Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 2016

12-CA-181263 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
and Case 12-CA-181263
MICHAEL MEAD
ORDER
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-TM4WRR is
denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matter under investigation and
describes with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, as required by Section 11(1)
of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.1 Further, the

1 To the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the Employer
has already produced, those documents need not be produced again, provided that the
Employer accurately describes which documents under subpoena they have already
provided, states whether those previously-supplied documents constitute all of the
requested documents, and provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
Further, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Employer believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the
attorney work product doctrine, this Order is without prejudice to the Petitioner’s prompt
submission of a privilege log to the Region identifying and describing each such
document, and providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the Petitioner’s
claim of privilege or protection. The Petitioner is directed to produce all responsive
documents in its possession not subject to any good-faith claim of privilege or protection
(except to the extent that the Petitioner has already produced such documents, and
accurately describes this in the manner described in the preceding paragraph).
Member Miscimarra notes that par. 9 of the subpoena requests “[a]ll employee
handbooks or policy guidelines which were issued and/or in effect during the period
from January 1, 2014 to the present, and documents as will show the dates when each
handbook was issued and/or in effect” and that par. 10 requests “[a]ll work rules,
employee handbooks … and other documents that … relate to Employer policies
regarding the issues described below [in subparts “a” through “j”], and which were
issued and/or in effect at the Employer’s facility during all or any portion of the period
from January 1, 2014 to the present, and documents as will show the dates(s) when
those policies were issued, implemented and/or in effect.” Member Miscimarra would
grant the petition to revoke as to these requests, except for those handbook provisions
2
Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. See
generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v.
Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 22, 2016.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

that reasonably relate to the issues described in subparts “a” through “j” in par. 10, or to
the particular employee actions or reasons identified by the Employer as resulting in the
discharge at issue in the instant case. See Allied Waste Services of Massachusetts,
LLC, Cases 01-CA-123082, -126843 (Dec. 31, 2014). With regard to requests
pertaining to “all employees,” Member Miscimarra would also grant the petition to
revoke to the extent that the requests encompass non-statutory employees. See
Interstate Distributor Co., Case 12-CA-172986 (Sept. 16, 2016).