In IronTiger Logistics, Inc., key litigated issues included whether an employer violated the NLRA by failing to timely respond in any manner to a union's request for information that was presumptively relevant because it concerned terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees' employment but was ultimately proven to be irrelevant.

Both IronTiger Logistics, Inc. and TruckMovers.com, Inc. are employers with common ownership. A union represents IronTiger's drivers but not TruckMovers' drivers. TruckMovers assigns loads for delivery to both groups of drivers. IronTiger and the union entered into a Letter of Agreement clarifying that loads assigned to TruckMovers' drivers were not IronTiger's and that their delivery by TruckMovers would not be considered subcontracting.

In March 2010, the union alleged that IronTiger was not complying with the dispatch provisions in the parties' CBA, and then:

In response, IronTiger provided a list of units dispatched to both employers' drivers. In May 2010, the union requested supplemental information concerning:

After two months, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge, triggering the NLRB to begin their investigation. On July 30, the union repeated its request for supplementary information. IronTiger did not acknowledge the union's May request for approximately 4.5 months. It finally responded on September 27, 2012, and did not provide any of the requested information. Instead, IronTiger asserted that:

An NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) found that:

IronTiger filed exceptions to the panel (Board) heading to the NLRB's judicial functions. The Board delegated its authority in the proceeding to a three-member panel.

On October 23, 2012, a 2-1 Board majority (Member Hayes dissented) issued an opinion in the case affirming the ALJ's rulings, findings and conclusions and adopted the recommended Order.

The Board held that, under Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, which imposes the duty to bargain in good faith, a unionized employer must on request, provide information:

The Board noted precedent holding that:

Extending these principles to presumptively relevant information, the Board affirmed the ALJ's finding that IronTiger violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by not timely responding to the union's request for supplemental information concerning presumptively relevant information about bargaining unit employees, even though IronTiger proved that the requested information was irrelevant. The Board majority held that it was immaterial that the presumptively relevant information proved to be irrelevant. It is reasonable for a union to expect production of the information unless and until the employer notifies it otherwise. In turn, the employer must respond promptly with its reasons for not providing the information. Placing this minimal burden on the employer is appropriate because, particularly where the requested information is presumptively relevant, the employer is in a clearly superior position to ensure that a dispute is avoided.

In his dissent, Member Hayes would reverse the ALJ's and dismiss the complaint, asserting that IronTiger was free to ignore the union's request at the time it was made because:

The Board majority rejected Member Hayes' dissent, holding that:

Employers with union-represented employees should be aware that the Board majority interprets the NLRA as requiring timely responses to all information requests for:

The Board still requires that employers furnish only relevant information. The Board majority justified its holding as a matter of policy to encourage the parties to address potential disputes before they disrupt the collective-bargaining relationship. The Board maintains the view that information exchange is essential to enable such settlement.

On its face, the decision furthers an innocuous obligation to correspond with unions, even if they are asking for irrelevant information. However, since the NLRB tends not to consider any union information requests abusive, harassing or in bad faith, the decision, as Member Hayes points out, might result in unions having even greater latitude to hector employers with information requests for tactical purposes that obstruct, rather than further, good-faith bargaining relationships.