Sysco of Central California Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsMay 28, 2010

32-CA-024883 (N.L.R.B. May. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SYSCO OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC. and Case 32-CA-24883 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS TEAMSTER UNION LOCALS 386, 431, 853 ORDER' The Petitions to Revoke Subpoena Ad Testificandurn A-873595 and Subpoena Duces Tecum B-630442 are denied. The subpoenas seek information relevant to the matter 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 subpoenas. See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (91h Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4 1h Cir. 1996).' Dated, Washington D.C., May 28, 2010. PETER C. SCHAUMBER, MEMBER CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this roceeding to a three-member panel. The question whether the subpoenaed parties have fully complied with the subpoenas is an issue to be resolved in an enforcement proceeding in federal district court, not by the Board. See, e.g., Reich v. Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co., 32 F.3d 440, 444 (9th Cir. 1994) (agency subpoenas are not self-enforcing and if resisted, agency must seek judicial enforcement); Shea v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 934 F.2d 41, 45 (3rd Cir. 1991) (administrative subpoenas are not self-enforcing; if subpoenaed party refuses to comply, issuing agency may file an enforcement action in federal district court).