Nonunion Workers Are Doing Unit Work. Connect the Union’s Information Request to the Contract

If nonunion workers appear to be doing bargaining-unit work, a union’s information request should explain the connection to the contract. Identify the work, the provision that may cover it and the records needed to investigate. You do not need to prove the grievance before seeking relevant information, but a general suspicion is a weaker starting point than dated observations tied to a specific obligation.

This guide concerns a bargaining representative’s request under federal private-sector labor law. California public-sector bargaining follows a different statutory system. It also differs from an individual worker’s request for a personnel file or a request to discuss coworkers’ pay.

Start with the work the agreement actually covers

Read the jurisdiction, classification, subcontracting or work-assignment language together. An agreement may reserve particular duties, address assignments in particular locations or contain exceptions. Quoting a job title without the surrounding language can obscure the actual issue.

Write down what prompted the concern: The date, location, task, who observed it and how the observer identified the outside workers. Keep firsthand observations separate from reports passed through others. A report can justify a question without proving its answer. Do not label an assignment a contract violation before the records and applicable language support that conclusion.

Explain how each requested record would answer the question

In CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB, Nos. 24-1346, 24-1352 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 13, 2026), the request concerned nonunit technicians. The court required a connection to the union’s representational duties, while recognizing that relevance did not require advance proof of a contract violation. The request’s explanation, earlier grievances and a manager’s conversation helped establish that connection. Pages 3–8, 11–14.

For example, a union investigating reported cable-installation work might identify the contract provision governing that work and ask which assignments outside technicians performed at the identified locations during the relevant period. Dispatch records could show the work and dates; job descriptions could clarify duties; assignment policies could explain who made the allocation. This is an illustration, not a request ready to send in every workplace.

Ask what each category adds. A bounded request for assignments and duties is easier to connect to the issue than a demand for every business record indefinitely. The appropriate scope still depends on the actual bargaining task. Narrow drafting should not omit a necessary category merely to make the request shorter.

Keep the explanation and the response together

The actual exchange in CenturyTel shows how a follow-up can sharpen the issue. CenturyTel questioned the relevance of nonrepresented technicians’ work and supplied four job descriptions while rejecting other requests. Bland replied that the union needed to determine for itself whether the technicians performed covered work. Match each partial answer to the contract question it resolves and each refusal to the explanation given. Opinion pages 4–5.

Save the complete request, attachments, delivery proof and response. If a manager asks why a category matters, answer that question directly. If a call supplies useful context, confirm the discussion in writing and identify any disputed point. Do not silently turn a tentative comment into an admission.

Partial production should be matched to the unanswered questions. A spreadsheet listing names may not identify duties; a policy may not show actual assignments. Conversely, a useful response may answer a question without using the exact form initially requested. State what remains missing and why it still matters.

A request should state its contract purpose clearly. That is practical drafting advice. The Board rule discussed in CenturyTel also allowed hearing evidence to establish the union’s reasonable belief at the time it asked, even when that evidence had not all been disclosed with the request. Preserve the contemporaneous basis so the later record can accurately establish what was known. Pages 8, 12–16.

Distinguish an information dispute from a contract decision

An order requiring production does not itself prove that the employer violated the work-assignment provision. The information may support a grievance, narrow it or show that the reported work falls outside the restriction. Likewise, an argument about a continuing settlement or waiver requires reading that separate agreement; relevance alone does not resolve it. Our salary-data settlement guide addresses that different obstacle.

The published D.C. Circuit decision enforced an NLRA information order. Apply the authorities governing the particular federal labor proceeding together with the agreement’s grievance provisions and filing requirements. The case analysis explains the court’s treatment of the evidence and preserved issues.

Bring the contract question and the missing records to the consultation

Bring the complete agreement, the request and responses, the observations that prompted it, and any grievance or Board papers. We can assess whether the records sought answer a defined bargaining question and whether the response leaves that question unresolved. Keep the investigation’s factual basis intact even if the eventual answer differs from the initial concern.