MIL-CON Electric Company

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 17, 2010

12-CA-026611 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MIL-CON ELECTRIC COMPANY
and Case 12-CA-26611
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 756
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-563326 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 subpoenas. See generally, NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing,

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this
proceeding to a three-member panel.
2 Member Hayes would grant the petition, and revoke the subpoena to the extent
it purports to require the production of documents at any particular location,
including the Regional Office. In his view, Sec. 11(1) only requires a party
subject to an otherwise valid investigatory subpoena to produce documents for
inspection and copying at the site where such documents are maintained. It
does not, in the course of an unfair labor practice investigation, require a party,
over its objection, to produce such documents at any other place, including the
Regional Office. Absent such an obligation, the fact that the Region offered the
Employer a putative accommodation permitting delivery of the documents at the
Board’s Jacksonville office, instead of its Tampa office, is irrelevant. To the
extent that EEOC v. Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 476-477 (4th Cir. 1986),
cert denied 479 U.S. 815 (1986), holds to the contrary, Member Hayes
respectfully disagrees.
2
Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81
F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).3
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 17, 2010.
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE MEMBER
BRIAN E. HAYES MEMBER

3 Contrary to our dissenting colleague, the Employer must produce documents
at the location specified in the subpoena, not simply to permit access to
documents at a location of the Employer’s own choosing. See EEOC v.
Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 476-477 (4th Cir. 1986), cert denied 479 U.S.
815 (1986) (Sec. 11 of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes that
documents are to be delivered to the government’s office). We also note that the
Region has offered various alternatives to the Employer in lieu of producing the
documents at the Board’s Tampa regional office, including production of
documents at the Board’s nearby resident office in Jacksonville, as well as
offering other alternative accommodations to the Employer.
The Region stated in its opposition brief that it will modify paragraphs 2 and 3
of the subpoena to seek only “such personnel records and other documents…”
as opposed to “all personnel records and other documents….” In considering the
petition to revoke, we have reviewed the subpoena as being modified as stated
by the Region.