National Grid USA Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 2006

348 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO.
348 NLRB No. 88
1235
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. and Utility
Workers Union of America, AFL–CIO, Locals
310, 317, 322, 329, 330, and 654. Case 1–CA–
42703
December 11, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND KIRSANOW
On June 14, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Eric M.
Fine issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed a brief in support of the judge’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2

1 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) and (5) by failing to provide the Unions with copies of the re-
quested documents, we find it unnecessary to rely on his findings that
(1) the Respondent “parenthetically acknowledged” the relevance of the
documents; (2) the documents are necessary for future bargaining pur-
poses; (3) the Respondent’s failure to provide the documents was moti-
vated by reasons other than concerns for confidentiality (although we
note the Respondent’s subsequent concession that it failed to establish a
confidentiality defense); and (4) the Respondent selectively provided
the Unions with some, but not all, of the information contained in the
documents.
2 The judge’s recommended Order directs the Respondent to post the
“Notice to Employees” on its internet website. Although there is no
exception to this remedial provision, it is firmly established that the
Board has discretion to address remedial matters in the absence of
exceptions. Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144 fn. 3 (1996).
We find it appropriate to exercise that discretion here. Recently, in
Nordstrom, Inc., 347 NLRB No. 28 (2006), a panel majority denied a
request for electronic notice-posting, citing International Business
Machines Corp., 339 NLRB 966 (2003). The Board based its decision
in this regard on an absence of evidence that the employer customarily
communicated with its employees through electronic means. Id., slip
op. at 1. The Board stated that it was open to considering the merits of
a proposed modification to the standard notice-posting language in a
particular case if the General Counsel or a charging party (1) adduces
evidence at an unfair labor practice hearing demonstrating that a re-
spondent customarily communicates with its employees electronically,
and (2) proposes such a modification to the judge in the unfair labor
practice proceeding. Id., slip op. at 1 fn. 5. The first of these prerequi-
sites for considering electronic posting on the merits is missing here:
there is no record evidence that the Respondent customarily communi-
cates with its employees electronically. Thus, without reaching the
merits of the issue, we will modify the judge’s recommended Order to
delete the relevant language from the notice-posting provision. As in
Nordstrom, we leave this issue for another day.
In accord with her dissent in Nordstrom, supra, Member Liebman
finds that the Board’s current notice-posting language, which un-
equivocally references all places where notices to employees customar-
ily are posted, is sufficiently broad to encompass new communication
formats, including electronic posting, which is now the norm in many
workplaces, including at the Board and most other Government agen-
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, National
Grid USA Service Company, Inc., Westboro, Massachu-
setts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
all its facilities where employees in the bargaining units
represented by Utility Workers of America, Locals 310,
317, 322, 329, 330, and 654, are employed copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed a facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent since June 1, 2005.”
Emily Goldman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Glenn E. Dawson, Esq., of Boston, Massachusetts, for the Re-
spondent.
Jonathan M. Conti, Esq., of Boston, Massachusetts, for the
Unions.

cies. See Human Resources: Most Employers Use Intranets to Deliver
HR Services, Watson Wyatt Study Finds, Daily Labor Report No. 42, at
A-5 (March 2, 2000). Indeed, the Board and most other government
agencies routinely rely on electronic posting to communicate informa-
tion to their employees. Member Liebman finds no need to require an
evidentiary hearing before the Board rules, as a matter of general pol-
icy, that the current posting language encompasses electronic posting
where appropriate. Cf. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, 327
NLRB 1135, 1135 fn. 3 (1999) (finding electronic records to be en-
compassed by the Board’s traditional records preservation language);
Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142, 142 fn. 3 (2001) (same). The
subsequent determination as to whether electronic posting is necessary
in a given case is a matter for compliance proceedings. See Endicott
Interconnect Technologies, Inc., 345 NLRB 448, 448 fn. 2 (2005).
Alternatively, Member Liebman would modify the Board’s current
notice-posting language to explicitly clarify its application to electronic
posting. Cf. Bryant & Stratton Business Institute, supra (modifying
standard order to “clarify any ambiguity” about application of records
preservation provision to electronic records). In this case, Member
Liebman observes that, by failing to except to the electronic posting
provision, the Respondent effectively concedes that there is a factual
predicate for requiring such a provision.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1236
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ERIC M. FINE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried
in Boston, Massachusetts, on January 31, 2006. The charge and
amended charge were filed by Utility Workers Union of Amer-
ica, Locals 310, 317, 322, 329, 330, and 654, AFL–CIO (the
Unions) on July 20, 2005, and October 20, 2005, against Na-
tional Grid USA Service Company, Inc. (Respondent).1 The
complaint issued on October 25, 2005, and alleges Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refus-
ing to provide the Unions with relevant and necessary requested
information. Respondent, in its answer, has denied violating
the Act, as alleged and has raised certain affirmative defenses.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent,2 I make the following3
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid, a
British company which owns and operates several electric dis-
tribution companies in the northeastern geographic area of the
United States, including Massachusetts Electric Company and
Narragansett Electric Company, has maintained an office and
place of business in Westboro, Massachusetts, where it is en-
gaged in providing common services including, legal, account-
ing, safety, environmental and labor relations to National
Grid’s electric distribution companies. During the calendar
year ending December 31, 2001, Respondent in conducting the
above described business operations derived gross revenues in
excess of $250,000 and purchased and received at its Massa-
chusetts facility, goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points outside of Massachusetts. The Respondent admits and I
find it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and the Unions are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Unions involved in this case represent bargaining units
which include Respondent’s meter service employees in vari-
ous locations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Meter ser-
vice employees include meter readers (MRs) and meter worker
associates (MWAs). MRs go in the field for residential and

1 All dates are in 2005, unless otherwise stated.
2 By unopposed motion dated February 28, 2006, counsel for the
General Counsel moved for the admission into evidence of a decision
and award issued by an arbitrator on February 15, 2006, and a copy of
Respondent’s brief to the arbitrator. The motion is granted and the
motion is admitted into evidence as GC Exh. 2(a), the arbitration deci-
sion and award is admitted as GC Exh. 2(b), and Respondent’s brief to
the arbitrator is admitted as GC Exh. 2(c).
3 In making the findings herein, I have considered the witnesses’
demeanor, the content of their testimony, and the inherent probabilities
of the record as a whole. In certain instances, I have credited some but
not all of what a witness said. See NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp.,
179 F.2d 749, 754 (2d Cir. 1950), revd. on other grounds 340 U.S. 474
(1951). Further discussions of the witnesses’ testimony and credibility
are set forth throughout this decision.
commercial accounts to record information from customer me-
ters to generate bills for electrical use. An MWA is a higher
level position than a MR. MWAs perform the duties of an MR,
but also make collections on delinquent accounts. If the delin-
quent account is not paid, the MWA locks out the meter or
turns off the electricity. Once the delinquent account is paid,
the MWA returns to the location, turns on the electricity, and
locks in the meter.
Emerson Teal was called as the only witness for the General
Counsel. He was the president and business manager for Local
654 for 3-1/2 years until resigning on January 27, 2006.4 Teal
credibly testified to the following: On March 18, Teal, along
with the presidents of the involved local unions attended a
meeting with Respondent officials including Kathy Lyford, the
director of meter services for New England, Ray Reyes, direc-
tor of labor relations, and Anne Grehoski, principle human
resources representative. During the meeting, Lyford told the
union officials the Respondent was looking into subcontracting
excess collections work, and they would be talking to the Un-
ions to discuss alternatives to outsourcing the work. Excess
collections are delinquent accounts that Respondent is unable to
act upon due to staffing levels. Respondent, under Massachu-
setts and Rhode Island regulations, is only permitted to turn off
meters on delinquent residential accounts from April 15 to No-
vember 1. In the past, Respondent temporarily upgraded MRs
to perform MWA collections work, and on occasion the posi-
tion of meter worker would also perform collections. The MR
receives a $2.50-an-hour pay increase when performing MWA
collections work. Respondent brought in temporary help to
perform the MRs work when the MRs were upgraded to
MWAs.
Teal’s testimony reveals: Respondent’s officials met with
representatives of the Unions on June 1 to discuss the excess
collections. Teal attended along with all of the other local
presidents. Lyford, Reyes, and Grehoski were among those
who attended for Respondent. The union officials were asked
if they were willing to allow temporary workers to perform the
excess collections at 75 percent of the MR rate of pay. The
union officials were told a request for proposals (RFP) issued to
potential contractors for bids to perform the excess collections
work. Teal requested a copy of the RFP from Lyford and
Reyes as did the local presidents. Lyford’s response was Re-
spondent would check the RFP to see if there was anything
relevant Respondent needed to provide. Teal requested the
RFP because of a concern on how subcontracting the work
would affect the pay, working conditions, and work performed
by bargaining unit members. Teal wanted to know what the
working conditions for the contractors would be. The union
officials asked questions as to the work the contractors would
be performing, the location, their pay, and whether they would

4 At the time of his testimony, Teal worked for Respondent as an
underground supervisor and he was no longer a member of the bargain-
ing units at issue. I found Teal, considering his demeanor and the con-
tent of his testimony, to be a credible witness to the extent his memory
would permit. The following sequence of events is based on Teal’s
credited testimony, as supplemented by documentary evidence, and the
testimony of Respondent’s witnesses.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1237
interact with bargaining unit employees with the idea bargain-
ing unit employees, not contractors should perform the work.
On June 8, Teal, along with the other local union presidents,
attended another meeting with Respondent officials, including
Lyford and Reyes. Respondent did not provide the Unions with
the RFP during the meeting or thereafter. Rather, on June 8,
Lyford provided the Unions with a single sheet summary in-
tended to address the questions raised during the June 1 meet-
ing. The document states:
Augmenting National Grid Employees with Contractors for
Excess Collections RFP Highlights
* Payment structure will be by collection task—collect
payment, lock in or lock out
* no OT
* Contractors to augment Grid Employees for excess
collections—RI and MA only
* Due to the high volume and seasonal nature of work
(only 5-6 months/yr)
* Length of contract 2005 to end October, 2006 and
2007—mid April to end of October
* Contractor must comply with contractor safety pol-
icy
* Must be flexible to move to where work is. Volume
of collections may vary day to day. i.e. collections follow
the meter reading cycles
* Contractor provides the field workers, supervision,
dispatching, transportation, communication (cell phones),
tools (per Co. provided list), and safety gear required to
comply per Co. Contractor safety policy and procedures,
uniforms according to Co. standards
* Company will furnish: ID badges, magnetic signs for
field workers vehicles, meter locking rings, meter seals,
security keys, disconnect sleeves, plastic socket covers,
gray socket adapters, and any required literature that must
be delivered to the customer at the time of the disconnect
* Contractor personnel may occupy Co. facilities in
MA and RI
* Contractor must wear Contractor provided uniforms
and required PPE
* Contractor to dispatch own work
* All Collection procedures will be the same as Grid
employees
Teal testified the Unions were told by Lyford, at the June 8
meeting, that Respondent’s RFP summary described the work-
ing conditions for the contractors performing excess collec-
tions. The union officials responded this was not the informa-
tion the Unions requested and the Unions repeated their request
for the RFP. Teal testified the Unions informed Respondent’s
officials that Respondent’s telling the Unions what was in the
RFP, and what Respondent thought the Unions should know
was not sufficient in place of providing the actual document.5
Teal testified that during the meeting the parties bargained

5 Teal testified the RFP summary did not answer all of the Unions’
questions, they were not sure of its accuracy, or if it contained all the
information in the RFP that would be useful in a grievance. He testi-
fied the summary, “[J]ust didn’t give us enough information. . . .”
about alternative means of performing the excess collections
work rather than contracting it out.6
The parties attended another meeting on June 16. Teal testi-
fied the Unions repeated their request for the RFP to Lyford
and Reyes. They responded they did not see relevance or ne-
cessity of it because Respondent had told them what they were
going to be doing. Teal testified that, at the meeting, no other
reason was given for the Employer’s refusal to provide the
RFP. Teal testified the Union officials again explained the
summary of the RFP was not satisfactory because they did not
know if it was accurate or complete, and “We didn’t know what
we didn’t know. . . .” Teal testified the Unions felt the sum-
mary was what Respondent wanted to tell them and “We didn’t
know what was in there that could have relevance on a potential
grievance.” Teal testified the Unions explained to Respon-
dent’s officials that they wanted to see what Respondent was
going to be doing and its impact on bargaining unit employees,
for example if a contractor employee locked a meter up for
nonpayment, the Unions wanted to know if bargaining unit
members would have to lock the account back in. Teal testified
the Unions raised questions about the hours of work of the con-
tract employees, the work they would be doing, training, and
their interaction with bargaining unit members, and what ac-
counts they would be collecting on, was it only excess, was it
only residential, would they be locking out on Fridays, which
Respondent did not do on a regular basis, in particular relating
to residential accounts. Teal testified the Unions asked about

6 Reyes confirmed that Teal asked for the RFP a number of times
both on June 1 and 8. Reyes testified that on June 8, the Unions ques-
tioned whether the RFP summary was complete and accurate and that
they wanted the RFP to compare it with the summary. Reyes told the
union officials Respondent would look into supplying the complete
document. Reyes testified Local 310 President Phil Bowe said, “Well
just tell us yes or no. One way or the other we’re going to file a
charge.” Reyes testified that, during the parties’ meetings, Respondent
asked the Unions for the relevance of the RFP, and the Unions never
said why it was relevant and never explained why they did not trust the
Employer. Reyes testified when the Unions were provided the RFP
summary, they asked questions about the work of the contractor. He
testified when the Unions asked about contractor’s payment structure,
they were told all Respondent knew was that the contractor’s employ-
ees were going to be paid on a per task basis. Respondent suggested
the Unions could find out how much the contractor’s employees were
going to be paid by calling the contractor to apply for jobs. Reyes
testified the contractors’ bids would estimate their costs including rates
of pay for their employees, but bids were not due until June 13, and the
Unions requested the information prior to that date. Reyes also testified
the contractor’s rates of pay would be included in the contract between
Respondent and contractor once that company became the successful
bidder. Reyes testified that pursuant to their questions the Unions were
told the contractor would be working on commercial and residential
accounts and the contractor’s work would be gathered by the working
leaders, a bargaining unit classification, who would set aside the con-
tractor’s work by towns. Working leaders also lay the work out on a
daily basis for bargaining unit members. The Unions were told the
contractor’s employees would wear similar uniforms to Respondent’s
employees, they would have company ID badges that would say con-
tractor on them, they would use their own vehicles, and Respondent
would supply magnetic signs to identify them as contractors of National
Grid. Reyes thought this information was in the contract or RFP.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1238
working conditions that were not addressed in Respondent’s
written summary. Teal testified Respondent provided some of
the information through verbal responses to the Unions’ ques-
tions.
Teal testified that, during the three bargaining sessions held
in June, alternatives to contracting out the excess collections
work were discussed. The Unions’ main proposal was that
Respondent upgrade the MRs to MWAs and have them perform
the excess collections work, and backfill the MR position with
temporary employees. The Unions stated this was what their
contracts required. Teal testified the Unions made another
proposal that employees who were on light duty, if capable,
perform the collections work. Teal testified Respondent in-
formed the Unions there were only one or two people on light
duty capable of performing the excess collections work. Teal
testified the Unions did not drop this proposal. Teal testified
Respondent rejected the Unions’ proposal to upgrade the MRs
to MWAs, which was the Unions’ last proposal. Teal testified
Respondent’s only proposal was Respondent would bring in
temporary employees to do the excess collections work and pay
them 75 percent of the MR pay rate, which the Union rejected.
He testified the Unions took the position they could not agree to
anything but an upgrade of the MR position because they could
not agree to have the upgrade money taken away from their
members.
On June 20, Teal was copied an e-mail to the Local Unions
which contained an attachment dated June 17, from Lyford in
the form of a memorandum concerning “Excess Collection
Work.” Lyford stated in the memo that the parties were at im-
passe in their proposals on excess collections work, and “the
Company has decided to have it performed by outside contrac-
tors.”7 Teal responded by an e-mail dated June 21, to Respon-
dent’s officials stating the Unions have not received the infor-
mation they requested at the three meetings in June. Teal
stated, “I am again requesting a copy of the RFP sent out to
contractors by the Company. As stated, this does not need to
include costs.”
By letter dated June 30, Reyes responded to Teal, concerning
“Contracting Out of Excess Collections Work.” In the letter
Reyes stated:
You have requested the Company provide you with the “Re-
quest for Proposal” (the RFP) which the Company has issued
to bidders for this work. The Company agreed to review the
RFP to consider the relevance and necessity of the document
to the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement.
After review of the RFP, the Company does not see why the
information included in much of the RFP is relevant and nec-
essary to the Union’s administration of the collective-
bargaining agreement or to its negotiations with the Company
over this issue. Moreover, the Company has never released
an RFP to any party outside of the bidding process because all
bidders are assured confidentiality with respect to the process.
The Company has provided you with a summary of the
scope of the work and the standards to which the contrac-

7 Respondent’s excess collections RFP issued electronically on June
1. The bid closing date was June 13 and Respondent selected the suc-
cessful bidder on June 17, and implemented the contract on June 20.
tor will be required to adhere in performing the work. In
the Company’s view, this fully satisfies its obligations un-
der the law with respect to its providing the Union with in-
formation which is relevant and necessary to the admini-
stration of the contract and the negotiation process.
By letter to Lyford, dated July 1, union attorneys Michael
Feinberg and Jonathan Conti requested copies of the RFPs for
the contracting out of the “Excess Collection of Delinquent
Customer Accounts” and copies of all contracts between Re-
spondent and the winning bidders. It is stated in the letter the
information was necessary, “in order to administer the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements between the UWUA Locals and
National Grid . . . . ”
By letter dated July 7, to Feinberg, Respondent attorney
Glenn Dawson stated:
The Company fails to see why the information re-
quested is relevant and necessary to the Unions’ admini-
stration of the collective-bargaining agreement. Addition-
ally, there are legitimate confidentiality concerns associ-
ated with the Company’s bid process. For these reasons,
the Company respectfully declines to provide you with the
requested information.
However, if you wish to indicate to the Company the
specific information which you believe is contained in the
requested documents and why said information is relevant
and necessary to the Unions’ administration of the con-
tract, the Company will, of course, reassess its legal obli-
gation to provide you with this information in an alterna-
tive form.8
By letter dated July 8, to Lyford from Feinberg and Conti the
Unions filed a “grievance protesting the Company’s decision to
use outside contractors to perform the excess collection of delin-
quent customer accounts.” It is asserted in the letter Respondent
violated various articles of the collective-bargaining agreements,
including articles I(A) (recognition), III (management rights), IV
(seniority), V (filling of vacancies), and IX (compensation). The
letter requested the matter be referred directly to arbitration since
Respondent had informed the Unions outside contractors would
begin the work around August 8.
By letter dated July 11, Feinberg and Conti responded to
Dawson’s July 7 letter stating:
It is the Unions’ position that the information is rele-
vant and necessary to their ability to effectively police
their respective collective-bargaining agreements with Na-
tional Grid.
As you are aware, the Unions have filed a joint griev-
ance contesting the Company’s decision to use outside
contractors to perform the excess collection of delinquent
customer accounts. The Unions believe that this work is
bargaining unit work that should be performed by their
members. The Unions need this information to determine

8 Teal testified, in reference to Dawson’s claims of confidentiality
that Respondent never informed the Unions what information in the
RFP and in the contracts with the successful bidder Respondent consid-
ered confidential.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1239
the amount, under whose direction and supervision the
work will be performed, and the type of work that will be
performed by the outside contractors.
Thus, the Unions reiterate their request for copies of
the RFPs for the contracting out of this work, as well as all
contracts between the Company and the winning bid-
ders(s).
The Unions are willing, however, to accept the re-
quested documents with certain ‘confidential’ information,
such as the economics, redacted. The Union’s focus is on
determining the amount and type of work to be performed
by the outside contractors. There should be a way to pro-
vide this relevant information without running afoul of any
confidentiality concerns.
Please have the Company provide this information
within three business days of the receipt of this letter. If
you send the information in a redacted format, kindly in-
form us as to the nature and character of the redacted in-
formation. If we do not hear from you within three days,
we will be forced to file an unfair labor practice charge
with the National Labor Relations Board.
Dawson responded by letter dated July 14. Dawson cited
Respondent’s typewritten summary concerning collections
which Respondent had previously provided the Unions stating
it contained the same information contained in the RFP and the
contracts with the subcontractor. Dawson went on to state Re-
spondent fails to see why the summary does not satisfy the
Unions’ request for information since the “NLRB’s standard
regarding information furnished by an employer in response to
a union’s information request is one which focuses on the suffi-
ciency of the information which has been provided and not the
form in which it has been provided.” Dawson stated, “if the
Union has follow-up questions regarding the information pro-
vided in this summary then the Company will provide it to the
Union to the extent that it is relevant and necessary to the Un-
ion’s administration of the contract. However, the Company
does not acknowledge that it has any legal obligation to provide
this information to the Union in the form in which you have
requested it, namely, the RFP and the final contract which has
been entered into between the Company and the successful
bidder for the work.”
On July 20, the Unions filed their initial unfair labor practice
charge alleging Respondent violated the Act by refusing to
furnish relevant information necessary for the policing of the
collective-bargaining agreement and the processing of griev-
ances. The amended charge filed on October 20, states the
information was also necessary for collective-bargaining pur-
poses.
Teal attended a July 21 meeting between Respondent and the
Unions with the purpose of allowing the Unions to ask ques-
tions about the work the contractors would be doing. Teal testi-
fied Respondent’s officials answered all questions that were
asked at the meeting and that during the meeting the Unions
were told the following: The name of the contractor was Con-
tract Callers Inc. (CCI) and they would be working in Lincoln,
Hopedale, Brockton, Worcester, and Malden. There would be
between 11 to 15 contractor employees. CCI would provide its
own equipment and vehicles, which would contain Respon-
dent’s metallic logos. CCI employees would wear the same
uniforms as Respondent’s employees, and would be held to the
same safety procedures and performance standards. CCI em-
ployees would be subject to the same criminal background
checks Respondent’s employees receive. CCI’s work schedule
would be Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and they
would not work overtime. CCI would dispatch and supervise
its work. CCI employees would be assigned to a specific city
but flexibly assigned depending on where Respondent needed
excess collections. CCI employees would do collections and
lock in or lock out meters for nonpayment. During the meeting,
the Unions requested and Respondent officials agreed that Re-
spondent would send representatives to the field to talk to the
bargaining unit members to discuss what CCI employees would
be doing.9
Teal testified that during its meetings with Respondent, the
Union was told the contractors would be paid on a per task
basis. Teal testified if Respondent had an agreement for the
contractor’s employees to work outside of 8 to 4 hours, or do
collections on a Friday on a residential client, which the bar-
gaining unit employees do not do, this could impact on the unit.
Teal testified the Unions wanted to know the wages the con-
tractor’s employees would be receiving because the Unions
were told it was cost effective to subcontract out the work, and
it had not been that way in the past. Teal testified the Unions
wanted to see the requested documents to know if there was
anything else Respondent had agreed to with the contractor that
Respondent was not informing the Unions of, as well as ques-
tions that were not asked by the Unions because of lack of
knowledge. Teal testified the Unions received certain informa-
tion but did not know it to be true. Teal testified “We don’t
know what is in there that could effect the collective-bargaining
agreements that the unions have with the company and the
working conditions of the employees.” Teal testified Respon-
dent informed the Unions that if a contractor employee locked
out an account, a contractor employee would handle the associ-
ated lock in. Teal testified he subsequently learned that this
was not the case, and that the lock-ins of some contractor lock-
outs where being performed by bargaining unit employees.
Teal testified this was a change for bargaining unit employees
as they were now interacting with the contractor’s employees
by following up work that they had done. Teal thought it was a
violation of the contract.
On July 28, Fogarty wrote Reyes and asked for information
regarding “Contracting Out of Excess Collection Work.” Fo-
garty stated the information was needed to “fulfill the union’s
contract administration and bargaining responsibilities. Fogarty
requested: 1. Wages, compensation and benefits that will be
provided; 2. Hours of employment; 3. Days of relief; 4. Duties

9 Reyes testified the July 21 meeting was requested by George
(Bing) Fogarty, a national rep for the Brotherhood of Utility Worker’s
Council of the Utility Workers of America. During the meeting, Fo-
garty made a request for Lyford to address all of the workers, answer
their questions, and explain why Respondent was contracting out the
work and how it would affect their jobs. Lyford agreed and the meet-
ings with employees took place in August.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1240
associated; 5. Incentives. Reyes responded as follows by letter
of August 10:
1. Wages, compensation and benefits that will be provided
The Company is paying Contract Callers by unit pric-
ing method according to the outcome of each field visit
and understands field representatives for Contract Callers
are paid in a similar fashion. The Company has no spe-
cific knowledge of the payment structure of wages, com-
pensation or benefits Contract Callers provides its em-
ployees.
2. Hours of employment
The Company has instructed Contract Callers only to
perform collection stops Monday through Friday, from 8
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and lock-ins must be completed in 24
hours. The Company has no specific knowledge of the
hours and days of work for Contract Caller employees.
3. Days of relief
The Company has no specific knowledge of the hours
or days of work (including days of relief) for Contract
Caller employees.
4. Duties associated
The Company has contracted with Contract Callers to
collect money from assigned electric service accounts,
lock-out service for non-payment, and lock-in service as
directed.
5. Incentives
The Company feels wages, compensation and benefits
(including incentives if any) that a contractor pays its em-
ployees is privileged in the employer-employee relation-
ship. Please indicate why such information is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s administration of the collective-
bargaining agreement so the Company may assess its legal
obligation to provide it.
Teal testified the information provided by Reyes did not satisfy
the Unions’ request for the RFP or contracts, because it did not
inform the Union what was in the RFP, how it would affect
bargaining unit members and the Unions could not verify the
accuracy of the responses. Teal testified the details of how a
contractor would perform the excess collections work had rele-
vance as to what the contractors would be doing in taking work
from unit employees.
Reyes attended the excess collections arbitration hearing
held on December 2. Reyes had received a subpoena from the
arbitrator, requested by the Union’s attorneys, requiring Reyes
to bring a copy of the RFP and of the CCI contract to the hear-
ing. Reyes testified to the following: In their opening statement
to the arbitrator the Unions requested the RFP and contract be
placed into evidence. Respondent’s counsel objected raising a
number of issues including the relevance of the documents,
whether the subpoena was enforceable in Massachusetts, and
that Respondent had provided all of the information to the Un-
ions in an alternative form. Respondent’s counsel argued the
arbitrator had no authority to enforce the subpoena and the
arbitrator, not the Unions, would have to go to court to enforce
it. The arbitrator was told a charge had been filed over the
information request with the National Labor Relations Board.
The arbitrator described three options, one was to have the
Unions go to court to enforce the subpoena, the other was for
him to take an adverse inference, and the third was for him to
look at the material in camera to decide whether it was relevant.
The arbitrator did not take any of these actions. Rather, Re-
spondent’s counsel suggested they go forward and the arbitrator
could make a decision on the subpoena later on if he felt it was
necessary. The Unions agreed to go forward but were not giv-
ing up their right to have the subpoena enforced. The Unions
called Lyford as the only witness, and Respondent did not cross
exam her. Prior to resting, the Unions did not renew their re-
quest that the arbitrator enforce the subpoena.
On February 16, 2006, the arbitrator issued his award concern-
ing the Unions’ grievance over the use of outside contractor em-
ployees to collect delinquent payments and lock-in and lock-out
meters. The arbitrator stated at page 8 of his decision that:
Before this case arose, whenever the Company in-
creased efforts to collect delinquent accounts during the
non-moratorium period, it supplemented employees per-
forming collections and meter lock-in/lock-outs by tempo-
rarily upgrading MRs to a higher paying job classifica-
tion—after 1999, the MWA title, and before 1999, the
MW title—and assigning those duties to them. And when
necessary, the Company hired temporary employees to fill
lower paying MR positions.
From approximately 2002 [sic] unit this case arose in
2005, the Company apparently made no special efforts to
collect from delinquent residential customers during the
non-moratorium period, nor did the Company augment the
number of employees performing collections work.
The arbitrator found Respondent contracted with CCI to col-
lect delinquent payments and to perform associated lock-
out/lock-in work and CCI performed limited operations in 2005
for Respondent. The arbitrator stated Respondent intends to
expand the program in the future, and noted its contract with
CCI includes 2006 and 2007. The arbitrator, in finding for the
Union, held there was a binding past practice that when Re-
spondent chose to augment its work force to perform field col-
lections work of temporarily assigning MRs to the higher pay-
ing MWA position and backfilling the MR classification with
temporary employees. The arbitrator stated article III, section
3(a) and (b) of the management-rights clause in two of the three
applicable collective-bargaining agreements provides that es-
tablished past practices will not be changed during the term of
the contract, and the arbitrator found Respondent’s prior staff-
ing for augmenting its work force for collections work met the
requirements of an established past practice within the defini-
tion of the contractual management-rights clauses. The arbitra-
tor found that, although the contract with Local 654 did not
contain the past practice language, a contract need not contain
an express past practice provision for a past practice to become
binding on the parties.10

10 The arbitrator’s complete rationale for finding in favor of the Un-
ion can be found in his award and is not repeated herein.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1241
The arbitrator found as a remedy that Respondent “shall
make whole Meter Readers and Meter Worker Associates in
Worcester and Malden, Massachusetts, who lost the opportu-
nity to perform field collection work and lock-in/lock-out work,
in accordance with their seniority, during the period that CCI
employees performed bargaining unit work in 2005.” The arbi-
trator retained jurisdiction in the event the parties could not
agree on the amount of backpay. The arbitrator refused the
Unions’ request to issue a cease and desist order foreclosing
Respondent from hiring contractor employees to perform this
work in the future stating that in general, “arbitrators lack the
authority to issue cease-and-desist orders but may only remedy
a violation in the immediate case before them.”
A. The Testimony of Respondent’s Witnesses on the Decision
to Deny the Unions’ Request for a Copy of the RFP and
Related Contracts
Reyes testified he was involved in the decision to deny the
Unions’ request for the RFP and the contract with CCI. Reyes
spoke with Bill Dowd, vice president of human relations, and
with outside counsel concerning the request. Reyes testified
the decision not to provide the RFP was based on Respondent’s
view that it had a right to subcontract the work under the con-
tractual management-rights clause. He also testified it was
discussed this was a mandatory subject of bargaining, so Re-
spondent bargained with the Unions to try to reach an alterna-
tive to outsourcing the work. Reyes testified the Unions never
stated the relevance of the requested information and Respon-
dent’s officials felt they had done a good job in providing the
information to the Unions in that they answered every question
asked.
Reyes testified there was also a confidentiality issue pertain-
ing to the requested information. Reyes testified a number of
Respondent’s requests for proposals (RFPs) can involve issues
with legal ramifications in that the Department of Telecommu-
nications and Energy in Massachusetts (DTE) and the Public
Utilities Commission in Rhode Island (PUC) are concerned
with Respondent’s operations. Reyes testified those depart-
ments direct the moratorium period in collections and Respon-
dent’s rate structure. Yet, Reyes testified the RFP in dispute
concerning excess collections work was “Probably [a] very low
risk problem.” Reyes testified there was probably a very low
concern relating to the DTE and PUC concerning the Unions’
information request. Reyes testified that, when the union offi-
cials requested the RFP during negotiations, “I told them that
first of all I hadn’t read it. I hadn’t seen it. I didn’t know what
the relevance was. I wanted to talk to the people in the supply
chain and talk to them about it.” Regarding the RFP, Reyes
testified, “I haven’t looked at it since last June. And at that
time I don’t think I looked at it specifically to say that any one
aspect of that was confidential.” Reyes testified he did not
know whether there was anything particularly sensitive in this
particular RFP except Respondent had a practice of not disclos-
ing RFPs and they required the bidders to sign off on a confi-
dentiality agreement. Reyes testified concerning the RFP, “I
can’t recall my review of it back in June if that there [sic] was
anything that identified confidentiality to me.”
Lori Rounds is employed by Respondent as a principle pur-
chasing agent in its procurement department. Rounds works
with internal customers to procure services from outside con-
tractors. The procurement process involves a project manager
of a user group contacting procurement to describe the service
needed. Procurement then works with the project manager to
formulate an RFP. The project manager is responsible for the
technical specification concerning the tasks to be performed by
the outside contractor, while procurement compiles the com-
mercial requirements for an RFP. The formulation of the RFP
is coordinated between procurement and the internal use group.
Once the RFP is assembled it goes out for bid, and the bids are
submitted electronically via e-mail to an electronic lock box to
procurement for review. Procurement then forwards the bids to
the project manager. The project manager and the user group
are responsible for the technical evaluation of the bid and pro-
curement is responsible for the commercial evaluation. Pro-
curement makes a recommendation to the user group and the
user group is the ultimate decisionmaker as to which contractor
gets the job.
During the bidding process and prior to awarding the con-
tract, the project manager and their team have access to the
RFP. The team is generally nonunion individuals from the
group requesting the services such as engineers, other profes-
sionals, and department heads. Depending on the complexity
of a project, the environmental and safety departments may
determine if there are any environmental or safety requirements
that need to be part of the RFP. However, those departments
generally do not look at the RFP. Rounds testified the legal
department may be asked to comment on terms and conditions
various bidders may have.
Rounds testified Respondent has a corporate policy to main-
tain confidentiality of the RFP and all contracts that result from
it. She testified there are multiple occasions in the RFP bidding
process where Respondent states the information provided is
confidential. Many of Respondent’s bids are offered on a web-
site for which Respondent provides a link and a password to
bidders. Upon entering the link, but before accessing the RFP,
a confidentiality statement is displayed which states by logging
in and accessing the documents the bidder has accepted Re-
spondent’s confidentiality requirements.11 For the excess col-
lections RFP all of the bidders, before they could access the
documents, had to agree to the confidentiality language as part

11 The confidentiality screen reads:
National Grid considers any information provided to Bidders
in the course of business to be privileged and confidential be-
tween Bidder and National Grid. This includes, but is not limited
to, written data of any kind, business information, request for quo-
tation, specifications, engineering data and any and all technolo-
gies and data either obtained or observed while supplying the
commodity/service required by the contract. Unauthorized dis-
closure of information to third parties by Bidder may lead to
revocation of RFP invitation to bid, cancellations of contract, loss
of future business opportunities and/or the effects of any other
remedies which may be available to National Grid.
By proceeding to review the RFP documents, Bidder agrees
that it understands and accepts the confidentiality requirements of
this RFP.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1242
of getting into the website. Rounds testified that, early within
the RFP itself, there is a section called information and instruc-
tions, where there are several different articles that describe the
confidential nature of the RFP and other documents. She testi-
fied the RFPs always contain confidentiality language.12
Rounds testified once a project has been awarded, Respon-
dent implements a contract with the selected bidder. The con-
tract contains the technical specification and it also contains the
terms and conditions that were originally included with the
RFP. Those terms and conditions have language that describes
the confidential nature of all the contract documents. The con-
tracts are held within procurement, and at times, depending on
the project, a copy of the contract will be sent to Respondent’s
legal department. The project manager receives a copy of the
contract and the vender receives a copy of the contract.
Rounds testified the procurement department processes hun-
dreds of contracts per year for outside services and in 2005,
procurement processed over 300 RFPs. Rounds testified there
are several reasons why Respondent has the confidentiality
requirement. She testified first and foremost Respondent wants
to maintain a level playing field for all bidders. They want
bidders to receive the same information at the same time so no
bidder has a competitive advantage during the bid process.
Rounds testified sometimes the RFPs contain sensitive com-
pany information that could cause regulatory concerns, or pub-
lic relations issues, or political problems if the information
were to be distributed without sufficient background. She testi-
fied it could also be problematic if information got out before
the Respondent was ready to make certain projects public.
Rounds testified that on a rare occasion, Respondent may ter-
minate a contract in which case they would have to negotiate
with the second highest bidder or they may have to rebid. In
order to maintain the integrity of the process and to not give
any undue advantage to any vendors Respondent strives to
maintain information confidential even after a contract is en-
tered into.
Rounds admitted there were no environmental concerns re-
garding disclosure relating to the RFP for excess collections.
Rounds testified even after the bid process is completed and the
contract is awarded, Respondent believes it is necessary to
maintain the confidentiality of the RFP documents because
there may be technical information therein that is sensitive to
Respondent’s operation as a regulated utility. However,
Rounds admitted this factor did not apply to the RFP in dispute.
She also testified there are concerns with respect to Respon-
dent’s employees having access to RFP information because
employees sometimes have opportunity to come in contact with
vendors who want to work for the Respondent. She testified
there may be information that is transferred to vendors that may
give them a competitive advantage, or may put Respondent at
some type of risk. Rounds testified Respondent has many retir-
ees who go to work for consulting firms or contractors that may

12 Rounds testified that, depending on the nature of the work, Re-
spondent may also have a stand alone nondisclosure agreement that
bidders must sign before they are given the RFP documents. However,
she testified this was not required for the excess collections RFP, which
was only a web-based RFP.
be able to gain some kind of an advantage if this information
were available to them.
Rounds testified she reviewed the excess collections RFP
and that the confidentiality concerns with respect to this RFP
included information showing the number of and types of col-
lections that were done. She testified that, in order for the bid-
ders to provide cost estimates for the work, Respondent has to
give them the projects technical requirements and the volume
of the work. Respondent gave the bidders a representative
sample of data concerning the amount of collections to be done
to give them an idea of the size of the project. She testified this
information was sensitive. The following exchange took place
during Rounds’ testimony:
JUDGE FINE: Was there anything else that was sensitive
in your view?
THE WITNESS: That would be—in my view that would
be the most sensitive of the information that we had.
When asked if there was anything else Rounds testified,
“That’s the thing that comes to mind for me. For this particular
RFP.” Rounds was not involved in Respondent’s decision not
to provide a copy of Respondent’s contract with CCI to the
Unions.
Rounds identified a document pertaining to Respondent and
its affiliated companies entitled, “Terms and Conditions for
Service Firm Purchase Orders.” She testified the document
contains conditions included in the RFP in dispute as well as in
Respondent’s contract with CCI. Article 14.1 of the document
reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Purchase Order,
the Service Firm recognizes that the Company or its affiliates
may find it necessary or desirable to make information avail-
able to the Service Firm, its Subcontractors, or their employ-
ees which is deemed proprietary and/or confidential informa-
tion (Information). In this regard, it is agreed that neither the
Service Firm, nor its Subcontractors, nor their employees
shall without the prior written approval of the Company, at
any time disclose to third parties any Information which may
be disclosed to them or to which they are given access during
the performance of the Work, or to publish the Information at
any time, whether during the term of the Purchase Order or
thereafter.
B. Analysis
In Ormet Aluminum Mill Products, 335 NLRB 788, 801
(2001), a case involving requests for information pertaining to
subcontracting, it was stated that:
In A-Plus Roofing, Inc., 295 NLRB 967, 970 (1989), enfd.
NLRB v. A-Plus Roofing, Inc., 39 F.3d 1410 (9th Cir. 1994),
the applicable principles concerning requests for information
were set forth as follows:
An employer, pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act,
has an obligation to provide requested information needed
by the bargaining representative of its employees for the
effective performance of the representative’s duties and
responsibilities. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432, 435–436 (1967). The employer’s obligation includes
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1243
the duty to supply information necessary to administer and
police an existing collective-bargaining agreement. (Id. at
435–438), and if the requested information relates to an
existing contract provision it thus is “information that is
demonstrably necessary to the union if it is to perform its
duty to enforce the agreement. . . .” A. S. Abell Co., 230
NLRB 1112, 113 (1977). Where the requested informa-
tion concerns employees . . . within the bargaining unit
covered by the agreement, this information is presump-
tively relevant and the employer has the burden of proving
lack of relevance. . . . Where the request is for informa-
tion concerning employees outside the bargaining unit, the
Union must show that the information is relevant. Brook-
lyn Union Gas Co., 220 NLRB 189 (1975); Curtiss-Wright
Corp., 145 NLRB 152 (1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61, 69 (3d
Cir. 1965). In either situation, however, the standard for
discovery is the same: “a liberal discovery-type standard.”
Loral Electronic Systems, 253 NLRB 851; 853 (1980);
Acme Industrial, supra at 432, 437. Thus information
need not necessarily be dispositive of the issue between
the parties, it need only have some bearing on it.
. . . .
Once the initial showing of relevance has been made,
“the employer has the burden to prove a lack of relevance
. . . or to provide adequate reasons as to why he cannot, in
good faith, supply such information.” San Diego Newspa-
per Guild, supra at 863, 867. Where the relevance of re-
quested information has been established, an employer can
meet its burden of showing an adequate reason for refus-
ing to supply the information by demonstrating a “legiti-
mate and substantial” concern for employee confidential-
ity interests which might be compromised by disclosure.
Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 315, 318–320
[(1979)]. In resolving issues of asserted confidentiality,
the Board first determines if the employer has established
any legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest and
then balances that interest against the union’s need for the
information. Detroit Edison, id. at 315, 318; Minnesota
Mining & Mfg. Co., 261 NLRB 27, 30 (1982); Pfizer Inc.,
268 NLRB 916 (1984). However, where the employer
fails to demonstrate a legitimate and substantial confiden-
tiality interest, the union’s right to the information is effec-
tively unchallenged, and the employer is under a duty to
furnish the information. Oil Workers Local 6-418 v.
NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1983); NLRB v. Jag-
gars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc., 639 F.2d 1344, 1346–1347 (5th
Cir. 1981); NLRB v. Associated General Contractors of
California, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980).
. . . .
Information requested to enable a union to assess
whether a respondent has violated a collective-bargaining
agreement by contracting out unit work and, accordingly,
to assist a union in deciding whether to resort to the con-
tractual grievance procedure is relevant to a union’s repre-
sentative status and responsibilities. AK Steel Corp., 324
NLRB 173, 184 (1997); and Island Creek Coal Co., 292
NLRB 480, 490 (1989), enfd. 899 F.2d 1222 (6th Cir.
1990).
It was also stated in Ormet Aluminum Mill Products, supra at
802 that:
It cannot be said that a union would be fulfilling its statutory
responsibility of policing a contract by blindly accepting a re-
spondent’s assertions as to the merits of a grievance, or for
that matter what the requested information would show with-
out being provided access to the underlying documents upon
which those representations are made. While the Local was
provided a summary by Respondent in November 1998,
showing the number of skids purchased in 1997 and the cost
per skid, this does not serve as a substitute for the Local’s re-
quest for invoices from Williamson for the years 1996 and
1997. For the Local is entitled to the original documents, not
just to unverified summaries made by Respondent’s officials.
In this regard, the Local is entitled to the base line information
to formulate its own arguments rather just accepting positions
posited by Respondent. Thus, it was entitled to the requested
invoices. See Merchant Fast Motor Line, 324 NLRB 563
(1997) (holding that a union was not required to accept a re-
spondent’s declaration as to profitability or summary financial
information provided by the respondent); McQuire Steel
Erection, Inc., 324 NLRB 221 (1997) (summaries of payroll
records deemed not sufficient to meet a respondent’s statutory
obligation); New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 289 NLRB 318,
330 fn. 9 (1988), enfd. NLRB v. New Jersey Bell Telephone
Co., 872 F. 2d 413 (3d Cir. 1989) (summary of an employee’s
absence records found not to be acceptable, with the adminis-
trative law judge stating that a grievance under a collective-
bargaining agreement is analogous to a trial, wherein summa-
ries may be offered by a party but it must make available to
the other side the records on which the summary is based.
Fed.R.Evid. 1006); and Pertec Computer, 288 NLRB 810,
822, (1987) (the provision of a cost study insufficient absent
access to the financial records from which the study was de-
rived).
See also E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 346 NLRB 553, 557–
558 (2006), a case also involving a subcontracting dispute,
where the Board noted that, “In order to assess the accuracy of
the Respondent’s claims, it was necessary for the Union to
examine the data that formed the basis for the Respondent’s
conclusions.” In E. I. Du Pont, supra at 558, the Board stated
the respondent’s refusal to provide the union with requested
information prevented the union from effectively creating a
counter proposal to the respondent’s subcontracting of unit
work.
In Pulaski Construction Co., 345 NLRB 931, 938 (2005), the
following was stated pertaining to confidential information:
The Board has found that a substantial claim of confi-
dentiality may justify a refusal to furnish otherwise rele-
vant information and the burden of proof is on the party
asserting the claim. Blanket claims of confidentiality,
however, will not be upheld. In defining the parameters of
what constitutes confidential information the Board has
developed the following guidelines:
Confidential information is limited to a few general
categories; that which would reveal, contrary to promises
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1244
or reasonable expectations, highly personal information,
such as individual medical records of psychological test
results; that which would reveal substantial proprietary in-
formation, such as trade secrets; that which could reasona-
bly be expected to lead to harassment or retaliation, such
as the identity of witnesses; and that which is traditionally
privileged, such as memoranda prepared for pending law-
suits.
Detroit Newspaper, supra at 1073. If it is determined
that the information sought to be protected is confidential,
the issue then becomes whether the defense was timely
raised by the employer so that the parties could attempt to
seek an accommodation of the employer’s confidentiality
concerns. It is not enough that an employer raise a confi-
dentiality concern; it must then come forward with some
offer to accommodate both its concern and its bargaining
obligation. It does not appear that any of the information
requested by the union falls within the description of con-
fidential information as the Board has defined that con-
cept. Even assuming that the request did encompass confi-
dential information, Respondent had an obligation to dis-
cuss its confidentiality concerns with the union so as to try
to develop mutually agreeable protective conditions for
disclosure of that information. The Good Life Beverage
Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 (1993). Respondent’s failure
to raise this concern with the union vitiates its attempt to
raise it now.13
In the instant case, the Unions verbally requested a copy of
the RFP on June 1, when Respondent informed the union offi-
cials that Respondent was contemplating contracting out excess
collections work. Teal requested the RFP to determine how the
subcontracting would affect the pay, working conditions, and
work performed by bargaining unit members. Teal wanted to
know what the working conditions for the contractors would
be, including the work they would be performing, the location,
their pay, and whether would they interact with bargaining unit
employees. On June 8, the Unions renewed their request for
the RFP’s and informed Respondent its written summary of the
RFP was not sufficient because Respondent’s telling the Un-
ions what was in the document and what Respondent thought
the Unions should know was not sufficient in lieu of the provi-
sion of the actual document. During a meeting on June 16,
Respondent was told by union officials that the summary was
not sufficient because the Union’s did not know if it was accu-
rate or complete.
By e-mail dated June 20, Respondent informed the Unions
the parties were at impasse in bargaining over excess collec-
tions work and Respondent decided to contract out the work.
Respondent implemented the contract for contracting out the

13 See also Pertec Computer, 284 NLRB 810, 811 (1987), supple-
mented by 298 NLRB 609 (1990), enfd. as modified 926 F.2d 181 (2d
Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 856 (1991), holding “If the Respon-
dent’s broad assertion of confidentiality were to prevail here, unions
would rarely be held entitled to any information that employers had
reason to withhold from third parties.” The Board also stated, “the
Respondent has not shown the Union to be unreliable in respecting
confidentiality agreements.”
work on June 20. By email to Respondent’s officials, dated
June 21, Teal renewed the Unions request for the RFP. By
letter dated June 30, Reyes questioned the relevance of the RFP
to the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement,
and for the first time raised confidentiality concerns concerning
the provision of the RFP to the Unions.
By letter dated July 1, the Unions’ attorneys requested a
copy of the RFPs and of all contracts between Respondent and
the winning bidders. Respondent was informed the documents
were necessary for the administration of the collective-
bargaining agreements with Respondent. By letter dated July 7,
Respondent’s counsel, in declining to provide the information,
questioned its relevance and raised confidentiality concerns
with the information associated with the Respondent’s bid
process. By letter dated July 8, the Unions’ attorneys filed a
grievance over the contracting out of excess collections work
citing several provisions in the parties’ collective-bargaining
agreements. By letter dated July 11, the Unions’ attorneys,
cited the grievance, and informed Respondent that the re-
quested information was relevant and necessary to police the
parties’ collective-bargaining agreements. Respondent was
told, “The Unions need this information to determine the
amount, under whose direction and supervision the work will
be performed, and the type of work that will be performed by
the outside contractors.” It was stated the Unions were willing
to accept the requested documents with certain “confidential”
information such as economics redacted. By letter dated July
14, Respondent declined the Unions’ request for the named
documents stating the summary Respondent provided was suf-
ficient. On July 20, the Unions filed an unfair labor practice
charge stating the information was necessary for the policing of
the collective-bargaining agreements, and the processing of
grievances. An amended charge was filed on October 20, stat-
ing the information was also needed for collective-bargaining
purposes.
The Unions followed up their information requests with a
subpoena issued by the arbitrator requesting the RFPs for the
contracting out of excess collections work and contracts with
the winning bidders be produced at the December 2 arbitration
hearing. Counsel for the Unions also requested that the docu-
ments be made part of the arbitration record during his opening
statement to the arbitrator. Respondent’s counsel interposed
several objections including relevance, that the arbitrator had
no authority to enforce the subpoena, that arbitrator, not the
Unions, would have to go to court to enforce the subpoena, and
that Respondent had provided all of the information to the Un-
ions in an alternative form. Reyes testified the arbitrator de-
scribed three options, one was to have the Unions go to court to
enforce the subpoena, the other was for him to take an adverse
inference, and the third was for him to look at the material in
camera to decide whether it was relevant. Reyes testified arbi-
trator did not take any of these actions. Rather, Respondent’s
counsel suggested they go forward with the case and the arbi-
trator could make a decision concerning the subpoena later on
if he felt it was necessary. The Unions agreed to go forward
but stated they were not giving up their right to have the sub-
poena enforced. Reyes testified the arbitrator was told that a
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1245
charge had been filed over the information request with the
National Labor Relations Board.
On February 16, 2006, the arbitrator issued his award con-
cerning the subcontracting out of excess collections work find-
ing in favor of the Unions. The arbitrator found Respondent
contracted with CCI to collect delinquent payments and to per-
form associated lock-out/lock-in work, and that CCI performed
limited operations in 2005 for Respondent. The arbitrator
stated Respondent intends to expand the program in the future,
and noted its contract with CCI includes 2006 and 2007. The
arbitrator also found CCI’s employees performed the work of
unit employees. The arbitrator found in contracting out the
work, Respondent breached a binding past practice, and by
doing so violated article III, section 3(a) and (b) of the man-
agement-rights clause of two of the three applicable collective-
bargaining agreements. The arbitrator noted that although the
contract with Local 654 did not contain the past practice lan-
guage found in the management-rights clause of the other two
labor agreements, he stated a contract need not contain an ex-
press past practice provision for a past practice to become bind-
ing on the parties. The arbitrator issued a make-whole remedy
for the collections work performed in 2005, and he retained
jurisdiction in the event the parties could not agree on the
amount of backpay. The arbitrator refused the Unions’ request
to issue a cease-and-desist order foreclosing Respondent from
hiring contractor employees from performing this work in the
future stating in general arbitrators lack the authority to issue
such orders.
Based on the forgoing, I have concluded that the Unions es-
tablished and appropriately apprised Respondent of the rele-
vancy of the RFPs and ensuing contracts. Respondent in-
formed the Unions of the possibility of contracting out certain
work, and honored the Unions’ request to bargain about keep-
ing the work in house. Thereafter, Respondent provided the
Unions with a written summary of the RFP, and answered ques-
tions raised by the Unions concerning the contracting out of the
work. Respondent was told this was not sufficient to replace
the RFP because the Unions had a right to verify the accuracy
of Respondent’s assertions, and the Unions may have omitted
certain questions due to a lack of knowledge of the RFP’s con-
tent. Respondent has parenthetically acknowledged the rele-
vancy of the RFP by providing the Unions with information
contained therein. Moreover, at various times Respondent was
told the information was needed to bargain, to police the par-
ties’ contracts, to process a grievance, to determine the impact
of the contracting out on unit employees, and to determine the
amount and type of work to be performed by outside contrac-
tors. Any and all of the reasons asserted were sufficient to
establish the relevance of the requested information. See Ormet
Aluminum Mill Products, supra; Pulaski Construction Co.,
supra; and Pertec Computer, supra.
The Unions were entitled to review the original documents,
and not to be limited to summaries and Respondent’s represen-
tations as to the documents contents. See Ormet Aluminum Mill
Products, supra at 802; and E. I. Du Pont, supra at 557–558
(2006). This is particularly so here where Teal credibly testi-
fied Respondent informed the Unions that if a contractor em-
ployee locked out an account, a contractor employee would
handle the associated lock-in. Yet, Teal testified he subse-
quently learned that this was not the case, and that the lock-ins
of some contractor lockouts where being performed by bargain-
ing unit employees. Teal testified this was a change for bar-
gaining unit employees as they were now interacting with the
contractor’s employees by following up on their work. Along
these lines, Reyes testified when the Unions were provided
Respondent’s RFP summary document, they asked questions
on how the contractor was going to compensate its employees.
Reyes testified, concerning the contractor’s employees’ pay-
ment structure, the Unions were told all Respondent knew was
that the contractor’s employees were going to be paid on a per
task basis, and Respondent was not interested in how much
they were being paid. Reyes testified bids were not due until
June 13, which was after Unions requested this particular in-
formation. Yet, despite Respondent’s claim of lack of knowl-
edge to the Unions, Reyes testified the contractors’ bids would
estimate their costs including rates of pay for their employees.
Reyes also testified the contractor’s rates of pay would be in-
cluded in the contract between Respondent and contractor once
that company became the successful bidder. Thus, according to
Reyes, Respondent received this information from the contrac-
tor shortly after the Unions made their information request, but
it was not provided to the Unions. Similarly, by letter dated
August 10, in response to a written information request, Reyes
informed the Unions that the “Company has no specific knowl-
edge of the payment structure of wages, compensation or bene-
fits Contract Callers provides its employees.” Yet, as set forth
above, Reyes testified estimated rates of pay to the contractors
employees would be included in the contractor’s bid, and the
actual rates of pay would be included in the contract, which
was a document specifically requested by the Unions.
By letter dated July 11, the Unions’ attorneys informed Re-
spondent the Unions needed a copy of the RFP and the contract
with CCI “to determine the amount, under whose direction and
supervision the work will be performed, and the type of work
that will be performed by the outside contractors.” Rounds
testified Respondent included information in the RFP showing
the number of and types of collections that were done. She
testified that, in order for the bidders to provide cost estimates
for the work, Respondent has to give them the projects techni-
cal requirements and the volume of the work. The Unions were
successful in their grievance before the arbitrator, who ordered
a make-whole remedy. Yet, they were never provided informa-
tion with the technical specifications as to the amount of work
to be done in the subcontract to enable them to properly assess
damages, although Rounds’ testimony reveals this information
was included in the RFP the Unions had requested. Thus, by
admissions of Respondent’s officials the RFP summary and
Respondent’s answers to the Unions’ questions were either
incomplete or sometimes inaccurate. The case law provides, as
set forth above, that the Unions were entitled to copies of the
original documents, and were not required to rely on Respon-
dent’s representations of what those documents contained.
Accordingly, I have found the Unions’ request for a copy of the
RFPs and Respondent’s contracts with the successful bidders
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1246
was both relevant and necessary to the performance of their
statutory functions.14
I also find that Respondent has not raised a legitimate and
substantial confidentiality defense for its refusal to provide the
requested documents. The Unions first requested a copy of the
RFP on June 1 and repeated the request on June 8. The parties
engaged in negotiations to discuss alternatives to contracting
out the disputed work on June 1, 8, and 16. By email dated
June 20, Respondent declared impasse and informed the Unions
it had decided to contract out the work. In fact, Respondent
implemented the contract on June 20. Yet, Respondent never
informed the Unions of a confidentiality concern with respect
to the requested RFP until June 30, ten days after it had de-
clared impasse in negotiations. Thereafter, Respondent refused
the Unions’ request to provide a redacted document, and never
apprised the Unions of the nature of the information in the RFP
that was confidential. Respondent’s concern over confidential-
ity, after its declaration of impasse, was not timely raised, and it
never offered to negotiate with the Unions a means of provid-
ing the requested documents while protecting any legitimate
concerns of confidentiality. See Pulaski Construction Co., 345
NLRB 931, 938 (2005). Respondent has also failed to show the
Unions to be unreliable in respecting confidentiality agree-
ments. See Pertec Computer, supra at 811.15

14 Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 224 NLRB 1418, 1441–1443 (1976),
cited by Respondent, is inapposite to the situation herein. In Winn-
Dixie the union requested the names of employee’s companywide with
20 or more years of service in relation to its proposal for increased
vacation benefits for employees in that category. The employer took
the position that the union’s proposal could impact 18,000 employees.
The employer presented the union with a computer-generated record
showing the number of employees with 20 or more years of service, but
claimed that in order to obtain the employees names it would have to
go through the burdensome process of individually reviewing employ-
ees’ personnel files. Id. at 1442 fn. 61. The judge concluded the com-
puter generated statistical data satisfied the need for the information
articulated by the union, and since the data was not inherently suspect,
the union did not need the employees names to cross check the data
provided. The judge distinguished General Electric Co., 186 NLRB 14
(1970), noting a violation was found there because the information
provided the union by way of a videotape was not in a form that would
adequately provide the union with relevant information. See Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., supra at 1442–1443 fns. 62, 64. There is no conten-
tion in the present case that Respondent’s provision of the RFP and
related contracts is burdensome. I do not find Respondent’s picking
and choosing what information it deems the Unions need from the
underlying requested documents to constitute an adequate substitute for
the provision of the requested documents. The Unions have not even
been provided such basic information to allow them to accurately cal-
culate the amount of backpay owing unit members as a result of a re-
cent arbitration award.
15 Rounds’ testimony reveals that, in addition to the bidding contrac-
tors, people within Respondent’s procurement department, the project
manager and project team consisting of engineers, professionals, and
department heads see an RFP. Members of the Respondent’s legal
department may also see the RFP. No information was given as to
whether these individuals were required to sign confidentiality agree-
ments, or why they should be trusted with the information any more
than a select group of union officials performing their representative
functions. Moreover, the confidentiality provision in Respondent’s
service contract reveals that not only is the service firm privy to the
Respondent’s witnesses also failed to testify as to any legiti-
mate confidentiality concerns with respect to the RFP and con-
tracts in dispute. Reyes testified that the requested RFP was
“Probably (a) very low risk problem.” Reyes testified, “I ha-
ven’t looked at it since last June. And at that time I don’t think
I looked at it specifically to say that any one aspect of that was
confidential.” Reyes testified he did not know whether there
was anything particularly sensitive in this particular RFP.
Reyes testified concerning the RFP, “I can’t recall my review
of it back in June if that there was anything that identified con-
fidentiality to me.” Reyes could only claim Respondent had a
practice of not disclosing RFPs and they required the bidders to
sign off on a confidentiality agreement. Similarly, Respondent
witness Rounds took great pains to articulate the need for con-
fidentiality of Respondent’s RFP process. Yet, the only spe-
cific claims she could testify to concerning the need for confi-
dentiality of the excess collections RFP were that the document
included information showing the number of and types of col-
lections that were to be done by the outside contractor, which
Rounds viewed as sensitive information. I do not view this
type of information as confidential. In fact it goes to the heart
of any backpay claims the Unions might have, and their ability
to negotiate alternative means to outsourcing of the work if
they elect to do so.16 Respondent has failed to establish any-
thing confidential about the requested information except for
blanket claims of confidentiality. The Board has found that
such claims do not justify a refusal to furnish requested infor-
mation, and I see no reason to make such a finding here. See
Pulaski Construction Co., supra at 938, and Pertec Computer,
supra at 811. Thus, I have concluded Respondent has not es-
tablished a legitimate and substantial claim of confidentiality
under the Act’s requirements.
Respondent has raised other defenses to the provision of the
requested information claiming the Unions did not raise an
allegation that they needed the information for bargaining until
October when they filed the amended unfair labor practice
charge, that the proposals made by the parties prior to Respon-
dent’s declaration of impasse were not dependent on the infor-
mation contained in the RFP, and the provision of the informa-
tion for bargaining future contracts is premature. I do not find
any of these contentions to be persuasive. First, the Board has
held a respondent can be apprised of the relevancy of requested
information even through the testimony of union officials at the
unfair labor practice hearing. See Ormet Aluminum Mill Prod-

RFP, but the information may be given to the service firm’s subcontrac-
tors and their employees. Thus, the only individuals with a need to
know the contents of the RFP whom Respondent claims it could not
trust because of confidentiality concerns were the union officials who
have a statutory obligation to represent the bargaining unit employees.
I find Respondent’s refusal to tender the underlying requested docu-
ments to the Unions was based on reasons other than concerns of confi-
dentiality. Rather, I find Respondent wanted to maintain whatever
advantage it could in negotiations with the Unions, and in the ensuing
grievance and arbitration proceedings by not providing the requested
documents.
16 Rounds was not involved in the decision to deny the Unions’ re-
quest for the RFP and contracts, and Reyes, who was involved could
articulate no confidentiality concerns specific to the documents at issue.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1247
ucts, supra at 802; and Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987, 990–
991 fn. 9 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976). The fact
that the parties made limited proposals during their negotiations
concerning the proposed subcontracting can in part be attrib-
uted to Respondent’s failure to provide the Unions with the
requested information. In this regard, the Unions were not
provided with the scope of the proposed subcontracting as well
as other details that may have allowed them to formulate other
proposals. Thus, the Unions in seeking to keep the work for
bargaining unit employees were at a severe disadvantage to the
outside contractors who had access to the complete RFP in
formulating their bids. By failing to provide the Unions with
the requested information, Respondent undermined their ability
to make counterproposals beyond their contention that Respon-
dent was violating the contract with it actions. See, E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., 346 NLRB 553, 558 (2006). More-
over, the arbitrator found Respondent violated the collective-
bargaining agreement by contracting out the work in 2005 and
issued a make-whole remedy. The requested information is
certainly relevant for bargaining between the parties as to the
amounts due under the arbitrator’s decision. The arbitrator,
while noting Respondent’s contract with CCI called for CCI to
perform the work on a larger level in 2006 and 2007, stated it
was not within the arbitrator’s authority to issue a cease-and-
desist order. Thus, the requested information is also relevant to
bargaining over Respondent’s future plans and grievances and
remedies for possible future contract violations. I also find the
Unions are entitled to the requested information as background
information to consider when the parties bargain collective-
bargaining agreements in the future.17

17 While the Unions did not seek to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena
request for the information, I would not find this as an impediment to
the Unions’ unfair labor practice charge seeking the information. In
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. NLRB, 687 F.2d 633 (2d
Cir. 1982), the court, in enforcing a Board order, found the respondent
employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by its refusal to pro-
vide certain requested information where the information request was
made in the form of subpoenas issued by an arbitrator. The court stated
as follows:
Other circuits have held that “[t]he duty of an employer to
furnish information relevant to the processing of a grievance does
not terminate when the grievance is taken to arbitration.” Cook
Paint & Varnish Co. v. NLRB, 648 F.2d 712, 716 (D.C. Cir.
1981). Accord: NLRB v. Davol, Inc., 597 F.2d 782, 786–787 (1st
Cir. 1979). Although the issue was not raised, we recently en-
forced a Board order requiring a company to furnish information
even though the union involved had already invoked arbitration.
NLRB v. Designcraft Jewel Industries, Inc., 675 F.2d 493 (2d Cir.
1982). The Board has consistently held that the duty to disclose
does not cease when a union invokes arbitration. See, e.g., St. Jo-
seph’s Hospital (Our Lady of Providence Unit (233 NLRB 1116,
1119 (1977); Fawcett Printing Corp., 201 NLRB 964, 972–973
(1973; Fafnir Bearing Co., 146 NLRB 1582, 1586 (1964), en-
forced 362 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1966). We agree.
The Unions requested the information in the instant case before and
after filing a grievance, and before invoking arbitration. The Unions
requested concrete information, and not information such as names of
witnesses that might be considered prearbitration discovery. See Ormet
Aluminum Mill Products, supra at 790. Finally, the statutory enforce-
ment of the Unions’ information request facilitates the arbitration proc-
Respondent also contends the Unions sought the requested
information in bad faith. Respondent bases this argument on
testimony by Reyes that one of the union officials stated on
June 8, that the Unions were going to file an unfair labor prac-
tice charge whether or not Respondent provided the requested
information. Respondent also references Teal’s prehearing
affidavit where he described his view of shortcomings of Re-
spondent’s written summary of the RFP without mentioning
that Respondent had provided some of the information he de-
scribed as missing from the RFP summary verbally during
meetings in response to the questions of union officials. Fi-
nally, Respondent cites the fact that the Unions sought to publi-
cize the dispute between the parties as a means of pressuring
Respondent in support of its bad faith theory. I find all of these
arguments to be lacking in merit. First, considering Reyes’
demeanor and the accuracy of some of his responses to the
Union’s information request, his belated claims of confidential-
ity to the Union, and his inability to describe anything specifi-
cally in the RFP that Respondent actually considered confiden-
tial, I do not credit Reyes testimony that a union official stated
the Unions would file a charge even if the information was
provided. I also note that after June 8, the Unions filed a griev-
ance over the contracting out of the work, that the Unions’
attorneys twice requested the information in writing and pro-
vided a detailed explanation to Respondent as to why the in-
formation was necessary including the need to assess the scope
of the subcontracting. Thereafter, the Unions took the case to
arbitration, and the Unions’ attorneys sought the assistance of
the arbitrator in obtaining the information. The Unions went to
great lengths to preserve unit work and sought the requested
information to assist them in doing so as an aid in the grievance
procedure and in negotiations with Respondent. Their request
for the information was clearly not made in bad faith. I also
found Teal to be a credible witness to the extent his memory
would permit, and note that the section of his affidavit cited by
Respondent is only discussing Respondent’s written summary.
I do not find that his omission from that affidavit of what the
Unions were orally informed at the meetings between the par-
ties was part of a nefarious plot as Respondent attempts to por-
tray it. There is a difference in terms of proof based on what a
party is supplied in writing, and what they must establish
through oral testimony at an arbitration hearing. In plain fact,
Teal may have only been asked about the shortcomings of Re-
spondent’s written summary when he gave the affidavit to the
Board agent. In any event, the Union has established the rele-
vance and its legitimate need for its request for the RFP and
related contracts, and Respondent has failed to establish any
legitimate defense in refusing to produce the requested docu-

ess by enabling parties to settle or drop grievances prior to bearing the
costs of arbitration. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 384 U.S. 432,
438 (1967). Here the Unions went through arbitration without receiv-
ing the requested information and still do not have information as to the
scope of the work in 2005 to work out an informed backpay award with
the Respondent, nor do they have sufficient information as to the scope
of future work scheduled under the subcontract to appropriately per-
form their representative functions.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1248
ments. Accordingly, I find by its actions Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.18
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all material times the Unions have been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representatives of Respondent’s employ-
ees in bargaining units that are appropriate for collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act and
which are set forth in the Unions’ collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Respondent.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act by failing and refusing to provide relevant requested infor-
mation to the Unions since June 1, 2005, in the form of copies
of the request for proposals for the contracting out of excess
collection of delinquent customers accounts; and since July 1,
2005, failing to provide copies of all contracts between Re-
spondent and the winning bidder(s) concerning the excess col-
lection of delinquent customer accounts.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended19

18 Respondent contends the Union waived the right to certain infor-
mation contained in the RFP by statements in a June 23 e-mail from
Teal to Respondent, and in a July 11 letter by the Unions’ counsel to
Respondent. In the e-mail, Teal requested the RFP and stated “as
stated, this does not need to include costs.” In the July 11 letter, the
Unions’ attorneys stated while requesting the RFPs and contracts for
the winning bidders that, “the Unions are willing, however, to accept
the requested documents with certain ‘confidential’ information, such
as the economics, redacted.” Respondent contends in its brief that the
Unions waived certain information by qualifying their information
requests. However, I do not view the Unions’ statements as such.
Respondent never informed the Unions what it considered to be confi-
dential in the RFPs or the contracts. The Unions were negotiating
against themselves concerning confidentiality to reach an accommoda-
tion with Respondent, when Respondent refused to negotiate with them
about the provision of the requested documents. I do not find through
the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses that Respondent has estab-
lished any aspect of the requested documents contain confidential in-
formation. I also find Respondent’s claims of confidentiality concern-
ing the requested information, after it had already declared impasse in
the subcontracting negotiations, were untimely raised. Moreover, it
thereafter refused to negotiate with the Unions the provision of the
documents in a manner to protect its alleged confidentiality concerns.
Respondent should not be rewarded for its conduct by having these
documents redacted in any fashion, or in further delay in the provision
of the documents by requiring the Unions to negotiate a confidentiality
agreement over documents for which Respondent has failed to establish
contain confidential information. It is therefore my recommendation
that the complete documents be tendered to the Unions. For reasons set
forth above, I do not find the Unions’ request for the documents to be
moot as Respondent contends in its brief.
19 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
ORDER
The Respondent, National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.,
which maintains an office and place of business in Westboro,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to provide Utility Workers Union of America,
Locals 310, 317, 322, 329, 330, and 654, requested information
necessary for the performance of their functions as collective-
bargaining representatives of National Grid USA Service Com-
pany, Inc.’s employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the excise 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) Furnish Utility Workers Union of America, Locals 310,
317, 322, 329, 330, and 654, copies of the request for proposals
for the contracting out of the excess collection of delinquent
customers’ accounts; and copies of all contracts with the win-
ning bidder(s) concerning the excess collection of delinquent
customer accounts.
(b) Within 14 days after service by Region 2, post at all its
facilities where members of the collective-bargaining units
represented by Utility Workers Union of America, Locals 310,
317, 322, 329, 330, and 654, work copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted in the locations specified including the
Employer’s internet website. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, dur-
ing the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent on or after June
1, 2005.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
20 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United Stated Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.”
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE CO. 1249
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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide Utility Workers Union of
America, AFL–CIO, Locals 310, 317, 322, 329, 330, and 654,
requested information necessary for the performance of their
functions as collective-bargaining representatives of National
Grid USA Service Company, Inc.’s employees in bargaining
units as described in our collective-bargaining agreements with
those Unions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish Utility Workers Union of America, Locals
310, 317, 322, 329, 330, and 654 copies of the request for pro-
posals for the contracting out of the excess collection of delin-
quent customers’ accounts; and copies of all contracts with the
winning bidder(s) concerning the excess collection of delin-
quent customer accounts.
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC.