International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 512

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 2019

12-CB-214255 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 512

and Case 12-CB-214255

NEIL ALLEN ASHER

ORDER1

The petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-11QSMZD filed by UPS
Ground Freight 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.
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 Chairman Ring and Member Emanuel would generally expect that the General
Counsel would attempt to obtain evidence from a party through reasonable voluntary
means before issuing a subpoena against a non-party, but they agree to deny the
Employer’s petition to revoke the subpoena in the circumstances presented here, for
institutional reasons and in light of the fact that the Employer is a party to the collective-
bargaining agreement at issue in this matter and created many of the documents
covered by the subpoena.
Member McFerran observes that the Board’s broad authority under Sec. 11(1) of
the Act to subpoena relevant evidence from non-parties is well established. See
Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745, 745 (2002) (rejecting argument that a non-
party is outside the scope of the Board’s subpoena authority); NLRB v. The Bakersfield
Californian, 128 F.3d 1339, 1342 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in [Section 11(1)], which
relates to the NLRB’s subpoena power, limits that power to persons being investigated
or proceeded against.”); Link v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 437, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1964) (same);
NLRB v. Lewis, 310 F.2d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 1962) (same). Accordingly, although she
shares her colleagues’ sentiment encouraging the General Counsel to seek voluntary
production by parties (and non-parties for that matter), she finds that the subpoena to

2 

Dated, Washington, D.C., March 27, 2019.

JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER

the Employer in this case is fully justified under longstanding Board and judicial
precedent.