🗞️ ExxonMobil Stonewalled Union for Years, NLRB Judge Rules in Labor Law Violation Case
ALJ Mara-Louise Anzalone ruled that ExxonMobil violated federal labor law by failing to provide or delaying responses to 38 of 42 information requests from United Steelworkers Local 13-2001 at its Baytown, Texas refinery complex between October 2021 and March 2023.
On January 5, 2026, National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued a decision finding that Exxon Mobil Corporation committed multiple unfair labor practices at its Baytown, Texas facility in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The decision addresses the company's relationship with United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 13-2001, which represents approximately 1,000 employees across three bargaining units at the complex.
The central violation involved ExxonMobil's failure to respond to information requests submitted by Union President Ricky Brooks. Between October 2021 and March 2023, Brooks submitted 42 written information requests covering topics including discipline, pay practices, staffing, safety procedures, employee benefits, and grievance investigations. The company failed to respond to 34 requests entirely and delayed responding to 4 others by periods ranging from two to six months.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers must provide unions with information that is relevant and necessary to their representational duties. Information about bargaining unit employees is presumptively relevant, while information about non-unit employees requires the union to demonstrate relevance. The ALJ found all requests in this case met the relevance standard.
ExxonMobil defended its non-compliance by arguing the requests were made in bad faith to harass the company, were overly burdensome, and were redundant. The judge rejected these defenses, finding that the volume of requests—approximately 100 grievances and associated information requests per year—was reasonable for representing 1,000 employees. The judge noted that while the company assigned primary responsibility for responding to a newly appointed Labor Relations Advisor who admitted to a "learning curve" and difficulties obtaining cooperation from other company personnel, this did not excuse the violations.
The ALJ applied established precedent that employers claiming requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome must articulate those concerns promptly and offer to cooperate with the union to reach an accommodation. With one partial exception, ExxonMobil failed to do this, instead remaining silent and later raising defenses during litigation.
Additionally, the judge found Section 8(a)(1) violations when two supervisors in August 2022 forbade union officials from conducting union business during work time and meeting in person to discuss grievances. The supervisors provided no credible business justification for these restrictions, which the judge found arbitrarily interfered with protected grievance-processing activities.
The decision dismissed several other allegations, including claims that the company unilaterally changed its facial hair/respirator policy, drug testing standards, and floating holiday policy. The judge found the union had contractually waived its right to bargain over the respirator policy changes through management rights clauses and established past practice. Regarding drug testing, the judge found that no change occurred—the supervisor properly applied the existing "inexplicable accident" standard when testing an employee who stepped in a large puddle of hot water he admittedly knew was there. For the floating holiday claim, the union failed to prove a longstanding past practice existed that permitted employees to designate non-work days as floating holidays.
The remedy orders ExxonMobil to provide all outstanding information, cease interfering with union activities, and post remedial notices. The judge declined to impose extraordinary remedies such as mandatory training, newspaper publication of the notice, or litigation expense reimbursement, finding traditional remedies sufficient given the absence of a proven history of recidivism. This decision may be appealed to the five-member NLRB and subsequently to federal court.
Key Points
- Violation Found: ExxonMobil failed to respond to 34 information requests and delayed 4 others by 2-6 months
- Legal Standard: Information about bargaining unit employees is presumptively relevant; employers must respond promptly
- Volume Defense Rejected: ~100 requests/year deemed reasonable for representing 1,000 employees
- Burden Defense Failed: Employers must explicitly object and offer accommodation; silence doesn't excuse non-compliance
- Additional Violation: Supervisors unlawfully restricted union officials from conducting grievance activities during work time
- Claims Dismissed: Union waived bargaining rights on respirator policy through contract language and past practice
- Remedy: Provide all information, post notice, cease interference—no extraordinary measures imposed
- Legal Context: Decision reinforces that high request volume alone doesn't constitute bad faith or excuse non-compliance
Primary Source Author: Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone, National Labor Relations Board
Primary Source: Exxon Mobil Corporation, JD(SF)–01–26 (NLRB Jan. 5, 2026) (Cases 16–CA–290036, et al.)
Primary Source Link: Decision available through NLRB Administrative Law Judge Decisions
