Armstrong Coal Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jun 22, 2009

26-CA-023263 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARMSTRONG COAL CO.
and Case 26-CA-23263
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
ORDER'
Armstrong Coal Co.'s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecurn B-558118
is denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to a 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 Petitioner has failed to establish any other legal
2basis for revoking the subpoena. See NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102
F.3d 1005 (91h Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507
1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman, Schaumber,
Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman, Schaumber, and
Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board's powers in anticipation of
the expiration of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31,
2007. Pursuant to this delegation, Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber
constitute a quorum of the three-member group. As a quorum, they have the
authority to issue decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation
cases. See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, F.3d
-, 2009 WL 1676116 (2d Cir. June 17, 2009); New Process Steel v. NLRB,
564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. May 1, 2009), petition for cert. filed - U.S.L.W. - (U.S.
May 27, 2009) (No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36
(1 st Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No. 08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see Laurel
Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. May 1,
2009), petition for rehearing filed, Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214 (May 27, 2009).
2 The General Counsel states that he accepts the Employer's representation that
there are no documents responsive to the subpoena requests, and that the only
issue before the Board is whether Kenneth Allen should be compelled to reveal
the identities of "John Doe A" and "John Doe B" through sworn testimony. We
(4" Cir. 1996); NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110 (5" Cir. 1982).
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2009.
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
PETER C. SCHAUMBER, MEMBER
find that Allen should be compelled to provide that information, because the
General Counsel's need for the information in order to perform his statutory
duties by thoroughly investigating the charges outweighs the business and
privacy interests raised by the Employer. See generally, General Motors Corp. v.
Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, 636 F.2d 163, 166 (6 1h Cir. 1980), cert. denied
454 U. S. 877 (1981); St Luke's Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. U.S., 717
F.Supp. 665, 666 (N.D.lowa 1989). The Employer's concern about disclosure of
the subpoenaed information to third parties may be addressed by seeking a
confidentiality agreement from the General Counsel.
2