Benedictine Health Center, Benedictine Sisters Benevolent Association, Benedictine Health Services,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 27, 2017

18-CA-196456 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 27, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BENEDICTINE HEALTH CENTER,
BENEDICTINE SISTERS BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION, BENEDICTINE HEALTH
SERVICES, AND ST. SCHOLASTICA
MONASTERY, AS A SINGLE EMPLOYER
and Case 18-CA-196456
AFSCME COUNCIL 5
ORDER
The Petition to Revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-WZN7EP, filed by
Benedictine Sisters Benevolent Association (BSBA), and the Joint Petition to Revoke
and/or Quash subpoenas duces tecum B-1-WZN2YZ and B-1-WZN101, filed by
Benedictine Health Center (BHC) and Benedictine Health Services (BHS), are denied.
The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matters under investigation and
describe 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
Employers have failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas.1

1 In considering the petitions to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoenas in light of the
Region’s offer to substitute the phrase “[a]n original or true copy of” for the word “all”
and the Region’s willingness to preliminarily accept a representative sample of 10
documents from each vendor in response to BSBA subpoena paragraph 26 and BHC
subpoena paragraphs 17-18.
In addition, this Order is without prejudice to each Employer’s prompt submission of
a privilege log to the Region identifying and describing each document that the
Employer believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client privilege or the
attorney work product doctrine. The log must provide sufficient detail to permit an
assessment of the Employer’s claim of privilege or protection. The Employers are
directed to produce all responsive documents in their possession not subject to any
good-faith claim of privilege or protection.
2
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 27, 2017.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL MEMBER

Further, with respect to documents responsive to BHC subpoena paragraph 42, BHS
subpoena paragraph 24, and BSBA subpoena paragraph 40, the Employers may,
consistent with the Region’s offer, redact the documents to the extent that they reveal
motives of attorney representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of services
provided by the attorney. See Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d
127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992).