Strategic Resources, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 2016

364 NLRB No. 42 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

364 NLRB No. 42
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Strategic Resources, Inc. and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24. Cases 19–CA–
070217, 19–CA–070224, 19–CA–072173, 19–CA–
072184, 19–CA–077901, 19–CA–088406, 19–CA–
103576, 19–CA–111874
July 12, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
On February 4, 2015, Administrative Law Judge John
J. McCarrick issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a reply 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 exceptions1 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions, to

1 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to provide and
unreasonably delaying in providing information to the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, District
Lodge W-24 (Union), by failing to meet with the Union at reasonable
times and places for bargaining, by refusing to bargain in good faith
with the Union over a confidentiality agreement, protective order, or
other appropriate procedure to address confidentiality concerns of the
Respondent, by taking the position that it reached impasse with the
Union in bargaining for a confidentiality agreement, and by withdraw-
ing recognition from the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of bargaining unit employees on August 19, 2013. There
are no exceptions to the judge’s dismissal of the remaining complaint
allegations. Further, there are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that
the Regional Director was justified in revoking a January 2013 settle-
ment agreement between the parties.
2 For the reasons stated by the judge, we adopt his findings that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing the
formula for calculating bargaining unit employees’ holiday pay. In
particular, we agree with the judge that the Respondent established a
practice of paying unit employees non-prorated holiday pay. Even
assuming, however, that the Respondent’s distribution of 8 hours’ pay
for the 3 paid holidays occurring between April and September in 2011
was insufficient to constitute an “established practice,” we would still
find that the Respondent violated the Act by unilaterally deciding to
prorate holiday pay as of October 2011. As the judge noted, by letter
dated May 12, 2011, the Respondent recognized the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees and
acknowledged that, as of that date, it had implemented its initial terms
and conditions of employment for the unit. One of these terms materi-
alized in the form of a recurring distribution of 8 hours’ holiday pay to
unit employees for Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day
in 2011. Thus, the Respondent’s subsequent unilateral change to that
amend the remedy, and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified and set forth in full below.3
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by unilaterally altering its formula for calculating
bargaining unit employees’ holiday pay, we shall order
the Respondent to make bargaining unit employees
whole. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, in accordance with our recent decision in
AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143
(2016), we shall order the Respondent to compensate
bargaining unit employees for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 19, within
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay awards to the appropriate calendar year for each
employee.

term, by which it implemented a prorated holiday-pay formula without
giving the Union notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change,
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1). See Bronx Health Plan, 326 NLRB 810,
813 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Banknote Corp. of
America, 315 NLRB 1041, 1041 (1994), enfd. 84 F.3d 637 (1996), cert.
denied 519 U.S. 1109 (1997). Member Miscimarra agrees that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) when it changed one of its
initial terms and conditions of employment without giving the Union
notice and an opportunity to request bargaining. He does not reach or
pass on his colleagues’ finding that paying non-prorated holiday pay
had become an established practice at the time Respondent changed it.
In its exceptions, the Respondent argues that it lawfully began pro-
rating holiday pay in order to correct an error caused by employees
who, it contends, incorrectly entered their time in dereliction of what
the Respondent instructed them to do. The Respondent waived that
argument by failing to raise it before the judge. See Yorkaire, Inc., 297
NLRB 401 (1989), enfd. 922 F.2d 832 (3d Cir. 1990). We would nev-
ertheless reject the Respondent’s argument, as there is insufficient
evidence that employees improperly or erroneously claimed 8 hours’
holiday pay against the Respondent’s clear policy and instruction.
3 We have amended the remedy and modified the judge’s recom-
mended Order to more closely conform to the Board’s standard remedi-
al language, to the violations found, and to the circumstances of this
case, as explained herein. We shall substitute a new notice to conform
to the Order as modified.
We have corrected several inadvertent typographical errors made by
the judge in his decision. These errors have not affected our disposition
of this case.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although we have found that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unlawfully refusing to
furnish information requested by the Union in 2012 and
2013 concerning the terms and conditions of bargaining
unit employees’ employment, we must separately con-
sider whether it is appropriate to order the Respondent to
provide that information to the Union at this time. The
Union requested that information to assist it in its then-
ongoing contract negotiations with the Respondent.
However, it appears from the record that while the Re-
spondent continues to function as a corporate entity, its
contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for trans-
portation services at Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM)
has expired, it no longer operates there, and it does not
employ any bargaining unit employees.4 Thus, con-
sistent with our decision in Boeing Co., 364 NLRB No.
24 (2016), we refer the issue of the Union’s need for the
information to the compliance stage of these proceed-
ings. Accordingly, we will order the Respondent to pro-
duce the requested information, unless the Respondent
establishes in the compliance proceeding, under the pro-
cedure set forth in Boeing Co., that the Union has no
need for the information.
Further, when a respondent has committed violations
of the Act, the Board typically orders it to post, for 60
days, a notice to employees in conspicuous places within
its facility, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. However, in this case, be-
cause it appears that the Respondent neither maintains a
presence at JBLM nor employs any bargaining unit em-
ployees, physical posting of the notice is not a feasible
remedial option, and the General Counsel has conceded
as much. Accordingly, we shall decline to order the Re-
spondent to physically post the notice.
The Respondent and the General Counsel agree, how-
ever, that it is appropriate for the notice to be mailed, and
Board precedent “provides for the mailing of individual
notices when posting will not adequately inform the em-
ployees of the violations that have occurred and their
rights under the Act.” Parkview Hospital, Inc., 343
NLRB 76, 76 fn. 3 (2004) (citing Indian Hills Care Cen-
ter, 321 NLRB 144 (1996)). Accordingly, we shall order
the Respondent to mail a copy of the attached notice
marked “Appendix” to the Union and to the last known
addresses of the bargaining unit employees employed by

4 The Respondent did not argue during the hearing before the admin-
istrative law judge that the production of the information should not be
ordered. Rather, it asserted in its Exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge’s Decision that the ALJ erred by ordering the production of the
information, based on the General Counsel’s statement in its post-
hearing brief to the ALJ that the Respondent no longer employed the
employees.
the Respondent at any time from the onset of the unfair
labor practices until the date the notices are mailed.
The Respondent has excepted to the judge’s Order re-
quiring it to distribute the notice electronically in accord-
ance with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010). The
Respondent contends that the judge’s Order is inappro-
priate because mailing the notice alone will be sufficient
and because the Respondent no longer employs bargain-
ing unit employees. In J. Picini Flooring, supra, the
Board announced that to effectively protect and enforce
employees’ rights under the Act, the Board will order
electronic distribution of the notice “if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means.” Thus, because the Board applies the standard
remedy set forth in J. Picini Flooring without regard to
the expected effectiveness of alternative forms of distri-
bution, such as mail distribution, the Respondent’s con-
tention that a mailed notice will be sufficient is of no
moment. Even though no bargaining unit employees are
currently employed by the Respondent, we find that it
will best effectuate the policies of the Act to order the
Respondent to distribute the notice electronically, if the
Respondent customarily communicated with its former
employees by electronic means.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Strategic Resources, Inc., McLean, Virgin-
ia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 (Union) as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the following unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employ-
ees employed by the employer out of the following
Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington operations,
Warrior Transition Battalion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobili-
zation Battalion (JMB), and Transportation Motor Pool
(TMP) who are employed as dispatchers and drivers of
a vehicle in the transportation of military personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Changing its formula for calculating bargaining
unit employees’ holiday pay without first notifying the
Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain.

5 In accordance with our discussion in J. Picini Flooring, questions
as to whether a particular type of electronic distribution is appropriate
may be resolved at the compliance stage.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 3
(c) Failing and refusing to provide and unreasonably
delaying in providing information to the Union that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
functions as the collective-bargaining representative of
bargaining unit employees.
(d) Failing and refusing to meet with the Union at rea-
sonable times and/or places for bargaining.
(e) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union for a confidentiality agreement, protective
order, or other procedure to address Respondent’s al-
leged confidentiality concerns.
(f) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union by taking the position that it had reached im-
passe with the Union on January 15, 2013, over bargain-
ing for a confidentiality agreement, protective order, or
other procedure to address Respondent’s alleged confi-
dentiality concerns.
(g) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union by withdrawing recognition of the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of bar-
gaining unit employees on August 19, 2013.
(h) 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) Make whole any employees for lost wages and
other benefits as a result of its unlawful unilateral change
to the formula for calculating bargaining unit employees’
holiday pay, in the manner set forth in the amended rem-
edy section of this decision.
(b) Furnish the Union with the information it request-
ed on January 24, February 21, February 28, March 13,
March 15, 2012; February 26, April 22, and May 2,
2013, unless the Respondent establishes in the compli-
ance proceeding that the Union has no ongoing need for
this information.
(c) Compensate affected employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
19, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
year for each employee.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at the Respondent’s own expense, a copy
of the attached notice marked “Appendix”6 to the Union
and to all former bargaining unit employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since September 5, 2011.
The notice shall be mailed to the last known address of
each of the employees after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative. In addition to
mailing paper notices, notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily communicated with its former em-
ployees by such means.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 12, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
MAILED 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 mail 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith
with International Association of Machinists and Aero-
space Workers, AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 (Union)
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employ-
ees employed by the employer out of the following
Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington operations,
Warrior Transition Battalion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobili-
zation Battalion (JMB), and Transportation Motor Pool
(TMP) who are employed as dispatchers and drivers of
a vehicle in the transportation of military personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT change our formula for calculating bar-
gaining unit employees’ holiday pay without first notify-
ing the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide or unreasona-
bly delay in providing information to the Union that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
functions as the collective-bargaining representative of
bargaining unit employees.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to meet with or refuse or
delay proposing dates to negotiate with the Union.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith
with the Union regarding any confidentiality or non-
disclosure agreements.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully withdraw recognition from
the Union and fail and refuse to bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
bargaining unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL make whole all employees affected by our
unlawful unilateral change to the formula for calculating
holiday pay.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested on January 24, February 21, February 28, March
13, March 15, 2012; February 26, April 22, and May 2,
2013, unless the Respondent establishes in the compli-
ance proceeding that the Union has no ongoing need for
this information.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar year for each employee.
WE WILL mail a copy of this notice to the Union and
all former bargaining unit employees who we employed
at any time since September 5, 2011.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-070217 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Mara-Louise Anzalone, Esq. and Rachel Cherem, Esq., for the
General Counsel.
Mark A Hutcheson, Esq. and Peter Finch, Esq. (Dwight Wright
TremaineLLP), for the Respondent.
Kevin Cummings, Grand Lodge Representative, for the Charg-
ing Party IAMAW.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Seattle, Washington, on March 25–27 and August
5 and 6, 2014, upon the Order consolidating cases, consolidated
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 5
complaint, and notice of hearing and partially revoking settle-
ment agreement, as amended (the complaint), issued on No-
vember 27, 2013, by the Regional Director for Region 19.
The complaint alleges that Strategic Resources, Inc. (Re-
spondent) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by making
unilateral changes to its formula for calculating holiday pay for
bargaining unit employees, by unilaterally changing paid wait-
ing time, and by promulgating a new work rule requiring em-
ployees to report their time daily into Respondent’s “Deltec”
system.
Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by failing to furnish or unreasonably delaying in furnishing
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 (the Union) with
information necessary to its function as bargaining unit repre-
sentative or to monitor terms of the settlement agreement pre-
viously reached.
Respondent is also alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by failing to meet at reasonable times and places for
bargaining, by failing to bargain with the Union for a confiden-
tiality agreement, protective order, or other procedure to ad-
dress Respondent’s confidentiality concerns, by taking the posi-
tion that impasse had been reached in bargaining with the Un-
ion on January 15, 2013, concerning a confidentiality agree-
ment, and by withdrawing recognition from the Union as exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its bargaining unit employees
on August 19, 2013.
The complaint also sets aside a settlement agreement reached
between the parties on January 30, 2013, based upon the com-
plaint1 issued by the Regional Director for Region 19 on No-
vember 28, 2012, in Cases 19–CA–070217, 19–CA–070224,
19–CA–072173, 19–CA–072184, 19–CA–077901, and 19–
CA–088406 for noncompliance and for the commission of
further unfair labor practices.
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint stating it
had committed no wrongdoing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record, including the briefs from counsel for
the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
findings of fact.
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent stipulated2 that it is a Virginia corporation locat-
ed in McLean, Virginia, with an office and place of business on
Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) in the State of Washington
where it has been engaged in the business of providing trans-
portation support services to the U. S. Department of Defense.
During the last 12 months Respondent has provided services to
the U. S. Department of Defense valued in excess of $50,000.
It further stipulated that it is an employer engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.3

1 GC Exh. 1((y).
2 GC Exh. 57.
3 Id.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admitted in its answer and I find that Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 (the Union), is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
From March 12, 2010, until April 2011, Logistics Solutions
Group, Inc. (LSG), under contract with the U.S. Department of
Defense, provided transportation services for Army troops at
Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) in the State of Washington.
On March 12, 2010, the Board certified International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, District
Lodge W-24 (the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the LSG employees in the following unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employees em-
ployed by the employer out of the following Joint Base Lewis
McChord, Washington operations, Warrior Transition Battal-
ion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobilization Battalion (JMB), and
Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) who are employed as dis-
patchers and drivers of a vehicle in the transportation of mili-
tary personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Since about April 27, 2011, Respondent, under contract with
the U.S. Department of Defense, replaced LSG and has provid-
ed transportation services for Army troops at Joint Base Lewis
McChord (JBLM) in the State of Washington. Respondent has
continued LSG’s operation in unchanged form and hired a ma-
jority of the individuals in the above-described bargaining unit
who were employed by LSG.4 Respondent further stipulated5
that on May 12, 2011, it recognized the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the above-described unit
of employees. On May 12, 2011, Respondent notified the Un-
ion that it had implemented initial terms and conditions of em-
ployment and recognized its obligation to negotiate a new col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
1. Respondent’s management and bargaining team
Randy Cox (Cox) is the project manager for the CSBS Con-
tract, which involves 11 total task areas, including the transport
or movement branch function performed by bargaining unit
employees. Steve White was Respondent’s movement branch
chief. Before White, Koral Coon (Coon) served in that role.
Anita Lawson (Lawson) is Respondent’s corporate director of
human resources and training.
Respondent has had a series of attorneys as its lead negotia-
tors during bargaining with the Union. From approximately
September to December 2011, Respondent was represented by
Charles Thompson (Thompson) from December 2011 to about
January 2013, Respondent retained Warren Martin (Martin).
Since at least January 2013, Respondent has been represented

4 GC Exh. 6.
5 Id.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in bargaining by its current counsel, Mark Hutcheson (Hutche-
son).
2. The Union’s officers and representatives
Kevin Cummings (Cummings) has been the Union’s grand
lodge representative for over 7 years. In September 2011,
Cummings took over negotiations with Respondent from James
(Bud) Michel (Michel). Union Business Representative Wayne
Thompson (Thompson) assisted Cummings.
3. Posthearing evidentiary rulings
On March 25, 2014, Respondent offered into evidence as
Respondent’s Exhibit 4 a slide from Respondent’s new hire and
orientation Power Point. After voir dire examination, counsel
for the General Counsel stated that she did not have an objec-
tion to the exhibit, but requested an opportunity to review the
entire document that had been called for production under the
General Counsel’s subpoena but had not yet been provided. I
admitted Respondent’s exhibit 4 into the record subject to Re-
spondent providing the entire document to the General Counsel,
who could then offer the entire document into the record.
On August 6, 2014, the last day of the hearing, Respondent
had yet to comply with the General Counsel’s subpoena and
provide the entire new hire and orientation Power Point. Prior
to the close of the hearing, I noted that the General Counsel had
not yet had an opportunity to review or offer into evidence the
complete new hire and orientation Power Point document.
Accordingly, I allowed counsel for the General Counsel until
August 29, 2014, to offer it as General Counsel’s exhibit 79,
subject to any objection by Respondent.
Also on August 6, 2014, Respondent offered into evidence
Respondent’s exhibits 18 through 22. These exhibits consist of
over 300 pages of summary spread sheets. Respondent’s ex-
hibit 18 purports to be a summary of its form 2401 dispatch
sheets for the period April 27 through December 31, 2011,
exhibit 19 claims to be a summary of nonsurge missons for
2011, exhibit 20 is a summary of 2401 forms for 2012, exhibit
21 is a summary of nonsurge missons for 2012, and exhibit 22
purports to be a summary of 2401 forms for 2013.
At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel objected to
the introduction into the record of Respondent’s exhibits 18–22
on the ground that they did not comply with Federal Rule of
Evidence 1006 because Respondent had not given enough time
for the General Counsel to determine if the underlying docu-
ments supported the purported summaries. The General Coun-
sel also objected to the receipt of Respondent’s exhibits 19 and
21, as they constituted compliance-related information.
At the hearing, Respondent contended that it had already
provided the General Counsel with all of the underlying docu-
ments relied on in creating Respondent’s exhibits 18 through
22, and that the exhibits were relevant. Since Respondent had
only belatedly provided counsel for the General Counsel with
four boxes of documents, allegedly containing documents to
support Respondent’s exhibits 18 through 22, I reserved ruling
on Respondent’s exhibits 18 through 22 until I issued my deci-
sion in order to provide the General Counsel an opportunity to
review the underlying documents and file written objections to
these exhibits. I also gave Respondent an opportunity to re-
spond in writing to the General Counsel’s objections.
On August 28, 2014, the General Counsel filed its offer of
General Counsel’s exhibit 79 and counsel for the General
Counsel’s objections to Respondent’s exhibits 18, 19, 20, 21,
and 22. On September 5, 2014, Respondent filed its reply.
a. The Power Point document
When Respondent finally provided the full new hire and ori-
entation Power Point, it was replete with redactions that I had
not authorized. However, since there is no objection from the
General Counsel to the redactions and in the absence of any
objection to its receipt into the record from Respondent, I will
receive General Counsel’s Exhibit 79.
b. Respondent’s summaries
In its motion, counsel for the General Counsel argues that
Respondent’s exhibits 18 through 22 should be rejected. As to
exhibits 19 and 21, since backpay is not properly in issue at this
time, the General Counsel urges rejection of these exhibits. As
to exhibits 18, 20, and 22, the General Counsel takes the posi-
tion that Respondent failed to provide dispatcher logs, time-
cards, and drivers’ logs for the entire time period in question,
making it impossible to verify the accuracy of the summaries.
And that the summaries are not supported by documents but by
assumptions made by the maker of the summary, Coon.
Respondent argues that exhibits 18 through 22 are supported
by documents, claiming it provided all of the supporting docu-
ments to the General Counsel. It also contends that exhibits 19
and 21 are not compliance documents but show that there was
no change in wait times for drivers in outbound THA missions
in defense to complaint allegation 6(b).
Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, provides:
The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to
prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or pho-
tographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The
proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for
examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reason-
able time and place. And the court may order the proponent to
produce them in court.
Under Rule 1006, the summary is admissible only if the un-
derlying documents would be admissible and made available to
opposing counsel for examination and a proper foundation for
the summary is established. U.S. v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 204
(3d Cir. 1992). In Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 298 NLRB 73, 82
fn. 37 (1990), the Board advised that the judge should carefully
weigh the circumstances under which the summary was pre-
pared and whether it reflects the author’s subjective view or
interpretation of underlying information.
Respondent’s movement branch chief, Koral Coon (Coon),
created the summaries which comprise Respondent’s exhibits
18 through 22. Coon stated that she created Respondent’s ex-
hibits 18–22 from the form 2401s,6 dispatcher logs,7 Deltek
timesheets,8 timecards or punch cards,9 and drivers’ logs.10

6 GC Exhs. 59–61.
7 GC Exhs. 62–63.
8 GC Exhs. 64–66.
9 R. Exh. 15.
10 R. Exh. 17.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 7
According to Coon, Respondent’s Exhibit 18 not only re-
flects information from the 2401 forms but includes infor-
mation she created. Thus, column one heading “line number”
does not reflect a number of a particular form 2401 but is a
numbering system she created. The column heading “SURGE”
does not come from any underlying document but is her own
interpretation of other unspecified documents.11 The column
heading “Does not count as Group THA because” it was also
created by Coon.12 Coon did not explain how or why she
reached this particular conclusion for each mission. It is not a
heading on any of the underlying documents.
Coon testified that Respondent’s exhibit 19 represents
nonsurge missions.13 While this summary has the same head-
ings as Respondent’s exhibit 18, Coon added additional head-
ings next to “per driver information” starting with “driver
name,” information that apparently came from driver’s logs,
punchcards, and Delteck time, but without specifying which
underlying document is being summarized. In addition, Coon
added headings for “hours gained and lost,” “per hour pay,”
“health and welfare pay,” and “possible pay due.” Coon testi-
fied that the “possible pay due” calculations are her own
interpreration of other records.14
None of the underlying documents contains a heading “Car-
go/Passenger” column as set forth in Respondent’s Exhibits
18–22. While it is apparent that Coon gleaned this information
from a variety of sources, it is nevertheles her conclusion not a
summary of any underlying documents.
Moreover, Respondent stipulated it did not use dispatcher
logs in 2011 and could not locate dispatcher logs for 61 mis-
sions in 2012 and 2013.15 Counsel for the General Counsel
represents that many 2011 missions are classified as “surge”
missions and almost all of the missions with missing dispatcher
logs in 2012 and 2013 are classified as “surge” missions on
Respondent’s summaries.
Respondent’s Exhibits 20 and 22 are essentially the same as
Respondent’s Exhibit 18 and Respondent’s Exhibit 21 is the
same as exhibit 19.
c. Ruling on admissabilty of Respondent’s
Exhibits 18–22
What Respondent has created in Respondent’s exhibits 18–
22 are not summaries of documents as is contemplated in Fed-
eral Rule of Evidence 1006 but rather a hybrid of both docu-
ment summaries and Coon’s interpretation of what various
other unspecified documents may represent. For the trier of
fact these exhibits do not make the job easier but more difficult
as I have to parse out of Respondent’s Exhibits 18–22 what is a
true summary and what is Coon’s opinion. It is more reliable to
review the underlying documents themselves, General Coun-
sel’s exhibits 3 and 58–66 as well as Respondent’s Exhibits 15–
17, than to rely on these summaries. Following the Board’s
admonition in Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 298 NLRB at 82 fn.
37, in weighing the circumstances under which the summaries

11 Tr. 520–521, LL. 23–25 and 1–9.
12 Id. at p. 521, LL. 12-13.
13 Id. p. 523, LL. 18–24.
14 Id. p. 528, LL. 3–24.
15 GC Exh. 57, par. 15.
were prepared I find at least in part that they reflect the author’s
subjective view or interpretation of underlying information.
Accordingly, I reject Respondent’s exhibits 18–22 and will
place them in the rejected exhibits file.
4. The alleged unfair labor practices
Since the nature of this case does not lend itself to a chronol-
ogy of the facts, I will discuss the facts and analysis in discrete
sections as set forth in the complaint herein.
B. Unilateral Changes
Counsel for the General Counsel alleges that Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by making certain unilateral
changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment
without notice to or bargaining with the Union.
1. Holiday pay
a. Facts
Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that Respondent altered its
formula for calculating holiday pay for bargaining unit employ-
ees on or about September 5, 2011.
Ausley testified that under LSG drivers received prorated
holiday pay. If a driver worked 40 hours the week before the
holiday, they got 8 hours’ holiday pay. If the driver worked 20
hours the week before the holiday, they got 4 hours’ holiday
pay. The parties stipulated that Respondent’s drivers were paid
holiday pay for New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s
Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independ-
ence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanks-
giving Day, and Christmas Day.16
While Respondent’s employee orientation materials17 specify
that employees would receive prorated holiday pay, Respond-
ent’s project manager at JBLM, Cox, admitted that when Re-
spondent began operations in April 2011, it began the practice
of paying the unit employees 8 hours’ pay for each holiday
regardless of how many hours they worked the previous week.
Respondent’s payroll records18 reflect that this practice oc-
curred over a 3-month period including Memorial Day, Inde-
pendence Day, and Labor Day in 2011. However, at hearing,
both Cox and Lawson claimed that paying employees 8 hours
per holiday was an “error” and inconsistent with Respondent’s
practices, but neither specified what type of error, how the error
was discovered, why the error occurred, or whether they had
informed the Union of this error
Starting on October 10, 2011, Columbus Day, Respondent
began prorating bargaining unit employees’ holiday pay as
shown in Respondent’s payroll records.19
There is no evidence that the Union was given notice of this
change or an opportunity to bargain over it. (Tr. 77–78.)
b. The analysis
General Counsel argues that Respondent’s change from
nonproration of holiday pay to proration in October 2011, was
done without notice to or bargaining with the Union and violat-

16 GC Exhs. 57 and 57(a).
17 GC Exh. 79, p. 32.
18 GC Exh. 58.
19 GC Exhs. 64–66.
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent contends that
the initial payment of full holiday pay was an administrative
error and not a unilateral change citing Eagle Transport Corp.,
338 NLRB 489 (2002), and Boeing Co., 212 NLRB 116 (1974)
During the course of a collective-bargaining relationship an
employer must refrain from making substantial and material
unilateral changes concerning mandatory subjects of bargain-
ing. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment. NLRB v. Katz,
369 U.S. 736 (1962). Changes to payment of wages, including
holiday pay, are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Waxie Sani-
tary Supply, 337 NLRB 303, 304 (2001); J. W. Rex Co., 308
NLRB 473, 497–498 (1992).
In JPH Management, Inc., 337 NLRB 72, 73 (2001), the
Board held that a mistaken wage increase granted on July 1 and
rescinded on August 10 was a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act as a unilateral change absent bargaining to impasse.
Likewise in Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., 356 NLRB
140, 143 (2010), the administrative law judge found that the
March 9 revocation of an erroneously granted February wage
increase was an unlawful unilateral change and absent impasse
or notice to and bargaining with the Union violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
Respondent’s reliance on Eagle Transport Corp., supra, and
Boeing Co., supra, is misplaced. In each of those cases there
was either a computer glitch resulting in a brief wage increase
or a clerical error resulting in a simple misclassification of em-
ployees who were never in the bargaining unit.
Here, the alleged error lasted from April through September
2011, a period of 6 months. I find that having established a
practice of paying bargaining unit employees nonprorated holi-
day pay, Respondent was under an obligation to bargain with
the Union before making a change to prorate holiday pay. By
failing to do so Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
2. Change to paid waiting time for outbound
THA missions
a. Facts
Complaint paragraph 6(b) alleges that on or about November
17, 2011, Respondent changed bargaining unit mission re-
quirements, including reducing paid waiting time during THA
missions.
As part of Respondent’s duties under its contract with the
Department of Defense, it transported outbound troops in buses
to the airfield on JBLM. The area where the troops waited to
board their outbound plane was known as the troop holding
area or THA. Respondent’s bargaining unit employees drove
the buses which carried the outbound troops from various loca-
tions around JBLM to the THA. The drivers usually brought
the troops to the THA about 2 hours before takeoff. Katherine
Ausley (Ausley) worked as a lead driver and dispatcher in the
bargaining unit first with LSG from 2006 to April 2011 then
with Respondent from April 2011 to October 2013. Ausley
was also a member of the Union and was on the Union’s bar-
gaining team. Drivers were scheduled from day to day and
received their driving schedule the day before they were sched-
uled to drive. The 2401 form was the dispatch schedule for
drivers, listing their assignments. As lead driver, Ausley com-
municated with the dispatcher about what route to follow.
Coon was Ausley’s supervisor. Cox supervised Coon.
Ausley said that before June 2011, after dropping off the
outbound soldiers at the THA, all buses waited 30 minutes at
the THA after “wheels up.” The term “wheels up” referred to
the time when the aircraft loaded with soldiers lifted off the
runway at McChord Airfield. The drivers waited 30 minutes in
the event the plane had to return to the airfield. Ausley testified
that the exception to the 30-minute wait rule occurred when
there was a “push” or “surge” of soldiers, i.e., when a large
number of troops were being flown out of the THA at McChord
requiring multiple aircraft. In a “push” the drivers dropped off
the soldiers and immediately returned to JBLM for another load
of troops. Ausley’s testimony that drivers waited at the THA
on outbound missions for 30 minutes after wheels up until June
2011 was corroborated by bargaining unit driver Joel Davis.
Ausley testified that in June 2011, the practice of waiting 30
minutes after “wheels up” changed. A dispatcher, either Aaron
or Sheri, told Ausley that only the lead driver was to wait for 30
minutes after “wheels up.” About 2 weeks later Ausley was at
the THA when all the buses were dropping troops and immedi-
ately leaving for the transportation motor pool (TMP). A civil-
ian department of defense employee, guiding the operations at
the THA told Ausley that the buses were supposed to wait until
30 minutes after “wheels up.” Ausley testified without contra-
diction that she called Coon and told her about the issue with
the 30-minute wait period. Coon said, “Who do you work for?
You work for SRI. You will do exactly what I tell you to do.
You will send those buses back now.”20 (Tr. 43, LL. 18–20.)
The dispatch forms 240121 for the period April 27 to June 20,
2011, reflect that there were 25 outbound THA missions that
were not surges. The 2401 dispatch forms list the drivers as-
signed to the THA missions. During the April 27–June 28,
2011 period Ausley is not listed as a driver at all. Joel Davis is
listed as a driver on two of the 25 THA missions during this
period of time. While it is clear from Respondent’s April
through June 2011 payroll records22 that Ausley worked for
Respondent, it is unclear from Ausley’s testimony if she
worked as a driver or a dispatcher. Given that her name does
not appear on the form 2401 dispatch records as a driver until at
the earliest June 29, 2011,23 I will infer that during that period
she worked for Respondent as a dispatcher.
According to Coon, Respondent had no practice of requiring
drivers to remain at the THA on outbound troop missions for 30
minutes after wheels up. Coon admitted that the Army might
require drivers to remain at the THA after wheels up but that
this was on a case-by-case basis.
Respondent points to a 2401 form24 from LSG to show that
in April 2011 LSG had no policy of having drivers wait at the

20 Tr. 43, LL. 18–20.
21 GC Exh. 59. There are no 2401 dispatch forms prior to April 27,
2011, in the record.
22 GC Exh. 64.
23 GC Exh. 59, pp. 176, 094, and 098 list a driver named Kathy.
Ausley’s first name is Katherine. A driver named Ausley is not listed
until p. 111 on July 14, 2011.
24 R. Exh. 14.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 9
THA for 30 minutes past wheels up for outbound THA mis-
sions. The LSG 2401 shows the April 1, 2011 misssion of
driver Root. The 2401 shows a wheels up time of 2:05 a.m.
Root’s driver’s log for that mission show that he departed the
THA at 11 p.m., precluding waiting til 30 minutes after wheels
up. Similarly, the 2401 entry for driver Fox shows wheels up at
9:50 a.m. and he departs the THA at 7:40 a.m.
Respondent’s August 2011 Movements Section standard op-
erating procedures were written by Coon. The operating pro-
cedures provide, “9. One person will be assigned to stay at
THA, all other bus drivers will drop their pax of, and return to
TMP.”25 Coon testified that this requirement was omitted from
the LSG operating procedures which she also wrote. This poli-
cy is reflected in the 2401 forms. After July 15, 2011, the
forms 240126 contain entries generally indicating only one driv-
er out of several was to remain at the THA until wheels up.
In a September 21, 2012 memo27 Respondent announced a
temporary change in waiting policy of allowing its drivers on
outbound THA missions to wait at the THA until “wheels up.”
Coon announced that this policy was to be in effect until com-
pletion of construction at the McChord THA. This policy last-
ed about 2 weeks.
The only mention of all drivers staying at the THA for 30
minutes after wheels up is an entry in the December 21, 2012
driver’s dispatch form 2401 stating, “All drivers stay until ½
hour after wheels up.”28 After entering into a settlement
agreement with the Board, in a January 2013 meeting Coon told
drivers that they would now be staying at the THA until 30
minutes after “wheels up”
Respondent contends that Ausley was incompetent to testify
regarding Respondent’s policies regarding how long to remain
at the THA after wheels up. Respondent contends that only
Coon is competent to give such testimony as she was the person
responsible for conducting all troop movements. Coon also
performed this function for LSG, Respondent’s predecessor.
She wrote both the standard operating procedures noted above
for Respondent and LSG.
b. The analysis
During the course of a collective-bargaining relationship an
employer must refrain from making substantial and material
unilateral changes concerning mandatory subjects of bargain-
ing. Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment. NLRB v. Katz,
369 U.S. 736 (1962). The Board has concluded that paid wait-
ing times, are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Penn Tank
Lines, Inc., 336 NLRB 1066, 1067 (2001).
The starting point to establish a breach of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act for making a unilateral change to a mandatory subject
of bargaining, requires the General Counsel to establish that
Respondent has made a change to an extant term or condition
of employment without notice to or bargaining with the Union.

25 GC Exh. 55, p. 6.
26 GC Exh. 59, pp. 113, 117–120, 122, 128–129, 023, 043, 304, 305,
324, 341, 285–286, 292, 057, 075; GC Exh. 60, pp. 057, 178–180.
27 GC Exh. 2.
28 GC Exh. 60, p. 412.
While the complaint alleges that on about November 17,
2011, Respondent reduced paid waiting time during THA mis-
sions, in its brief the General Counsel contends that in June
2011, Respondent unilaterally rescinded its policy of paying all
bargaining unit drivers for waiting 30 minutes following wheels
up on outbound troop THA missions.
General Counsel has attempted to show that when Respond-
ent began operating at JBLM in April 2011, it established a
practice of paying drivers for waiting 30 minutes after wheels
up for outbound nonsurge THA missions. The evidence of this
practice came in the form of testimony from bargaining unit
drivers Ausley and Davis. Both Ausley and Davis testified that
Respondent told them to wait for 30 minutes after wheels up at
the THA when on nonsurge THA missions.
However, contrary to Ausley’s testimony, the 2401 drivers’
dispatch forms for the period April to July 2011 are devoid of
evidence that she drove any missions for Respondent at JBLM.
While payroll records reflect she was employed by Respondent
during this time, it is possible she worked during this period as
a dispatcher, as she testified.
As for Davis, from April to July 2011, he was assigned to
only 2 of 25 outbound THA missions. Given Davis’ limited
experience in driving only two THA missions from April to
July 2011 and Ausley’s apparent absence of any such experi-
ence, they were not in a position to know what Respondent’s
policy was concerning waiting at the THA.
Both Ausley and Davis testified that Respondent continued
the LSG policy of having drivers wait 30 minutes after wheels
up on outbound THA missions. Yet, the only objective evi-
dence of the LSG policy reflects that in April 2011 LSG drivers
did not wait 30 minutes after wheels up to leave the THA.
Neither Ausley’s conversation with Respondent’s dispatcher
in June 2011 that only the lead driver was to wait for 30
minutes after wheels up nor her conversation with a civilian
department of defense employee that the buses were supposed
to wait until 30 minutes after wheels up establish that Respond-
ent had a policy in effect of allowing drivers to wait for 30
minutes after wheels up. Coon, after learning of the civilian
employee’s conversation with Ausley, immediately told Ausley
that she worked for SRI and that she would send those buses
back now is consistent with Coon’s testimony that on occasion
the Army sometimes told drivers to wait 30 minutes.
Moreover, it is unlikely that these conversations happened in
June 2011 as Ausley claimed. It is more likely that they oc-
curred in late June or July 2011, as it does not appear that
Ausley had an assignment to drive until late June or mid-July
2011. This is more consistent with Respondent’s creation of its
August 2011 Movements Section standard operating proce-
dures providing only one driver was to stay at the THA and is
reflected in the 2401 forms after July 15, 2011.
For the reasons discussed above, I do not credit the testimo-
ny of Ausley or Davis that prior to July 2011 Respondent had
established a policy of having bargaining unit drivers wait for
30 minutes at the THA after wheels up in nonsurge THA mis-
sions.
Having found there is insufficient evidence that Respondent
had established the practice of having all bargaining unit driv-
ers wait for 30 minutes at the THA after wheels up in nonsurge
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THA missions, I find Respondent did not make a unilateral
change in terms and conditions of employment. I will recom-
mend the dismissal of complaint allegation 6(b).
3. Promulgating a new work rule requiring bargaining
unit employees to report their time into the
“Deltec” system
a. The facts
Complaint paragraph 6(c) alleges that in January 2014, Re-
spondent promulgated a new work rule requiring bargaining
unit employees to report their time into the “Deltec” system.
Respondent requires bargaining unit employees to enter their
hours worked into a timekeeping system called “Deltec.” If an
employee fails to enter their time into the Deltec system, it is
called a “floor failure.”
At the time Respondent hired its bargaining unit employees,
as part of its new employee training, it made a power point
presentation.29 Included in the training materials was a section
on recording time on time sheets. The training30 provided:
Timesheets
 Recording time worked on your timesheet at the end
of each work day is mandatory.
 Any overtime hours needed, must be pre-approved by
your authorized.
 Program Manager in writing, prior to such time being
worked.
 All employees are subject to floor checks at any time.
 Employees are required to communicate with his/her
Lead Staff Member,Supervisor or Program Manager
to ensure proper communication of such requests to
deviate from a regular schedule in advance.
 It is also imperative to note the following:
Employees are independently responsible for correct-
ly charging their time.
There are penalties for contributing to a false claim or
false statement against the government.
In addition employees were required to take an online train-
ing course31 on use of Respondent’s timekeeping system. Both
drivers Ausley and Davis took this online course.32
Respondent’s employee handbook33 provides at page 2:
3.5 Maintaining Accurate Records
Proper timesheet reporting is one of the most important re-
quirements of federal government contracting - a requirement
which SRI fully supports. Timesheets are used, among other
reasons, to control the allocation of costs between fixed-price
contracts and cost-reimbursement contracts, to record hours
worked for contract invoicing purposes, and to allocate costs
between direct and indirect cost centers. To comply fully with
the timesheet requirement, employees record the actual num-
ber of hours worked in a day. It is important that all employ-

29 GC Exh. 79.
30 Id. at p. 28.
31 Id. at pp. 45–55.
32 R. Exh. 9.
33 GC Exh. 78.
ees recognize the importance of recording actual number of
hours worked.
It is also imperative to note the following:
Employees are independently responsible for charg-
ing their time correctly.
There are potential penalties for contributing to a
false claim or false statement against the government.
Respondent’s employee handbook also has a provision deal-
ing with employee conduct and discipline.34 This provision
provides in part:
4. Code of Business Ethics & Conduct
. . . .
There is both a management and an individual obligation to
fulfill the intent of this policy. Any clear infraction of applica-
ble laws or prevailing business ethics will subject an employ-
ee to disciplinary action which may include reprimand, proba-
tion, suspension, reduction in salary, demotion, or dismissal-
depending on the seriousness of the offense. Such offenses or
violations of conduct would include, but not be limited to:
[f]alsifying company records including application for
employment.
. . . .
not following policies and procedures.
During Respondent’s first few months of operations at
JBLM, no bargaining unit employees were disciplined for fail-
ing to enter their hours in a timely manner, nor is there evi-
dence that Respondent tolerated bargaining unit employees’
failure to record their hours. According to Ausley, in Septem-
ber 2011, Cox posted an email on the motor pool bulletin
board, telling employees that if they did not report their hours
they would be subject to reprimand depending upon the nature
of the excuse.35
b. The analysis
The Board has long held that disciplinary policies and work
rules are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Toledo Blade Co.,
343 NLRB 385, 387 (2004). Moreover, if discipline was issued
based on a unilaterally imposed rule, that discipline also vio-
lates Section 8(a)(5). Consec Security, 328 NLRB 1201, 1201
(1999).
Counsel for the General Counsel relies on El Paso Electric
Co., 355 NLRB 428, 453 (2010), where the Board affirmed the
administrative law judge who found that a more stringent en-
forcement of absentee and tardy rules violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act where there was no record of probation or discipline
previously issued to an employee who was excessively absent
or late. It was concluded that this amounted to a significant,
material, and substantial change to employees’ working condi-
tions. By failing to notify or bargain with the Union before
implementing this change the employer was found to have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Here, the General Counsel argues that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by imposing a new disciplinary sys-

34 Id. at p. 2.
35 Tr. 67, LL. 16–23.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 11
tem for floor failures, which had not been previously subject to
discipline, arguing that when Respondent initially began its
operations at JBLM, bargaining unit employees were not sub-
ject to discipline if they failed to input their hours into the
Deltec system at the end of the day, as required.
The record fails to support this contention. Clearly from the
inception of its operations at JBLM Respondent’s employee
handbook and its training materials have provided that if em-
ployees fail to follow policy and procedure, including record
keeping, they may be subject to discipline. Unlike the situation
in El Paso Electric, supra, here, there is no evidence that Re-
spondent has had prior occasion to discipline its employees for
failing to record their time. Likewise, there is no evidence that
Respondent has been lax in enforcing its disciplinary procedure
for failing to follow policy. It was not until September 2011
that Respondent discovered that employees were not recording
their time in the Deltec time system in a timely manner and it
took disciplinary action, requiring employees to write an excuse
letter explaining their “floor failure” in failing to enter their
time.
I conclude that there is evidence that Respondent has always
had an employee disciplinary procedure for failure to follow its
policies and that all employees knew or should have known that
they were obligated to enter their time on a daily basis into the
Deltec system. Accordingly, I find no evidence that Respond-
ent implemented a new work rule requiring employees to enter
their time daily into its Deltec system. I will recommend that
this allegation be dismissed.
4. Enforcement of the new work rule
against Ausley
a. The facts
Complaint paragraph 6(f) alleges that on January 26, 2012,
Respondent enforced the new work rule against Ausley.
In about November 2011, Ausley did not make an entry into
the Deltec system reflecting 0 hours worked, since she had no
hours for that day. The following day Coon called Ausley at
home and told her she had a floor failure and that she had to
write a statement about what her excuse for the floor failure
was. Coon then said she would let Ausley know what the re-
percussions would be for her floor failure. Ausley wrote the
statement, but she heard nothing further from Respondent.
b. The analysis
Having found that Respondent did not implement a new
work rule or disciplinary policy in requiring employees to enter
their time into the Deltec system on a daily basis but rather
pursuant to extant policy had both a diciplinary rule and a poli-
cy requiring employees to enter their time into Deltec, requiring
Ausley to write the letter explaining why she failed to enter her
time into Deltec did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I
will recommend this allegation be dismissed.
c. The Union’s information requests
General Counsel alleges in complaint paragraphs 7(a)
through (i) Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
refusing to furnish or by unreasonably delaying in furnishing
the Union with information that it requsted between January 24,
2012, and May 2, 2013, that was necessary and relevant for the
Union in performing its duties as exclusive collective-
bargaining representative over bargaining unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment.
1. The facts
Complaint paragraph 7(a) alleges that on January 24, 2012,
the Union in writing requested Respondent to furnish infor-
mation.
On January 24, 2012, the Union made an information re-
quest36 to Respondent for the purposes of engaging in collective
bargaining. The request included:
1. Provide information regarding SRI procedures and policies
for making work assignments.
a. Provide names and titles of personnel authorized to
make offers of assignments.
b. Detail the procedure for contacting the employee,
time limits for responding.
c. Provide information on any situation(s) where an
employee has stated unavailability for an assignment.
d. Provide information on any action taken by the
Company to discipline an employee in any manner—
including but not limited to verbal counseling—bypass on
subsequent work assignments, written warnings, etc. Pro-
vide details of company policy/procedure related to as-
signing work to personnel who have previously requested
vacation, or other time off.
2. Provide details of situations where workers had their vaca-
tions revoked after they had previously been approved, in-
clude names, dates and workforce records (payroll and/or oth-
erwise) that would show availability of other drivers that
would have been able to provide coverage if called.
b. Provide information as to the procedures for approv-
ing vacations, include the names and titles of authorized
personnel.
c. Provide information as to the procedures for revok-
ing previous approval of vacation.
. . .
i. Give details of attempts that SRI has made to find
other available workers to cover the mission, prior to re-
voking the vacation approval.
3. Detail any policies designed to evenly distribute the work
load amongst eligible employees
4. Provide a detailed explanation of the pre-trip maintenance
and post-trip maintenance survey procedures for vehicles as-
signed to drivers.
a. Provide forms drivers are required to fill out.
b. Provide details of policies or procedures that drivers
are to follow if vehicle does not pass the survey due to
safety or other issues.
c. Provide names and titles of personnel the drivers are
to contact to report the results of the pre/post evaluation of
vehicle.

36 GC Exh. 14.
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
d. Provide details and forms for procedures required by
SRI for dryers to change vehicles for the mission.
5. Provide details of instances when all drivers were assigned
to missions at the same time (we do not need sensitive details
of particular mission). We do request the dates, number of
drivers involved, duration of assignments, and work logs to
ascertain .the amount of work done.
6. Provide information on procedures for posting the schedule
of assigmrtents, and when the procedure went into effect.
7. Provide details of all safety equipment that SRI requires of
workers in the bargaining unit.
a. Who is responsible for purchasing, distributing and
caring forthe safety equipment.
b. Who is responsible for determining the correctness
ofthe safety equipment provided.
c. What is the procedure for requesting the provided
safety equipment.
d. What is the procedure for requesting safety equip-
ment that is not provided—such as making a suggestion
for additional/different safety equipment.
8. Provide details of dress code that SRI requires of bargain-
ing unit personnel. Who is responsible for purchasing, distrib-
uting and caring for the required dress.[?]
9. Provide information on any rain or cold weather gear re-
quired.
10. Provide explanation as to the relationship between SRI
and SAIC personnel.
11. Provide detailed information on procedures for reporting
safety concerns, other than related to the vehicle.
a. Provide names and titles of contact personnel.
b. Provide forms required.
c. Provide details of the response procedures.
d. Provide steps available to employee if the safety is-
sue is not addressed to the satisfaction of the concerned
employee.
12. Provide details of any training that SRI requires of em-
ployees.
a. Provide details of any training that SRI provides to
employees
13. Provide minutes of all safety committee meetings since
SRI became the contractor.
a. Provide names and titles ofpersonnel assigned to the
committee, and how long they have served on the commit-
tee(s).
b. Detail how the committee members were chosen.
c. Who is the head of the committee?
d. Provide any charter or operating guidelines/mission
for the committee.
e. Provide details of any training given to committee
members.
f. Are committee members paid for time spent per-
forming their duties? Explain.
g. What is the level of responsibility/authority of the
committee as a whole.
h. What is the level of responsibility and authority of
the individual members serving on it, provide details for
each individual.
i. What is the duration of the members assignment to
the safety committee.
j. Provide details of any other committees, regular or
other, that are currently in place, or have been in place
since Jan 2011.
14. Provide details for how SRI personnel, other than those
regularly assigned to the worksite, obtain access to the facili-
ties.
15. Provide information on all instances of drug or alcohol
abuse within the bargaining unit that SRI is aware of since be-
coming the contractor.
16. Provide all materials and information shared at the New
Hire Orientation.
a. Has this information changed since the first orienta-
tion that SRI conducted in January of 2011?
b. Provide copies of any forms or releases that new
hires are required to fill out during this orientation, or as a
result of this orientation.
c. Provide a current Employee handbook; and any pre-
vious versions of the handbook that has applied since SRI
first won the contract in January 2011.
d. Provide any materials provided to employees at ori-
entation or on first day of work.
e. Provide a copy of all documentation employees re-
ceive that outlines SRI policies and procedures.
f. Provide a detailed outline of the [current] avenue for
employee grievance, concern or suggestion for improve-
ment.
17. Provide a list of all conditions and classifications that are
subject to random drug testing.
a. Provide method for choosing personnel who are
picked for random testing.
b. Provide names of personnel who have been directed
to undergo drug/alcohol testing since SRI has been admin-
istrator of the service contract.
18. Provide a list of all certifications and licenses that are re-
quired of any or all bargaining unit personnel.
a. Provide information as to who is responsible for the
testing of represented personnel for work proficiency, in-
clude their title and contact information.
b. Provide details as to testing for proficiency, or for
certification, that represented employees are required to
take, provide copies of any testing materials.
c. Provide a list of all employees, showing all licenses,
permits, stamps, or endorsements they currently have.
d. Provide a demographic breakdown of all employees
in the bargaining unit by age, gender, and ethnic catego-
ries.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 13
19. Provide a list of all equipment that represented personnel
are responsible for driving.
a. Provide a matrix that lists the type of vehicle (make,
model, .type) and also provides the names of represented
personnel authorized to operate them.
b. Provide a list of duties—such—as maintenance,
record keeping, cleaning, etc. —that represented employ-
ees are required to perform, by vehicle make/model/type.
c. Provide documentation provided to employees that
details the list of duties they are required to perform for
each mission—such as pre ! post inspection, any mainte-
nance, hook-up or tear-down, etc.
20. Provide information on the process, including a copy of
any documentation required, for personnel to report an issue
with an assigned vehicle.
a. Who (name and title) is responsible for the vehicle
assignments, and for determining any subsequent change
ofvehicle.
21. Provide information on the process for reporting any event
or situation (accident, personnel issue, equipment malfunc-
tion, mission irregularity, etc.) and gaining guidance or ap-
proval as necessary.
22. Provide information to current sick leave policy.
a. Detail the information required of a doctors excuse
letter.
b. Provide a list of all instances where an employee has
called in sick since January 2011
c. Provide a list of all instances where SRI has required
a note from the employee’s doctor.
d. Provide a list of all instances where SRI has rejected
the doctor’s note, o1” required that employee return to the
doctor and obtain a different version of the note.
23. Provide a completed employee handbook, and any mate-
rials provided to employees at orientation or on first day of
work. Provide a copy of all documentation employees receive
that outlines SRI policies and procedures.
24. Provide names and titles of all personnel assigned to
JBLM who have authority to give work assignments to repre-
sented personnel.
a. Provide names and titles of all personnel assigned to
JBLM who have the authority to discipline, represented
personnel.
b. Provide names and titles of all personnel assigned to
JBLM who have the authority to authorize represented
personnel to work, or to cancel previously authorized work
assignments.
25. Provide detailed documentation for any and all benefits
that may be eligible to any or all SRI employees assigned to
JBLM.
a. Provide summary plan benefits documentation for
any 401K, pension, medical or other benefit.
b. Provide name and contact information of the benefit
providers.
c. Provide name, title and contact information for on-
site personnel responsible for administering the benefits—
or providing information to the personnel assigned to
JBLM.
26. Provide information on facilities available to personnel
while on assigmnent, or during time between missions.
a. Provide procedures for employees to take breaks, or
use restrooms while on assigmnents.
27. Provide policies and directions given to employees on
availability requirements they will be held to—such as, are
they on twenty-four (24) hour call, three-hundred-sixty-five
(365) days each year.
a. Provide any documentation provided to employees
outlining this responsibility.
b. Provide information on any discipline, or threat of
discipline, that has been relayed to employees for a viola-
tion of this requirement.
28. Provide a list of all discipline administered, or threatened,
to bargaining unit personnel since January 2011.
On February 1, 2014,37 Respondent replied to the Union’s in-
formation request without providing any information. Re-
spondent’s response sought clarification of the Union’s request:
Dear Mr. Cummings:
I write to preliminarily respond to the lengthy infor-
mation request transmitted by email on January 24, 2012.
SRI has started work on compiling the information you re-
quest. As we began that process, however, many questions
arose with respect to the request. I write to request clarifi-
cation on your request and to provide you with a prelimi-
nary estimated response date.I write to request clarifica-
tion on your request and to provide you with a preliminary
estimated response date.
First, on their face, your requests appear to seek information
about all SRI employees and all SRI operations which would
exceed the proper scope for these requests. I note that some
requests, including numbers 15, 18, 19 and 28 are specifically
limited to bargaining unit employees at IBLM. The other re-
quests are not so limited. This suggests that the union is, in the
other requests, seeking information about all SRI operators
and all SRI employees. Are the union’s other requests intend-
ed to seek information about all SRI operations and all SRI
employees? Are those requests instead limited to bargaining
unit employees at JBLM? .Please clarify the scope of your re-
quests at your earliest convenience.
Second, independent of the above issue, several requests do
not appear to involve bargaining unit employees at JBLM.
For example, request 14 appears to seek information for non-
bargaining unit employees. Much of the information request-
ed in request 16 pertains to applicants and communications
before an applicant becomes an SRI employee. Similarly,
some orientation materials are communicated before the indi-

37 GC Exh. 16.
14 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vidual becomes an employee. Given that the union does not
represent applicants, we are unclear as to the basis for a re-
quest about applicants. In request 12, we are unclear whether
the “training” the union is requesting is limited to the training
provided to .bargaining unit employees or is broader. We are
unclear how request 10 relates to any issue affecting bargain-
ing unit employees. Please clarify how these requests pertain
to bargaining unit employees.
Several of the information requests are themselves internally
unclear. Request 14 uses the terms “facilities.” By this term,
do you mean to include SRI’s work locations on JBLM, the
JBLM base, the locations to which bargaining unit employees
drive or some combination of the above? Request 4 uses the
term “survey.” By this term, do you mean to reference the
pre- and post-trip inspections or something else? In request 5,
we are unclear what you mean by “assigned to missions at the
same—time.” Do you mean literally an assignment at the
same moment in time, do you mean a situation where two
bargaining unit employees were assigned to the same mission
or something else? Request 7 references “safety equipment.”
Did you intend to reference personal protective equipment or
the broader scope of safety items at the workplace? In request
20, you reference “an issue with an assigned vehicle.” Previ-
ous requests specifically address safety concerns, including
request 11. Is request 20 duplicative of request 11 or are you
requesting some other information? Please clarify these
points.
As I explained in the last bargaining session, I had vacation
scheduled for January 27th and 30th and was away from the
office during those times. Nevertheless, I forwarded your re-
quest to other SRI personnel to obtain an estimate of the time
required to respond to your request. SRI estimates that in ex-
cess of 100 hours of dedicated staff time would be required to
respond to your requests, even assuming that your requests
are limited to bargaining unit employees at JBLM. Given the-
se time estimates and other business commitments, we antici-
pate that an initial response will not be available until Febru-
ary 23rd or later.
I note that we have negotiations scheduled for February 7 and
8. I am prepared to use the time allotted for negotiations to
work on your information request if that is the union’s prefer-
ence. Please let me know your preference in that regard.
On February 2, 2012,38 the Union responded to Respondent’s
request for clarification. The Union responses appear in bold:
First, on their face, your requests appear to seek information
about all SRI employees and all SRI operations which would
exceed the proper scope for these requests. I note that some
requests, including numbers 15, 18, 19 and 28 are specifically
limited to bargaining unit employees at JBLM. The other re-
quests are not so limited. This suggests that the union is, in the
other requests, seeking information about all SRI operations
and all SRI employees. Are the union’s other requests intend-
ed to seek information about all SRI operations and all SRI
employees? Are those requests instead limited to bargaining

38 GC Exh. 17.
unit employees at JBLM? Please clarify the scope of your re-
quests at your earliest convenience.
The IAM is seeking information as worded in the request.
The information directly pointed to bargaining unit per-
sonnel is intentional, the wider information is intentional
as well. The need for such information is to ascertain any
retaliation against IAM represented employees due to
their decision to elect us as their bargaining representa-
tive. Also, we need to understand any unilateral changes
to working conditions that have been made in violation of
your duty to bargain over changes to conditions. In addi-
tion, the capability and action by SRI to provide any bene-
fit or other condition of employment may provide the
IAM with information pertinent to a proposal or counter.
If conditions are already being provided to employees at
JBLM, it could help to speed the process and allow us to
better identify areas of agreement.
Second, independent of the above issue, several requests do
not appear to involve bargaining unit employees at JBLM.
For example, request 14 appears to seek information for non-
bargaining unit employees.
It appears that SRI is attempting to avoid answering the
request for information. Item 14 is related to access. We
have had several discussions with SRI regarding access to
the working location of our members, and SRI has main-
tained that they have no ability to help. Please provide the
information as requested.
Much of the information requested in request 16 pertains to
applicants and communications before an applicant becomes
an SRI employee. Similarly, some orientation materials are
communicated before the individual becomes an employee.
Given that the union does not represent applicants, we are un-
clear as to the basis for a request about applicants.
Item 16 is pertinent to our negotiations. The Company has
hired many employees since being formally awarded the
contract, and we need to know the information provided
to them as they come in. This information allows us to un-
derstand the working conditions that employees are ex-
pected to operate under, and we need to keep track of any
changes that SRI may be making in violation of their duty
to bargain over such changes.
In request 12, we are unclear whether the “training” the union
is requesting is limited to the training provided to bargaining
unit employees or is broader.
Item 12 is for all training provided to SRI employees at
JBLM. Again, this is to allow the IAM to understand any
retaliation or denial of opportunity that impacts our
members because of their decision to reach out to the
IAM. It also allows us to know what capabilities that SRI
has, so that we can determine if a proposal for inclusion
might be proper.
We are unclear how request 10 relates to any issue affecting
bargaining unit employees. Please clarify how these requests
pertain to bargaining unit employees.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 15
Item 10 is critical to our duty of representation of workers
performing work as outlined by the NLRB. Represented
employees were moved into SAIC after the NLRB certi-
fied the election of the IAM, and recently SRI moved em-
ployees out of SAIl: back into the bargaining unit. This re-
lationship needs to be clarified, and we ask that you
properly provide the information.
Several of the information requests are themselves internally
unclear. Request 14 uses the terms “facilities.” By this term,
do you mean to include SRI’s work locations on JBLM, the
JBLM base, the locations to which bargaining unit employees
drive or some combination of the above?
“Facilities” refers to the locations where our members are
gathered. Examples would be the area where they are
dispatched from, the “yard” where they pick up their ve-
hicles, or any other place they regularly congregate. This
does not refer to individual mission locations. The issue is
access to JBLM, as you have been advised on numerous
occasions.
Request 4 uses the term “survey.” By this term, do you mean
to reference the pre- and post-trip inspections or something
else?
Please read sections “a, b, c and d” of our info request.
In request 5, we are unclear what you mean by “assigned to
missions at the same time.” Do you mean literally an assign-
ment at the same moment in time, do you mean a situation
where two bargaining unit employees were assigned to the
same mission or something else?
We are requesting information on your assertion that the
hiring of drivers, when current drivers are not working
forty hours per week, was necessary because of times
when all drivers are required at the same time.
Request 7 references “safety equipment.” Did you intend to
reference personal protective equipment or the broader scope
of safety items at the workplace?
The IAM is requesting information on “all safety equip-
ment” —this would be easier if you just read the request.
In request 20, you reference “an issue with an assigned vehi-
cle.” Previous requests specifically address safety concerns,
including request 11. Is request 20 duplicative of request 11 or
are you requesting some other information? Please clarify the-
se points.
If SRI would actually read the info request, it would see
that item 11 specifically states “procedures for reporting
safety concerns, other than related to the vehicle”, and
item 20 specifically pertaining to reporting an “issue with
an assigned vehicle.”
As I explained in the last bargaining session, I had vacation
scheduled for January 27th and 30th and was away from the
office during those times. Nevertheless, I forwarded your re-
quest to other SRI personnel to obtain an estimate of the time
required to respond to your request. SRI estimates that in ex-
cess of 100 hours of dedicated stafftime would be required to
respond to your requests, even assuming that your requests
are limited to bargaining unit employees at JBLM. Given
these time estimates and other business commitments, we an-
ticipate that an initial response will not be available until Feb-
ruary 23rd or later.
The amount of time to provide this information may, or
may not, be accurate. The IAM had repeatedly tried to
schedule negotiations, to move the process forward. As
SRI has been unwilling to meet regularly and hold discus-
sion leading to an agreement the information request is
our only avenue for obtaining the pertinent information
we need. We believe since the information is contained in
SRI files, the response should take no later than the end of
next week if you try to cooperate.
I note that we have negotiations scheduled for February 7 and
8. I am prepared to use the time alloted for negotiations to
work on your information request if that is the union’s prefer-
ence. Please let me know your preference in that regard.
The information request was not sent in an attempt to ne-
gotiate OR provide the information—we expect SRI to
continue to meet its obligations to negotiate AND to pro-
vide information that is necessary for the IAM to properly
build proposals and respond to issues and proposals
raised by the Company. I would expect that the “other
SRI personnel” you already contacted can work on the in-
formation as you meet and negotiate with us.
On February 28, 2012, Martin, Respondent’s attorney, re-
plied39 to the Union’s explanatory email of February 2, 2012.
Respondent’s February 28 response was nonresponsive to
and/or refused to provide information in response to the Un-
ion’s January 24, 2012 request numbers 1(a)–(d), 2(c), 4(a), (c),
and (d), 5, 6, 7(a), 9, 11(b)–(d), 12, 13(g) and (j), 14, 16(a)–(f),
17(a), 18(b)–(d), 19(a)–(c), 22(b) and (c), 23, 26(a)–(c), 28, and
29.
Complaint allegation 7(b) alleges that on about February 21,
2012, the Union requested in writing that Respondent furnish
the following information.
In a February 21, 2012 letter40 the Union sought additional
information from Respondent:
Ms. Lawson,
In order to properly prepare proposals, and respond to pro-
posals from your negotiating committee, the IAM is request-
ing the following information. We appreciate your coopera-
tion with this request, and would like the reply by March 2,
2012.
1. Provide a list of all SRI policies, practices, require-
ments, or duties that have been communicated to em-
ployees represented by the IAM since April 20: In-
clude any and all policies that were changed from
predecessor contractor, as well as policies that were
continued by SRI.

39 GC Exh. 18.
40 GC Exh. 23.
16 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a. Provide copies of the communications provided to
IAM represented employees.
b. Provide dates that the SRI policies, practices, re-
quirements and/or duties were communicated.
c. Provide name and title of person who was responsi-
ble for delivering the communication and what method
was used.
d. Provide dates when such policies, practices, re-
quirements and/or duties were to commence.
e. Provide copies of all communication whereby SRI
informed the IAM of policies, practices, requirements
and/or duties.
f. Provide details of any and all discipline, counseling
and/or warnings issued to IAM represented employees
since April 2011.
g. Provide a list of all policies, practices, requirements
and/or duties that have been changed since April 2011 for
any and all personnel employed by Sri at Joint-Base Lewis
McChord.
2. Provide details of all communication between SRI
and Joint-Base Lewis McChord, with regard to safety
issue raised by the IAM in November 2011.
a. Provide a detailed description of steps to remedy the
safety concern raised.
b. Provide name, title, and responsibility of SRI per-
sonnel responsible for addressing the safety concern.
On March 20, 2012, Respondent replied by email41 to the
Union’s February 21, 2012 information request. The response
covered only request item 1(f).
Complaint allegation 7(c) alleges that on February 28, 2012,
the Union requested in writing the information set forth below.
On February 28, 2012, the Union made an information re-
quest42 of Respondent asking for:
[A]n updated list of employees in the bargaining unit, it ap-
pears there have been several changes. Please provide the
same information and format as last time with the addition of
City and Email Address. In addition, we would like a break-
down of each employees certification / license levels that are
pertinent to assignments at SRI.
We are also requesting a breakdown of missions that SRI has
been asked to perform over the last six (6) months. This data
is to include the mission duration (number of hours charged),
level of driver certification/license required, and which driver
was assigned the mission.
We are trying to get a handle on scheduling so that we can get
an idea on exactly what driver utilization is. In order to bar-
gain intelligently on this we need the Company to provide
Time Card/Assignment Data for the last six (6)months. Please
provide Dispatch Logs with an annotation of expected vs. ac-
tual mission/assignment time logged by driver as well as time
card data for the same period for each employee in the bar-
gaining unit.

41 GC Exh. 25.
42 GC Exh. 26.
SRI has recently begun using the company email system to
communicate to workers we represent regarding issues related
to negotiations. We are requesting the list of SRI ema]l ad-
dresses for employees in the bargaining unit, so that we may
have the same opportunity, and it would remedy the issue of
some employees not having home email.
Complaint allegation 8(d) alleges that on March 13, 2012,
the Union requested in writing the following information of
Respondent.
On March 13, 2012, the Union made an additional infor-
mation request43 asking for:
[T]he full Statement of Work that encompasses the descrip-
tion of duties that SRI has contracted with the government,
under,Service Contract # W9 I24D-I l-C-900&
Provide copies of all Deltek records, Payroll records, time
cards, and any other records: or accounting documentation
that shows time charged, or compensation: paid to any em-
ployee under this Service Contract.
On March 20, 2012, Respondent replied44 to the Union in-
formation request of March 13 and refused to provide any of
the information:
We’ve received your request dated March 13th. In looking at
the information you are requesting to include, “Deltec rec-
ords, payroll records, time cards and other records or account-
ing documentation . . .”, your request is overly broad and un-
duly burdensome as it appears you are requesting a year’s
worth of time and payroll records for all employees of SRI
working on the JBLM contract. Please narrow your request
appropriately and identify the reasons you need these records.
Once you have done so, we will re-evaluate your request and
respond appropriately.
As alleged in complaint paragraph 7(e), on March 15, 2012,
the Union renewed45 its January 24, 2012 information request.
On March 21, 2012, Respondent provided the Union with the
drivers licenses46 of bargaining unit employees, its dress47 and
drug policies.48 Prior to January 30, 2013, Respondent provid-
ed no other information to the Union.
Complaint paragraph 7(f) alleges that on February 26, 2013,
the Union made another written information request of Re-
spondent.
On February 26, 2013, the Union sent Respondent a letter49
requesting that Respondent rescind the unilateral changes ad-
dressed by the settlement agreement. The Union also requested
the following information:
We are further requesting a complete explanation of a “floor
failure.”

43 GC Exh. 27.
44 GC Exh. 28.
45 GC Exh. 29.
46 GC Exh.20
47 GC Exh. 21.
48 GC Exh. 22.
49 GC Exh. 30.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 17
We also are requesting complete payroll and mission records
for each employee who was on a mission to the THA, and
was impacted by SRIs decision to have them return prior to
“wheels up.” The IAM is willing to accept documented and
verifiable proof that employees have already been paid for the
wages lost due to this decision—and documentation that veri-
fies the payments were for the proper amount to each em-
ployee.
The IAM is requesting a detailed outline of all holiday hours
paid to represented employees over the past eighteen months.
We further request proof that the employees have been fully
and properly compensated for the change in holiday pay cal-
culation that changed their accrual from a standard 8 hours to
a pro-rated amount. Provide details of how much was paid to
each employee, and show details as to how that amount was
calculated. . . . .
Please provide and explanation and any information on:
[A]ny changes that have impacted working conditions of rep-
resented employees ‘n the past six months.
SRI’s new practice of hiring temporary employees and advis-
ing them that they will not be protected by the terms of the
settlement agreement.
o Provide all payroll records and mission assignments
for the previous six months on all SRI drivers and
dispatchers that have performed work requiring troop
or equipment transport that has historically been done
by represented drivers and dispatchers.
o Provide explanation, details and records of any and
all instances where drivers outside the bargaining unit
have been used to supplement the available pool of
represented drivers.
The IAM is also requesting copies of all postings and
communications with employees with regard to the settlement
of the NLRB charges. Please include all documentation and
proof of SRIs assertion that charges filed by the IAM were
based upon insignificmat actions such as the relocation of a
desk as has communicated to employees.
The IAM further requests a complete list of all employees of
SRI that are performing any work that the IAM is properly
certified to represent. Provide names, contact information,
classification of driver’s license held, and a demographic
breakdown as to race, age, gender and the number ofhours
that each has worked over the past six months.
On March 8, 2013, Respondent’s third attorney, Mark
Hutchinson, replied50 to the Union’s February 26, 2013 request
for information. Other than explaining what constitutes a
“floor failure” and stating there were no changes in employees
terms and conditions of employment that had not been commu-
nicated to the Union, no information was provided. With re-
gard to payroll and other records for union-represented em-
ployees, Respondent indicated that it was processing the re-
quests and would respond soon.

50 GC Exh. 31.
On March 15, 2013, Respondent provided further response51
to the Union’s February 26 information request. Hutchinson
denied employees lost any wages, explained how holiday pay
was calculated, and enclosed a roster of bargaining unit em-
ployees without driver’s license classification, race, age gender,
and the number of hours worked as had been requested.
As the record failed to establish that on March 25, 2013, the
Union verbally requested the information set forth in paragraph
7(g) of the complaint, counsel for the General Counsel with-
drew that allegation.
Complaint paragraph 7(h) alleges that on April 22, 2013, the
Union made a written information request of Respondent for
additional information.
Again on April 22, 2013, the Union made yet another re-
quest52 of Respondent for the following information:
It has come to our attention that SRI has informed represented
workers of an opening for a new classification. As you know
this is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and we are prepared
to enter into discussions over the duties and rates of pay for
the classification - if it is determined that it is needed. The
classification that employees have been contacted about is
called “Vehicle Cleaner, SCA classification number 11030”.
The IAM is very interested in discussing it with you.
In the interim, please provide the following information, so
that we can properly discuss this issue:
1. A complete and detailed outline of duties for this
classification as SRI proposes to administer it
2. A complete and detailed listing of all qualifications,
licenses, training and/or experience required of appli-
cants for the position, or that will be addressed upon
the selection of the successful candidate(s)
3. Listing of any duties that are different from those re-
quired of the driver’s who have historically per-
formed this set of duties
4. Proposed classification wage and benefit structure
5. All criteria that SRI will use to determine the
successfull candidate or candidates
6. All information that led to SRI’s decision that an ad-
ditional Classification is warranted for the bargaining
unit work
Finally, as alleged in paragraph 7(i) of the complaint, on
May 2, 2013, the Union renewed all of its requests for infor-
mation.53 The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that
Respondent ever replied to the Union’s May 2 letter, let alone
ever provided any of the information rerequested therein (Tr.
183).
To date Respondent has failed to provide the Union with the
following information:
From the Union’s January 24, 2012, request:
SRI procedures and policies for making work assignments,
names and titles of personnel authorized to make offers of as-

51 GC Exh. 32.
52 GC Exh. 33.
53 GC Exh. 34.
18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signments, procedure for contracting the employee, time lim-
its for responding, information on any situation(s) where an
employee has stated unavailability for an assignment, infor-
mation on any action taken by the Company to discipline an
employee in any manner—including but not limited to verbal
counseling, bypass on subsequent work assignments, written
warnings, etc., company policy/procedure related to assigning
work to personnel who have previously requested vacation, or
other time off, information as to the procedures for approving
vacations, include the names and titles of authorized person-
nel, policies designed to evenly distribute the work load
amongst eligible employees, pre-trip maintenance and post-
trip maintenance survey procedures for vehicles assigned to
drivers, forms drivers are required to fill out, names and titles
of personnel the drivers are to contact to report the results of
the pre/post evaluation of vehicle, instances when all drivers
were assigned to missions at the same time, the dates, number
of drivers involved, duration of assignments, and work logs to
ascertain the amount of work done, procedures for posting the
schedule of assignments, and when the procedure went into
effect, who is responsible for purchasing, distributing, and
caring for the safety equipment, information on any rain or
cold weather gear provided, the relationship between SRI and
SAIC personnel ,forms required and details of response pro-
cedures for reporting safety concerns, other than related to the
vehicle, training that SRI requires of employees, any training
that SRI provides to employees, minutes of all safety commit-
tee meetings since SRI became the contractor, names and ti-
tles of personnel assigned to the committee, and how long
they have served on the committee(s), any training given to
committee members, the level of responsibility and authority
of the individual members serving on it, any other commit-
tees, regular or other, that are currently in place, or have been
in place since January 2011, how SRI personnel, other than
those regularly assigned to the worksite, obtain access to the
facilities, materials and information shared at the New Hire
Orientation, has this information changed since the first orien-
tation that SRI conducted in January 2011, copies of any
forms or releases that new hires are required to fill out during
this orientation, or as a result of this orientation, a current em-
ployee handbook, and any previous versions of the handbook
that has applied since SRI first won the contract in January
2011, any materials provided to employees at orientation or
on the first day of work, a copy of all documentation employ-
ees receive that outlines SRI policies and procedures, a list of
all conditions and classifications that are subject to random
drug testing, list of all certifications and licenses that are re-
quired of any or all bargaining Unit personnel, who is respon-
sible for the testing of represented personnel for work profi-
ciency, include their title andcontact information, details as to
testing for proficiency, or for certification, that represented
employees are required to take, provide copies of any testing
materials, a list of all employees, showing all licenses, per-
mits, stamps, or endorsements they currently have, a demo-
graphic breakdown of all employees in the bargaining unit by
age, gender, and ethnic categories, a list of all equipment that
represented personnel are responsible for driving, a matrix
that lists the type of vehicle (make, model, type) and also pro-
vide the names of represented personnel authorized to operate
them a list of duties—such as maintenance, record keeping,
cleaning, etc. —that represented employees are required to
perform, by vehicle make / model / type, documentation pro-
vided to employees that details the list of duties they are re-
quired to perform for each missions—such as pre /post in-
spection, any maintenance, hook-up or tear-down, etc., infor-
mation on the process for reporting any event or situation
(personnel issue, equipment malfunction, mission irregularity,
etc.) and gaining guidance or approval if necessary, infor-
mation to the current sick leave policy, the information re-
quired of a doctors excuse letter, a list of all instances where
an employee has called in sick since January 2011, a list of all
instances where SRI has required a note from the employee’s
doctor, a complete employee handbook, and any materials
provided to employees at orientation or on the first day of
work, a copy of all documentation employees receive that out-
lines SRI policies and procedures, documentation for any and
all benefits that may be eligible to any or all SRI employees
assigned to JBLM, summary plan benefits documentation for
any 401K, pension, medical, or other benefit, name and con-
tact information for the benefit providers, contact information
for on-site personnel responsible for administering the bene-
fits—or providing information to the personnel assigned to
JBLM, information on facilities available to personnel while
on assignment, or during time between missions, procedures
for employees to take breaks or use restrooms while on as-
signments, policies and directions given to employees on
availability requirements they will be held to—such as, they
are on twenty-four (24) hour call, three-hundred-six-five
(365) days each year, any documentation provided to em-
ployees outlining this responsibility, information on any dis-
cipline, or threat of discipline, that has been relayed to em-
ployees for a violation of this requirement, a list of all disci-
pline administered, or threatened, to bargaining unit personnel
since January 2011.
From the Union’s January 24, 2012 request, as explained
and/or clarified in its March 15, 2012, letter:
Details of dress code that SRI requires of bargaining Unit per-
sonnel, details of policies or procedures that drivers are to fol-
low if vehicle does not pass the survey due to safety or other
issues, details and forms for procedures required by SRI for
drivers to change vehicles for the mission, details of all safety
equipment that SRI requires of workers in the bargaining
Unit, the procedure for requesting the provided safety equip-
ment, how the Safety committee members were chosen, Who
is the head of the Safety committee, any charter or operating
guidelines/mission for the Safety committee, Are committee
member paid for time spent performing their duties, the level
of responsibility/authority of the committee as a whole, the
duration of the members assignment to the safety committee,
information on all instances of drug or alcohol abuse within
the bargaining unit that SRI is aware of since become the con-
tractor, a detailed outline of the current avenue for employee
grievances, concerns, or suggestions for improvement, the
method for choosing personnel who are picked to do random
drug testing, names of personnel who have been direct to un-
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 19
dergo drug/alcohol testing since SRI has been administrator of
the service contract, the process, including a copy of any doc-
umentation required, for personnel to report an issue with an
assigned vehicle, (name and title) responsible for the vehicle
assignments, and for determining any subsequent change of
vehicle, the process for reporting any event or situation (acci-
dent) and gaining guidance or approval if necessary, a list of
all instances where SRI has rejected the doctor’s note, or re-
quired that the employee return to the doctor and obtain a dif-
ferent version of the note, names and titles of all personnel as-
signed to JBLM who have authority to give work assignments
to represented personnel, names and titles of all personnel as-
signed to JBLM who have the authority to discipline repre-
sented personnel, names and titles of all personnel assigned to
JBLM who have the authority to authorize represented per-
sonnel to work, or to cancel previously authorized work as-
signments, name and title for on-site personnel responsible for
administering the benefits—or providing information to the
personnel assigned to JBLM.
From the Union’s February 21, 2012, request:
A list of all SRI policies, practices, requirements, or duties
that have been communicated to employees represented by
the IAM since April 2011, any and all policies that were
changed from the predecessor contractor, as well as policies
that were continued by SRI, copies of the communications
provided to IAM represented employees, dates that the SRI
policies, practices, requirements and/or duties were communi-
cated, the name and title of the person who was responsible
for delivering the communication and what method was used,
dates when such policies, practices, requirements and/or du-
ties were to commence, copies of all communication whereby
SRI informed the IAM of policies, practices, requirements
and/or duties, a list of all policies, practices, requirements
and/or duties that have been changed since April 2011 for any
and all personnel employed by SRI at JBLM, all communica-
tion between SRI and JBLM, with regard to safety issues
raised by the IAM in November 2011, a detailed description
of steps to remedy the safety concern raised, the name, title,
and responsibility of SRI personnel responsible for addressing
the safety concern.
From the Union’s February 28, 2012 request:
A breakdown of each employee’s certification / license levels
that are pertinent to assignments at SRI, a breakdown of mis-
sions that SRI has been asked to perform over the last six
months to include the mission duration (number of hours
charged), level of driver certification/license required, and
which driver was assigned the missions, time card / assign-
ment data for the last six months, dispatch logs with an anno-
tation of expected versus actual missions/assignment time
logged by driver as well as time card data for the same period
for each employee in the bargaining unit.
From the Union’s March 13, 2012, request:
Full Statement of Work that encompasses the description of
duties that SRI has contracted with the government, under
Service Contract #W9124D-11-C-900, copies of all Deltek
records, payroll records, time cards, and any other records or
accounting documentation that shows time charged or com-
pensation paid to any employee under this Service Contract.
From the Union’s February 26, 2013, request:
Payroll and mission records for each employee who was on a
mission to the THA, and was impacted by SRIs decision to
have them return to “wheels up,”—and documentation that
verifies the payments were for the proper amount to each em-
ployee, outline of all holiday hours paid to represented em-
ployees over the past eighteen months and proof that the em-
ployees have been fully and properly compensated for the
change in holiday pay calculation that changed their accrual
from a standard 8 hours to a pro-rated amount, how much was
paid to each employee, and details as to how that amount was
calculated, a review of employee files to verify that all disci-
pline related to “floor failures” has been properly expunged as
required, payroll records and mission assignments for the pre-
vious six months on all SRI drivers and dispatchers that have
performed work requiring troop or equipment transport that
has historically been done by represented drivers and dis-
patchers, explanation, details, and records of any and all in-
stances where drivers outside the bargaining unit have been
used to supplement the available pool of represented drivers,
list of all employees of SRI that are performing any work that
the IAM is properly certified to represent, classification of
driver’s license held, and a demographic breakdown as to
race, age, gender, and the number of hours that each has
worked over the past six months.
From the Union’s April 22, 2013, request:
A complete and detailed outline of duties for the classification
of vehicle cleaner as SRI proposes to administer it, listing of
all qualifications, licenses, training and/or experience required
of applicants for the position of vehicle cleaner, or that will be
addressed upon the selection of the successful candidate(s),
any duties that are different from those required of drivers
who have historically performed this set of duties, proposed
classification wage and benefit structure, criteria that SRI will
use to determine the successful candidate or candidate, infor-
mation that led to SRI’s decision that an additional classifica-
tion is warranted for bargaining unit work.
2. Analysis
In Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 736 (2000), the Board
held that an employer has an obligation to furnish to a union, on
request, information that is relevant and necessary to its role as
the exclusive bargaining representative of unit employees.
Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); and
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967).
Further, an employer must respond to the information request
in a timely manner. Leland Stanford Junior University, 307
NLRB 75, 80 (1992). An un-reasonable delay in furnishing
such information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all. Valley
Inventory Service, 295 NLRB 1163, 1166 (1989). The Board
has held that “An employer is obligated to provide a union with
requested information if there is a probability that such data is
relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statutory
20 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duties and responsibilities.” Associated General Contractors of
California, 242 NLRB 891, 893 (1979). In addition the Board
has stated that “where the information sought covers the terms
and conditions of employment within the bargaining unit, thus
involving the core of the employer-employee relationship, the
standard of relevance is very broad, and no specific showing is
normally required.” Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987, 991
(1975), enfd. per curiam 531 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976).
Information requested dealing with the bargaining unit em-
ployees is presumptively relevant. International Protective
Services, 339 NLRB 701 (2003). Such relevant information
includes an employer’s dress code policy (Albertson’s, Inc.,
351 NLRB 254, 315 (2007)), and work schedules (Castle Hill
Health Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1181–1182 (2010)).
Further, information requested in order to assess an employer’s
position in bargaining is also presumptively relevant. NLRB v.
Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
Relevant and necessary information must be furnished on re-
quest, without unreasonable delay. It has been held that a delay
in furnishing information of 7 weeks was unreasonable.
Church Square Supermarket, 356 NLRB 1357, 1368 (2011); El
Paso Electric Co., 355 NLRB 544 (2010); Bundy Corp., 292
NLRB 671 (1989); and Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737
(2000).
General Counsel contends that all of the information the Un-
ion sought was presumptively relevant and Respondent’s fail-
ure to furnish and unreasonable delay in furnishing the infor-
mation requested violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I find the
list of items requested by the Union, including but not limited
to work place policies, employee handbooks, work assign-
ments, safety protocol, training, are information that goes to the
core of working conditions and are presumptively relevant. To
the extent that the Union’s request sought nonbargaining unit
information relating to proposals made by Respondent at the
bargaining table, its relevance was adequately demonstrated.
Church Square Supermarket, supra at 1368 .
Respondent takes the position that it did not provide the re-
quested information due to its concerns about disclosure com-
promising its confidentiality interests, citing Detroit Edison v.
NLRB, 440 U.S. at 315, 318–320. Under its theory of the case,
Respondent did not refuse to supply information it considered
confidential, but that it bargained to impasse with the Union
over a confidentiality agreement to protect its interests while
providing the Union the information it needed. For the reasons
stated below, I reject this argument.
The only information that Respondent provided to the Union
was on March 21, 2012, when it provided the drivers licenses
of bargaining unit employees, its dress and drug policies. It
took Respondent 8 weeks to provide this simple
nonconfidential information. This was an unreasonable delay.
Church Square Supermarket, supra at 1368; El Paso Electric
Co., supra, 355 NLRB 544; Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671
(1989); and Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB at 737.
I find that in refusing to furnish the information itemized
above and in unreasonably failing to furnish information in a
timely manner, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
D. Complaint Allegation 8(B)(I), as Amended at the
Hearing, Alleges that from September 7, 2011, Through
December 2011, Respondent Failed to Meet at Reasonable
Times and Places for Bargaining
1. Facts
On May 12, 2011,54 Respondent recognized the Union and
requested dates for bargaining for June 2011. After Respond-
ent recognized the Union in May 2011, the parties did not meet
pending the Regional Director’s consideration of the Union’s
charge that Respondent had refused to hire union bargaining
committee members.
On August 10, 2011,55 the Union indicated it was available
to bargain September 7 and 8 and September 12 through 16,
2011. On August 15, Respondent acknowledged the Union’s
proposed dates. On August 17,56 Respondent proposed meeting
September 20 and 21 and September 27–29. On August 18,57
the Union agreed to meet on these dates. On August 21,58 Re-
spondent claimed it could not meet on all of the dates in Sep-
tember, only one set of dates. On August 25,59 the Union pro-
posed meeting on September 28 and 29. On September 23,
2011, Attorney Thompson informed Union Representative
Thompson that one of his law partners had experienced a death
in the family and, therefore, the scheduled negotiations needed
to be canceled.60 In this email Attorney Thompson promised to
“provide the union with additional dates shortly.” In reply,
Union Representative Thompson emailed his understanding of
the situation, but cautioned that the pass-through date was
looming, and that the Union would not willingly reschedule in
the future.61 Three weeks later, on October 14, 2011, Attorney
Thompson had still not provided the additional dates he had
promised, prompting the Union to renew its request for bar-
gaining dates.62 There is no evidence that bargaining took
place.
On November 2, 2011, the Union sent Respondent’s counsel
an email requesting bargaining for a collective-bargaining
agreement63 and on November 7, 2011, sent the Union’s pro-
posed contract.64 Respondent’s counsel acknowledged receipt
of the proposed collective-bargaining agreement on November
14, 2011.65 On November 15, 2011, the Union indicated that it
had not received a response to its proposal. Again on Novem-
ber 17, 2011,66 the Union requested to confer with Respond-
ent’s counsel. Despite promises to send a wage proposal noth-
ing was forthcoming from Respondent as of November 18,
2011.67 Not until November 19, 2011, did counsel for Re-

54 Id.
55 GC Exh. 7.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id. at p. 8.
61 Id.
62 Id. at p. 9.
63 GC Exh. 8.
64 Id.
65 GC Exh. 10.
66 GC Exh. 10
67 Id.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 21
spondent provide a proposed bridge agreement68 for 1 year’s
duration covering only wages and health and welfare benefits.
On November 21, 2011,69 the Union again requested bargaining
on several dates in early December. Following this conversa-
tion, Cummings specifically offered to meet and bargain on
December 5–7, 2011.70 When Respondent did not provide the
wage proposal bridge agreement, as promised, Cummings
emailed the following day, and Attorney Thompson said his
client was “finalizing” its proposal.71 Two days later, on No-
vember 19, 2011, Attorney Thompson sent Cummings Re-
spondent’s proposed bridge agreement, which essentially stated
that it was willing to pay the minimum wage currently dictated
by the SCA.72
On November 21, 2011, Union Representative Thompson
emailed73 Lawson that the Union was available to bargain on
December 5 through 7, and 12 through 16, 2011. Cummings
forwarded this email to Attorney Thompson, who replied that
Lawson was on vacation until some unspecified time and that
he would respond with dates.74 The following day, Cummings
requested that Respondent meet in early December, 2011.75 A
week later, on November 29, 2011, not having heard back,
Cummings again requested that Respondent provide its availa-
ble bargaining dates in early December.76 Finally, on Decem-
ber 1, 2011, Thompson emailed Cummings offering December
14 and 15, 2011, as bargaining dates, which Cummings accept-
ed.77 Shortly after the parties finally agreed on these dates,
Respondent changed its legal counsel.
2. Analysis
Section 8(d) of the Act provides in pertinent part:
For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the
performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the
representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times . .
. .
In J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 86 NLRB 470, 506 (1949), the
Board found that the duty to meet and confer:
Encompasses the affirmative duty to make expeditious and
prompt arrangements, within reason, for meeting and confer-
ring. Agreement is stifled at its source if opportunity is not ac-
corded for discussion or so delayed as to invite or prolong un-
rest or suspicion. It is not unreasonable to expect of a party to
collective bargaining that he display a degree of diligence and
promptness in arranging for [bargaining] sessions when they
are requested and in the elimination of obstacles thereto,
comparable to his other business affairs of importance.
The Board has held that delaying the scheduling of meetings
reflects a parties’ intent to frustrate the bargaining process and

68 GC Exh. 10.
69 GC Exh. 10.
70 GC Exh.10, p. 5.
71 Id.
72 GC Exh. 11.
73 GC Exh. 12.
74 Id.
75 Id. at p. 6.
76 GC Exh. 13, p. 1.
77 Id. at p. 4.
to bargain in bad faith. Regency Service Carts, 345 NLRB 671,
672–673 (2005); Lower Bucks Cooling & Heating, 316 NLRB
16, 22 (1995). The Board has found that the failure to schedule
bargaining sessions for from 6 weeks to almost 3 months does
not satisfy an employer’s obligation to meet and bargain at
reasonable times. Fruehauf Trailer Services, Inc., 335 NLRB
393, 393 (2001); Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 96 NLRB 850, 858
(1951).
An employer may not avail itself of the “busy negotiator”
defense as an excuse for its failure to meet at reasonable times.
Calex Corp., 322 NLRB 977, 978 (1997). Indeed, it is well
settled that “an employer’s chosen negotiator is its agent for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that if the negotiator
causes delays in the negotiating process, the employer must
bear the consequences.” Id., citing O & F Machine Products
Co., 239 NLRB 1013, 1018–1019 (1978); Barclay Caterers,
308 NLRB 1025, 1035–1037 (1992).
General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act through its delay and refusal to meet and
bargain at reasonable times. In its brief Respondent takes no
position concerning this allegation.
The record is clear that Respondent failed to meet its obliga-
tion to meet at reasonable times for bargaining with the Union.
Despite repeated efforts to seek mutually agreeable dates, Re-
spondent again and again found some excuse to delay and can-
cel bargaining sessions from September 7, 2011, through De-
cember 2011, a period of almost 4 months. This failure to meet
at reasonable times demonstrates a failure to bargain in good
faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
E. Complaint Paragraph 8(b)(iii) Alleges that Between
September 2011 and May 2013, Respondent has Failed to Bar-
gain with the Union for a Confidentiality Agreement, Protective
Order or Other Appropriate Procedure to
Address Respondent’s Confidentiality in Violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
1. Facts
In a February 28, 2012, email78 Respondent’s attorney, Mar-
tin, for the first time raised the issue of an agreement between
Respondent and the Union concerning information that Re-
spondent considered confidential.
At the next bargaining session after he received the above
email, Cummings raised the issue of a nondisclosure agree-
ment. Cummings said he needed to review Respondent’s poli-
cies to get bargaining moving. According to Cummings there
was considerable discussion about what should be in a confi-
dentiality agreement and Martin claimed that Respondent was
concerned that the information the Union requested might be
used by a competitor on bidding practices. Martin did not spec-
ify what information the Union requested might be confidential.
Cummings said the Union would be protective of information
Respondent provided and would only be used for bargaining
purposes. Cummings said the Union wanted to see what Re-
spondent needed to have and would work from there.

78 GC Exh. 18.
22 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During bargaining on April 12, 2012,79 Cummings asked
where the confidentiality agreement was. Martin said that an-
other law firm was handling it. When Cummings offered to
prepare the agreement, Martin said it was in the works. When
asked the status of the agreement, Lawson said Marin had the
information.
In an email80 dated April 30, 2012, to Martin and Lawson,
Cummings asked where the confidentiality agreement was. On
May 1, 2012, Martin sent Cummings the confidentiality agree-
ment/nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Among things the
agreement provided Respondent with carte blanche to deter-
mine the definition of confidential material. The agreement
provided for attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages of $5000
per breach of the terms of the agreement, regardless of actual
responsibility for the breach. The NDA defined as confidential
information, “labor cost data, employment policies and other
non-public operational information which is or could be of
benefit to an actual or potential competitor of Employer.” The
NDA further gave Respondent the unlimited right to redact
what it considered irrelevant to collective bargaining.81
After Cummings received the NDA from Martin, he sent it to
the Union’s International counsel because he could not agree to
the $5000 penalty provided therein. On May 15, 2012, Cum-
mings sent Martin and Lawson a revised NDA, which eliminat-
ed attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages.82
With no further response from Respondent about the NDA,
on December 11, 2012, the Union sent Respondent a signed
copy of the Union’s May 15, 2012 proposed NDA.83 On Janu-
ary 2, 2013, Respondent’s attorney, Hutcheson, stated that the
NDA was still a subject of bargaining.84 On January 12, 2013,
Hutchinson sent the Union a revised NDA, including attorneys’
fees and liquidated damages.85 The liquidated damages provi-
sion was reduced to $4000 per breach. On January 14, 2013,
Cummings sent Respondent a counterproposal to its newest
NDA.86 In this counter-proposal, the Union agreed to injunc-
tive relief. The Union agreed to damages assessed through the
injunctive process. The Union agreed to receive only that in-
formation they were entitled to under Board law, i.e., the in-
formation necessary to fulfill the duties of representation. In
bargaining on January 15, 2013, Respondent rejected the Un-
ion’s NDA counter-proposal. There is no record evidence that
the Union declared “impasse” on the NDA on January 15,
2013. While Lawson’s testimony was that the Union declared
impasse on the NDA on January 15, 2013, I will draw an ad-
verse inference that the Union did not take such a position since
Respondent failed to produce Lawson’s bargaining notes for
the January 15, 2013 bargaining session pursuant to the General
Counsel’s subpoena.
Cummings testified without contradiction that in early 2013,
the Union had proposed that the Union would be satisfied to

79 GC Exh. 43.
80 GC Exh. 46.
81 GC Exh. 45.
82 GC Exh. 47.
83 GC Exh. 48.
84 Id.
85 GC Exh. 50
86 R. Exh. 1.
look at requested information at the bargaining table without
actually taking possession of it. Hutcheson told Cummings that
he thought that might work and told him that Respondent
would get documents to the Union. No further documents were
forthcoming until May 1, 2013, when Respondent provided its
drug and dress code policies.87 Both policies were marked
“confidential” and “proprietary.” These documents were fur-
nished despite the lack of an NDA.
2. Analysis
The party asserting a confidentiality defense in response to a
refusal to furnish information allegation has the burden of proof
and must demonstrate a “legitimate and substantial” confidenti-
ality interest. Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000).
In Woodland Clinic, the Board held that the employer failed in
its burden when it failed to specify the nature of any concerns
regarding the requested information. The respondent had not
produced any evidence supporting its asserted claim of confi-
dentiality. A naked claim of confidentiality is an insufficient
defense to a request for relevant information where there was
no evidence presented to support such a claim.
Also in Lasher Service Corp., 332 NLRB 834, 840 (2000)
(GC Exh. 841), the Board found that the respondent had failed
to demonstrate its confidentiality and propriety claims out-
weigh the Union’s need for the information. The Board also
found that if a union agrees to keep the information confidential
and there is no evidence to conclude that the union would
breach such a promise, respondent cannot carry its burden,
concluding:
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 employer.
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 in-
formation. Here the Union agreed to keep the information
confidential. The Respondent introduced no evidence it
sought an accommodation and there is no evidence the Union
would not have accepted any such accommodation. Respond-
ent has provided the Union with some of the sought infor-
mation in the parts department information request, thus un-
dermining its claim of confidentiality of this information.
There was no instance where the Union was shown to have
broad cast confidential information provided by Respondent.
There is no basis to conclude the Union would breach any
promise to meet Respondent’s confidentiality concerns.
In Rototype Division Pertec Computer Corp., 284 NLRB
810, 811 (1987), the Board found that the respondent failed to
meet its obligation under Section 8(a)(5) to furnish alleged
confidential information despite its belated offer to allow the
union’s financial analyst to look at a cost study on its premises,

87 GC Exhs. 21 and 22.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 23
without allowing him to take a copy for further analysis.
Moreover, the Board held that respondent’s confidentiality
claim established no defense. The respondent failed to show
why it could not have supplied the information to the union’s
financial analyst under the union’s proffered agreement that the
information would be used only by the analyst and would not
be disseminated. There was no evidence that the union was
unreliable in maintaining confidentiality agreements. The
Board noted:
If the Respondent’s broad assertion of confidentiality were to
prevail here, unions would rarely be held entitled to any in-
formation that employers had reason to withhold from third
parties.
If the employer can establish a confidentiality interest, it has
the duty to seek an accommodation through the bargaining
process. National Steel Corp., 335 NLRB 747, 752 (2001). As
part of this, the employer must bargain towards an accommoda-
tion of both the union’s need for the information, as well as the
employer’s legitimate and substantial confidentiality concerns.
Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896, 899 (1996).
Here, Respondent has failed in its burden of establishing that
its confidentiality interests outweigh the need of the Union for
the information requested to fulfill its duty as bargaining repre-
sentative. In the instant case each item the Union requested
was either presumptively relevant or it was demonstrated to be
necessary and relevant to the Union’s function as bargaining
representative. The evidence further reflects that Respondent
has made no more than naked assertions to the Union that the
necessary and relevant information it is withholding is of a
confidential nature. Such bald assertions are insufficient to
sustain its burden. Moreover, the record reflects that the Union
has made repeated offers to use the information only for repre-
sentational purposes. The Union went so far as to suggest that
it would only view the requested information at the bargaining
table. Respondent was unable to offer evidence that the Union
was unreliable in keeping the requested information confiden-
tial.
Respondent’s argument that it was somehow privileged to
withhold the requested information because the parties reached
impasse on the subject of a confidentiality agreement is without
merit. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion, there is no evidence
that the parties reached impasse on the subject of a confidenti-
ality agreement. Moreover, the Union gave Respondent ample
options to insure its confidentiality interests would be consid-
ered. The Union told Respondent it would use the information
only for representational purposes and by only viewing the
information at the bargaining table.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that Respondent
made no effort to meet its obligation and, thus, violated the Act
by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union over the
NDA and by taking the position that the parties bargained to
impasse over the NDA Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
Respondent contends that the parties bargained to impasse
over the NDA. It is Respondent’s position that the parties had
reached agreement on all terms of an NDA but for liquidated
damages. Since the Union would not agree to liquidated dam-
ages, Respondent contends that the parties were at impasse by
January 15, 2013, and Respondent did not fail to bargain in
good faith.
With respect to bargaining in good faith over an accommo-
dation to address Respondent’s confidentiality interests, Re-
spondent’s argument must be rejected since it would set the
Board’s standard set forth in Lasher Service Corp., supra, on its
head. Respondent would have the Board find that because the
Union did not agree to its only proposal for an accommodation
that it bargained in good faith. It argues further that this justi-
fies a finding that the parties reached impasse on this subject.
This argument conveniently ignores the fact that the Union
made many offers to reach an accommodation including an
offer of injunctive relief, a representation that it would use the
information only for representing bargaining unit employees
and that it would view the information only at bargaining meet-
ings. Respondent not only rejected these offers of accommoda-
tion, it failed to offer an iota of evidence that the Union was
untrustworthy in maintaining the confidentiality of the infor-
mation sought. Significantly, Respondent has failed to estab-
lish that the information it withheld was confidential in nature.
With respect to the first prong of the test, Respondent has
failed to establish it has a legitimate confidentiality interest in
refusing to turn over any information. In testimony, Lawson
claimed that all of the requested information was confidential.
This claim was not supported by any evidence but was a naked
claim that all information sought by the Union was confidential
because if divulged to a competitor it would put Respondent at
a disadvantage. Such a sweeping assertion suggests the lack of
good faith in its assertion. No evidence was proffered as to
why any particular item of information the Union requested
was of a confidential nature. Further, Respondent assumes that
its proposal for an NDA that included liquidated damages for
each breach of the agreement was the only legitimate bargain-
ing proposal.
To the contrary, it is Respondent who failed to bargain in
good faith in refusing to accept the Union’s multiple offers of
accommodation and instead steadfastly maintained, to impasse,
that the only accommodation was its own NDA. Accordingly, I
find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union over an ac-
commodation for a confidentiality agreement or other process.
F. Complaint Paragraph 8(B)(iv) Alleges that on January
15, 2013, Respondent Failed and Refused to Bargain
with the Union by Taking the Position that it Reached
Impasse with the Union in Bargaining for a Confidentiality
Agreement in Violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
As noted above, Respondent took the position that the parties
reached impasse concerning the NDA. For the reasons set forth
above, it is clear that no impasse was reached on this subject.
Rather, Respondent seized upon the Union’s rejection of its
only proposal for accommodation, despite the Union’s many
offers, and declared impasse in violation of Section 8(a)(5).
24 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Complaint Paragraph 8(C) Alleges that on or
About August 19, 2013, Respondent Withdrew
Recognition of the Union as Exclusive Collective-
Bargaining Representative of Bargaining Unit
Employees in Violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
1. Facts
Between March 28 and April 3, 2013, 16 employees signed a
document entitled “Petition to Remove Union as Representa-
tive,”88 requesting that Respondent immediately withdraw
recognition from the Union due to lack of majority status. On
April 4, 2013, Respondent’s employee Sondra Stilwell gave
Respondent’s project manager, Cox, a copy of the above peti-
tion to decertify the Union.
By letter, dated August 19, 2013,89 Respondent notified the
Union that it was withdrawing recognition. The letter states in
part:
On behalf of SRI, please be advised that our client has re-
ceived a petition signed by a clear majority of bargaining unit
employees expressly requesting that SRI “immediately with-
draw recognition from the union, as it does not enjoy the sup-
port of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit.” Be-
cause SRI now knows that your union lacks majority support,
SRI hereby withdraws recognition of your union and will
cease any further bargaining with respect to this bargaining
unit.
The parties stipulated that on August 19, 2013, there were 27
employees in the bargaining unit but the parties disputed
whether employee Scott Olsen was employed in the bargaining
unit on that date.90 In Respondent’s September 6, 2013 posi-
tion statement to the Board91 it attached a list of 28 employees
in the bargaining unit as of August 19, 2013. This position is
confirmed in Respondent’s brief in which it concedes there
were 28 employees in the bargaining unit when it withdrew
recognition.92 I will treat both of Respondent’s statements as
admissions against interest. Massillon Community Hospital,
282 NLRB 675, 675 fn. 5 (1987). I find that as of August 19,
2013, there were 28 bargaining unit employees. Thus, on Au-
gust 19, 2013, only 14 of the 28 bargaining unit employees had
signed the petition.
2. Analysis
General Counsel contends that the decertification petition
cannot support Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition be-
cause the petition does not reflect a loss of majority support for
the Union, because Respondent withdrew recognition while
still under a bargaining obligation in the settlement agreement
and before a reasonable period of time had passed and because
Respondent’s illegal conduct tainted both the petition and Re-
spondent’s subsequent withdrawal of recognition.
Respondent argues that its withdrawal of recognition was
lawful since it received a decertification petition from a majori-

88 GC Exh. 54.
89 GC Exh. 35.
90 GC Exh. 57, items 7 and 8.
91 GC Exh. 76.
92 See R. posthearing br. at p. 36.
ty of bargaining unit employees. Respondent seems to contend
that it illegally bargained with the Union for 3 months but that
for unknown reasons it could no longer defend this position and
withdrew recognition. In its brief Respondent concedes that
only 14 of 28 bargaining unit employees on August 19, 2013,
had signed the petition.
In Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, 725
(2001), the Board set forth a new test for determining when an
employer may withdraw recognition from its employees’ col-
lective-bargaining representative. The Board rejected the
“good-faith doubt” standard and held that an employer may
unilaterally withdraw recognition of an incumbent union “only
on a showing that the union has, in fact, lost the support of a
majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.” As the
Board found in SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 357 NLRB 79, 83
(2011), an employer needs “50-percent-plus-one to justify a
unilateral withdrawal of recognition.” In Alpha Associates, 344
NLRB 782, 784–785 (2005), the Board held that, “an employer
may withdraw recognition from the union only if it possesses
evidence that the union has in fact lost majority support.”
Further an employer may not withdraw recognition from a
union while there are unremedied unfair labor practices tending
to cause employees to become disaffected from the union. In
LTD Ceramics, Inc., 341 NLRB 86, 88 (2004), the Board held
that:
Evidence in support of a withdrawal of recognition, “must be
raised in a context free of unfair labor practices of the sort
likely, under all the circumstances, to affect the union’s status,
cause employee disaffection, or improperly affect the bargain-
ing relationship itself.” Lee Lumber & Building Material
Corp., 322 NLRB 175, 177 (1996) (Lee Lumber II), affd. in
part and remanded in part 117 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cit-
ing Guerdon Industries, 218 NLRB 658, 659, 661 (1975).
In Lee Lumber II, the Board held that in order to show that
unfair labor practices taint a union’s loss of majority support,
there must be proof of a causal relationship between the unfair
labor practice and the ensuing events indicating a loss of sup-
port. To determine whether a causal relationship has been es-
tablished the following factors must be considered: the length
of time between the unfair labor practice and the withdrawal of
recognition, the nature of the violation, including the possibility
of a detrimental or lasting effect on employees, the tendency to
cause employee disaffection, and the effect of the unlawful
conduct on employees’ morale, organizational activities, and
membership in the union. Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78,
84 (1984).
Here, I have found that Respondent committed a plethora of
unfair labor practices leading up to its bargaining unit employ-
ees signing the decertification petition. These unfair labor
practices include unilaterally changing employees’ holiday pay
in September 2011, refusing to furnish the Union with infor-
mation necessary to engage in collective bargaining from Janu-
ary 2012 to the present, refusing to bargain in good faith by
refusing to meet at reasonable times from September through
December 2011, refusing to bargain in good faith with the Un-
ion over the terms of an accommodation for Respondent’s con-
fidentiality interest from February 2012 to the present and uni-
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 25
laterally declaring impasse on the subject of an accommodation
to resolve Respondent’s concerns about confidential infor-
mation on January 15, 2013.
Applying the Master Slack criteria, there is ample evidence
to suggest that Respondent’s unfair labor practices are of the
sort likely, under all the circumstances, to affect the Union’s
status, cause employee disaffection, or improperly affect the
bargaining relationship itself. Respondent’s refusal to provide
information beginning in January 24, 2012, and continuing to
the present, precluded any meaningful bargaining and led to
dissatisfaction among employees and the decertification peti-
tion. Respondent’s failure to bargain in good faith by refusing
to agree to bargaining sessions, refusing to engage in good-
faith bargaining over an accommodation regarding confidenti-
ality and declaring impasse in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act also likely had a detrimental effect on employees. The
Board in Fruehauf Trailer Services, 335 NLRB 393, 394–395
(2001), found that where an employer had refused to meet at
reasonable times, such conduct fatally tainted a decertification
petition, rendering withdrawal of recognition unlawful under
Master Slack. Moreover, Respondent’s unilateral change in
holiday pay is the sort of unfair labor practice the Board has
found to be not a mere technical infraction but rather a most
serious violation that strikes at the heart of the Union’s legiti-
mate role as representative of the employees. Under such cir-
cumstances, where a union is unlawfully deprived of the oppor-
tunity to represent the employees, it is altogether foreseeable
that the employees will soon become disenchanted with that
union, because it apparently can do nothing for them. Lexus of
Concord, Inc., 330 NLRB 1409, 1416 (2000). The unfair labor
practices continued unabated from September 2011 to the pre-
sent time and were proximate in time to the signing of the de-
certification petition. Thus, the General Counsel has estab-
lished the causal relation between Respondent’s unfair labor
practices both as to motivation and timing.
Respondent never had evidence that a majority of its em-
ployees rejected the union. At best the evidence reflects that
only half of the bargaining unit employees employed by Re-
spondent on August 19, 2013, had signed the decertification
petition. Under extant Board law this is insufficient evidence to
demonstrate a loss of majority support, i.e., 50 percent plus one.
Moreover, Respondent’s own unfair labor practices tainted the
petition rendering it incapable of supporting Respondent’s
withdrawal of recognition. By withdrawing recognition of the
Union on August 19, 2013, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
H. Revocation of the Settlement Agreement
1. Facts
On January 30, 2013, the Regional Director for Region 19
approved the Settlement Agreement and Notice to Employees
set forth in the complaint.93 Pursuant to the settlement agree-
ment Respondent agreed to remedy the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.94 As set forth in paragraph 11 of the

93 GC Exhs. 1(BB), 36.
94 GC Exh. 1(y).
complaint, it is alleged that Respondent has partially failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement provided that Respondent would
comply with all of the terms and provisions of the notice to
employees attached to the settlement agreement and that if
Respondent failed to comply, the Regional Director would
issue a complaint including the allegations covered by the
“scope of the agreement.” The notice to employees95 provided
in pertinent part:
WE WILL, upon request by your Union, bargain with the Un-
ion for a reasonable period of time until either an agreement
has been reached on a collective bargaining agreement or a
lawful impasse has occurred.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet with or propose dates to negoti-
ate with the Union or delay in doing so.
WE HAVE provided the Union with information it requested on
November 11, 2011. WE HAVE also provided the Union with
certain information it requested on January 24, 2012 and sub-
sequent follow-up requests.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with information
that is relevant and necessary to its role as your exclusive col-
lective bargaining representative, or unreasonably delay in
providing such information. To the extent any requested rele-
vant information also contains confidential information, WE
WILL bargain with the Union for a confidentiality agreement
and then provide the Union with relevant, requested confiden-
tial information pursuant to the parties’ confidentiality agree-
ment.
WE WILL, upon request by your Union, rescind our rules re-
quiring you to: return from THA missions prior to “wheels
up”; provide a written explanation of a “floor failure,”
WE WILL pay you for the wages and other benefits lost be-
cause of the changes to terms and conditions of employment
that we made without first bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL upon request by your Union, bargain with the Union
for a reasonable period of time until either an agreement has
been reached on a collective bargaining agreement or a lawful
impasse has occurred.
WE WILL meet with your Union twice a week every other
week, for a total of at least twentyfour (24) hours bargaining
time, beginning [within 14 days of the approval of the Settle-
ment Agreement], at a location to be mutually agreed upon
until we reach a collective bargaining agreement or a legal
impasse.
It is undisputed that Respondent received notice of the ap-
proval of the settlement agreement on February 24, 2013, and
Respondent was required to post the notice until at least April
24, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the Union requested that Re-
spondent cease its unilateral changes and requested extensive
information relating to the enforcement of the settlement.96

95 GC Exh. 36, pp. 4–5.
96 GC Exh. 30.
26 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Complaint paragraph 11 alleges that since on or about Janu-
ary 30, 2013, Respondent has failed to expunge from its records
the discipline issued to Kathy Ausley described in paragraphs
6(c) and (f) of the complaint, has required employees to report
time into Respondent’s Deltec system and has refused to pro-
vide Region 19 with records to enable it to determine the make-
whole remedy to employees for the unilateral changes de-
scribed in paragraphs 6(a) and (b) of the complaint, i.e., chang-
es to holiday pay and waiting time at the THA. Complaint
paragraph 11(b) alleges that in light of Respondent’s conduct
described in complaint paragraphs 6(a) and (e), 7(l), 8(b), and
11(a) Respondent violated the terms of the settlement agree-
ment.
The parties stipulated that on August 29, 2013, the compli-
ance officer for Region 19 sent a letter to Respondent’s counsel
requesting information regarding the calculation of backpay
owed due to unilateral changes to THA mission waiting times
and holiday pay.97 In his letter to Respondent dated August 29,
2013,98 regarding complaint paragraph 7(c) of the original
complaint,99 the change in THA waiting times, the compliance
officer requested “dispatch and payroll records showing all
hours worked and the gross earnings” of unit employees.100
Regarding original complaint paragraph 7(a),101 holiday pay,
the compliance officer asked for “payroll records” for employ-
ees who received less than 8 hours for any paid holiday from
April 2011 to the August 29, 2013, showing their “hourly
rate(s) of pay and the number of hours for which each was paid
for each Holiday.”102 The parties stipulated that on September
6, 2013, Respondent’s counsel replied in writing to the compli-
ance officer.103 In his response Respondent claimed that there
was no backpay owed and provided no information. The par-
ties further stipulated104 that not until counsel for the General
Counsel served its subpoena No. B-715313 in preparation for
the instant litigation did Respondent finally provide the holiday
pay records, dispatcher 2401s, dispatcher logs, and payroll
records necessary to determine backpay liability under the set-
tlement.
2. Analysis
A settlement agreement may be set aside if there has been a
failure to comply with the provisions of the settlement or if
postsettlement unfair labor practices are committed. Twin City
Concrete, Inc., 317 NLRB 1313, 1313 (1995). Whether a set-
tlement agreement is to be revoked must be determined by the
exercise of sound judgment based on all the circumstances of
each case. Nations Rent, Inc., 339 NLRB 830, 831 (2003).
Counsel for the General Counsel asserts that the Regional
Director appropriately set aside certain portions of the settle-
ment agreement approved on January 30, 2013, due to Re-

97 GC Exh. par. 11.
98 GC Exh. 67.
99 GC Exh. 1(y).
100 GC Exh. 67.
101 GC Exh. 67
102 GC Exh. 67.
103 GC Exh. 57, par. 12; GC Exh. 68.
104 Id., pars. 10 and 14.
spondent’s failure to comply with the settlement agreement’s
terms and its egregious post-settlement unfair labor practices.
Respondent contends that it was in compliance with the
terms of the settlement agreement and it argues in its brief that
it has committed no unfair labor practices. Respondent takes
the position that with respect to information requested by the
Union and by the General Counsel concerning THA missions
and holiday pay, it could not prove a negative. In its letters to
the Union and the compliance officer, Respondent claims it
requested clarification that was never provided. Respondent
also contends that it would have been burdensome to produce
the requested documents, therefore it was in compliance with
the “spirit if not the letter of the Settlement Agreement.”105
After signing the settlement agreement, Respondent failed to
comply with its terms. In the settlement agreement, Respond-
ent agreed to expunge from its records the discipline received
by Ausley. Instead of doing this, Respondent informed the
Union that there was no discipline and, as such, none could be
expunged.106 While the notice requires Respondent to make
whole employees for losses due to the unilateral changes, Re-
spondent refused to provide the necessary information to the
compliance officer for Region 19, just as it has refused to pro-
vide the same information to the Union. Without this infor-
mation, the compliance officer could not have determined Re-
spondent’s make-whole responsibility pursuant to the settle-
ment agreement. Respondent’s argument that it would have
been burdensome to produce these records is belied by the fact
that these records were ultimately, if untimely, produced pursu-
ant to subpoena.
Respondent’s post-settlement unfair labor practices also re-
quire revocation of the settlement agreement. After signing the
settlement agreement, Respondent continued its refusal to pro-
vide the Union with relevant and necessary information in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as found above. Further,
after Respondent signed the settlement agreement on January
24, 2013, and promised to bargain in good faith or to impasse
regarding an accommodation regarding its confidentiality is-
sues, it in fact refused to bargain in good faith over the terms of
a confidentiality agreement and took the position, found above
to violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, that the parties reached
impasse on the nondisclosure agreement as of January 15,
2013. Finally, Respondent’s decision to withdraw recognition
of the Union, found above to have violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act, demonstrated its failure to comply with the settlement
agreement.
Based on the above, the Regional Director was more than
justified in revoking the January 30, 2013 settlement agree-
ment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Strategic Resources, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 (the Union), is a

105 R. posthearing br. at p. 35.
106 GC Exh. 31.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 27
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act and is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent’s employees in the following appropriate collec-
tive-bargaining unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employees em-
ployed by the employer out of the following Joint Base Lewis
McChord, Washington operations, Warrior Transition Battal-
ion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobilization Battalion (JMB), and
Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) who are employed as dis-
patchers and drivers of a vehicle in the transportation of mili-
tary personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent
committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act:
(a) Unilaterally changing bargaining unit employees’ formu-
la for calculating holiday pay.
(b) Refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in
providing the Union with information relevant and necessary to
its function as collective-bargaining representative of bargain-
ing unit employees.
(c) Refusing to meet with the Union at reasonable times
and/or places for bargaining.
(d) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union for a
confidentiality agreement, protective order or other procedure
to address Respondent’s alleged confidentiality concerns.
(e) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by tak-
ing the position that it had reached impasse with the Union on
January 15, 2013, over bargaining for a confidentiality agree-
ment, protective order or other procedure to address Respond-
ent’s alleged confidentiality concerns.
(f) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by
withdrawing recognition of the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees on
August 19, 2013.
Other than the violations found above, I recommend that the
remaining allegations of the complaint be dismissed.
REMEDY
In its posthearing brief counsel for the General Counsel rep-
resents that it no longer seeks a remedy requiring Respondent
to bargain with the Union regarding the bargaining unit em-
ployees since Respondent no longer employs those employees.
While not stated, it appears that Respondent is no longer the
contractor with the Department of Defense for troop transporta-
tion at JBLM. Counsel for the General Counsel requests that
Respondent be required to mail the notice to employees to all
bargaining unit employees employed during the period in
which the unfair labor practices occurred. Counsel for the
General Counsel further requests that the portion of the com-
plaint requesting a bargaining order be withdrawn. Counsel for
the General Counsel’s request to withdraw that the portion of
the complaint requesting a bargaining order is granted.
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that as-
sures its employees that it will respect their rights under the
Act. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on
an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by
such means. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
The Board has held that discriminatees be reimbursed for
any excess taxes owed as a result of a lump-sum backpay award
and that Respondent be ordered to complete the appropriate
paperwork as set forth in IRS Publication 975 to notify the
Social Security Administration what periods to which the
backpay should be allocated as requested in the remedy section
of the complaint herein.
In Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a, Tortillas Don Chavas, 361
NLRB No. 10 (2014), the Board ordered that it will routinely
require the filing of a report with the Social Security Admin-
istration allocating backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
quarters. The Board also held that it will routinely require re-
spondents to compensate employees for the adverse tax conse-
quences of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards
covering periods longer than 1 year. The Board concluded that
it is the General Counsel’s burden to prove and quantify the
extent of any adverse tax con-sequences resulting from the
lump-sum backpay award and that such matters shall be re-
solved in compliance proceedings.
Pursuant to Tortillas Don Chavas, I will order that Respond-
ent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating any backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quar-
ters.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended107
ORDER
Respondent, Strategic Resources, Inc., McLean, Virginia,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO,
District Lodge W-24 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the following collective-
bargaining unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employees em-
ployed by the employer out of the following Joint Base Lewis
McChord, Washington operations, Warrior Transition Battal-
ion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobilization Battalion (JMB), and
Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) who are employed as dis-
patchers and drivers of a vehicle in the transportation of mili-
tary personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Unilaterally and without bargaining with the Union
changing its bargaining unit employees’ formula for calculating
holiday pay.

107 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections shall be waived for all purposes.
28 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in
providing information to the Union that is relevant and neces-
sary to its function as collective-bargaining representative of
bargaining unit employees.
(d) Refusing to meet with the Union at reasonable times
and/or places for bargaining.
(e) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union for a
confidentiality agreement, protective order or other procedure
to address Respondent’s alleged confidentiality concerns.
(f) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by tak-
ing the position that it had reached impasse with the Union on
January 15, 2013, over bargaining for a confidentiality agree-
ment, protective order, or other procedure to address Respond-
ent’s alleged confidentiality concerns.
(g) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by
withdrawing recognition of the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees on
August 19, 2013.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole any employees for lost wages and other
benefits as a result of our unlawful change in bargaining unit
employees’ formula for calculating holiday pay. My recom-
mended order further requires that backpay shall be computed
in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), plus daily compound inter-
est as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB
6 (2010).
(b) The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that
assures its employees that it will respect their rights under the
Act. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on
an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by
such means. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
(c) Provide the Union with the information it requested on
January 24, February 21 and 28, March 13 and 15, 2012; Feb-
ruary 26, April 22, and May 2, 2013.
(d) Compensate employees who lost wages due to our un-
lawful change in bargaining unit employees’ formula for calcu-
lating holiday pay for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report with the
Social Security Administration allocating the backpay award to
the appropriate calendar quarters.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in McLean, Virginia, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”
108
Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable 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 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 September
5, 2011.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, filed
with the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certifica-
tion of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 4, 2015
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
After a trial at which we appeared, argued and presented evi-
dence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has directed us
to post this notice to employees and to abide by its terms.
Accordingly, we give our employees the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO, District Lodge W-24 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the following
collective bargaining unit:
Included: All full-time and regular, part-time employees em-
ployed by the employer out of the following Joint Base Lewis
McChord, Washington operations, Warrior Transition Battal-

108
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
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC. 29
ion (WTB), 1st Joint Mobilization Battalion (JMB), and
Transportation Motor Pool (TMP) who are employed as dis-
patchers and drivers of a vehicle in the transportation of mili-
tary personnel.
Excluded: All confidential and managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally and without bargaining with the
Union change our bargaining unit employees’ formula for cal-
culating holiday pay.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish or unreasonably delay in fur-
nishing the Union with relevant and necessary information.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union and fail
and refuse to bargain with the Union as your exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet with or refuse or delay propos-
ing dates to negotiate with the Union.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the
Union regarding any confidentiality or nondisclosure agree-
ments.
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole all employees affected by our unilat-
eral changes to our computation of holiday pay.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it requested
on January 24, February 21 and 28, March 13 and 15, 2012;
February 26, April 22, and May 2, 2013.
STRATEGIC RESOURCES, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-070217 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099
14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273–1940.