Hilton Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Arizona Biltmore

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 2016

28-CA-160013 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC. d/b/a
ARIZONA BILTMORE
and Case 28-CA-160013
ALLYSON RAMON
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-PD9OK5 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).3

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 We find no merit to the Region’s assertion that the petition should be rejected as
untimely. Sec. 11 of the Act and Sec. 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provide that a subpoenaed party has 5 days after receipt of a subpoena in which to file
a petition to revoke. In addition, Sec. 102.111(a) of the Rules provides that when the
period of time provided by any of the Board's rules is less than 7 days, the intermediate
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays shall be excluded from the computation. Here, the
subpoena was received by the Employer on December 2, 2015. Therefore, the petition
was timely filed on December 8.
3 With the following exceptions relating to paragraphs 3 and 8 of the subpoena,
Member Miscimarra joins his colleagues in denying the petition to revoke.
Paragraph 3 of the subpoena states as follows:
Documents as will show [the Charging Party’s] complete personnel file, including
her job description, prior discipline, and any electronic, paper, internal, and
external communications and her disciplinary file, including documents related to
the disciplinary decisions made about her culminating in the decision to terminate
her on or about May 12, 2015.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 17, 2016
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

In its petition to revoke, the Employer argues that this paragraph “confusingly seeks
to identify what may be in said personnel file[,]” and that the “request seeks undefined
external communications.” Member Miscimarra believes the language, “as will show . . .
[the] complete personnel file” and “any electronic, paper, internal and external
communications” is ambiguous insofar as it does not clearly state what it is referring to,
and could be misinterpreted. Thus, he would require the Region to clarify what it seeks
to obtain through this particular language – specifically, whether the Region seeking the
Charging Party’s “complete personnel file” (as defined by Respondent consistent with its
internal practice) supplemented by additional documents, if any, that fall in the
subsequent categories, and what the Region intends by “any electronic, paper, internal
and external communications.” The Employer also argues, among other things, that the
Region’s investigation of the charge “does not necessitate the release of the full
contents of Ramon’s personnel file, which may include her new hire paperwork, W-4
form, I-9 form, payroll deduction forms, and similar documents.” In addition, the
Employer states that the Charging Party’s “privacy rights preclude production of such
information as well.” Member Miscimarra would require the Region to consult with the
Employer to clarify whether it is, in fact, seeking such items and, if so, to consult with
the Employer about potentially redacting information such as social security numbers
from the documents.
Paragraph 8 of the subpoena requests: “Documents as will show the names and
addresses of customers staying in rooms cleaned by [the Charging Party] on May 2,
2015 and May 3, 2015.” In its petition to revoke, the Employer argues: “For obvious
reasons, this request seeks confidential information and disclosure of such information
will violate the privacy rights of such guests. Furthermore, the request seeks irrelevant
information as the names and addresses of the hotel's guests are not relevant to [the
Charging Party’s] terminable offense.” Member Miscimarra would grant the petition to
revoke as to this request, without prejudice to the Region’s right to issue a subpoena
seeking these documents at such time that the Region could prove that these
documents are directly relevant to matters “in question” in this case and that the need
for these documents outweighs the confidentiality and privacy interests described
above.