U. S. Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Dec 30, 2013

12-CA-109418 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
US FOODS, INC.
and Case 12-CA-109418
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 385
ORDER1
The petition to revoke in part subpoena duces tecum B-710877 is denied.2 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.3 Further, the 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).

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 In considering the petition to revoke in part, we have evaluated the subpoena duces
tecum as modified by the Region in its October 29, 2013 opposition brief. The Region has
narrowed the subpoena by withdrawing the request for “all documents” in paragraph 1 and
by limiting the geographical scope of the requests in paragraphs 13, 15, and 16 to the
Employer’s Port Orange, Florida division, including any satellite locations within that
division.
Member Johnson would deny the Employer’s petition to revoke in part without prejudice
to the Employer’s renewing its petition within 14 days. Member Johnson would permit the
Employer to renew its petition supported by specific evidence of the cost estimates related
to providing the ESI requested in paragraphs 12-16, 20 and 25 – as well as specific
evidence of the costs related to providing emails, Xata logs (paper or ESI) and Red Prairie
logs (paper or ESI.).
3 To the extent that the Employer has already provided the Region with documents
encompassed by this subpoena, it is not again required to provide them, provided that the
Employer accurately describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided,
states whether those previously-supplied documents constitute all of the requested
documents, and provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
Dated, Washington D.C., December 30, 2013
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER