EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION d/b/a ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA - SILICON VALLEY

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 2013

32-CA-096135 (N.L.R.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA -
SILICON VALLEY
and Case 32-CA-096135

RUFUS DAVIS
ORDER
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena ad testificandum A-959494 and
subpoena duces tecum B-712240 is denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to
the matter 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 Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for
revoking the subpoenas.1 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
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 14, 2013.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR., MEMBER
SHARON BLOCK, MEMBER

1 The Employer argues that the Board lacks a quorum, and that the Regional Director’s
delegated power to act ceases when the Board’s membership falls below the Board
quorum. Accordingly, the Employer argues, the Regional Director had no authority to
issue the subpoenas; Chairman Pearce had no authority to sign the subpoenas; neither
the Regional Director nor the Board has the authority to seek enforcement of the
subpoenas in court; the Regional Director and the Board lack the ability to issue a
complaint if merit is found in the charge; and the Acting General Counsel cannot litigate
the allegations. For the reasons stated in Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 113 (2013),
these arguments are rejected.
2 In evaluating the petition to revoke the subpoena, we view the temporal limitation set
forth in subpoena par. 5 as also applying to the request in subpoena par. 4.