American Steamship Company/Liberty Steamship Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 2014

03-CA-107658 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 9, 2014)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY;
LIBERTY STEAMSHIP COMPANY
and Case 03-CA-107658
UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 5000
ORDER1
The Employer’s petitions to revoke, in part, subpoena ad testificandum A-972414
and subpoena duces tecum B-707981 are denied.2 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 Employer has failed to establish any other
legal basis for revoking the subpoenas.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.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 We grant the Employer’s motion for leave to file a reply brief while noting that it has been
the Board’s practice to follow D.L. Baker Inc., 330 NLRB 521, 521 fn. 4 (2000), with regard
to petitions to revoke investigative subpoenas and to allow the moving party to file a reply
brief without first moving for special leave of the Board “just as a party filing exceptions
under Section 102.46 is permitted to file such a brief.”
3 To the extent that the Employer has provided some of the requested material, it is not
required to produce that information again, provided that the Employer accurately
describes which documents under subpoena it has already provided, and in which cases it
has provided them, and provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.
2
1996).4
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 9, 2014.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

4 In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated subpoena B-707981 as clarified
by the Region in its opposition brief, in which the Region indicated that, where the
subpoena seeks information about temporary employees and the regular employees for
whom they are filling in, it considers employees who have been hired as permanent
replacements to fall within the category of regular, rather than temporary, employees.