Pharmedium Services, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 2016

15-CA-143030 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 2, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PHARMEDIUM SERVICES, LLC
and Case 15-CA-143030
15-CA-144416
SHEILA REED
and 15-CA-144181
RHONDA CRAYTON
ORDER
The Employer’s petition to revoke or revoke in part and/or modify subpoena ad
testificandum A-1-STB0ZN 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. See Postal Workers Local 64 (USPS), 340 NLRB 912 (2003);
Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745 (2002).1 Further, the Employer has failed to

1 The disposition of the Employer’s petition is consistent with existing Board law as
reflected in Postal Workers and Offshore Mariners, which find subpoenas identifying the
case name and number to be sufficiently particular.
Member Miscimarra agrees that the Region has described with sufficient
particularity the evidence sought from Laboratory Manager Keri Kjellin. The Employer’s
brief and exhibits in support of its petition demonstrate that the Region (1) attached to
the subpoena a copy of the three charges upon which the subpoena is based (the
amended charges in Cases 15-CA-144181 and 15-CA-143030, and the charge in Case
15-CA-144416), and (2) in a cover letter to Employer’s counsel, explained which
allegations will be the focus of the testimony it seeks, indicating that the general subject
areas that Ms. Kjellin would be asked about included, among others, the circumstances
that led the Employer to, as well as the decision to, take the actions alleged as unfair
labor practices. In the view of Member Miscimarra, however, the subpoena itself should
describe with reasonable particularity the general topic(s) or issue(s) that would be the
subject of subpoenaed testimony or other evidence. See Sec. 11(1) of the Act; Sec.
102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules. Member Miscimarra believes the requirement of
“particularity” requires more than merely giving the case name and number of the
proceeding in which the subpoena has been issued. He also notes that the Board has
2
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).
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 2, 2016.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

moved in the direction of providing substantially more detail in remedial notices, for
example, to “facilitate a better understanding,” including hyperlinks and QR codes
providing direct electronic access to the Board’s decision(s). Cf. Durham School
Services LP, 360 NLRB No. 85 (2014). Although subpoenas serve a different purpose,
Member Miscimarra believes subpoenas should provide fair notice to recipients
regarding the topic(s) or issue(s) deemed relevant to the testimony or other evidence
being sought.