Deere: Partial Viewing and an Unsupported Confidentiality Claim Did Not Answer the Union’s Email Request

A union received a partial reading of a supervisor’s disciplinary email and an opportunity to view it, but not the requested copy. In Deere & Company d/b/a John Deere Harvester Works, No. 25-CA-321689 (NLRB Jan. 23, 2026), the Board adopted an administrative law judge’s finding that the employer unlawfully withheld relevant information. The employer’s blanket confidentiality claim and disputed training condition did not justify withholding the emails on this record. Deere, Board order.

The Board adopted a corrected ALJ decision without exceptions

Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued the underlying decision on August 21, 2025. After her retirement, Associate Chief ALJ Geoffrey Carter issued a September 23 errata adding the express obligation to furnish the emails to the employee notice. No exceptions were filed, and the Board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommended order on January 23, 2026. The operative analysis is therefore the adopted ALJ decision, read with that correction, rather than a new reasoned Board opinion resolving contested exceptions. Deere, errata.

The union sought the full email behind a suspension

The dispute arose at the East Moline, Illinois Harvester Works facility after forklift operator Nick Toal collided with robotic equipment and received a 30-day unpaid suspension. During the disciplinary process, management read part of supervisor Campen’s email but withheld the remainder and a copy. The union requested the emails and video; the employer eventually supplied the video but continued restricting the emails. Deere, adopted decision, page 2–6.

The employer linked hard-copy access to online confidentiality training. The bargaining history mattered: The union had rejected a blanket confidentiality proposal, and discussion of online training did not establish agreement to the broad definition or surrender of statutory information rights. Some representatives did not complete the training. Management offered viewing without copies or copies after training.

The emails were relevant to the union’s representational work

The judge applied the employer’s section 8(a)(5) duty to supply relevant information for collective bargaining and grievance administration. Information about bargaining-unit discipline was presumptively relevant. Under NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967), the relevance inquiry permits the union to evaluate a grievance; the employer cannot require the union first to prove the grievance’s merits. Deere, adopted decision, page 8–9.

The partial reading did not answer the request for the complete emails. The union needed to assess the supervisor’s account and the disciplinary decision through its own representational process.

Confidentiality required a supported interest and accommodation

The employer bore the burden of establishing a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest, with disclosure balanced against that interest under Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314 (1979). The decision discussed examples such as personal medical information, proprietary material, witness-safety concerns and traditionally privileged records. It did not treat those examples as an exhaustive statutory list.

The judge found no particularized evidence beyond the assertion that the emails were confidential, including no supported risk that the union would disseminate them improperly. Even assuming a confidentiality interest, the employer needed meaningful accommodation bargaining. A viewing offer and training demand did not cure the unsupported refusal on this record. Deere, adopted decision, page 9–12.

The training discussions did not establish waiver

Applying the clear-and-unmistakable waiver standard discussed in Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 141 (2024), the judge examined what the union had actually agreed to. The union’s rejection of the blanket definition and insistence on statutory rights defeated the claimed waiver. This describes the standard applied in the adopted decision; a current dispute requires checking the governing law and actual agreement.

The issue was the specific bargaining record, not a categorical prohibition on confidentiality training or negotiated safeguards. Preserve the proposal, responses, training terms and relevant correspondence to understand which commitment is actually asserted. Deere, adopted decision, page 11–13.

The remedy required furnishing the emails and notice

The adopted order found violations of sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1), directed the employer to furnish the requested disciplinary emails within 14 days and required 60-day notice posting, with electronic distribution where customary and a sworn compliance certification within 21 days after service by the Region. The errata ensured the notice expressly included the furnishing obligation. Deere, adopted order, page 14–16.

The case concerns the union’s information request and the resulting disclosure remedy. The specific suspension supplied the relevance context; the adopted order’s operative relief was furnishing information and related compliance. For a comparable review, bring the request, partial disclosure, actual confidentiality explanation and bargaining history.