Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Upmc Presbyterian Shadyside
| Decision Date | 02 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | 14mc00109,14mc00111,14mc00110 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. UPMC, Respondent. |
The matters currently pending before this Court, which were assigned while the undersigned was serving as the Miscellaneous Judge at the time of filing, are three (3) Applications for Summary Order(s) Enforcing Subpoena Duces Tecum:
3. NLRB's Subpoena Duces Tecum No. 720504, issued at the request of SEIU Union ("SEIU" or "Union"), directed to UPMC, filed at 14mc00111.
The scope and nature of the three (3) Subpoenas, individually and collectively, are overly broad and unfocused. The Court has never seen a document request/Subpoena Duces Tecum of such a massive nature. The Court does not see how these requests have any legitimate relationship or relevance to the underlying alleged unfair labor practices;1 instead, the requests seek highly confidential and proprietary information (except for a few public documents); the requests have no proportionality to the underlying charges;2 and, the requests seek information that a union would not be entitled to receive as part of a normal organization effort. Indeed, the scope and nature of the requests, coupled with the NLRB's efforts to obtain said documents for,and on behalf of, the SEIU, arguably moves the NLRB from its investigatory function and enforcer of federal labor law, to serving as the litigation arm of the Union, and a co-participant in the ongoing organization effort of the Union.3
The requests are so extensive that the Court will not attempt to list them in this Opinion, but instead has attached these requests hereto. See Attachment 1 (14mc00109), Attachment 2 (14mc00110), and Attachment 3 (14mc00111).
Certain employees at Presbyterian were in the early stages of attempting to unionize through the SEIU when certain unfair labor practices allegedly began to occur.
The underlying charges argue that on November 19, 2012, Presbyterian began engaging in: surveillance of its employee's union activities and making the surveillance known to employees; interrogating its employees about their union activities; threatening and impliedly threatening employees with discipline and even arrest, if they continued to support the union movement; and selectively enforcing its solicitation policies again employees who supported the union. (Doc. No. 1-3 at p.15; Doc. No. 1-8 p. 2.)
SEIU filed charges with the NLRB in relation to these unfair labor practices and then the National Labor Relations Board issued an Order Consolidating the Cases. In its Amended Consolidated Complaint, the NLRB alleged that Presbyterian and UPMC are a single-employer within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 29 U.S.C. § 161, et. seq.4UPMC contends that it is not a single employer and therefore is not a proper party to this suit. This argument was previously raised by UPMC in a motion before the ALJ, which was denied. (Doc. No. 1-12).
The following is the procedural history for Subpoena Duces Tecum Nos. B-7205654 (14mc00109), No. B-720563 (14mc00110), and No. B-720504 (14mc00111), respectively:
¦ October 25, 2013 - At the request of Counsel for the SEIU and pursuant to Section 11(1) of the NLRA, the Regional Director for Region 6 issued Subpoena B-720504, directing the Custodian of Records of the Respondent to appear before an ALJ on the NLRB, which was reset twice (due to a government shutdown) to occur on February 3, 2014, to produce various documents. (Doc. No. 1-10. p 3.)
¦ November 5, 2013 - the Regional Director of Region 6 issued an Order further Consolidating Cases and Amendment to Consolidated complaint against Respondent Presyterian. (Doc. No. 1-11 at p.3).
¦ January 9, 2014 - the Regional Director issued Second Order Further Consolidating Cases and Amended Consolidated Complaint. This Order added 2 additional cases beyond the 22 that appeared in the initial Consolidated Complaint, Cases 6-CA-111578, and 6-CA-115826. Further, in the Amended Consolidated Complaint, single employer allegations were added. (Doc. No. 1-11pp. 2-3).
¦ January 27, 2014 - Respondents moved that (1) single employer allegations concerning UPMC and Presbyterian be dismissed; and (2) UPMC be dismissed as a Respondent. (Doc. No. 1-11 p. 1).
¦ February 7, 2014 - ALJ denied Motion to Dismiss, which read in its entirety (Doc. No. 1 p. 5 and Doc. No. 1-12).
¦ February 24, 2014 - ALJ denied Respondents' Petition to Revoke Subpoenas on the record at a hearing in the alleged unfair labor practice proceeding except as follows:
o Paragraph 35 in No. 720565:
o Paragraph 35 in No. 720563
o Paragraphs 1-4, 10-11, 17, 19-21, 26-28, 39, 49-53, 57, 60-65, and 67-69 in No. 720504 (Doc. No. 1-9, pp. 5-6).
o Nothing prohibits in the ALJ's decision prohibits the NLRB from sharing said documents with the SEIU, or with anyone else (Doc. No. 1-9).
¦ February 27, 2014 - Counsel for Respondents noted in an email that notwithstanding the ALJ's ruling, it did not intend to comply with any Subpoena because it is not a single employer with Presbyterian (Doc. No. 1-7).
¦ March 20, 2014 - NLRB filed the instant Applications for Summary Order(s) Enforcing Subpoenas in this Court (Doc. No. 1).
A District Court should enforce an administrative subpoena if the following elements are met: (1) if is for a legitimate and proper purpose; (2) if the inquiry is reasonably relevant to the purpose; and (3) if the demand is not too indefinite, too broad, or unreasonable. See United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1964); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 509 (1943); NLRB v. Frazier, 966 F.2d 812, 815 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 248, 254-255, 13 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964)). As set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, NLRB v. Interstate Dress Carriers, 610 F.2d 99, 111 (3d Cir. 1979) (quoting Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 216, 66 S.Ct. 494, 509, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946)).
Therefore, in order to enforce these Administrative Subpoenas, the NLRB must demonstrate that: (1) its investigation has a legitimate purpose; (2) the inquiry is relevant to that purpose; (3) the agency does not already possess the information requested; (4) the agency has complied with relevant administrative requirements; and (5) the demand is not "unreasonably broad or burdensome." See 09mc00079 at Doc. No. 32-1 at 11, E.E.O.C. v. Kronos Inc., 620F.2d 287 (3d Cir. 2010) ().
Section 11(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Section 161(1), provides that the Board shall have access to any evidence "that relates to any matter under investigation or in question." While the Board has no independent authority to enforce its subpoenas, Section 11(2) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Section 161(2), grants jurisdiction to this Court to enforce Board subpoenas. An application for enforcement of an administrative subpoena is a summary proceeding, and the subpoena "must be enforced if the documents sought could be pertinent to a legitimate agency inquiry." United States v. O'Neill, 619 F.2d. 222, 228 (3d Cir. 1980). See also NLRB v. O- T Shoe Mfg. Co., 409 F.2d 1247, 1253 (3d Cir. 1969).
The enforcement of subpoenas is confined to the discretion of Federal District Courts, although in passing on a request for enforcement of a subpoena, the NLRB contends that the District Court's intrusion into the NLRB's domain is narrowly restricted. Doc. No. 2 at 5. See also Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 122 F.2d 450 (6th Cir. 1941). A court ordinarily will enforce an NLRB subpoena if the underlying investigation is within its authority and jurisdiction, the subpoena is not too indefinite, and the information sought is reasonably relevant to the investigation. NLRB v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 611 F.Supp. 760 (N.D. 1985). Because the requirement that a subpoena for the production of evidence must merely relate to a matter under investigation, the scope of a District Court's inquiry includes determining whether: (1) the matter under...
To continue reading
Request your trial