International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 16(Various)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 2013

20-CB-090776 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES, MOVING PICTURE
TECHNICIANS, ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS
OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES
AND CANADA, LOCAL 16
and Case 20-CB-090776
DAVID JURY
ORDER1
The Union’s petitions to revoke subpoena ad testificandum A-961252, issued to
Steve Lutge, subpoena ad testificandum A-961253, issued to Sandy Coleman, and
subpoena duces tecum B-706102, issued to the Union’s custodian of records, are
denied as untimely. Section 11(1) of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the Board's Rules
and Regulations require that a petition to revoke an investigative subpoena must be
filed within 5 days after the date of service of the subpoena.2 The subpoenas here were
served on September 23, 2013. Thus, the instant petitions, which were filed October 2,
2013, are untimely and the Union has not substantiated its claim that it was improperly
served.
In addition, even assuming that the petitions were timely filed, they are lacking
in merit. 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 Union

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 Sec. 102.31(b) states in relevant part that “[a]ny person served with a subpoena,
whether ad testificandum or duces tecum, if he or she does not intend to comply with
the subpoena, shall, within 5 days after the date of service of the subpoena, petition in
writing to revoke the subpoena. The date of service for purposes of computing the time
for filing a petition to revoke shall be the date the subpoena is received.”
2
has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas. 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).3
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 11, 2013.
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

3 In denying the Union’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-706102, we note
that if the Union’s custodian of records provides sworn testimony that the documents
are not within the Union’s possession, as defined in the subpoena's Definitions and
Instructions at paragraph F, then the Union is not required to produce them.