PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 2016

12-CA-155609 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION SERVICES, INC.
and Case 12-CA-155609
SAMUEL DIAZ
ORDER1
The petitions to revoke subpoenas A-1-PCOC6H and A-1-PCOCCB filed by
Southwest Airlines, Inc. are denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the
matters under investigation and describe 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 Petitioner 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. 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 Contrary to the Petitioner’s argument, the Board has full authority to issue an
investigative subpoena to a non-party. Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745, 745
(2002) (rejecting argument that a non-party is outside the scope of the Board’s
subpoena authority); NLRB v. The Bakersfield Californian, 128 F.3d 1339, 1342 (9th
Cir. 1997) (NLRB has authority to issue investigatory subpoenas to nonparties in unfair
labor practice proceedings); Link v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 437, 439-440 (4th Cir. 1964)
(same); NLRB v. Lewis, 310 F.2d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 1962). See also NLRB
Casehandling Manual (Part One) Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings Sec. 11770.2.
3 Member Miscimarra agrees that the petitions to revoke should be denied since
Petitioner has failed to raise any meritorious grounds for revocation. Consistent with his
position in Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, 28-CA-149798 (Aug. 24,
2015), CCR Fire Protection, LLC, 15-CA-134356 (Feb. 23, 2015), and International
Union of Elevator Constructors (Otis Elevator), 29-CB-084077 (Aug. 29, 2014), Member
Miscimarra notes that the instant subpoenas ad testificandum, which only identify a
case name and number, are deficient because they fail to state with sufficient
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 10, 2016
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

particularity the evidence being sought. He concurs, however, in the denial of the
petitions to revoke in the absence of any objection to the subpoenas on this basis.