Jung Sun Laundry Group Corp

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 2010

29-CA-029946 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 3, 2010)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JUNG SUN LAUNDRY GROUP CORP.
and Case 29-CA-29946
LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING AND
ALLIED WORKERS JOINT BOARD,
WORKERS UNITED, A SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNAL UNION AFFILIATE
ORDER
The Charging Party Union's Request for Special Permission to Appeal
Administrative Law Judge Keltner Locke's Order denying the Union's petition for partial
revocation of the Respondent's subpoena is granted, and the judge's order is overruled
to the extent consistent with the discussion below.
1. Subpoena paragraphs 10-11 seek certain of the Union's collective-bargaining
agreements with employers other than the Respondent. In its brief, without conceding
that the documents are relevant, the Union offered to provide the following documents
to the Respondent:
[First], the two current collective bargaining agreements .... that the
Union has with hospitality laundries, with the names of the companies,
and the contracts' effective dates redacted out of the agreement ... [and
not including] the contract for the other hospitality laundry that is a former
association member, since there is no such contract at this time....
Second, ... the excerpted [most favored nations] clause from every single
one of its current contracts that has such a clause, along with a cover
page and signature page for that contract, again, with the names of the
companies and terms redacted out of the agreement.
It appears that when the judge ruled on the Union's petition, the Union had not
yet offered to provide the above documents, so the judge had no opportunity to consider
the merits of the Union's offer. Therefore, we review that offer de novo.1 We find that
the documents the Union has offered to provide may be sufficient for the Respondent to
evaluate whether the most favored nations clauses are relevant to the party's
negotiations, and, if so, whether those clauses might be a factor in determining the
lawfulness of the Respondent's declaration of impasse. In this regard, if the most
favored nations clauses (1) demonstrate that the collective-bargaining agreements are
not relevant to the parties' negotiations, or (2) yield relevant information sufficient for the
Respondent's defense, there will be no need for production of any of the remaining
terms of the subpoenaed agreements. If, on the other hand, an examination of the most
favored nations clauses indicates that other provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreements will be relevant to its defense, then the Respondent i s free to seek the
production of those provisions. In so doing, the Respondent should state, with respect
to each provision sought, its reasons for believing that that provision is relevant and
necessary to the presentation of its case.
2. Subpoena paragraphs 22-24 and the challenged parts of subpoena paragraph
25 seek all documents regarding the Union's collective-bargaining agreements and
most favored nations clauses in effect during a three-year period, and minutes of
meetings between the Union and employers other than the Respondent regarding
collective-bargaining negotiations from January 1, 2009 through the present. We find
merit in the Union's argument that the subpoena should be revoked with respect to
these documents. The Respondent has presented no basis for a finding that its interest
in the disclosure of these documents outweighs the Union's considerable interest, as
described in its brief, in maintaining their confidentiality. See Berbiglia, Inc., 233 NLRB
1 In its Opposition to the Union's Request for Special Permission to Appeal, the
Respondent did not address the compromise offered by the Union.
2
1476, 1495 (1977) (a subpoena seeking documents relating to the Union's bargaining
strategy and its communications with employees was properly revoked; the ALJ
reasoned that "requiring the Union to open its files to Respondent would be inconsistent
with and subversive of the very essence of collective bargaining.... If collective
bargaining is to work, the parties must be able to formulate their positions and devise
their strategies without fear of exposure. This necessity is so self-evident as apparently
never to have been questioned"). See also Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314-
315 (1979) (the Supreme Court held that the Board erred in ordering the employer to
provide requested information to the union, despite the employer's contention that it had
a legitimate interest in keeping the information confidential. The Court held that the
Board failed to properly weigh the union's interest in obtaining the information against
the employer's valid confidentiality concerns).
We recognize that the judge ordered these documents produced subject to
recording on a privilege log, redaction, and in camera examination. However, in light of
the Respondent's failure to establish that its need for these documents outweighs the
Union's interest in their confidentiality, we find that the Union's interests outweigh those
of the Respondent, and that the documents need not be produced even under the
protocol set out by the judge. Therefore, we find that the judge erred in ordering the
Union to produce these documents.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 3, 2010.
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
3