Puma Energy Caribe, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 2015

12-CA-146113 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 24, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PUMA ENERGY CARIBE, LLC
and Cases 12-CA-146113
12-CA-146902
UNIÓN DE TRONQUISTAS DE 12-CA-150264
PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901, IBT
ORDER1
The Employer’s petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-MR243X is denied.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).3

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 Accordingly, the Employer’s unsupported request for costs, attorney’s fees, and additional
relief is denied.
3 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.
In addition, the General Counsel has indicated in his opposition brief that he is willing to
modify the subpoena by limiting the information requested in paragraph 2, to reflect the
Employer’s partial production of documents. In considering the petition to revoke, we have
evaluated the subpoena as modified in this manner.
With respect to the Employer’s argument that the subpoena seeks confidential
information, we note that it has provided no legal or factual support for this
assertion. Further, the Region notes in its opposition to the petition to revoke that it
does not object to the Employer redacting employees’ Social Security numbers
before it produces the requested information.
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 24, 2015.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER