Arnold Walter Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Dec 15, 2020

22-CA-180557 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 15, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARNOLD WALTER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER
and Cases 22-CA-180557
22-CA-186982
1199 SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST
ORDER1
Petitioner Arnold Walter Nursing and Rehabilitation Center’s Petition to Revoke
subpoena duces tecum B-1-1ASV8JJ is denied. The subpoena 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 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).2
1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
2 With respect to the Petitioner’s stated concerns about confidentiality, attorney-client privilege,
and attorney work product, we find that it has failed to explain why the procedure set forth in
paragraph “m” of the subpoena’s Definitions and Instructions is not sufficient to address its
concerns. To the extent the subpoena encompasses documents that the Petitioner believes in
good faith to be protected from disclosure, the Petitioner may submit a privilege log providing
sufficient detail to permit an assessment of its claims. In addition, if its concerns can be
substantiated, it may seek a confidentiality agreement with the General Counsel. The Petitioner
is directed to produce all responsive documents in its possession not subject to any good faith
claim of privilege or protection.
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2020
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
We reject the Petitioner’s claim that the subpoena should be revoked because it contained a
return date within five business days from the date of service. Upon receipt of the petition to
revoke, the General Counsel notified the Petitioner that the subpoena’s initial return date was a
typographical error and that it intended a later return date. The Petitioner did not respond to
that notification. In any event, the Petitioner has alleged no prejudice from the initial return
date; it was able to timely file a petition to revoke within the five-day period provided in the
Act and the Board’s Rules. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the time period for compliance is unreasonable.