Alamillo Rebar, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 12, 2012

32-CA-068346 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ALAMILLO REBAR, INC.
and Case 32-CA-068346
SHOPMEN’S UNION LOCAL 790
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-616940 is denied.
The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters 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. Further, the
Petitioner 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).2
With respect to the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product
doctrine issues raised by the Employer, we observe that the subpoena on its face does
not seek any documents protected by privilege. Rather, the subpoena instructions
provide that if the Employer refuses to produce any documents, it should identify and

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoena in light of the
Region’s statements that it does not object to the Employer’s redaction of “delivery
terms, pricing, and/or the composition of rebar” from documents responsive to
subpoena paragraph 4, and to the redaction of sensitive personally identifiable
information from documents responsive to subpoena paragraph 6.
2
provide certain information about those documents,3 which the Employer has done.
Accordingly, there are no grounds for revocation of the subpoena in this regard.4
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2012.
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER
RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR., MEMBER
TERENCE F. FLYNN MEMBER

3 See Subpoena Definitions and Instructions, par. (xii).
4 To the extent that the parties are ultimately seeking a determination of whether the
asserted attorney client privilege and attorney work product doctrine in fact apply to
certain documents, that issue is not properly raised in this petition to revoke the
subpoena.