The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied CenturyTel of Montana's petition for review and granted enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board order finding the telecommunications company violated federal labor law.
In *CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB* (D.C. Cir. 2026), decided Jan. 13, the appeals court ruled against the company's challenge to an NLRB decision that found CenturyTel violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to furnish information requested by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768.
Senior Circuit Judge Rogers, writing for the court, rejected CenturyTel's arguments that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence. The case involved the company's refusal to provide the union with information about non-union technicians working within the union's jurisdiction.
CenturyTel of Montana, a subsidiary of Lumen Technologies Inc., provides telephone and data services and has maintained a collective bargaining agreement with IBEW Local 768 for decades. The dispute arose when the union requested information about non-union workers performing work that fell within the union's contractual jurisdiction.
Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act requires employers to bargain in good faith with their employees' chosen representatives, which includes providing relevant information necessary for the union to fulfill its representational duties. Section 8(a)(1) prohibits interference with employees' rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining.
The NLRB determined that CenturyTel's failure to provide the requested information about non-union technicians violated both provisions. Information about workers performing bargaining unit work is typically considered presumptively relevant to a union's representational functions, as it helps unions monitor compliance with collective bargaining agreements and protect their members' work opportunities.
CenturyTel challenged the NLRB's findings on several grounds, arguing the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the D.C. Circuit found the company's arguments unpersuasive. The court applied the deferential substantial evidence standard, which requires only that the Board's findings be supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.
The case was consolidated with No. 24-1352 and argued before the court on Sept. 15, 2025. Patrick R. Scully and Monica J. Frascona represented CenturyTel, while NLRB Senior Attorney Jared D. Cantor argued for the Board alongside Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen and other agency attorneys. Jacob J. Demree and Jonathan D. Newman represented the union as intervenor supporting the NLRB's position.
The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Pan and Garcia, along with Senior Circuit Judge Rogers, who authored the opinion. The court's decision represents another instance of judicial deference to NLRB expertise in interpreting and applying federal labor law.
Information requests by unions represent a common source of labor disputes. Employers have a duty to provide relevant information that unions need to effectively represent workers, but companies sometimes resist disclosure citing confidentiality, burden, or relevance concerns. The NLRB regularly adjudicates these disputes, balancing union representational needs against legitimate employer interests.
For CenturyTel, the decision means the company must comply with the NLRB's order, which likely includes providing the requested information about non-union technicians and potentially posting notices about employee rights. The ruling reinforces that telecommunications companies, like other employers, cannot unilaterally refuse union information requests that relate to potential contract violations or worker displacement.
The decision affects not only CenturyTel but potentially other Lumen Technologies subsidiaries and telecommunications companies with unionized workforces. It demonstrates continued NLRB and judicial enforcement of information-sharing obligations under federal labor law.
IBEW Local 768's victory reflects the union's efforts to monitor work preservation clauses in its collective bargaining agreement. Many union contracts contain provisions limiting an employer's ability to use non-union workers for bargaining unit work, and unions need information to enforce these protections.
The case joins a broader body of D.C. Circuit precedent generally supporting NLRB decisions on information requests. The appeals court has consistently held that unions have broad rights to relevant information, and that employers bear a heavy burden to justify withholding requested data.
CenturyTel has not indicated whether it will seek further review of the decision. The company could potentially file a petition for rehearing en banc or seek Supreme Court review, though the high court rarely grants certiorari in routine labor law cases absent circuit splits or issues of exceptional importance.
The ruling underscores the continuing vitality of federal labor protections even as union membership has declined nationally. It demonstrates that established collective bargaining relationships retain strong legal protections, including robust information-sharing rights that enable unions to effectively represent their members' interests.