NLRB Decision Sets New Rule on Confidentiality of Witness Statements

by Proskauer Rose LLP

The National Labor Relations Board continued its attack on long established internal investigation best practices with its recent ruling in American Baptist Homes of the West, 359 NLRB No. 46 (December 15, 2012) in which it overruled Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 237 NLRB 982 (1978). In Anheuser-Busch, the Board had held witness statements obtained during an employer investigation of workplace misconduct are exempt from disclosure in pre-arbitration discovery. That important ruling rightly recognized that workplace investigations often revolve around the confidentiality of witness statements, which are often obtained only after assurances are given that they won't be made public.

But in American Baptist the Board held that "[a]fter careful consideration, we find that the rationale of Anheuser-Busch is flawed." Slip Op. at 2.

Under American Baptist, the prior clear-cut, bright-line rule that witness statements are privileged from disclosure in pre-arbitration information requests is a thing of the past. Now, the rule is that witness statements, if requested, must be disclosed in the absence of the employer establishing legitimate and substantial confidentiality interests, separate from any promise of confidentiality. Further, the employer must always bargain with the union over whether there is another way to accommodate the requested confidentiality.

The American Baptist case involved a workplace investigation at a continuing care facility where a Certified Nursing Assistant had been observed sleeping on the job. The employer collected witness statements from employees who had witnessed the misconduct. Employer representatives apparently gave explicit assurances to one of the employees that the statement would be kept confidential, and another employee also had assumed that her statement would not be disclosed.

The union representative asked for the names and job descriptions of the witnesses and for copies of their statements. The employer's representative declined, specifically relying on the Board's controlling precedent in Anheuser-Busch. Unfair labor practice charges followed, and the case proceeded to trial before an Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge ruled the Act required the employer to identify the witnesses. However, the Administrative Law Judge also held that the employer's refusal to turn over the witness statements was protected by the Board's Anheuser-Busch precedent.

The Administrative Law Judge's decision was appealed to the Board. On review, the Board first evaluated the law regarding information requests, noting that under Section 8(a)(5) there is a "general obligation" to supply a union with relevant information that it needs to "determine whether to take a grievance to arbitration absent settlement." The Board then discussed how witness statements fit within this general obligation:

"Notwithstanding the employer's general duty to provide relevant information, the Board in Anheuser-Busch created a broad, bright-line exception, holding that 'the 'general obligation' to honor requests for information…does not encompass the duty to furnish witness statements. . . .' 237 NLRB at 984-985. In creating this rule, the Board concluded that witness statements 'are fundamentally different from [other types of information deemed discoverable through information requests], and disclosure of witness statements involves critical considerations which do not apply to requests for other types of information."

Slip Op. at 3. Those "critical considerations" were potential for witness intimidation and the reluctance of a witness to give a statement if it were going to be turned over to the union.

The Board brushed aside these thirty-four-year-old considerations, holding:

"To begin, we reject the premise of Anheuser-Busch that witness statements are fundamentally different from other types of [relevant] information. . . If relevant and necessary to the union's representative duties then requested information is, at bottom, fundamentally the same for purposes of the Act. This is particularly true in the grievance context, where unions must decide whether to expend limited resources processing a grievance at all. That does not mean, of course, that there are not other factors to consider, much less that a union is always entitled to receive the information that it seeks. But we are not persuaded that there is some fundamental difference between witness statements and other types of information that justifies a blanket rule exempting statements from disclosure."

Id. The Board thus overruled Anheuser-Busch and the bright-line exclusion of witness statements from disclosure. In its place, the Board adopted a balancing test derived from Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979):

  • If a party asserts that requested information is confidential, the Board will balance the union's need for the relevant information against any legitimate and substantial confidentiality interests established by the employer.
  • Merely asserting confidentiality (or that the witness gave the statement pursuant to a promise that it would remain confidential) is not enough there must be some other, separately stated confidentiality interest;
  • The party asserting the confidentiality interest bears the burden of establishing that interest; and
  • a party refusing to supply information on confidentiality grounds has a duty to offer an accommodation.

As with some other recent decisions where the NLRB changed existing law, the agency held that the new rule will apply only prospectively.

The American Baptist decision echoes the Board's earlier decision in Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012), which was noted in our client alert of August 9, 2012. In Banner Health the Board held that an employer may not give a generalized confidentiality instruction to witnesses in an investigation, in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Instead, the Board ruled in Banner Health that an employer must first determine whether in any given investigation witnesses need protection, evidence is in danger of being destroyed, testimony is in danger of being fabricated, or there is a need to prevent a cover-up.

Taken together, American Baptist and Banner Health constitute an assault on the principle of confidentiality in workplace investigations which will almost assuredly complicate the investigative process for employers. For example, in his dissent in American Baptist, Member Hayes noted that abandoning a bright line rule of an exemption in favor of the confidentiality balancing test will result in even more Board litigation as parties now fight over the disclosure of statements which will result in the grievance procedure "grind[ing] to a halt waiting a final Board decision…." Member Hayes also pointed out that the new rule conflicts with guidance from the EEOC regarding workplace investigations of issues falling under its jurisdiction, which will necessarily create an interagency conflict. Slip Op. at 8-9.

Employers conducting workplace investigations should consider confidentiality concerns specific to each investigation and document those concerns, especially if the investigation involves union-represented employees. Additionally, though the collection of witness statements may still be appropriate, employers should consider whether they are necessary and ensure that employees who supply the statements are aware that the statements may be discoverable by the union prior to any grievance hearing.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Proskauer Rose LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.