FedEx Freight East, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 2016

13-CA-166350 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FEDEX FREIGHT EAST, INC.
and Case 13-CA-166350
JOHN MARSHALL
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-RA5R6L is
denied.2 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 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).
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 13, 2016.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 To the extent that the Employer has provided some of the requested material, it is not
required to produce that information again, provided that the Employer accurately
describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, states whether
those previously provided documents constitute all of the requested documents, and
provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
The Region indicated in its opposition brief that it is willing to modify the subpoena by
limiting the information requested in paragraphs 1 and 4 to the Employer’s Midwest
Region. (Opp. p. 4.) In addition, the Region clarified that it is seeking electronic
information only from the Employer’s centrally located computer systems. (Opp. p. 5)
In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoena as modified in
this manner. We have also evaluated the subpoena in light of the Region’s clarification
in its opposition brief that the requests in subpoena paragraphs 2 and 3, regarding alert
line calls and any ensuing investigations, are limited to just those alert line calls similar
to the call lodged against the Charging Party. (Opp. p. 6.)