L'OREAL USA

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2013

22-CA-099835 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L’OREAL USA
and Case 22-CA-099835

LOCAL 262 OF NEW JERSEY
RWDSU, UFCW
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-705089 is denied.
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. Further, the
Employer has failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.2 See
generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v.

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, we have evaluated the subpoena in light of the
Region's statement that it has modified the scope of the subpoena so that it is “no
longer seeking the documents with regard to hiring decisions that were made before
February 2012.” (Region's Opposition, p. 4, fn. 1). In addition, we observe that with
respect to subpoena paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, the Region stated that “[t]he Employer has
produced information to the Region’s satisfaction.” (Opposition, p. 2.)
With respect to the Employer’s objection that paragraph 4 is not sufficiently
particular, we note that the Region subsequently stated that it “is seeking interview
notes, policies, and e-mails that the Employer relied on in making relevant hiring
decisions.” (Opposition, p. 5.) Without passing on whether the original subpoena
language described the documents sought with sufficient particularity, we find that the
Region’s subsequent clarification has removed any ambiguity. Finally, we reject the
Employer’s argument that the relevant investigatory period ended April 30, 2013. Since
the Union contends that the Employer’s discrimination is ongoing, we agree with the
Region that the relevant investigatory period extends “to the present,” as clearly set out
in subpoena paragraph 2.
2
Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 27, 2013.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER