US SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 3, 2012

22-CA-063206 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
and Case 22-CA-63206
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 32BJ
ORDER
The petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-612341 filed by U. S.
Security Associates, Inc. is granted in part and denied in part. The petition is
granted to the extent that the materials requested shall be limited to documents
and records regarding employees working for the Petitioner in its Northern New
Jersey Region. In this regard, we find that the Region has failed to adequately
articulate its reasons for requesting information and records regarding all of the
Petitioner’s employees in the State of New Jersey. This Order is without
prejudice to the Region’s right to issue a new subpoena seeking additional
information if the information provided by the Petitioner under the instant
subpoena, as limited, proves insufficient and the Region can establish why such
additional information is relevant to its investigation.1
In all other respects, the petition to revoke the subpoena is denied. The
subpoena, as narrowed, 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

1 Prior to issuing a new subpoena, the Region should enter into discussions with
the Petitioner regarding any additional information needed to complete the
investigation.
2
and Regulations. Further, the Petitioner has failed to establish any other legal
basis for revoking the subpoena. 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., January 3, 2012.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER
Member Hayes, dissenting.
Member Hayes would grant the petition to revoke in full. In his view, the
Region has all the information needed to complete the investigation of the charge
allegations and has no warrant to expand this investigation to make this case one
of statewide scope. Further, he agrees with the Petitioner’s argument that
issuance of the subpoena was premature in light of offers to further discuss ways
in which to satisfy the Region’s information needs, if properly limited in scope.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 3, 2012.
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER