bargaining needs, it is irrelevant that there may also be other reasons for the request or that the
information may be put to other uses”).
20
Nor am I convinced, as Local 51 urges, that it was at liberty to refuse to furnish the requested
information because it believed KOIN–TV to be in possession of any non-privileged documents
called for by the request. As a preliminary matter, I note that, because Respondent elected to
waive the right to present evidence in this case, its argument lacks the necessary factual
predicate. I therefore cannot credit Local 51’s conclusory assertion that Charging Party was 25
already in possession of the information it requested.5 In any event, the fact that a requesting
party may obtain information by other means or from another source generally does not relieve a
non-requesting party from its obligation to provide it. Holyoke Water Power Co., 273 NLRB
1369, 1373 (1985). This is especially the case here, where the record as a whole suggests that
the parties—which obviously disagreed about the nature of KOIN–TV’s bargaining positions—30
may well have been in possession of differing versions of certain proposals or related
documentation.

4 I note that, while Local 51’s answer states that Charging Party’s unfair labor practice charge was
filed in bad faith, it makes no such claim about the information request itself. Island Creek Coal Co., 292
NLRB 480, 489 fn. 14 (1989) (bad faith is an affirmative defense that must be pled by respondent) (citing
Hawkins Construction Co., 285 NLRB 1313, 1322 fn. 20 (1987)). Under the circumstances, Local 51’s
contention that KOIN‒TV acted in bad faith when it requested the information was arguably not raised in
a timely manner. In any event, as stated, even giving Local 51’s pleading the most generous reading
possible, I reject this defense as lacking factual support.
5 I further reject Respondent’s suggestion that it was specifically not required to provide information
related to antiharassment/discrimination proposals because the parties had reached a tentative agreement
on that subject. I do not understand Board law to absolve a party from responding to an information
request on such basis.
JD(SF)–08–20
10
2. Local 51 failed to respond to Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9
It is undisputed that Local 51 provided no documents responsive to Requests 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and
9, instead informing KOIN–TV approximately 4 months after its request (and 3 months after
being served with the underlying unfair labor practice charge) that the only non-privileged 5
documents responsive to its request “should” already be in its possession. The question is
whether this constitutes a response adequate to discharge its obligations under the Act. I find
that it does not.
A valid information request imposes a duty upon the non-requesting party to respond in a 10
timely manner—either by complying with the request or by asserting its rationale for not doing
so. “Failure to make either response in a reasonable time is, by itself, a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.” Columbia University, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990) (citing Ellsworth
Sheet Metal, 232 NLRB 109 (1977)); see also Daimler Chrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1329
(2000); Interstate Food Processing, 283 NLRB 303, 304 at fn. 9 (1987). The same rule applies15
to privileged information; as the Board has explained, even where a party is ultimately not
required to provide information subject to a privilege, it is not entitled to ignore a request but
rather has a “duty to communicate the asserted privilege to the requesting party.” Irontiger
Logistics, Inc., 362 NLRB 324, 324, fn. 1 (2015).
20
Here, Respondent takes the position that Biggs-Adams’ April 30, 2019 correspondence
constituted a full response to Charging Party’s request for various documents relating to the
parties’ bargaining proposals, insofar as Respondent was already in possession of all non-
privileged documents sought by the requests. Biggs-Adams’ April 30 response indicates that the
privileges involved may include attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product privilege, a 25
Berbiglia bargaining strategy privilege6 and/or a “Section 7” privilege covering communication
with individual unit members. It is true that certain of the documents sought by Charging Party’s
requests may indeed have been properly withheld subject to one or more of these privilege-
rationales. Regardless of whether this position may have ultimately prevailed, it does not excuse
the failure to communicate it until 3 months after Charging Party resorted to the Board’s 30
processes. Indeed, it is the very succinct nature of Biggs-Adams’ response—that the Union
believed KOIN–TV to be already in possession of all responsive, non-privileged documents—
that begs the question: why could this position not have been relayed in short order?
Respondent adduced no evidence that it actually took several months to determine which
documents it “believed” KOIN–TV to possess and the extent of any unspecified privilege it 35
asserted. In the absence of such an explanation, I can only conclude that, as Local 51’s post-
hearing brief itself suggests, it considered these requests to be an illegitimate attempt at
harassment which it essentially ignored until a mere month before the complaint issued in this
matter.
40

6 See Berbiglia, Inc., 233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977) (“requiring the [u]nion to open its files to
Respondent” would interfere impermissibly with the parties’ ability “to formulate their positions and
devise their strategies without fear of exposure”).
JD(SF)–08–20
11
Accordingly, because its eventual response demonstrates that the requests were conducive to
a relatively quick response, I find that Respondent’s 4-month failure to provide it violated the
Act.7
D. The General Counsel Has Failed to Establish a Violation of5
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act with Respect to Items 4 and 8
I turn now to Requests 4 and 8, which request documents related to proposals made between
Local 51’s international, NABET, and “other Nexstar Owned Stations,” a term that is not defined
by the request or stipulated to by the parties. Notably, Charging Party’s information request does 10
not accuse Biggs-Adams of making “materially false statements” about any bargaining outside of
KOIN‒TV, nor does it contain any other rationale for seeking this extra-unit information.
Because the parties elected to forgo witness testimony, the record contains no further evidence as
to Charging Party’s rationale for demanding documents relating to extra-unit bargaining.
15
Clearly, Requests 4 and 8 sought extra-unit information for which Charging Party must
demonstrate relevance. As noted, supra, information regarding an employer’s extra-unit
employees may certainly be relevant to a bargainable issue and therefore to the union’s
performance of its representative obligations. See Curtis-Wright Corp., Wright Aeronautical
Division v. NLRB, 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965), enfg. 145 NLRB 152 (1963); see also General 20
Electric Co., 199 NLRB 286 (1972). This typically results from the non-requesting party placing
extra-unit terms and conditions at issue during bargaining. See, e.g., Harmon Auto Glass, 352
NLRB 152, 152 (2008) (union entitled to learn the dollar amount contributed by the employer’s
non-union employees towards their health insurance, after employer proposed that unit
employees contribute an equal amount), reaffd. 355 NLRB 364, 364 fn. 3 (2010), enfd. 649 F.3d 25
873 (8th Cir. 2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1259 (2012),
There is no requirement, however, that statements placing extra-unit information at issue
be made physically at the bargaining table. Indeed, requesting parties have, on more than
one occasion, been found to have properly relied on third-party publications, such as 30
newspaper articles, in whole or in part to support a “reasonable belief” sufficient to trigger a
request for non-unit information. See, e.g., Dodgers Theatrical Holdings, Inc., 347 NLRB
953, 969 (2006) (union’s information request reasonably premised on newspaper article
containing direct quotes from employer’s principal); see also National Broadcast Co., 318
NLRB 1166, 1168–1169 (1995) (reliance on published article); Maben Energy Co., 295 35
NLRB 147, 153 (1989) (reliance on newspaper articles). In such circumstances, the issue is
“not whether the article is or is not accurate, but whether the requesting party acted reasonably in
relying on the article.” Dodgers Theatrical Holdings, supra at 969.
Nor is the requesting party necessarily required to spell out explicitly its rationale for such 40
information, provided that an obvious logical link exists between it and the bargaining unit, such

7 Beyond Biggs-Adams’ bare assertion, there is nothing in the record before me to indicate that any
particular document sought in fact contains information subject to a claim of privilege and/or
confidentiality; under the circumstances, I find it appropriate to permit Respondent at the compliance
stage of this proceeding to make a such a particularized showing in this regard. See, e.g., Jacksonville
Area Assn., 316 NLRB 338, 340 fn. 14 (1995).
JD(SF)–08–20
12
that the non-requesting party may be charged with notice of its relevance. For example,
information regarding current retirees (considered extra-unit) will be deemed relevant when it
would inform the requesting party’s bargaining position about future (unit) retirees. FirstEnergy
Generation LLC, 362 NLRB 630, 634 (2015) (citing National Extrusion & Mfg. Co., 357 NLRB
127, 155 (2011); Allison Co., 330 NLRB 1363, 1367 fn. 23 (2000); Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 5
987, 990 fn. 9 (1975)).
Applying these standards here, I find that Charging Party was entitled to rely on Biggs-
Adams’ representations regarding bargaining over the KOIN–TV units as reported in the online
peoplesworld.org article in requesting extra-unit information. What is missing from the record,10
however, is a logical connection between Biggs-Adams’ statements about bargaining over the
KOIN–TV units and the Union’s records regarding bargaining in units other than the KOIN–TV
units. On its face, the written request makes no claim that such documents would assist
Charging Party in assessing the accuracy of any particular proposal made by Local 51 or in
developing any particular counterproposal. Nor is the request for extra-unit information obvious 15
from the surrounding circumstances. By giving an interview about bargaining in the KOIN–TV
units, Local 51 president Biggs-Adams simply cannot be said to have placed the status of
bargaining at other stations owned by Charging Party’s parent company, Nexstar, at issue such
that the Union was required to open its books with respect to bargaining at those locations. See
Caldwell Mfg. Co. and NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., supra. 20
The General Counsel nonetheless argues that the extra-unit information “could be relevant”
to Charging Party’s efforts to analyze and promote unspecified bargaining proposals. This
rationale, however, merely amounts to a generalization that reviewing every single proposal
made between the that parties, nationwide, might somehow inform Charging Party’s bargaining 25
position at KOIN–TV. This is precisely the type of “fishing expedition” that is disfavored in the
world of information requests. Virtually any document could theoretically be relevant to some
aspect of bargaining; the General Counsel’s bare assertion of possible relevance is insufficient to
trigger the duty to provide the requested extra-unit information. See Island Creek Coal Co., 292
NLRB at 490 fn. 19 (more than a “generalized, conclusionary explanation” is required to trigger 30
the obligation to supply non-presumptively relevant information); see also E.I. du Pont & Co. v.
NLRB and Southern Nevada Builders Assn., supra.
Finally, it is argued that Charging Party was entitled to extra-unit bargaining documents
because, based on Biggs-Adams’ reported statements, Local 51 “clearly relied upon and 35
surveyed other proposals between Respondent and Charging Party” in formulating its own
bargaining strategy and that Charging Party was entitled to “understand just how [Local 51] had
used the information in the bargaining process.” I disagree. There is simply no evidence that the
Union at any time undertook a survey of extra-unit proposals, made any proposal based on extra-
unit information or otherwise “used” it in bargaining for the KOIN–TV unit. Indeed, it is unclear 40
whether Biggs-Adams was even the source of the article’s various anecdotal references to
bargaining in units at four stations other than KOIN–TV.
Thus, because the record reveals no logical connection—expressly stated or otherwise
obvious—between the extra-unit documents sought and Charging Party’s need to assess the 45
impact of Biggs-Adams’ alleged “material misrepresentations” regarding bargaining for the
KOIN-TV unit employees, I find that the relevance of these requests has not been shown.
JD(SF)–08–20
13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Charging Party Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN–TV (Charging Party) is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.5
2. Respondent National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, The
Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America,
Local 51, AFL–CIO (Respondent) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act with 9(a) status under the Act.10
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning Section 9(b) of the Act (the maintenance/production
unit):
15
All regular full-time and regular part-time engineers and production employees,
but excluding chief engineer, office clericals, professionals, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV.
4. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of 20
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act (the performance unit):
All regular full-time and regular part-time news, creative services
employees, and web producers, but excluding news producers,
IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”), office clericals, 25
professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees of KOIN‒TV.
5. At all material times, Charging Party has recognized Respondent as the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the maintenance/production and performance 30
unit employees (the unit employees).
6. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by failing and refusing to supply the
following information to Charging Party:
35
(a) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by KOIN‒TV to
NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.
(b) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 40
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by
KOIN‒TV to NABET Local 51 from January 1, 2017 to present.
(c) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals 45
made by KOIN‒TV to NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.
JD(SF)–08–20
14
(d) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by NABET to
KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
(e) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 5
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by
NABET Local 51 to KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
(f) Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals 10
made by NABET to KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
7. The unfair labor practices, described above, affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
15
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, 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. Specifically, I shall recommend 20
that Respondent be ordered to supply the requested information, set forth above, to the Union.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8
25
ORDER
Respondent National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians, The Broadcasting
and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, Local 51,
AFL–CIO, Portland, Oregon, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall30
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN–TV
(KOIN–TV) by failing to provide it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to 35
its performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate units:
All regular full-time and regular part-time engineers
and production employees, but excluding chief engineer,40
office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and all other employees of KOIN-TV; and

8 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 purposes.
JD(SF)–08–20
15
All regular full-time and regular part-time news, creative
services employees, and web producers, but excluding news
producers, IT employees, on-air talent (aka “performer”), office clericals,
professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees of KOIN-TV.5
(b) In any like or related manner, 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 effectuate the policies of the Act.10
(a) Furnish to KOIN–TV in a timely manner, the following information, requested by
KOIN–TV on December 14, 2018:
i. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 15
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by KOIN‒TV to
NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.
ii. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by
KOIN‒TV to NABET Local 51 from January 1, 2017 to present.20
iii. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals
made by KOIN‒TV to NABET from January 1, 2017 to present.
iv. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to wage proposals made by NABET to 25
KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
v. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails,
text messages referring or relating to severance pay proposals made by
NABET Local 51 to KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
vi. Any and all documents of any kind including but not limited to letters, emails, 30
text messages referring or relating to discrimination harassment proposals
made by NABET to KOIN‒TV from January 1, 2017 to present.
It is understood that the Respondent retains the right to contest the production of information
requests based on privilege and/or confidentiality.35
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at Respondent’s office in Portland,
Oregon copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 9 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in 40
conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such

9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in each of the
notices referenced herein 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.”
JD(SF)–08–20
16
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if
Respondent customarily communicates with its members by such means. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
5
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 19
a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
It is further ordered that the complaint allegations are dismissed insofar as they allege violations 10
of the Act not specifically found.
Dated: Washington, D.C. March 10, 2020
15
Mara-Louise Anzalone
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND 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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by 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 benefits and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT do anything that restrains or coerces you in the exercise of these rights.
Specifically:
WE WILL NOT delay, fail or refuse to provide Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a KOIN–TV (the
“Employer”) with information that is relevant to its role in collective bargaining, including
information about bargaining proposals we exchange with it.
WE WILL provide the Employer with the information they requested in December 2018 about
bargaining proposals we exchanged with it.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST
EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS, THE
BROADCASTING AND CABLE TELEVISION
WORKERS SECTOR OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 51, AFL–CIO
__________________________________
(Labor Organization)
Dated_______________ By: __________________________
(Representative) (Title)
JD(SF)–08–20
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
915 2nd Avenue, Federal Building, Room 2948
Seattle, Washington 98174-1078
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
206-220-6300
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CB-234944 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 206-220-6284.