Sanderson Farms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 13, 2013

15-CA-089244 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SANDERSON FARMS, INCORPORATED
and Case 15-CA-089244
TINA TAYLOR
ORDER
The petition and first amended petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-
626194 filed by Sanderson Farms, Incorporated are denied.1 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 Petitioner has failed to
establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoenas. 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).2

1 In the first amended petition, the Employer submits the text of the initial petition with
the added argument that the Board does not have the required constitutional quorum to
decide to enforce the subpoena. We reject this argument. We recognize that the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has found that the
President’s recess appointments were not valid. See Noel Canning v. NLRB, ___ F.3d
___ (D.C. Cir. 2013). However, as the court itself acknowledged, its decision is in
conflict with at least three other courts of appeals. See Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d
1220 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 942 (2005); U.S. v. Woodley, 751 F.2d
1008 (9th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Allocco, 305 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1962). This question
remains in litigation, and until such time as it is ultimately resolved, the Board is charged
to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act.
2 The Petitioner asserts that subpoena paragraphs 1, 2, and 9 seek confidential
medical information about employees that should not be disclosed under Federal law,
including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Petitioner,
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2013.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR., MEMBER
SHARON BLOCK, MEMBER

however, offers no argument supporting that assertion. Nevertheless, in an abundance
of caution, the Regional Director shall ensure that this Order is implemented in a
manner consistent with those laws.