Century Management, LLC d/b/a McDonald's and McDonald's USA, LLC as joint or single employer

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 2015

15-CA-146662 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 13, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CENTURY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
McDONALD’S FRANCHISEE, and
McDONALD’S USA, LLC
and Case 15-CA-146662
MEMPHIS WORKERS ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE
ORDER1
The petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-M61ZQ1 filed by Petitioner
Century Management, LLC is denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the
matters under investigation2 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.3 See generally, NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc.,

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 We reject the Respondent’s contention that information about union activity and newly
implemented or differently enforced rules is irrelevant. The charge alleges that the
Respondent unlawfully told employee Laquita Jackson of possible action against her
“due to her participation in union activities.” Further, changes in rules or their
enforcement, if any, may bear on the existence of antiunion animus and the likelihood
that a manager told Jackson “they’re trying to get rid of you but they can’t find a way,”
as alleged.
3 To the extent that the Petitioner has provided some of the requested material, it is not
required to produce that information again, provided that the Petitioner accurately
describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, states whether
those previously-supplied documents constitute all of the documents, and provides all of
the information that was subpoenaed.
Further, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Petitioner 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 more complete privilege log to the Region identifying and describing
2
102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507
(4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 13, 2015.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

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 not subject to any good-faith claim of privilege or protection.