Don’t assume that there is a valid confidentiality objection.Įmployers sometimes assume, as the employer in Salem Hospital did, that certain types of requested employee information, such as medical information, can be objected to on the grounds of confidentiality. If the objection is “overbroad,” explain why the information sought goes beyond the union’s stated need for it.ĥ. If the objection is “unduly burdensome,” explain, for example, how many hours would be required to gather the information. An employer must explain the reason for the objection.
The Board so found in Salem Hospital, where the employer waited months before raising such objections.Īs stated in Salem Hospital, an employer must not only timely raise objections, but also must “substantiate its defense.” In other words, merely stating that a request is overbroad, unduly burdensome and the like is not enough.
Further, a delay in raising objections to requested information may result in the employer losing valid confidentiality, burdensome, overbroad, and irrelevancy objections. Objections must be raised in a timely fashion.Ī delay in responding to an information request is just as much a violation of the National Labor Relations Act as not responding at all. Where information requested is not presumptively relevant, the best course of action still is not to immediately claim “irrelevancy,” but rather to respond with a statement that the employer “does not understand the relevancy of the request.” This puts the burden on the union to establish relevancy, while at the same time not constituting an outright, and perhaps premature, refusal to provide information.ģ. Merely taking the position that presumptively relevant information is irrelevant can lead to an unfair labor practice finding.
When responding to an information request, asserting as a first response that requested information is irrelevant – whether as a delay tactic or in the hopes that the union will drop its request – is a risky move. Rarely claim as an initial response that requested information is irrelevant.
The Board revisited this issue recently in Salem Hospital Corp., 359 NLRB No. 82 (March 22, 2013). The National Labor Relations Board has reminded employers once again that there is a right way and a wrong way to object to union information requests on the grounds that the information sought by the union is irrelevant, unduly burdensome, overbroad or confidential.