not provide to the employees in The Gas Service Company. B. We turn now to the other issues raised by the parties. As previously discussed, Gaylord’s sole argument in its cross-petition is that, following the transfer to Tuscaloosa, it no longer had the duty to bargain with the USW. It does not contest the factual bases underlying the other unfair labor practices related to bargaining. Specifically, it does not dispute that, on August 31, September 23, and October 19, 2010, Flippo requested that Gaylord provide the USW information related to the terms and conditions of its Tuscaloosa employees. It also does not dispute that failure to provide this information violated the NLRA if it had a duty to bargain with the USW. See NLRB v. U.S. Postal Serv., 888 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, Gaylord does not contest that it
holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted holding that the maximum possible sentence provided by law for conviction of the offense charged is the most important consequence of the plea internal quotation marks omitted holding a pro se plaintiff is not an adequate class representative because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others internal quotation marks omitted holding that an employer violates the nlra when it fails to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties internal quotation marks omitted