Southern Mechanic & Construction/Takco Construction/Smart Mechatronics Core/Koda LLC, as alter-egos,

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 15, 2020

25-CA-222876 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 15, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SOUTHERN MECHANIC & CONSTRUCTION;
TAKCO CONSTRUCTION; SMCORE;
SMART MECHATRONICS CORE; and
KODA LLC, as ALTER-EGOS, and/or
SINGLE INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE
and/or SINGLE EMPLOYER and/or
JOINT EMPLOYERS
and Cases 25-CA-222876
25-CA-224112
25-CA-225424
25-CA-225425
IRON WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
ORDER
Petitioner Southern Mechanic & Construction’s Petition to Revoke identical
subpoenas duces tecum B-1-149JNAF, B-1-149KO7L, and B-1-149J6ON is denied as
untimely.1 Section 11(1) of the Act and Sections 102.31(b) and 102.2 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. Subpoena B-1-
149JNAF, the first of these identical subpoenas to be served, was served on March 4,
2019. Thus, the petition, which was filed on March 20, 2019, is untimely.

1 The Region issued these three identical subpoenas duces tecum to the Petitioner on
February 27, 2019, each to a different address. The evidence indicates that subpoena
B-1-149JNAF was served on March 4, 2019; that subpoena B-1-149KO7L was served
on March 12, 2019; and that subpoena B-1-149J6ON was unable to be successfully
served and was returned to the sender. Although the Petitioner, in its Petition to
Revoke, failed to specify the number of the subpoena which it sought to revoke, we are
applying the petition to all three subpoenas since they are identical.
2
In addition, even assuming that the petition was timely filed, it is lacking in merit.
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
Petitioner 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).
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 15, 2020.
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER