Employer Violated NLRA By Not Providing Wage Information, NLRB Rules
A National Labor Review Board (NLRB) administrative judge has ruled that a Pennsylvania psychiatric hospital violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by not providing wage information requested by a union. UPMC Western Psychiatric Hosp., 373 NLRB No. 98 (Sept. 6, 2024).
The action involved UPMC Western Psychiatric Hospital and labor organizations Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Pennsylvania and JNESO District Council 1, IUOE, and centered on allegations of UPMC failing to bargain in good faith by not providing requested information to SEIU, necessary for JNESO’s duties as a bargaining representative, violating the NLRA. Specifically, SEIU requested specific wage information about the current start rate for non-union nurses at UPMC Shadyside.
UPMC is recognized as an employer engaged in commerce, and JNESO and SEIU are labor organizations under the Act. The unfair labor practices by UPMC affect commerce as defined by the NLRA. The Board discussed the relevance of the information requested and balanced the union’s need for information against an employer’s confidentiality interests, with the union needing to demonstrate the relevance of the requested information, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979). The Board found that SEIU’s interest in obtaining the wage information outweighed the employer’s confidentiality concerns. Additionally, to support the decision that refusal to provide requested information by a union is not deferrable to arbitration, the NLRB referenced previous cases, such as Daimler Chrysler and U.S. Postal Service.
Administrative Judge Michael Rosas concluded that UPMC violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by not supplying relevant wage information, impacting SEIU’s ability to administer the collective bargaining agreement. The employer, UPMC, has a duty to accommodate the unions’ need for information, even if confidentiality concerns exist, as established in previous NLRB cases. The Board ordered UPMC to cease the unfair labor practices, provide the requested information to SEIU and post a notice of the violation at its facility and electronically.
This recent administrative law judge decision highlights the breadth and continuing vitality of the NLRA as it relates to a union’s interest in receiving information to fulfill its good faith bargaining efforts. In this particular context, it is meaningful that the information requested by the union was regarding current start rates for non-union employees. This decision reflects the breadth of the employer’s duty to provide information, even in the face of non-union status and confidentiality considerations.
