Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 2014

28-CA-111598 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHENEGA INTEGRATED
MISSION SUPPORT, LLC
and Case 28-CA-111598
SHEET METAL WORKERS’ INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION 359, AFL-CIO
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke in part subpoena duces tecum B-731346 is
denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matter 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
Employer 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 The Region’s unopposed motion to supplement its opposition to the Employer’s petition
is granted.
With respect to the Employer’s arguments that the subpoena seeks privileged or
confidential information, we note that it has provided no legal or factual support for these
assertions. In addition, we note that the Employer has failed to follow the procedures set
out in Para. P of the “Definitions and Instructions for Use” section of the subpoena, which
address such concerns. Thus, to the extent that the subpoena encompasses some
documents that the Employer believes in good faith to be protected from disclosure, the
Employer may submit a privilege log providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment by
the Region of the Employer’s claims, or seek a confidentiality agreement from the Region.
With respect to the relevance of the requested information to the Employer’s status
as a successor, the Board’s determination of that issue requires an examination of whether
the business is essentially the same and whether the employees are doing the same jobs
in the same working conditions under the same supervisors, including a consideration of
the work done by all employees, in order to determine if there is substantial continuity
between the enterprises. See Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27,
43 (1987) (citing NLRB v. Burns Security Servs., 406 U.S. 272 (1972)).
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 2, 2014.
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

Member Johnson would grant in part the Employer’s petition to revoke. In Member
Johnson’s view, the Region’s subpoena duces tecum is too broad. The focus of the
information sought should be on matters related to the unit of 14 tradesmen and helpers
who were represented by the Charging Party Union when employed by Chugach
Management Services. However, the subpoena requests documents regarding all of the
approximately 200 employees that were employed by Chugach. Member Johnson would
limit the information to be provided. Requests numbers 4 through 8 and 14 through 23
inclusive should be limited in scope to the following: Such requests should be limited to
apply only to those employees who are in or would be applying for jobs in the unit of
tradesmen and helpers, or any employees who perform any maintenance or maintenance
support work for the unit. Request number 4 further extends to anyone who supervises any
of the foregoing employees.