SPRAIN BROOK MANOR REHAB, LLC, PINNACLE DIETARY INC., AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORP.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 6, 2014

02-CA-089480 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING
HOME, LLC et al.
and Case 02-CA-089480

1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST
ORDER1
The petition of SC & BP Service, Inc. to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-709366
is granted in part. We find that the scope of Paragraph 8 is overbroad to the extent it
seeks documents and correspondence between the Petitioner and “any other union.”
Without prejudice to the General Counsel’s right to subpoena these documents if their
relevance can be established and the scope more clearly defined, we grant the petition
to revoke on this limited point.2
In all other respects, the petition is denied, as 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

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 Member Hirozawa views Paragraph 8 of the subpoena as sufficiently narrow
temporally and sufficiently related to the charges under investigation to warrant denial of
the petition to revoke.
Member Johnson also finds that the scope of the request in Paragraph 5 is
vague and overbroad to the extent it seeks Petitioner’s documents within the “New York
Metropolitan Area.” This definition is unclear, and the General Counsel has not
established the relevance of this range of documents to the allegations under
investigation. He therefore would limit the request to documents described in
Paragraph 5 from Petitioner’s facilities falling under the same management subdivision
or organization [e.g. the same division] of the Petitioner as the facility in question, if any,
in New York City and Westchester County, New York. He would do so without
prejudice to the General Counsel’s right to subpoena documents from other clearly-
defined geographic areas, provided their relevance is established.
2
Board’s Rules and Regulations. Further, the Petitioner has failed to establish any other
legal basis for revoking the subpoena.3 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., February 6, 2014.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III MEMBER

3 The Petitioner’s argument that the Acting General Counsel lacked the authority to
prosecute this case is rejected. Contrary to the Petitioner, the Acting General Counsel
was properly directed to perform the duties of that office under the Federal Vacancies
Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3345(a)(3), and not under the National Labor Relations Act,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 153(d). The Ardit Company, 360 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 1 (2013).