Ampersand Publishing, LLC d/b/a Santa Barbara News-Press

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 2015

31-CA-132040 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMPERSAND PUBLISHING, LLC d/b/a
SANTA BARBARA NEWS-PRESS
and Cases 31-CA-132040
31-CA-135595
GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-JEU05N is denied
as untimely. Section 11(1) of the Act and Sections 102.31 (b) and 102.111 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations require that a petition to revoke an investigative
subpoena must be filed within 5 days after the date of service of the subpoena. The
subpoena here was served on October 17, 2014. Thus, the petition, which was filed
October 27, 2014, is untimely.2
Moreover, even assuming that the petition was timely filed, it is lacking in merit.
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. Further, the
Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.3 See

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 Member Miscimarra concurs in the denial of the petition to revoke because it was
untimely and he does not reach or join in the other grounds set forth in this order.
3 We find no merit in the Employer’s assertion that the Union’s organizing efforts
violated the First Amendment and that all subsequent charges are therefore moot. In
Ampersand Publishing v. NLRB, 702 F.3d 51, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2012), denying enf. 357
2
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., February 18, 2015
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER

NLRB No. 51 (2011), the court’s finding that certain protests by unit employees
principally concerned the First Amendment interest of editorial control did not affect the
Union’s certification as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative or the
Employer’s obligation to bargain with the Union.