Lands' End, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 2014

30-CA-109700 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LANDS’ END, INC.
and Case 30-CA-109700
SHEET METAL AIR RAIL TRANSPORTATION
UNION, LOCAL 565-WISCONSIN, AFL-CIO
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-712585 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.2 See generally NLRB v.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to
a three-member panel.
2 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, states whether those
previously-supplied documents constitute all of the requested documents, and provides all
of the information that was subpoenaed.
To the extent that the subpoena encompasses some documents that the Employer
believes in good faith to be subject to the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges, Member Miscimarra observes that the subpoena, with which the Employer must
now comply, permits the Employer to submit a privilege log identifying and describing each
such document, providing sufficient detail to permit an assessment of the Employer’s claim
of privilege, and the Employer is directed to produce all responsive documents not subject
to any good faith claim of privilege.
Member Schiffer would grant the Employer’s petition to revoke as to subpoena
paragraph 9, in part. That paragraph broadly requests all documentation of
communications by all the Employer’s managers, supervisors, and leadpersons regarding
the Union’s organizing campaign. The Employer objects to this request on several
grounds, including relevancy. In its opposition, the Region offers no rationale for its wide-
ranging request; in fact, the Region does not address subpoena paragraph 9 at all. In
those circumstances, Member Schiffer would revoke paragraph 9 to the extent it seeks
documents beyond those relating to the Union’s leafleting activities; documents concerning
the latter were discussed by the parties in their efforts to achieve voluntary compliance and
clearly relate to allegations concerning the Employer’s solicitation and distribution policy.
2
North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food
Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 9, 2014.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER