PAVESTONE COMPANY

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Apr 19, 2017

01-CA-184702 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PAVESTONE COMPANY
and Case 01-CA-184702
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 653
ORDER
The Employer’s Petition to Revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-U4WPMD is
denied.1 The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters under investigation

1 The Employer states in its petition to revoke that it “stipulates and admits it is an
employer in commerce as that term is used in the National Labor Relations Act and is
subject to the Board’s jurisdiction,” arguing that the material requested in paragraph 1 of
the subpoena is irrelevant for this reason. (Pet. p. 2.) In its opposition brief, the Region
states that it “accepts the Employer’s assertion that the Employer meets the Board’s
jurisdictional standard provided that the Employer is willing to admit to the fact that
annually it ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located
outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the event that a Complaint and Notice
of Hearing is subsequently issued by the Region.” (Opp. p. 2.) We have evaluated the
subpoena in light of the Region’s conditional acceptance of the Employer’s stipulation,
and we agree that the Employer is not required to provide the information requested in
paragraph 1 of the subpoena, provided that the Employer agrees, in the event that a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing is subsequently issued by the Region, to admit to the
fact that annually it ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, the subpoena as
written describes with sufficient particularity the employees to whom the requests apply;
indeed the Employer did not argue otherwise in its petition to revoke.
Finally, 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.
Acting Chairman Miscimarra notes that par. 2 of the subpoena requests a “[l]ist of
the names, job titles, addresses, and telephone numbers for all employees employed by
Respondent at its Middleboro, Massachusetts facility for any length of time from
January 1, 2016 to the present.” With regard to requests pertaining to “all employees,”
Acting Chairman Miscimarra would grant the petition to revoke to the extent that the
2
and describes with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, as required by Section
11(1) of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the National Labor Relations 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., April 19, 2017
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, ACTING CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

requests encompass non-statutory employees. See Interstate Distributor Co., Case 12-
CA-172986 (Sept. 16, 2016).