Pet Plastics, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 2014

12-CA-129395 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PET PLASTICS, LLC
and Case 12-CA-129395
ANGEL L. VAZQUEZ TORRES
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition and amended petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum
B-1-IIEMCH are 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. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.
1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).3

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to
a three-member panel.
2 We find that the Employer’s “blanket and generalized” assertions of confidentiality
are insufficient. U.S. v. International Business Machines Corp., 81 F.R.D. 628, 630
(S.D.N.Y. 1979).
3 We reject the Employer’s contention that the subpoena should be revoked because
the Region failed to properly serve the subpoena on the Employer’s attorney. No
prejudice resulted from this failure, as the petition to revoke was timely filed. See, e.g.,
NLRB v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518, 520 (7th Cir. 1970) (court enforced Board’s
subpoenas, despite failure to serve respondents' attorneys, noting that the specific
respondents were personally served and that timely petitions to revoke were filed and
thus, no prejudice was shown); NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 811 F.2d 607, 607 (6th
Cir. 1986) (failure to serve respondent’s counsel violated the Board’s rules, but the
subpoena was enforced because the petition to revoke was timely filed, and thus no
prejudice was shown). Because we find that the petitions to revoke the subpoena lack
merit, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Region’s additional argument that the
amended petition was untimely filed.
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
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 25, 2014
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

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.