SBC Midwest

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 2005

346 N.L.R.B. 62 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
346 NLRB No. 8
62
Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corporation d/b/a
SBC Midwest and Communications Workers of
America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO. Case 30–CA–
16442–1
December 15, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On September 15, 2004, Administrative Law Judge
George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel
each filed exceptions, supporting briefs, answering
briefs, and reply briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.2
The complaint alleges that the Respondent unlawfully
failed and refused to provide information requested by
the Union that was relevant to grievances regarding the
subcontracting of bargaining unit work. For the reasons
discussed below, we affirm the judge’s findings that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by failing to provide information on the extent of sub-
contracting, but not by failing to provide copies of so-
called contracts (described below) or information con-
cerning pricing. Unlike the judge, however, we find that
the Respondent complied with the Union’s request for
information concerning the subcontractors’ identities and
the nature and location of subcontracted work. We shall
also modify the judge’s recommended Order in the man-
ner suggested by the parties.
I. FACTS
The Respondent operates a telephone communications
system in Wisconsin, with facilities in Milwaukee. The
Communications Workers of America (the International
Union) represents a bargaining unit of the Respondent’s
employees. Although the International is the employees’
bargaining representative, Local 4603 (the Union) repre-
sents them for grievance purposes.3

1 The Respondent has implicitly excepted to some of the judge’s
credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule
an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect. Standard 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.
2 Member Liebman did not participate in the decision on the merits.
3 Accordingly, we shall delete references to the Union as the unit
employees’ collective-bargaining representative from the judge’s rec-
ommended Order and notice.
Contract Provisions. At the time of the events in this
case, the Respondent and the International Union were
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement effective
from February 1, 2001, until April 3, 2004. Article 26.34
of the agreement provides, in relevant part, “There shall
be no layoff of regular full-time employees if there are
any outside contractors performing the same work, in the
same group, at the same work location, as performed by
the Surplus Employee Group.”
The contract also includes a “Memorandum of Agree-
ment: Contracting Out Review A11” (appendix 11),
which provides for quarterly meetings of representatives
of the Respondent and the Union to review work identi-
fied by the Union as contracted out. Appendix 11 also
provides for information sharing:
In advance of any scheduled review meeting, the com-
pany will provide the following information regarding
the identified subcontracted work to be reviewed: the
name(s) of the contractor(s); the nature of the work; the
zip code(s) of the location(s) where the work was per-
formed; and, if available, the number of hours of work
subcontracted and associated costs, provided that in-
formation is not considered proprietary information and
the disclosure of such information is not detrimental to
the operation of the business.
The committee holding meetings pursuant to appendix
11 is jointly chaired by Larry Handley for the Interna-
tional and Greg Glenn for the company. Glenn testified
that, since 1992, when Handley requested information on
subcontracting, Glenn would provide the “work order,
the contractors, the nature of the work subcontracted, the
city or municipality, minus costing.” Glenn testified that
he never gave the Union pricing information because it is
proprietary and disclosure could be detrimental to the
company’s business.
In the course of subcontracting, the Respondent gener-
ated various kinds of documents: In the Respondent’s
operations, a “contract” is an agreement between the
Respondent and a contractor setting forth the rates at
which the contractor has agreed to perform some 450
different tasks. It is not an agreement that the contractor
will do any specific job. The actual awarding of work
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 63
assignments begins when a manager in the field submits
a work request. Work requests from the field become
purchase orders when entered into the Respondent’s
computer system. Purchase orders show the name of the
contractor, the quantity of work ordered, and the total
cost of work. Change orders reflect subsequent changes
to the purchase order. Once work is awarded, a work
print is generated. Work prints give a detailed descrip-
tion of the work to be done at a particular jobsite. As
work is done, the contractor makes notations on the work
prints. These notated work prints show precisely what
work has been done at that exact location.
Layoff Grievance. In September 2002, the Respondent
declared that a layoff would occur after 90 days. In No-
vember, the Union filed a general grievance (i.e., one not
limited to any specific project, location, or work group)
alleging that the Respondent was subcontracting the
work of laid-off unit employees in violation of article
26.34. On December 2, the Union submitted a formal
“Request for Relevant Data” related to that grievance,
asking for “a complete list of where these contractors are
working and the type of work they are doing.” Later, the
Union filed 11 grievances related to specific subcon-
tracts. As it had done with its December 2 grievance, the
Union submitted formal requests for relevant data. In
each of those requests, dated January 29, February 6 and
29, and April 8, 2003, the Union asked for “up-to-date
lists of all contractors performing any bargaining unit
work for S.B.C. in the Milwaukee area, as well as associ-
ated job or requisition numbers, job descriptions, and
locations where the contractors are working.” The Union
also requested “the contract that was signed between
S.B.C. and all contractors performing work for S.B.C. in
Wisconsin.” The requests explained that the Union was
seeking the information in order to determine whether a
valid grievance existed or if an existing grievance should
be taken to the next step in the grievance process.
By way of response, the Respondent provided the Un-
ion with job descriptions of unit employees and a blank
form contract that SBC used with individual contractors.4
When the Union was able to specify particular work that
had been subcontracted, the Respondent provided work
prints for those jobs, but not for other work.
March 13 Information Request. At a meeting on
March 13, Union President George Walls informed the
Respondent’s management that he “needed the contract-
ing information in order to process and handle the griev-
ances.” Bob Bareta, the Respondent’s construction man-
ager, replied that he had been told by Peggy Texeira, the

4 The complaint does not challenge the adequacy of this response or
otherwise allege that the Respondent unlawfully failed to provide in-
formation requested before March 13.
Respondent’s labor relations manager for Wisconsin, not
to give the Union anything. A day or two after the meet-
ing, Walls talked to Texeira by phone and was told,
“that’s not what she told Bob Bareta.” Texeira subse-
quently told Bareta that Walls “could have everything
but the pricing information.” Texiera gave Walls no rea-
son for not giving pricing information other than it was
“proprietary.” She offered no alternative accommoda-
tion. Walls never received any information from either
Texeira or Bareta.
March 31 Information Request. On March 31, Walls
e-mailed Texeira, “I’m formally requesting an up to date
list of all work contracted out by SBC . . . . This list
should include the contractor performing the work, a
description of all the work being done, location of the
work being done, pricing of the work being done and a
copy of the contract.” Texeira never responded to Walls’
e-mail.
Information Produced on July 1. On July 1, 2003, at
the quarterly contracting review meeting pursuant to ap-
pendix 11, the Respondent gave the Union a thick stack
of documents related to subcontracting in its Midwest
region from February 1 through May 31, 2003.5 Accord-
ing to the Respondent, those documents showed “(1) a
list of contractors performing any bargaining unit work,
(2) associated job or requisition numbers, (3) job descrip-
tions of the jobs or type of work, and (4) locations where
the contractors were working, by city and town.”6
Subsequently, Walls informed Texeira in writing that
the July 1 documents were inadequate. According to
Walls’ unrebutted testimony, he told Texeira that there
was no way to tell from the information received what
work was being contracted or how much work had been
contracted. At the hearing, Walls testified that the docu-
ments showed, for example, that a contractor was placing
aerial cable, but “it doesn’t tell me if it’s 1 span or 20
spans, if there [are] terminals involved.” Similarly,
Glenn admitted at the hearing that with those documents
one could not tell whether a particular job was done by a
crew of four employees working steadily for a month or
by one employee working half a day.
Texeira admitted that she knew Walls felt that he had
not gotten the information he needed, but she never re-
sponded to Walls’ repeated complaints. She refused to
provide pricing information on the ground that it was
proprietary, and never provided any other information.
As a result, Walls continued to request the information.

5 The judge inadvertently stated that this meeting took place on July
3. We correct the error.
6 There is no allegation that the Respondent unlawfully delayed in
providing this information. Cf. Tennessee Steel Processors, 287 NLRB
1132 (1988).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD64
Indeed, as late as November 2003, at the third step griev-
ance meeting, Walls was still complaining that he never
received the information he needed.
II. THE JUDGE’S DECISION
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide the Un-
ion with a list of all subcontracted work, the identities of
contractors performing the work, a description of the
work and the location of the jobs, as well as information
concerning the extent of subcontracting.7 (Although the
Respondent had informed the Union of the cities and/or
municipalities where the subcontracted work was being
performed, the judge found that it had not provided the
“specific location” of the work.) However, the judge
found that copies of the contracts and information con-
cerning pricing were not relevant and that the Respon-
dent’s failure to provide them was not unlawful.
To remedy the unlawful conduct, the judge ordered the
Respondent to furnish the Union with the requested rele-
vant information, including information concerning the
extent of subcontracting. He found that the Respondent
could discharge its obligation by providing copies of
purchase orders for contracting within the Union’s juris-
diction, with price information redacted, together with
any applicable change orders. The judge further ordered
that, if the information on the redacted purchase orders
proves insufficient, the Respondent must provide rele-
vant work prints. He ordered that the information be
provided for the period beginning in February 2003 and
continuing to the date of compliance.
III. THE PARTIES’ EXCEPTIONS
The Respondent argues in exceptions that it has al-
ready provided all relevant information to the Union.
Thus, the Respondent asserts that it already provided the
Union with the names of subcontractors and the nature
and location of the work they were doing. As for infor-
mation concerning the extent of subcontracting, the Re-
spondent contends that it is not relevant and that, in any
event, the Union did not ask for it. 8 The General Coun-
sel and the Union argue that the contracts and informa-
tion concerning pricing are relevant and must be pro-
vided.

7 The judge erroneously stated that only the failure to provide the in-
formation requested on March 31 was alleged to be unlawful. The
complaint also alleged an unlawful failure to provide the information
requested on March 13.
8 In the alternative, the Respondent asserts that this case should be
deferred to arbitration. We disagree. Although the Respondent raised
deferral as an affirmative defense in its answer to the complaint, it
failed to raise the issue subsequently at the hearing or in its brief to the
judge. We therefore find that the Respondent waived that argument.
Accordingly, we do not pass on the merits of the issue.
With regard to the remedy, the General Counsel and
the Union contend that if the information contained on
purchase orders fails to show the quantity or the specific
location of subcontracted work, the Respondent should
be required to provide work prints bearing the contrac-
tors’ notations showing exactly what work was done at
each location. The Respondent argues that, if any rem-
edy is imposed, it should terminate as of the date when
all laid-off unit employees are recalled to their previous
positions.
IV. ANALYSIS
An employer’s duty to bargain collectively under the
Act includes an obligation to furnish information that
allows a union to decide whether to process a grievance.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967).
Where the requested information involves matters out-
side the bargaining unit, such as the subcontracting of
unit work, a union bears the burden of establishing the
relevancy of and necessity for such information. Public
Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186
(1997); NLRB v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 950 F.2d 1324,
1331 (7th Cir. 1991). In determining the relevance of
requested information, however, the Board applies a
broad, discovery-type standard. Shoppers Food Ware-
house, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). Thus, as the Board
has explained, the union’s burden is not an exceptionally
heavy one, requiring only a showing of a “probability
that the desired information is relevant, and that it would
be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties
and responsibilities.” Public Service Electric & Gas Co.,
323 NLRB at 1186, quoting NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. at 437. An employer is not relieved of its
obligation to turn over relevant information simply due
to confidentiality concerns, but must offer to accommo-
date both its concern and its bargaining obligations. See,
e.g., SBC California, 344 NLRB 243 fn. 3 (2005). We
turn now to the application of the foregoing principles to
the Union’s requests for information.
A. Information on Subcontractor Identity and the
Nature and Location of Subcontracted Work
As stated above, the Union in its March 31 e-mail re-
quested, among other things, an up-to-date list of subcon-
tracted work, the identity of the contractor performing
the work, and a description of the work and its location.
The judge found that the information the Respondent
provided on July 1 identified “contractors performing
work and the nature and location, by city or municipality,
of the work they are performing.” Nevertheless, because
he found that the information provided did not show the
amount of subcontracted work or its specific location, the
judge found that the Respondent had violated Section
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 65
8(a)(5) and (1). The judge went on to hold, for unstated
reasons, that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5)
by failing to comply with the Union’s request for infor-
mation concerning the identity of the subcontractors and
the type of subcontracted work.
As discussed below, we agree with the judge that the
Respondent unlawfully failed to furnish the Union with
information regarding the amount of subcontracted work.
Contrary to the judge, however, we find that the Respon-
dent complied with the Union’s request for information
concerning the identity of subcontractors and the type
and location of subcontracted work. The judge himself
acknowledged that the information provided by the Re-
spondent on July 1 identified the subcontractors and the
nature of the subcontract work performed. Furthermore,
the judge found the work location information provided
to be deficient only because it did not identify the “spe-
cific location” of the work. But the Union asked only for
the “location of the work being done,” without stating the
degree of specificity desired—e.g., by city, zip code, or
street intersection. In these circumstances, we cannot
fault the Respondent for identifying the locations of sub-
contracted work by city or municipality, particularly
since the Union never objected that it needed more spe-
cific information. Accordingly, we reverse the judge and
dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges that the Re-
spondent unlawfully failed to furnish information con-
cerning the identities of subcontractors or the type and
location of subcontracted work.9
B. Information on the Extent of Subcontracting
The judge found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide the Union with in-
formation concerning the amount of work being subcon-
tracted, which he found to be relevant to the processing
of the Union’s grievances. In exceptions, the Respon-
dent contends that this information is irrelevant to the
establishment of a contract violation. It reasons as fol-
lows. Article 26.34 of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment provides that there shall be no layoff of regular full-
time unit employees if outside contractors are performing
“the same work, in the same work group, at the same
work location” as the work performed by the laid-off
employees. Unit work was subcontracted, and unit em-
ployees were laid off as a result. Therefore, if any of the
subcontracted work was “the same work, in the same
work group, at the same location” as the work laid-off
employees had previously performed, a contract viola-
tion has been established and the Union’s grievance has

9 In any event, the documents we are requiring the Respondent to
provide will contain this information. See discussion in the amended
remedy section below.
merit. The amount of work subcontracted (as distinct
from the fact of subcontracting) is irrelevant to the estab-
lishment of a contract violation, and therefore informa-
tion regarding the amount need not be provided.
We find no merit in this argument. Even assuming
that, as the Respondent contends, the Union did not need
information on the extent of subcontracting in order to
prevail in a grievance proceeding, that information was
relevant for other purposes. First, having a meritorious
grievance does not mean that the Union would necessar-
ily wish to pursue it. If the amount of subcontracted
work at a given site was minimal, the Union might well
decide that pursuing the grievance was not worth the
time and expense involved. To make that decision, the
Union would need to know not simply that unit work had
been subcontracted at that location, but how much work
was involved. Information concerning the amount of
subcontracted work is relevant for that reason.10
Next, the extent of subcontracting is relevant to the
remedy for any contract violation. If an arbitrator found
that the Respondent had improperly subcontracted unit
work, the amount of backpay due the displaced unit em-
ployees would probably depend on the number of hours
of work lost due to subcontracting. See Schrock Cabinet
Co., 339 NLRB 182, 188 (2003) (information concerning
hours of subcontracted work relevant to computation of
relief that might be awarded for contract violation).
The Respondent also argues that the Union never
asked for information concerning the extent of subcon-
tracting. Again, we disagree. Although the Union’s
March 31 e-mail did not request such information with
great clarity, Walls informed Texeira that the information
the Respondent provided on July 1 did not show how
much work was being contracted out. That statement
certainly put the Respondent on notice that the Union
was asking for such information.
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the re-
quested information regarding the extent of subcontract-
ing was relevant to the Union’s grievance processing
activities. The Respondent neither provided that infor-
mation nor made any attempt at accommodation. Ac-
cordingly, we agree with the judge that the failure to
provide that information violated Section 8(a)(5).

10 The Board and courts have long recognized that information may
be relevant because it helps weed out nonmeritorious grievances. Acme
Industrial, supra, 385 U.S. at 437–438; DaimlerChrysler Corp., 331
NLRB 1324, 1325 (2000). By the same reasoning, information may
also be relevant if it weeds out grievances that, though possibly merito-
rious, are not worth pursuing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD66
C. Pricing Information and Copies of Subcontracts
We affirm the judge’s finding that pricing information
and copies of contracts were not relevant to the Union’s
grievance handling duties. As the judge found, the Un-
ion needed information concerning the kinds, amount,
and location of the work being subcontracted for griev-
ance handling purposes. Knowing the price of the work
would not assist the Union in this respect. To be sure, if,
as the General Counsel and the Union argue, the Union
knew the total cost of a project and the rate charged for
each part of the job, it might be able to use that informa-
tion to calculate how much work was being performed.
But, as we have held, the Union was entitled to receive
specific information concerning the amount of work be-
ing subcontracted. Had that information been provided,
as it should have been, pricing information would have
been superfluous. And because we are ordering the Re-
spondent to inform the Union of the extent of subcon-
tracting, the Union will not need to calculate for itself the
amount of such work.
As for copies of contracts, we agree with the judge that
in the circumstances of this case, their relevance has not
been demonstrated. As explained, in the Respondent’s
parlance a “contract” is a document that sets forth a con-
tractor’s rates for performing some 450 separate tasks—
in other words, a price list. It is not an agreement be-
tween SBC and the contractor that the latter shall per-
form any of those tasks, and thus it does not reflect work
actually being subcontracted, let alone its extent or loca-
tion.11 Accordingly, copies of the “contracts” between
SBC and its subcontractors would have been of no use to
the Union in assessing or processing subcontracting
grievances.
V. AMENDED REMEDY
To remedy the violations found, the judge ordered the
Respondent to furnish the Union with purchase orders
(with pricing information redacted), together with any
applicable change orders, for all contracted work within
the Union’s jurisdiction from February 2003 until the
date of compliance with his decision. He also ordered
that, if the information contained in those documents
proves to be insufficient, the Respondent must provide
work prints.
We have found, contrary to the judge, that the Respon-
dent did not unlawfully fail to provide the Union with
information concerning the identities of subcontractors

11 As the judge suggested, the Union probably did not know that the
Respondent used this unusual terminology, and the Respondent did
nothing to clear up the confusion.
and the type and location of subcontracted work. We
nevertheless find that the judge correctly ordered the
Respondent to provide purchase orders, change orders,
and, if necessary work prints, because those documents
contain information concerning the extent of subcontract-
ing that the Respondent unlawfully failed to provide. We
also find merit in the General Counsel’s and the Union’s
contention that, if those documents fail to adequately
disclose the extent of subcontracting, the Respondent
must provide notated work prints if such exist.
In ordering the production of these documents, we rec-
ognize that the Respondent has already provided much of
the other information contained in them concerning the
identities of contractors and types and locations of work.
In producing those documents, however, the Respondent
should not redact information that it has already pro-
vided, because that might leave the Union with docu-
ments showing the extent of subcontracting but nothing
else. Such information, if not keyed to subcontractors or
locations, might prove useless.
Finally, we agree with the Respondent that it should be
required to provide information only for the period end-
ing on the date when all laid-off employees represented
by Local 4603 for grievance purposes are or were re-
called to their previous positions. (Indeed, that was the
extent of the remedy that the Union requested in its
posthearing brief to the judge.) Because the Union’s
subcontracting grievances would have merit, if at all,
only for that period, information concerning such sub-
contracting would be relevant to the Union’s grievance
handling obligations only for that period as well. We
shall modify the judge’s recommended Order accord-
ingly.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corpo-
ration d/b/a SBC Midwest, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish relevant and neces-
sary information relating to the extent of subcontracting
requested by Communications Workers of America, Lo-
cal 4603, AFL–CIO, on March 13 and 31, 2003.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Promptly furnish the Union with the information
found to have been unlawfully withheld as set forth in
the amended remedy section of this decision.
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 67
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
all of its facilities at which employees are represented by
the Union, copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency
of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since March 13, 2003.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish relevant and
necessary information relating to the extent of subcon-
tracting requested by Communications Workers of
America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO.

12 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.”
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the exercise of the
rights listed above.
WE WILL promptly furnish the information the Union
requested on March 13 and 31, 2003, as set out in the
amended remedy section of the Board’s decision.
WISCONSIN BELL, INC., AN AMERITECH
CORPORATION D/B/A SBC MIDWEST
Andrew S. Gollin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Andrew Slobodien and Brian R. Carnie, Esqs., for the Respon-
dent.
Marianne G. Robbins, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on July 22 and 23, 2004,
pursuant to an amended and corrected complaint that issued on
April 14, 2004.1 The complaint alleges that the Respondent
failed and refused to provide the Union with requested relevant
information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National La-
bor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent’s answer denies
all violations of the Act. I find that the Respondent did fail to
provide requested relevant information. I further find that the
record does not establish that the pricing information sought is
relevant to the Union’s request.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by all parties, I make the following2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., an Ameritech Corpo-
ration d/b/a SBC Midwest,3 the Company, is a corporation,
engaged in operating a telephone communications system
throughout the State of Wisconsin including facilities in Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin. The Company, in conducting its business,
annually derives gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and
ships products and materials valued in excess of $5000 directly
to customers located outside the State of Wisconsin. The Com-
pany admits, and I find and conclude, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that Com-
munications Workers of America, Local 4603, AFL–CIO, the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.

1 All dates are in 2003 unless otherwise indicated. The charge in
Case 30–CA–16442–1 was filed on April 17.
2 There was no objection to receipt of the formal papers. Review of
the transcript reveals that I failed to formally receive them. GC Exhs.
1(a) through (n) is received.
3 The name of the Company, which has changed, was amended at
the hearing.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD68
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Contractual Context of this Case
This case arises under the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement that was in effect between the Company and Interna-
tional Union from February 1, 2001, until April 3, 2004. The
Midwest area covered by the agreement includes employees in
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Separate
local unions, all administratively a part of District 4 of the In-
ternational, represent employees at various locations throughout
the SBC Midwest system. In Wisconsin, Local 4603 represents
employees in what is referred to as the Milwaukee expanded
hometown job area, which includes the Milwaukee metropoli-
tan area and adjacent counties.
Under the contract, first step grievances are filed with the di-
rect supervisor of the employee or employees affected. At the
second step, the “the next higher level management representa-
tive” responds. At the third step, the final step before arbitra-
tion, the grievance is considered by the “appropriate Labor
Relations Executive Director” or designee and a designee of the
International Union. In Milwaukee, the company representative
is Peggy Texeira, case manager for labor relations for the State
of Wisconsin, and the union representative is George Walls,
president of Local 4603. The Company, in its answer, admits
that the appropriate unit consists of the employees of the Re-
spondent described in article 1.01 and appendix B of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
The collective-bargaining agreement, article 26.34 provides
as follows:
The Company shall decide the necessity for and shall
determine the extent of any force adjustment. . . . There
shall be no layoff of regular full-time employees if there
are any outside contractors performing the same work, in
the same work group, at the same location, as performed
by the Surplus Employee Group.
A Memorandum of Agreement, A10, titled Contract-
ing Out, provides, in pertinent part:
While the Company cannot make specific commit-
ments regarding the contracting out of work, it is the
Company’s general policy that traditional telephone work
will not be contracted out if it will currently and directly
cause layoffs or part-timing of regular employees in the
Bargaining Unit.
A memorandum of agreement, A11, contracting out review,
provides for quarterly meetings between the Company and the
International Union to “review traditional telephone work iden-
tified by the Union that has been contracted out.” The memo-
randum states that the Company will provide “the following
information regarding the identified subcontracted work:”
The name(s) of the contractor(s), the nature of the
work; the zip code(s) of the location(s) where the work
was performed; and, if available, the number of hours of
work subcontracted and associated costs, provided such
information is not considered proprietary information and
the disclosure of such information is not detrimental to the
operation of the business.
A document to which the parties refer as the “catch all let-
ter,” signed on April 17, 2001, the date the contract was exe-
cuted, contains miscellaneous matters including paragraph 2
which includes the provision that “[u]pon written request by the
Local President, the Company will provide the Union with all
information and documentation as required under the National
Labor Relations Act for grievances and all other matters. If
there is any dispute regarding the requested information, the
matter will be decided by the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB).” In its answer, the Respondent pleads that “Local
4603 is not a proper party to this proceeding” and, in its brief,
argues that Local 4603 did not have the “right to obtain contract
information from the Company.” The Company contends that
the catch all letter relates only to requests for personnel docu-
ments and cites the testimony of Executive Director of Labor
Relations Greg Glenn that, in 2001, discussion of paragraph 2
of the letter related to personnel files. The contract provides
that grievances are handled by the local union through the sec-
ond step. Glenn acknowledged that local union presidents are
involved in grievances that do not relate to personnel files and
that they “need information on those other grievances too.”
President Walls testified that the language contained in para-
graph 2 of the catch all letter is what the parties agreed to in
2001. Glenn did not dispute that the parties agreed, as stated in
paragraph 2, that “[u]pon written request by the Local Presi-
dent, the Company will provide the Union with all information
and documentation as required under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act for grievances and all other matters.” Manager
Texeira, who consulted with Glenn before responding to the
Union’s information requests, did not inform the Union that
Glenn disputed the right of the local union president to request
information. I reject any contention that Local 4603 did not
have the right to request information relevant to the employees
that it represents.
B. The Information Request of March 31
1. Events preceding the request
The complaint alleges the failure of the Company to provide
relevant information relating to contracting that was requested
by the Union in an e-mail dated March 31. Although various
requests were made prior to March 31, it is the failure of the
Company to respond to that request that is alleged in the com-
plaint. That is the only issue before me in this proceeding.
In September 2002, the Company announced that it was de-
claring a “surplus” that would occur after 90 days. The declara-
tion of the surplus, effectively the announcement of an impend-
ing layoff, triggered the right of senior employees whose posi-
tions were identified as “surplus” to bump junior employees
whose jobs they were qualified to perform. The Company iden-
tified the various positions that it was declaring as surplus, a
total of approximately 200 in the Midwest area, approximately
60 in Wisconsin, and approximately 30 employees represented
by Local 4603, the Union, in the Milwaukee expanded home-
town job area. Included among those positions in Milwaukee
was a 15-man construction line crew.
In late November 2002, James Courchane, vice president of
the Union, filed a grievance alleging violation of article 26.34
of the collective-bargaining agreement that stated: “There are
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 69
contractors working in Milwaukee and throughout the state of
Wisconsin that are doing Bargaining Unit Work that our trained
surplused employees could and should be doing.” The Union’s
position was that “[a]ny and all work presently being done by
contractors, as stated above, should be given to our surplused
employees.” On December 2, 2002, Vice President Courchane
signed an information request relating to the foregoing griev-
ance in which he requested, among other information, a list of
contractors performing work in Milwaukee and Wisconsin,
where they were working and the type of work they were per-
forming, and “cost breakdowns on the jobs they are working
on.”
The bulk of employees laid off as a result of the declaration
of the surplus were laid off on December 27, 2002. Thereafter,
on December 31, 2002, and on various dates in early 2003, the
Union filed 11 individual grievances on occasions when it
learned of contractors performing bargaining unit work. These
grievances were accompanied by information requests includ-
ing, in several instances, requests for, “[a]n up to date list of all
contractors performing any bargaining unit work for S.B.C. in
all Milwaukee EHJA [extended hometown job area], as well as
all associated job or requisition numbers, job descriptions, and
locations where the contractors are working. We are requesting
the contract that was signed between S.B.C. and all contractors
performing work for S.B.C. in Wisconsin.” President Walls
began signing these requests and sent one by facsimile to Man-
ager Texeira. The document states that the Union is seeking the
information “[i]n order to make a determination as to whether a
valid grievance exists, of [sic] if an existing grievance should
be elevated to the next step . . . .”
John McChesney, a first line construction manager, recalled
that, when several of these information requests were filed with
him, he consulted with Area Construction Manager Bob Bareta
who informed him that he was “not to give them anything.”
This position changed and, in response to the request for job
descriptions, the Company provided the job descriptions of unit
employees from the collective-bargaining agreement. The
Company also provided a blank form contract that individual
contractors entered into with the Company. When an “under-
taking” number covering the contracted work was specified in a
grievance, the Company provided work prints showing the
particular work being performed by the contractor that was the
subject of the individual grievance. McChesney acknowledged
that the work prints given to the Union related to the specific
work to which the grievance related, work that the Union al-
ready knew was being performed by contractors. The Company
did not provide work prints reflecting other work that the con-
tractor was performing. At first-step grievance meetings,
McChesney informed the union steward who presented the
grievance that any additional information would be provided by
Manager Peggy Texeira at the third step of the grievance pro-
cedure.
Several of the Company’s responses set out a Company posi-
tion stating that article 26.34 was supplemented by appendix A-
10, that, “contractors have not caused layoffs or part timing of
regular employees . . . and that contractors will continue to be
utilized.” The response also refers to the quarterly contracting
out review meeting and states that “at this Review the Union is
given all relevant data pertaining to specific work, location and
names of all contractors.” Manager Texeira testified that, prior
to the foregoing response being presented to the Union, First
Line Manager McChesney read it to her and that she approved
it.
Notwithstanding her approval of the foregoing response,
Texeira testified that she was unaware that the Union was
claiming that the Company had violated article 26.34 of the
collective-bargaining agreement until the third-step grievance
meeting, which was held on November 10. The foregoing inex-
plicable testimony suggests that she did not recall the substance
of the response that she approved or of the e-mail sent to her by
President George Walls on March 31, the request that is the
basis for this proceeding. Pursuant to directions that she re-
ceived from her superior, Executive Director of Labor Rela-
tions Greg Glenn, Texeira continually informed the Union that
the Company would not provide information regarding pricing
or individual contracts because “that was proprietary informa-
tion and we were not going to give that information out.”
Texeira could recall giving no explanation for the basis of the
claim that the information was proprietary. She acknowledged
that she made no proposal to seek an accommodation or pro-
vide information in lieu of the specific information requested.
On March 13, President Walls and two presidents of other
Wisconsin local unions met with Bareta and other management
officials including Bareta’s superior, Karen James, who ap-
peared to be receptive to Wall’s request for information. On
March 19, James provided Walls with the approved bidders
contractors list but informed him that she had “been informed
by labor” that the “associated bid prices” were “proprietary
information” and could not be provided.
On March 26, a second-step meeting on several of the Un-
ion’s pending grievances was held. Construction Manager Ba-
reta reiterated the Company position regarding pricing being
proprietary. Vice President Courchane stated to Bareta that the
information that the Union had received was “not what we were
looking for,” and explained that it did not “give us any of the
information we need to process our grievances and determine to
what extent contracting was going on and how much work was
being done.” Referring to the blank contracts that had been
provided, Courchane noted that page 22 referred to attachments
and bid documents, and asked for the signed agreements “that
would contain the attachments and bid documents and specifi-
cations” as noted on page 22 of the blank contracts that the
Union had been given.
As this meeting was concluding, there was discussion re-
garding controlling the number of grievances being filed. An
agreement was reached pursuant to which inspectors, unit em-
ployees, would identify work being performed by contractors,
and the Union would file only one grievance a month. This
arrangement was not successful because most of the inspectors
refused to fill out the documents. The list was kept at only one
of five locations from which construction employees were dis-
patched. Bareta admitted that he did not direct the inspectors to
maintain the list. Rather, he gave them the document upon
which the information was to be recorded and stated, “The
Union would like you to fill this out.” Thereafter, Bareta and
Shop Steward Dave Hillshiem discussed the failure of the ar-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD70
rangement. Hillshiem commented that it appeared to be a man-
agement problem. Bareta responded that he would begin taking
disciplinary action. Bareta admitted that he understood that
Hillshiem would not want him to do that and, predictably, Hill-
shiem told him not to do so, that he would get back with him.
There was no further discussion. Bareta testified that inspectors
have access to a confidential software data system, the ACAS
system, into which work requests for contractors are entered.
He confirmed that any breach of security by employees having
access to that system would result in disciplinary action. I find
that the absence of a specific direction from Bareta in the con-
text of the Company’s security procedures accounts for the
failure of this arrangement.
As of March 26, the Union had filed numerous information
requests. Although filed with individual grievances, the re-
quests sought information relating to the full extent of the con-
tracting in which the Company was engaging. The Company
had provided job descriptions of unit members, blank contracts,
and work prints for jobs that the Union was aware were being
performed by contractors. At the March 26 meeting, Vice
President Courchane explained to Bareta that the information
provided did not enable the Union to determine to what extent
contracting was going on. It is in that context that the Union
made its request of March 31.
2. The request of March 31
On March 31, 2003, President Walls sent Manager Texeira
the following e-mail.
As you know, the Union has made a number of infor-
mation requests regarding the contracting of work.
As you further know, the Union has filed a number of
grievances charging a violation of Article 26.34 and Ap-
pendix A-10. This information is relevant in the process-
ing of these grievances.
We have approximately 60 people laid off in the State
of Wisconsin. The Union’s position is our laid off em-
ployees should be given the opportunity to do this work
before contracting this work. We believe the contracting is
a direct violation of Article 26.34.
Initially, when the information requests were made at
the first step of the grievance procedure by the Stewards,
they were told by first level management you advised
them not to give the Union this information and you would
decide at the 3rd step of the grievance procedure what in-
formation would be given to the Union.
I then made a second request for this information un-
der my signature per the “Catch All Letter.”
In a later conversation you, you told me this informa-
tion was given to Larry Handley and I should get it from
him per Fred Eder.
In a meeting with the WI [Wisconsin] General Manag-
ers on March 13, 2003, I again made this verbal request.
Bob Baretta [sic] stated at this meeting he was told by
Peggy Texeira not to give the Union this information. In a
later conversation with you, you stated this is not what you
told him.
In a 2nd step grievance meeting on March 26, 2003,
Bob Baretta [sic] furnished some limited inform [sic] to
James Courchane.
I’m formally requesting an up to date list of all work
being contracted out by SBC in the following units, E&C
[Engineering and Construction], I/M: [Infrastructure
Maintenance], I/R [Installation and Repair] and NP&E
[Network Planning and Engineering] starting in February
of this year in the Milwaukee Expanded Hometown Job
Area. This list should include the contractor performing
the work, a description of all the work being done, loca-
tion of work being done, pricing for the work being done
and a copy of the contract.
I believe we are legally entitled to this information.
Please provide this information to me within (10) days.
If you are unwilling to comply with this request, please
respond in writing as to why you will not.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
3. Events subsequent to the request of March 31
Manager Texeira did not respond in writing. In a telephone
conversation, she repeated to Walls that the company was not
going to give the Union “the pricing . . . [or] the individual
contracts.” Texeira could recall giving no explanation for the
basis of the claim than the information was proprietary. No
alternatives were discussed. Texeira acknowledged that she
made no proposal to seek an accommodation or provide infor-
mation in lieu of the specific information requested. The Union
filed the charge herein on April 17.
The reference to Larry Handley and Fred Elder in Walls’ let-
ter relates to information regarding contracting given on a quar-
terly basis pursuant to appendix A11. Wall attended that meet-
ing on July 3 and was given copies of the multiple documents
provided to all participants. Those documents identify contrac-
tors performing work and the nature and location, by city or
municipality, of the work they are performing. The documents
do not quantify the work being performed, and Walls was un-
able “to determine much of anything from them.”
Walls testified that the documents were inadequate, explain-
ing that they show that a contractor was placing aerial cable,
but, “it doesn’t tell me if it’s one span or twenty spans, if there
is terminals involved.” He informed Texeira that the informa-
tion was inadequate, that there was no way that the Union
“could determine what was being contracted or how much work
was being contracted.”
Manager Texeira acknowledged that she understood that
Walls was seeking “a description of all work being done as
described in his March letter.” She admitted that she knew that,
after Walls returned from the quarterly meeting in July, that,
“he believed that he had still not gotten a description of all
work done . . . [and] he still wanted a description of all work
done.”
With regard to the inadequacy of the documents provided at
the contract review, Director Greg Glenn was asked whether he
would agree, from the documents, that the Union could not tell
how much work was being performed, that “[y]ou can’t tell
whether it was a crew of four guys working steady for a month
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 71
or it was a repair job that would be done by one guy in half a
day?” Glenn answered, “I think that’s a fair statement.”
The third-step meeting on the Union’s grievances was held
on November 10. At the outset of that meeting, Walls pointed
out that the Union, although having been provided some infor-
mation, had still not received the information that would fulfill
his March 31 e-mail request. Manager Texeira testified that, at
that meeting, she realized that the layoff of the construction line
crew was an issue under article 26.34 and stated her intention to
investigate further. By letter dated December 8, the Company
proposed a settlement of all 12 pending grievances by reestab-
lishment of the line crew, but without recalling the specific
employees affected. The proposal noted that the reestablished
crew would be assigned 12 percent of the work. Walls wanted
to know how the 12 percent was determined. Texeira did not
provide the requested information. The Union rejected the pro-
posal. After further discussions, the Company sent the Union a
letter dated March 11, 2004, providing simply that the recalled
crew would be assigned “the same percentage of line crew
work that was done prior to the December 27, 2002, surplus.”
Both letters contained a paragraph reiterating the Company’s
position that it would not disclose “individual contracts and/or
pricing of those contracts” to the Union. The Union denied
being aware of the March 11, 2004 letter, until June 2004.
None of the foregoing is of any relevance to the outstanding
information request of March 31 because the Company with-
drew the settlement offer on June 25, 2004, and denied all 12
grievances.
C. Information Disclosed at the Hearing
Associate director of contract administration, Kathy Fran-
sens, explained that the “sample master agreement,” i.e., the
blank form contracts provided to the Union, is similar to the
contracts executed by the contractors. Only two contracts are
executed. The Company keeps its copy of these contracts, a
total of between 200 and 250, in a locked file cabinet at its
main office in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Only Fransens and two
other people have keys to the locked file cabinet in which they
are kept. When executed, the contract has a cover page showing
the name of the contractor, the signature page containing the
appropriate signatures, and an attachment setting out the rates
charged by that contractor for approximately 450 specific items
of work such as digging a trench, burying cable, or installing a
pedestal. The work items are identified by code numbers as-
signed by the Company. Fransens testified that the code num-
ber and the item of work that it identifies are not confidential.
The contract does not establish what work the contractor will
actually be doing. Rather, as Fransens explained, “[T]hey’re
telling us they can do this work for what rate.”
The actual awarding of work assignments occurs when a
manager in the field submits a work request to a contract ad-
ministration center (CAC). There are several centers in the SBC
Midwest system including at least one in Wisconsin. The re-
cord does not establish the total number of centers or their spe-
cific locations. Area Construction Manager Bareta explained
that the “CAC center collects all the work requests from the
State and dishes out the work to the contractors through a com-
puter system.” The computer system is referred to as the ACAS
system, a software program specially designed for the needs of
the Company.
Manager Bareta explained that the work requests transmitted
to the CAC would describe the work needed to be done using
the code numbers related to the work item, “[i]t would be an
item number, and—and by that I mean if they’re going to place
cable it would be an item AP25 and the footage of the cable
they’re going to place.” (Emphasis added.) Fransens confirmed
that the construction managers cost out jobs by putting “a list of
items they need” and submitting it to the CAC. She further
explained that an item of work identified by its code number
“describes what type of work they’re requesting, like an item
signifies if they want a trench 36 inches deep, if they want a
bore 2 inches.” Fransens, consistent with the testimony of Ba-
reta, stated that, in addition to the code signifying the item of
work, there is also designation of the quantity, “some numerical
amount like the number of pedestals or the length of cable.”
Work requests from the field become purchase orders when
entered into the ACAS system. The purchase order reflects the
code number for the type of work, the quantity, and the price.
By simple division, e.g., $1000 to lay 1000 feet of cable, it
could be determined that the contractor’s bid price was $1 a
foot. Fransens testified that the “initial awarded purchase order”
contains the quantity of work being ordered, and that change
orders are reflected on the purchase order but do not show
quantity or cost. As hereinafter noted, work prints do reflect the
quantity of work performed. A typical purchase order, accord-
ing to Fransens, would contain between three to eight item
numbers, i.e., specific work tasks such as digging a trench and
laying cable in the trench. The quantities, as such, are not con-
sidered to be confidential.
Fransens testified that work prints, the documents provided
to the Union regarding the work the Union had identified as
being performed by contractors, are considered confidential and
are returned to the Company upon completion of the work so
that the Company can “see what work was done.” The work
prints show the quantity of work performed, e.g., the number of
feet of cable that has been laid. They also show the specific
location where the work was performed. Work prints are identi-
fied by an EWO number, referred to by Managers John
McChesney and Bob Bareta as an undertaking or UT number.
D. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The complaint alleges that the Company failed to provide
relevant information relating to contracting that was requested
by the Union in Walls’ e-mail dated March 31.
The Respondent contends that the Union was not entitled to
pricing information. I agree. The request of the Union alleged
in the complaint was, as set out in the e-mail, for “an up to date
list of all work being contracted out by SBC . . . [that] should
include the contractor performing the work, a description of all
the work being done, location of work being done, pricing for
the work being done and a copy of the contract.” The pricing
information is not relevant to the quantity of contracting that
was occurring. The information the Union needed was the pur-
chase orders which would show the amount of work being con-
tracted. The testimony of Fransens and Bareta establishes that
the pricing information and copies of the contracts would not
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD72
fulfill that request. The pricing information and contracts, con-
sidered proprietary by the Respondent, even if provided, would
not have been relevant.
Although information unrelated to unit employees is not pre-
sumptively relevant, information relating to subcontracting
which impacts the working conditions of unit employees is
relevant. See Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 337 NLRB 1239
(2002), and Pratt & Lambert, Inc., 319 NLRB 529, 533 (1995).
Furthermore, the information sought need not be sought with
respect to a specific grievance insofar as the information is
related to “the possible processing of . . . [potential] griev-
ances.” Schrock Cabinet Co., 339 NLRB 182 fn. 6. (2003).
The Respondent argues that the Union never established the
relevance of information relating to the quantification of the
contracting that was occurring. I disagree. From the initial
grievance filed in November, citing the Union’s position that
unit work was being performed by contractors and that the
surplused unit employees should be given that work, the Union
clearly explained the relevance of the information being sought.
Walls, in his e-mail request of March 31, stated, “As you know,
the Union has made a number of information requests regarding
the contracting of work. As you further know, the Union has
filed a number of grievances charging a violation of Article
26.34 and Appendix A-10. This information is relevant in the
processing of these grievances. We have approximately 60
people laid off in the State of Wisconsin. The Union’s position
is our laid off employees should be given the opportunity to do
this work before contracting this work. We believe the contract-
ing is a direct violation of Article 26.34.” Case Manager
Texeira, when asked whether, to prevail upon the Union’s
grievances, Walls was “going to need to establish . . . the extent
of the work?” answered that “he needs to from his point of
argument.” The Union established the relevance of its informa-
tion requests.
It appears that the Union, in requesting copies of the con-
tracts, thought that the contractor performing a particular job
had bid upon it and been awarded it pursuant to the terms of an
individual contract. It is unclear whether Manager Texeira was
aware of the information in the possession of the Respondent.
When asked whether, “sitting here today the only information
the—that the Company has identified that will show the extent
[of the contracting] involves pricing?” Texeira answered,
“From what I know of, yes.” The testimony of Bareta and Fran-
sens establishes that, although purchase orders reflect pricing,
they also reflect the quantity of the work being contracted.
Texeira did not state to the Union the basis for the Company’s
claim that pricing and contract information was proprietary.
She did not explain to the Union that, in asking for the con-
tracts, it was asking for documents that reflected each contrac-
tor’s rate for performing 450 particular tasks. Nor did she ex-
plain that there were no separate contracts reflecting the spe-
cific work that any contractor was doing at a particular site on
any given day.
Texeira acknowledged that she contacted Director Greg
Glenn about what action she should take regarding the Union’s
request. In further testimony regarding her contacts concerning
refusing to turn over the information, Texeira testified that
“they didn’t want to do that. It was proprietary.” When asked
who “they” were, Texeira answered that, “there was a bunch of
people who were looking at this.” The record does not establish
whether the Union’s request of March 31 was sent to the
“bunch of people.” If it was, the “bunch of people,” which
should have included Glenn, certainly should have read that the
Union was seeking “an up to date list of all work being con-
tracted out by Respondent” in specific areas. Even if the docu-
ment was not provided, Glenn, before advising Texeira regard-
ing the Company’s response, should have ascertained exactly
what the Union was seeking before responding that the infor-
mation was proprietary. If the Respondent had addressed the
request for “all work being contracted out,” the Respondent
should have known that the information that would fulfill the
Union’s request could be provided by redacting the pricing
information.
In addition to the request for “all work being contracted out,”
the Union specifically requested a “description of all the work
being done” and its location. The information provided at the
quarterly meeting in July provided the name of the contractor
and city or municipality, but not the amount of work or its spe-
cific location. In order to determine whether article 26.34 was
being violated, the Union needed information showing that
there were “outside contractors performing the same work, in
the same work group, at the same location” as the laid off unit
employees. The testimony of Fransens and Bareta establishes
that the specific work being done can be identified by the code
number relating the work item. The location, which according
to McChesney might appear on the purchase order, does appear
on the work prints which are identified by a EWO number,
referred to as an undertaking or UT number.
The Charging Party concedes that the information disclosed
at the hearing reveals that the Union’s request can be accom-
modated without revealing pricing. As noted in the Charging
Party’s brief at footnote 14: “If the quantity and identity of the
work were clear from the purchase order without the aggregate
pricing, this could be redacted.”
Similarly, the General Counsel points out that the “Respon-
dent also could have proposed providing Local 4603 with print
outs from the ACAS system for each job that was contracted-
out with the description codes and quantity amounts, with the
pricing information redacted.”
The testimony of Fransens and Bareta suggests that Texeira
was not fully aware of the manner in which the Respondent
handled contracting. The record further suggests that Glenn did
not seek to determine specifically what the Union was request-
ing but simply responded to questions from Texeira regarding
pricing and contracts. Regardless of any failures in communica-
tion among the Respondent’s management regarding what the
Union was seeking, the Union’s request of March 31 clearly
states that it was requesting a “list of all work being contracted
out by Respondent” in specified areas. The Respondent did not
provide the information. Nor did the Respondent seek an ac-
commodation by explaining to the Union that, although the
information that it requested was available, it was only avail-
able in conjunction with purchase orders which stated the cost
and was proprietary information. “An employer is not relieved
of its obligation to turn over relevant information simply by
invoking concerns about confidentiality, but must offer to ac-
WISCONSIN BELL, INC. 73
commodate both its concerns and its bargaining obligation
. . . .” Metropolitan Edison Co., 330 NLRB 107 (1999), citing
U.S. Testing Co. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 14, 20–21 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
I have found that the pricing information, which can be re-
dacted from the purchase orders, is not relevant to the request
of the Union relating to the amount of contracting by the Re-
spondent. On the basis of the foregoing acknowledgements by
the General Counsel and the Charging Party, I find no need to
direct disclosure of the individual contracts executed by the
contractors performing work in the jurisdiction of the Union.
The Respondent sought no accommodation with the Union
regarding providing the requested information. The Respon-
dent, in failing and refusing to provide “an up to date list of all
work being contracted out by Respondent,” the contractor per-
forming the work, and a description of the work and its loca-
tion, as specified in the Union’s e-mail of March 31, violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the infor-
mation it requested regarding subcontracting, the information
being relevant and necessary to the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees it represents,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and post an appropriate notice.
The Respondent having failed and refused to provide the Un-
ion with information it requested on March 31, 2003, for an up-
to-date list of all work being contracted out by the Respondent
in the Milwaukee expanded hometown job area in the E&C
[engineering and construction], I/M: [infrastructure mainte-
nance], I/R [installation and repair] and NP&E [network plan-
ning and engineering] work units, including the identity of the
contractor performing the work, a description of all the work
being done, and the location of the work being done, it must
provide that information. The Respondent has failed since
March 31, 2003, to respond to the Union’s request. Insofar as
that request was not limited to the pending grievances and in
view of the denial of the pending grievances on June 25, 2004,
the Respondent must provide the foregoing information from
February 2003 until the date of compliance with this decision. I
find that the foregoing information can be provided by provid-
ing the purchase orders for contracting within the jurisdiction of
the Union from February 2003 to the date of compliance with
this decision, with the price being redacted, together with any
applicable change orders.4 If the information provided on the
redacted purchase orders is insufficient, such as work per-
formed pursuant to a change order that does not specify the
quantity of work or insufficient specificity regarding the loca-
tion at which the work was performed, work prints must be
provided. Consistent with my decision, the Respondent does
not need to provide the pricing for the contracted work or the
contract between the Respondent and the contractor. The Re-
spondent also need not provide information regarding employ-
ees not represented by the Union.5
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

4 There is reference in Fransens’ testimony to an item usage report. I
do not order its production because the record does not establish that it
would fulfill the Union’s request.
5 Walls acknowledged that that NP&E is “[s]ometimes . . . and
sometimes . . . not” a part of “network.” The foregoing does not estab-
lish whether, when not part of the “network,” these employees were
represented by Local 4603. If they were, I intend for the recommended
order to include them.