Interstate Distributor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 2016

12-CA-172986 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR CO.
and Case 12-CA-172986
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 769
ORDER
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-RXRUWR is
denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matter 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.1 Further, the

1 The Region clarified in its opposition brief that whenever the term “employee(s)” is
used in the subpoena, it only refers to employees within the meaning of the Act, unless
otherwise specified. In considering the petition to revoke, we have reviewed the
subpoena as being modified as stated by the Region.
To the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the
Employer has already produced, those documents need not be produced again,
provided that the Employer accurately describes which documents under subpoena
they have already provided, states whether those previously-supplied documents
constitute all of the requested documents, and provides all of the information that was
subpoenaed. Further, to the extent that some documents are requested in more than
one subpoena paragraph, the information need only be produced once, provided the
Employer specifies each subpoena paragraph to which the information is responsive.
In addition, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that
the Employer 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 privilege log to the Region identifying and describing 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 in its possession not subject to any good-faith claim of privilege or
protection.
With regard to requests pertaining to “all employees,” unlike his colleagues,
Member Miscimarra would grant the petition to revoke to the extent that the requests
encompass non-statutory employees. In his view, this disposition is more appropriate
than the Region’s clarification that was communicated only after the Petitioner filed its
petition to revoke. Member Miscimarra would also grant the petition to revoke as to
2
Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. 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., September 16, 2016
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

paragraphs 9-13 to the extent they relate to periods earlier than August 1, 2015.
Finally, Member Miscimarra would grant the petition to revoke as to paragraph 9
(requesting all “employee handbooks which were issued and/or in effect during the
period from January 1, 2015 to the present, and documents as will show the dates when
each handbook was issued and/or in effect) except for those handbook provisions that
reasonably relate to the subparts “a” through “m” in paragraph 10, or to the particular
employee actions or reasons identified by the Employer as resulting in the employment
termination at issue in the instant case. See Allied Waste Services of Massachusetts,
LLC, Cases 01-CA-123082, -126843 (Dec. 31, 2014).
2 The Petitioner’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.