Reno Sparks Citilift

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 1432 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1432
ATC/Vancom of Nevada Limited Partnership (ATC/-
Vancom Inc., General Partner), d/b/a Reno
Sparks Citilift and Teamsters Union Local No.
533, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO. Cases 32–CA–15922 and 32–
CA–16082
September 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On February 27, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael D. Stevenson issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, ATC/Vancom of Nevada
Limited Partnership (ATC/Vancom, Inc., General Part-
ner), d/b/a Reno Sparks Citilift, Reno, Nevada, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.

Sharon Chabon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James N. Foster Jr. and Christopher B. Bent, Esqs., of St.
Louis, Missouri, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL D. STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge. This
case1 was tried before me at Reno, Nevada, on August 26,
1997,2 pursuant to a consolidated complaint issued by the Re-
gional Director for the National Labor Relations Board for
Region 32 on July 18, 1997, and which is based on charges
filed by Teamsters Union Local No. 533, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Union) on February
7 (Case 32–CA–15922) and on May 8 (Case 32–CA–16082).
The complaint alleges that ATC/Vancom of Nevada Limited
Partnership (ATC/Vancom, Inc. General Partner) d/b/a Reno
Sparks Citilift (Respondent) has engaged in certain violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act).

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are correct. Stan-
dard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis
for reversing the findings.
Member Hurtgen notes that the Respondent excepts, inter alia, that
the Union's request for information is moot because the Union subse-
quently obtained the information from another source. The argument
lacks merit. The Union obtained from another source only a portion of
the information it requested. Further, it does not appear that the Re-
spondent made this argument to the judge. Although Member Hurtgen
agrees that the Respondent's obligation to furnish the requested infor-
mation did not become moot, he does not find it necessary to adopt the
judge's statement that the Union's right to the information, as a remedial
matter, must be determined as of the time of the request.
1 Once again the service provided by the current court reporting
company falls far short. The quality of the transcript is exceptionally
poor and I am referred to throughout the transcript as “Hearing Officer”
rather than an “Administrative Law Judge.” More importantly, the
court reporter failed to transmit any of R. Exhs. 1–9 which were admit-
ted into evidence. Having been advised that the court reporting com-
pany has filed a petition in bankruptcy court and is apparently out of
business and having been unable to obtain copies of the missing exhib-
its from the parties, I nevertheless find Respondent has not been preju-
diced. Its exhibits have been described in the transcript and do not
relate in any meaningful way to the issues described in this decision.
Issue
Whether in the course of a collective-bargaining relationship,
Respondent failed to furnish, without good cause, certain in-
formation requested by the Union, which information was nec-
essary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its func-
tion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a
unit of Respondent’s employees.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to in-
troduce relevant evidence, to examine and to cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have
been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General
Counsel and Respondent.
On the entire record of the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYER’S BUSINESS
Respondent admits that it is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of the State of Nevada, that it provides paratran-
sit services to the public pursuant to a contract with the Re-
gional Transportation Commission (RTC), and that it has an
office and place of business located in Reno, Nevada. Respon-
dent further admits that during the past 12 months, in the course
and conduct of its business, Respondent derived gross revenues
in excess of $250,000 and that it purchased and received goods
or services valued in excess of $5000 which originated outside
the State of Nevada. Accordingly, it admits, and I find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that Teamsters Union Local
No. 533, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Facts
1. Partial settlement and remaining issue
At the conclusion of the hearing but prior to the close of the
record, Respondent and the Union with the tacit approval of the

2 All dates herein refer to 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
326 NLRB No. 155
RENO SPARKS CITILIFT 1433
General Counsel, entered into a non-Board settlement which
resolved the allegations contained in paragraphs 9(a), (b), and
(c) of the consolidated complaint (G.C. Exh. 1(j)) and addi-
tional paragraphs of the consolidated complaint, 10, 11, and 12
insofar as they relate to the settled paragraphs referred to above.
The General Counsel informs (Branch 1 fn. 2), that Respondent
has fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, there is nothing before me with respect to the
partial settlement.3
The sole remaining issue in the case concerns Respondent’s
failure to furnish certain information requested by letter of
January 29, 1997, from the Union’s attorney, Michael Langton,
who did not testify, to Russ Whyte, Respondent’s general man-
ager, who did testify.
In relevant part, the letter reads as follows:
January 29, 1997
Via telefax and U.S. Mail

Mr. Russ Whyte, General Manager
ATC/Vancom, RTC/Citilift
600 Sutro Street
Reno, NV 89512

Re: Grievance of Teamsters Local 533 (Subcontracting, etc.)

Dear Mr. Whyte:
As the attorney for Teamsters Local 533 I have been
requested to demand from ATC/Vancom the following in-
formation relevant to the grievance filed by Teamsters Lo-
cal 533 on or about January 24, 1997, concerning the im-
pending subcontracting of work to Whittlesea Taxi Cab
Company.
Please provide the following:
. . . .
2. Information concerning the number of trips or client
transportations performed by Citilift drivers during the
relevant period of time (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.), since
November 1, 1996, through January 24, 1997. Please
break down the information by date.
3. Provide information concerning the average length
of a trip; such time being calculated as identified on dis-
patch sheets and/or actual times.
4. Any and all correspondence or other tangible docu-
ments between Citilift and RTC concerning the subcon-
tracting and/or utilization of Whittlesea Taxi and/or any
other alternative service. This request is intended to en-
compass any correspondence including reports of financial
information and other information relevant to the decision
leading up to the decision to subcontract work. This re-
quest is specifically intended to embody all correspon-
dence, no matter how minuscule.
5. Any and all records, whether telephonic or other-
wise, of personal notes and telephone records and personal
contacts relevant to the issue of subcontracting or utilizing
alternative work, whether from RTC to RTC, or any other
entity, including any and all cab companies that were con-
tacted or responded to any inquiry from Citilift and/or

3 Neither at the hearing nor in their briefs has either party addressed
the issue of severance of the settled paragraphs of the consolidated
complaint. Since compliance with the non-Board partial settlement is
now moot, it is unnecessary for me to address the question.
RTC concerning the proposal to transport Citilift clients
during the relevant periods.
. . . .
The above requested information is necessary for the
Union to process the grievance.
As time is of the essence, please provide the informa-
tion as soon as possible but in no event later than February
3, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. If necessary, please contact my office
and I will make arrangements to pick up the information
or it may be faxed to me at 329–7447.
If you have any questions concerning the above please
do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your coop-
eration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LANGTON & YENKO
/s/ Michael E. Langton

cc: Lou Martino, Secretary/Treasurer, Teamsters Local 533
James N. Foster, Jr., Esq.
[G.C. Exh. 5; par. 9(d) of the consolidated complaint.]

Respondent admitted at hearing (Tr. 9), that as of June 23,
1997, by agreement of the parties, the former mechanics unit
and former drivers unit were combined into the combined unit,
and Respondent also admitted that the combined unit was ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All full-time and regular part-time drivers, dispatchers, reser-
vationists, mechanics, washers and utility persons employed
by Respondent at its Reno, Nevada facility; excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Pars. 6(c) and 7(c) of consolidated complaint.]
2. Background
The relationship between the Union and Respondent began
in 1993 when the Union organized Respondent’s drivers. A
collective-bargaining agreement covering Respondent’s drivers
and dispatchers effective between 1994–1997, arose out of that
relationship (R. Exh. 1). Before the agreement expired, the
Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of a second bargaining unit called the mechanics unit. As noted
above, the two units were subsequently combined into a com-
bined unit, and a new collective-bargaining agreement, effec-
tive July 1 through June 30, 2001, between the Union and Re-
spondent for the combined unit is in the record (G.C. Exh. 2).
3. The subcontracting issue
Sometime before the old collective-bargaining agreement
expired, the Union received information that Respondent was
subcontracting certain bargaining unit work in apparent viola-
tion of the agreement. So in January, when the parties gathered
to begin negotiations for a new agreement, it didn’t take long
for the Union to raise the issue. The source of the report to the
Union was a bargaining unit employee (and negotiating com-
mittee member) named Metz who didn’t testify. The Union
was represented by its business agent, Kelly Ward, and by its
secretary/treasurer, Lou Martino, the General Counsel’s sole
witness at the hearing. Respondent was represented by an offi-
cial named Bartz and by Russ Whyte, Respondent’s general
manager and its sole witness at hearing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1434
According to Martino, he was persuaded by Metz that Re-
spondent’s subcontracting was necessary for its economic well
being. Accordingly information was sought so that the Union
could modify its strict no subcontracting proposal and carve out
an exception to allow the status quo to continue, as Metz had
recommended. However, Martino also wished to prevent any
unilateral expansion of the subcontracting which could preju-
dice bargaining unit employees. In fact before the prior con-
tract had expired, the Union had filed a grievance with respect
to alleged violations of the contract involving subcontracting
and other articles (G.C. Exh. 4).
In any event, apparently because the Union never received a
satisfactory response to Langton’s letter of January 29, the new
collective-bargaining agreement contains a strict no subcon-
tracting clause without any allowance for limited subcontract-
ing. This section reads as follows:
ARTICLE 15
SUBCONTRACTING
The provisions of this Article shall apply to Employees of
ATC/Vancom of Nevada L.P. (Northern Nevada Division)
doing business for RTC/Citilift. For the purpose of preserv-
ing work and job opportunities for the employees covered by
this Agreement, ATC/Vancom of Nevada L.P. (Northern Ne-
vada Division), doing business for RTC/Citilift, the Company
agrees that no work or services presently performed or hereaf-
ter assigned to the bargaining unit, within the jurisdictional
boundaries of Local #533, will be subcontracted, transferred,
leased, assigned or conveyed, in whole or in part, to any other
plant, person or non-unit employees, unless otherwise pro-
vided in this Agreement. The Company may not subcontract
work, of any job classifications covered by this Agreement, in
an attempt to circumvent any provision of this Agreement. It
is further agreed that additions to the workforce, in the classi-
fications covered by this Agreement, that currently have bar-
gaining unit employees performing this work, shall become
bargaining unit members covered under this Agreement.
[G.C. Exh. 2, p. 8.]
4. Respondent’s defense
In performing its work, Respondent has a contract with the
Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) which is a public
entity receiving Federal and state funds to operate paratransit
services for the public in the Reno/Sparks area. According to
Whyte, RTC is a customer of Respondent. The contract be-
tween Respondent and RTC expires on June 30, 1998, and,
according to Whyte, before any renewal can occur, RTC will
evaluate Respondent in how well the latter has worked with
RTC.
No representative of RTC testified in this case and the con-
tract between RTC and Respondent is not in the record, so it is
not possible to fully evaluate Whyte’s testimony. However, the
point is that Respondent supposedly could not provide the Un-
ion any information on subcontracting or other issues which
might implicate RTC, since to do so would allegedly violate
some sort of privilege or breach some kind of implied confiden-
tiality between the two entities and might impair Respondent’s
opportunity to renew its contract with RTC.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Basis legal principles and preliminary conclusions
I begin by citing AK Steel Corp., 324 NLRB 173 (1997). At
11 of the JD, the judge recited certain principles of law appli-
cable to the instant case:

In A-Plus Roofing, Inc.,26 cited by the General Coun-
sel, the applicable principles were restated 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 ef-
fective performance of the Respondent’s duties and re-
sponsibilities. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432, 435–436 (1967). The employer’s obligation includes
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 per-
form its duty to enforce the agreement. . . . A. S. Abell
Co., 230 NLRB 1112, 1113 (1977). Where the requested
information concerns employees . . . within the bargaining
unit covered by the agreement, this information is pre-
sumptively relevant and the employer has the burden of
proving lack of relevance. With respect to such informa-
tion, “the union is not required to show the precise rele-
vance of the requested information to particular bargain-
ing unit issues.” Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. [v. NLRB,
603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979)] at 1315. Where the re-
quest is for information concerning employees outside the
bargaining unit, the Union must show that the information
is relevant. Brooklyn 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. Th[i]s information need not necessarily be disposi-
tive of the issue between the parties, it need only have
some bearing on it. . . . [Footnote omitted.]
. . . . .
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 Newspaper Guild [Local 95 v. NLRB, 548
F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1977)] at 863, 867.
_________________________
26 295 NLRB 967, 970 (1989).

And in Hofstra University, supra, 324 NLRB 557 (1997) the
Board itself explained that the obligation to provide relevant
information to the union includes contract negotiations, and
applies to labor-management relations during the term of the
agreement. See also Borden, Inc., 600 F.2d 313, 317 (1st Cir.
1979).
In the instant case, the Union needed the information in
question to negotiate with Respondent over a new agreement,
and for policing of the agreement. It makes no difference
whether a grievance actually has been filed by the time of an
information request, as is true in the present case, or grievance-
RENO SPARKS CITILIFT 1435
filing is only being contemplated. Merchant Fast Motor Lines,
324 NLRB 562 (1997); Diversified Bank Installations, 324
NLRB 457, 468 (1997), p. 12 of JD citing W-L Molding Co.,
272 NLRB 1239, 1240 fn. 6 (1984), and cases cited therein. In
either case, Respondent must furnish the requested information.
The information requested here concerns subcontracting
which is a term and condition of employment and a mandatory
subject of bargaining. Fibreboard Paper Products v. NLRB,
379 U.S. 203 (1964). But see Dorsey Trailers, Inc. v. NLRB,
147 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 1998).
I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie
case that the material in question is presumptively relevant
because it relates to a term and condition of employment which
could affect the welfare of bargaining unit employees, i.e., the
amount of bargaining unit work available. Hofstra University,
supra. I also find that the Union has demonstrated a reasonable
belief supported by objective evidence for requesting the in-
formation in issue (i.e., a report from Metz to the Union).
Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994).
Cf. Walter N. Yoder & Sons v. NLRB, 754 F.2d 531, 535 (4th
Cir. 1985).
Respondent’s argument at pages 12–14 of its brief, that the
General Counsel has failed to prove relevancy must be rejected
as lacking merit, because I find a presumption of relevancy.
Moreover, even if Respondent is correct at Branch 14–17 of its
brief that certain of the Union’s requests relate to non-
bargaining unit employees—a possibility I do not concede for a
moment—the Board has stated that “where the Union’s infor-
mation request was . . . intended to include information regard-
ing nonunit employees when made, this would not excuse the
Respondent’s blanket refusal to comply . . . an employer may
not simply refuse to comply with an . . . overbroad information
request, but must request clarification and/or comply with the
request to the extent it encompasses necessary and relevant
information.” Keauhau Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702 (1990).
Here, I find that relevancy has been established.
2. The confidentiality defense
This brings us to Respondent’s primary defense, set forth at
Respondent’s Branch 9–12, that it did not comply with the
information requests because the information sought was confi-
dential. In Jacksonville Area Assoc. for Retarded Citizens, 316
NLRB 338, 340 (1995), the Board explained the appropriate
standard:

The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Detroit Edison Co., 440 U.S.
301 (1979), found that, in certain situations, confidentiality
claims may justify a refusal to provide relevant information.
In making these determinations, the trier of fact must balance
the union’s need for the information sought against the legiti-
mate and substantial confidentiality interests of the em-
ployer.11 However, it is also well settled that as a part of this
balancing process, the party making a claim of confidentiality
has the burden of proving that such interests are in fact present
and of such significance as to outweigh the union’s need for
the information.
______________________
11 See, e.g., Remington Arms Co., 298 NLRB at 273.

See also Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB at 1071, 1072
(1995), and Island Creek Coal Co., 289 NLRB 851 fn. 1
(1988), where the Board informs that an employer with con-
cerns about confidentiality of information sought cannot simply
refuse to provide it, but must attempt to negotiate an accommo-
dation with the union.
I find that Respondent has failed to prove any legitimate
concerns regarding confidentiality. It never called any repre-
sentative of RTC whose interests Respondent was allegedly
trying to protect, lest its contract not be renewed for another
term. Respondent’s evidence as to why it could not respond to
the Union’s request falls short in establishing a confidential
defense. At Branch 10 of its brief, Respondent asserts a privi-
lege of some sort to justify its refusal, and further contends that
any release of the information to a third party would destroy its
relationship with RTC. Respondent has failed to describe the
“privilege” on which it relies. Nor has it explained how the
alleged privilege operates to bar release of the information in
question to the Union.
In KJEO-TV, 324 NLRB 138 (1997), the Board affirmed the
administrative law judge’s order that personal service contracts
(PSC) should be released to the Union. At p. 5 of J.D., the
judge noted in support of his decision, the lack of evidence to
show that any employees with PSCs had requested Respondent
to refrain form disclosure. Nor was there evidence that Re-
spondent had assured even a single employee-party to a PSC
that its terms would be kept confidential. Finally, there was no
evidence to show that the Union might use the PSC information
improperly. See also NLRB v. Compact Video Services, 121
F.3d 478, 483 (9th Cir. 1997), where the court enforced the
Board’s order directing Respondent to provide the Union with
contracts relating to its acquisition and takeover, over Respon-
dent’s claim that the sales contract contained confidential in-
formation.
To support its argument, Respondent relies heavily on F. A.
Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 316 NLRB 1312 (1995), where the
Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s refusal to order
the Respondent to furnish the Union with copies of all its cus-
tomer contracts. In its ruling, the Board noted that the informa-
tion in issue was not presumptively relevant for collective bar-
gaining and the mere articulation of general relevance is insuf-
ficient. I find that case may be distinguished form the instant
case, where a presumption of relevancy applies. I also find in
the instant case no evidence that Respondent attempted in good
faith to resolve with the Union any alleged confidentiality is-
sue.
3. The mootness defense
At pages 21–23 of its brief, Respondent argues that in light
of the new collective bargaining agreement, the issue herein has
become moot. I beg to differ. The Union has an ongoing obli-
gation to ensure compliance with the contract. Merchant Fast
Motor Lines, Inc., supra. I also note that a grievance was filed
in this case with respect to alleged unlawful subcontracting.
While its status is not clear from the record, I find no showing
that the grievance is moot or that the Union’s need for the in-
formation is academic, for in filing the grievance, the Union is
safeguarding not only a particular employee’s interest, but also
the interest of the entire bargaining unit by exercising vigilance
to ensure that the employer complies with the contract. Metlox
Mfg. Co., 225 NLRB 1317, 1328 (1976). Most importantly, the
Union’s rightt to the requested information must be determined
by the situation which existed at the time the request was made,
not at the time the Board or the courts get around to vindicating
that right. Mary Thompson Hospital, 296 NLRB 1245, 1250
(1989), enfd. 943 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1991).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1436
4. Other alleged defenses
With one exception, the other matters raised by Respondent
lack merit and do not warrant discussion. Respondent contends
Branch 23–24, that I should draw an adverse inference from
General Counsel’s failure to call Union Business Agent Kelly
Ward. Before the hearing began, the General Counsel repre-
sented that Ward was ill and could not attend the hearing (Tr.
23). At the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel
raised the matter again, saying Ward had taken a turn for the
worse last evening (Tr. 111–112). While the General Counsel
never requested a continuance, Respondent never claimed
prejudice nor addressed the issue in any way at the hearing. I
find no basis to draw an adverse inference, because it appears
that Ward’s testimony would be cumulative. Moreover, even
where appropriate, the judge is not required to draw an adverse
inference, but may do so. Rockingham Machine-Lunex Co.,
665 F.2d 303, 305 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 457 U.S. 1107
(1982) Here, I decline, as a matter of discretion in light of the
General Counsel’s reasons for not calling him and the failure of
Respondent to demonstrate what Ward could have added to this
case.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the above discussion, I find that Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing without
any meritorious defense, to furnish to the Union on a timely
basis, the information in issue in this case which is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s role as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has refused to furnish in-
formation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s role as
the exclusive bargaining representative of unit employees, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to furnish in a timely fash-
ion the information the Union requested.
On the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respon-
dent, ATC/Vancom of Nevada Limited Partnership (ATC/-
Vancom, Inc. General Partner) d/b/a Reno Sparks Citilift,
Reno, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Union Local No.
533, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit by refusing to furnish information that is rele-
vant and necessary to the Union’s role as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information
in issue in this case as requested in a January 29, 1997 letter
from Union Attorney Langton to the Employer.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Reno, Nevada facility copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 32, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these 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 employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since January 29,
1997.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

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

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Teamsters Union Local
No. 533, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit by refusing to furnish information
that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s role as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of unit employees.
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 to the Union in a timely manner informa-
tion in issue in this case as requested in a January 29, 1997
letter from Union’s attorney, Langton, to us.
ATC/VANCOM OF NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (ATC/-
VANCOM, INC., GENERAL PARTNER), D/B/A RENO SPARKS
CITILIFT

5 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”