Question: Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc., a unionized construction contractor in New Orleans, owned a nonunion subsidiary, Halmar. During negotiations of a new collective bargaining agreement with PrattFarnsworth, the Carpenters' Union demanded that the company provide information concerning Halmar's business activities; the union was suspicious that the subsidiary was being used by the parent to siphon off work that could have been done by union members. If you represented the union, what arguments would you make to support your demand for information? If you were on the company's side, how would you respond? See Carpenters Local 1846 v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc. [690 F.2d 489, 111 L.R. R.M. 2787 (5th Cir. 1982)].