Hollingsworth Logistics Group, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 2017

07-CA-183283 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 6, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HOLLINGSWORTH LOGISTICS GROUP, LLC
and Case 07-CA-183283
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,
AFL-CIO
ORDER
The Employer’s Petition to Revoke subpoenas duces tecum B-1-UFPXDF is denied.
The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters 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.1 See generally NLRB v.

1 To the extent that the Employer has provided some of the requested material, it is not
required to produce that information again, provided that the Employer accurately
describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, states whether those
previously-supplied documents constitute all of the requested documents, and provides all
of the information that was subpoenaed.
In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoena as clarified
by the Region in its opposition brief. Specifically, the Region states that it does not seek
personal or private information, such as social security numbers or dates of birth, that may
be included on the requested job applications, and that it informed the Employer that it is
willing to reach an accommodation to redact this information from the documents. Contrary
to our dissenting colleague’s assumption, the Region’s clarification of the subpoena does
not establish that it was initially overbroad, and we find that it was not. Rather, the
Region’s modifications appear simply to promote efficiency and provide further clarity to
the parties. Additionally, the subpoena as written describes with sufficient particularity the
personnel and employees to whom the requests apply and the information requested is
relevant to the issues under investigation.
Acting Chairman Miscimarra respectfully dissents from the Board majority’s denial
of the petition to revoke as to subpoena requests that encompassed personal identification
information. In this case, pars. 3, 5, and 6 of the subpoena seek job applications, the
names and telephone numbers of individuals who were offered positions or hired, and the
names and telephone numbers of Teamsters-represented employees who were hired,
respectively. The petition to revoke argued that the employees’ privacy rights precluded
production of these records, and, in response, the Region clarified that it did not seek
2
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., April 6, 2017
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, ACTING CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

personal information, such as social security numbers or dates of birth. In such
circumstances, when subpoena requests are overly broad or otherwise seek information
that does not reasonably relate to matters under investigation, and when a subpoenaed
party’s petition to revoke raises appropriate objections to the requests on that basis, Acting
Chairman Miscimarra believes it is more appropriate for the Board to grant the petition to
revoke as to such requests, rather than denying the petition to revoke (as the Board
majority does here) based on changes that are communicated only in briefs submitted
after the petition to revoke is under consideration by the Board. See Sec. 11(1) (stating
the Board “shall revoke” any subpoena where “the evidence whose production is required
does not relate to any matter under investigation, or any matter in question in such
proceedings, or if in its opinion such subpoena does not describe with sufficient
particularity the evidence whose production is required”). Acting Chairman Miscimarra
believes that the appropriate scope of subpoena requests should be addressed by the
Region in the first instance when crafting the subpoena, rather than through post-petition
to revoke clarifications. With regard to requests pertaining to “all personnel” and “all
employees,” Acting Chairman Miscimarra would also grant the petition to revoke to the
extent that the requests encompass non-statutory employees. Granting a petition to
revoke in these circumstances would be without prejudice to a party’s potential right to
apply for the issuance of a new subpoena that is appropriate in scope (subject to
applicable time limits and other requirements set forth in the Act and the Board’s Rules
and Regulations).
The Employer’s request that its petition to revoke be made part of the official record
in this case is denied without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time in a formal
proceeding.