TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., ABEL MENDOZA, INC., SLINGSHOT CONNECTIONS, LLC, TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, IN

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 2015

32-CA-116854 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC./SLINGSHOT
CONNECTIONS, LLC/ABEL MENDOZA, INC.
and Case 32-CA-116854

TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 601,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS
ORDER1
Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc.’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-
IYAUPT, SlingShot Connections, LLC’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-
IYBBGB, and Abel Mendoza, Inc.’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-
IYBG6V 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 Employers have failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the
subpoenas.2 See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 With respect to privacy argument raised by Petitioner SlingShot, Member Johnson
would find in accordance with his stated views in other subpoena cases that, to the
extent that a state law privacy interest is implicated by a petitioner’s privacy claim, that
such privacy interest would be generally cognizable in the context of objections to Board
subpoenas. See Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc./Slingshot Connections, LLC/Abel Mendoza,
Inc., 32-CA-116854 (order denying petition issued 05/23/2014). However, here,
Petitioner SlingShot has failed to establish that the asserted state employee privacy
rights would prevail when balanced against the government’s need for the sought-after
information. To aid in its evaluation of the Union’s contentions of majority support in this
case, the Region requested that the Employers provide the Region with the payroll
records and signature samples of the unit employees at those facilities in order to
authenticate union authorization cards. Petitioner has failed to establish that there is a
2
1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).3
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 6, 2015.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER

privacy interest in sample signatures, much less payroll records required to be kept by
law, nor that such interest would outweigh the Region’s need to determine whether the
Union actually obtained majority support for potential remedial purposes.
3 Petitioner SlingShot argues that some of the requested information is not in its
possession, but rather is in the possession of SlingShot's vendor, Quality Farm Labor
(QFL). Although the subpoena cannot compel SlingShot to produce information it does
not possess, it does compel SlingShot to seek that information from QFL. If QFL does
not comply with a request for the information from SlingShot, nothing would prevent the
Region from seeking that information directly from QFL.