CenturyTel: The Record Supported a Union’s Request for Nonunion-Worker Information

A union did not have to prove that nonunion workers violated its contract before asking for the records needed to investigate. In CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB, Nos. 24-1346, 24-1352 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the court enforced an order requiring the company to furnish information about nonunit technicians. The request, earlier grievances and a manager’s conversation supplied a concrete connection to represented work.

The published D.C. Circuit opinion supplies precedent in that circuit on the NLRA’s private-sector information duty. It enforced the Board’s October 10, 2024 decision, 373 NLRB No. 128. Its federal statutory setting matters when selecting the authorities for a particular bargaining dispute.

The union explained which contract obligations it was investigating

A contract letter permitted outside employees to perform covered work when unit employees were unavailable or in emergencies. Those exceptions made both the work performed and the circumstances of its assignment relevant. Page 3. The union had previously raised grievances about nonunit technicians performing work it considered covered. Reports from other locations and earlier disputes informed its concern about the company’s National Technicians. The earlier grievances involved the predecessor company’s use of nonunion personnel to perform bargaining-unit work in northwest Montana. Their subject matter supplied context despite the time gap and company change. Those circumstances gave the request a specific contract purpose. CenturyTel, pages 3–8.

On August 10, the union sent an 18-question information request. It explained that the information was needed to administer the contract and assess possible grievances. The questions concerned how many National Technicians worked in the area, for how long, the nature of their work and relevant job descriptions. A conversation with regional manager Bemis that day also mattered: Bland testified that Bemis acknowledged National Technicians working in the union’s jurisdiction or area. Bemis disputed using the word jurisdiction. The administrative judge credited Bland’s account and noted that the parties used area and jurisdiction interchangeably. Applying Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. NLRB, 45 F.4th 234, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the court deferred to the Board’s credibility determination absent the starkest error and found none. Page 13.

Nonunit information required a connection, but not proof of a completed violation

Under New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 730–731 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the union bears the burden of explaining the relevance of nonunit information. The court applied the low, discovery-type threshold drawn from Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314 (1979), and NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967): Probable or potential relevance is sufficient, assessed at the time of demand and refusal. Page 12.

That threshold matters because the employer’s proposed sequence would put the answer before the investigation. If the union had to establish the contract violation first, it could be denied the very records needed to determine whether one occurred. The union needed a reasonable belief supported by objective evidence under DirectSat USA LLC v. NLRB, 925 F.3d 1272, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Here, the contract restrictions, prior grievances and reported work explained why the technicians’ duties and assignments mattered. The court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the requested information could assist the union in assessing whether represented work had been diverted. The court distinguished San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local No. 95 v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 1977), where the request rested on suspicion alone. Page 17.

The hearing record and the original request did different work

The Board’s Cannelton rule allowed the General Counsel to prove at the hearing what the union reasonably believed when it asked; the union was not obliged to disclose all that underlying evidence with the request. The Board also found relevance had actually been communicated here. The court evaluated both the original explanation and the evidence of the contemporaneous basis. Pages 8, 12–16.

The Board relied on several grounds: The relevance communicated with the request, the context apparent to the company, and evidence at the hearing showing what the union knew when it asked. The distinction between knowledge at the time and proof supplied later is important. A later hearing can establish an earlier factual basis; it does not necessarily show that the employer received every supporting detail with the original letter. Pages 12–16.

CenturyTel had not preserved its challenge to the Board precedent permitting hearing evidence. Its due-process objection was also unpreserved under 29 U.S.C. section 160(e). The court said the separate bad-faith argument may have been forfeited; on the substance, neither the judge nor Board found bad faith, and the company identified no obligation to disclose the template’s origin before the hearing. Bland acknowledged mistakenly omitting the outside council’s email from his subpoena production. Pages 15–16.

The order required information, not a merits judgment on the grievance

The court denied CenturyTel’s petition and granted enforcement of the Board’s order. The enforceable obligation was to provide the requested information. Whether particular work assignments violated the collective-bargaining agreement was a separate question. Pages 16–17.

For another dispute, preserve the exact request, the contract provisions it invokes, the reports or observations supporting it, and the company’s responses. Record telephone explanations in a dated follow-up rather than assuming everyone will later agree on what was said. Our guide to explaining a nonunit information request shows how to connect particular records to a contract question without claiming the investigation is already complete.

What made this request different from a general demand

The union identified a bargaining obligation, a category of outside workers and an objective reason to investigate assignments. The Board’s findings supported the information duty, while the company’s procedural and evidentiary attacks failed. The decision explains what supported this representative’s request and why the administrative record sustained enforcement.