Allied Waste of Santa Clara County

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Dec 3, 2012

32-CA-085550 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ALLIED WASTE OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
and Case 32-CA-085550
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350
ORDER
The petitions to revoke the Acting General Counsel’s investigative subpoena ad
testificandum A-894492 and subpoena duces tecum B-567909 filed by Allied Waste of
Santa Clara County are denied.1
The petitions to revoke were untimely filed under Section 11(1) of the Act and
Sections 102.31 and 102.111 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, which require such
petitions to be filed within five days after the date of service of the subpoena. A certified
mail receipt signed by a representative of the Employer establishes that the subpoena
was received by the Employer on September 11, 2012. The due date for receipt of the
petition to revoke was September 18, 2012, but it was not filed until September 26,
2012. The Employer neither filed a request for an extension of time nor proffered any
explanation for the delayed filing.2 No party has argued that any policy considerations
warrant disregard of the Board’s five-day rule.
In addition, even assuming that the petitions were timely filed, they are lacking in
merit. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matter under investigation and

1 The Petitioner’s request that its petitions to revoke be made part of the official record
in this case is denied as premature, without prejudice to the Petitioner renewing this
request if these investigative proceedings progress to the stage where an official record
is created.
2 The Employer asserted, without any supporting evidence, that the subpoenas were
served on September 19, 2012.
2
describe 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 subpoenas. 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). Accordingly, the petitions
are denied.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 3, 2012
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR., MEMBER
SHARON BLOCK, MEMBER