LM Windpower

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 25, 2015

15-CA-136570 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LM WIND POWER
and Case 15-CA-136570
MELINDA KANNADA
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke Subpoena B-716333 is denied, except as described
below.2 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).
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 25, 2015
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 We grant the petition to revoke as to documents pertaining to discipline and terminations for
reasons unrelated to those articulated by the Employer for its adverse employment actions
against the charging party; therefore, the Employer shall produce responsive documents
regarding discipline and terminations imposed for reasons that were the same as or similar to
those applicable (according to the Employer) to the charging party. This is without prejudice
to any new subpoena seeking documents regarding discipline or terminations for other,
dissimilar reasons, to the extent such documents are relevant to the investigation.
Member Hirozawa would deny the petition in its entirety. The subpoena seeks
information relevant to the matter under investigation and describes with sufficient
particularity the evidence sought. Discipline and termination records are routinely requested
and produced in the investigation of unlawful discharge allegations, and the temporal scope
of the Region’s request is reasonable. The merits of the charge may very well turn on
whether other employees were disciplined or terminated for similar reasons. Allowing the
Employer to determine unilaterally what is “similar” would inappropriately hinder the Region’s
investigation.