The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
National Labor Relations Board ("Board" or, when cited in case
names, "NLRB") has applied under National Labor Relations Act
("Act") § 11(2), 29 U.S.C. § 161(2),*fn1 for an order requiring
Brown Transport Corporation ("Brown") to comply with Board's
subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena"). For the reasons stated in
this memorandum opinion and order, Board's application is
Between November 23, 1984 and March 15, 1985 five unfair labor
practice charges were filed against Brown (Ex. 1*fn3). Two of
those charges were filed by individual employees Deborah King
("King") and Odell Neals ("Neals"), while competing union Local
710, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 710") filed
the remaining three charges.
On February 1, 1985 Board issued a complaint ("Complaint I,"
Ex. 2) consolidating King's charge with those brought by Local
710. Complaint I charged Brown had:
1. interrogated employees about their union
activities, in violation of Section 158(a)(1)
(Complaint I ¶ V);
2. threatened to discharge employees who supported
a union other than Association, in violation of
Section 158(a)(1) (Complaint I ¶ V);
3. threatened to close the Bedford Park terminal if
the employees there chose a union other than
Association, in violation of Section 158(a)(1)
(Complaint I ¶ V);
4. recognized Association as the bargaining
representative of its Bedford Park employees before
that union represented an uncoerced majority of those
employees, in violation of Sections 158(a)(1) and (2)
(Complaint I ¶ VI); and
5. discharged George Witzel ("Witzel") because he
supported Local 710, in violation of Section
158(a)(1) and (3) (Complaint I ¶ VII).*fn4
On April 25, 1985 Board issued a complaint (Complaint II, Ex.
3) based on Neals' charge. Complaint II contained allegations
against Brown similar to those included in Complaint I. On May 6,
1985 Board consolidated Complaints I and II (Ex. 4).
On June 28, 1985 Board issued the Subpoena (Ex. 7) to Brown,
directing production of certain documents at a Board hearing. On
July 3, 1985 Brown filed a petition to quash the Subpoena (Ex.
9). During the July 15, 1985 hearing, Administrative Law Judge
Alprin ("ALJ Alprin" or simply the "ALJ") granted the petition to
quash as to portions of the Subpoena but refused to revoke the
Subpoena entirely. Brown continues to refuse to comply with the
surviving portions of the Subpoena.
Brown counters Board's application for enforcement of the
Subpoena in three ways:
1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a
subpoena already limited by the ALJ.
2. Documents called for by the Subpoena are
irrelevant to Board's unfair labor practice case.
3. Because the Subpoena is insufficiently
particular, it is overly burdensome and hence
This opinion will consider each of those wholly unpersuasive
arguments in turn.
1. Jurisdiction To Enforce the Subpoena
Board's power to issue subpoenas derives from Section 161(1),
which also enables Board to revoke a ...