Skip to main content

National Labor Relations Board v. Local One-L, Amalgamated Lithographers of America

2nd CircuitSeptember 1, 2009No. No. 08-5163-ag
Plaintiff WinMetropolitan Lithographers Association, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Livingston, Lynch, Pooler
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The NLRB successfully enforced its order against Local One-L for violating Section 8(b)(3) of the NLRA by refusing to provide information relevant to collective-bargaining agreement administration. The court rejected the union's arguments that no waiver occurred and that the requested information was not relevant.

What This Ruling Means

Court Rules Union Must Share Information with Employer

What Happened

A labor union called Local One-L refused to give the employer information needed to manage their collective-bargaining agreement—the contract that sets wages, benefits, and working conditions. The employer, Metropolitan Lithographers Association, asked for this information multiple times, but the union wouldn't provide it. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a government agency that enforces labor laws, took the union to court.

What the Court Decided

The court sided with the NLRB and ordered the union to hand over the requested information. The judge rejected the union's claims that they didn't have to share the data or that it wasn't necessary for managing the contract.

Why This Matters for Workers

This ruling protects workers' interests by ensuring unions and employers can actually communicate about contract details. When unions and employers share relevant information, both sides can properly enforce agreements and resolve disputes fairly. Without this information-sharing requirement, workers might not get the benefits or protections their contracts promise.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.