MHA, LLC d/b/a MEADOWLANDS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Aug 22, 2016

22-CA-086823 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MHA, LLC d/b/a MEADOWLANDS
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
and Cases 22-CA-086823
22-CA-089716
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND ALLIED 22-CA-090437
EMPLOYEES, AFT/AFL-CIO 22-CA-091025
22-CA-091521
22-CA-092061
22-CA-096650
22-CA-097214
22-CA-099492
22-CA-100324
22-CA-106694
ORDER1
The Respondent requests special permission to appeal from the following orders of
Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis:
(1) the March 11, 2016 Order on Respondent’s Subpoenas to third parties New
Jersey Health Care Quality Institute; New Jersey Citizen Action, and Wardell
Sanders;
(2) the March 28, 2016 Order revising March 11 Order on privilege log;
(3) the April 22, 2016 Order on Union’s motion to reconsider March 11 Order on
subpoenas to third parties;
(4) the May 5, 2016 Order granting Union’s petition to revoke subpoena; and
(5) the May 5, 2016 refusal to issue a subpoena ad testificandum to David
Knowlton.
The Respondent’s request for permission to appeal is denied as to requests (1), (3),
(4), and (5). This denial is without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its
arguments before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge’s decision, if
appropriate.
The Respondent’s request for permission to appeal is granted as to request (2), and
we remand this matter to the judge to provide in his decision on the merits of the complaint

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
allegations a more detailed rationale, based on record evidence, for finding that certain
documents related to the Union’s communications with attorney Kenneth Pringle are
privileged based on attorney-client privilege. 2
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 22, 2016.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

2 The Respondent also requested that the Board stay the proceedings because the
judge’s rulings prejudice its ability to prove its affirmative defense. We deny this request.