January 2011 - National Labor Relations Board

11794 RELEVANCECo. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946); NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, 102 F.3d 1005, 1007(9th Cir. 1996).Section 11 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 161, grants to the Board and its agents broadinvestigatory authority, including the power to subpoena any evidence “that relates to anymatter under investigation or in question.” 29 U.S.C. § 161(1); NLRB v. InterstateMaterial Corp., 930 F.2d 4, 6 (7th Cir. 1991) (describing the Board’s broad Sec. 11powers); NLRB v. Steinerfilm, Inc., 702 F.2d 14, 15 (1st Cir. 1983) (same); NLRB v.G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (same). This broad subpoenapower enables the Board “to get information from those who best can give it and who aremost interested in not doing so.” U.S. v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642 (1950).Thus, such subpoenas may be directed to any person having information relevant to aninvestigation. See, e.g., Link v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 437, 440 (4th Cir. 1964). See also Sec.11770.2, above.11792.2 Jurisdiction of Courts to Enforce SubpoenasThe district courts receive their power to order enforcement of subpoenas issuedby the Board by virtue of Section 11(2) of the Act. The granting of such power has beenapproved and exercised repeatedly by the courts. Consistent with the bounds ofreasonableness, subpoena enforcement may be sought in any district where theinvestigation is undertaken or where the subpoenaed person is found, resides or transactsbusiness. NLRB v. Ronny Line, 50 F.3d 311, 313–314 (5th Cir. 1995); NLRB v. AlaskaPulp Corp., 149 LRRM 2682, 2684 (D.D.C. 1995); Brooklyn Manor Corp. v. NLRB,1999 WL 1011935 (E.D.N.Y.).11792.3 Collateral ProceedingsSince the Board has the power to make the initial determination of its jurisdictionin any case pending before it (Oklahoma Press, 327 U.S. at 209–214), a court in asubpoena enforcement proceeding generally lacks the authority to decide that issue. InNLRB v. Barrett Co., 120 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1941), the court enforced the Board’ssubpoena seeking commerce data. See also Oklahoma Press, 327 U.S. at 214; EndicottJohnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1943); NLRB v. Northern Trust Co., 56 F.Supp.335, 337–338 (D.C. Ill. 1944), affd. 148 F.2d 24, 27 (7th Cir. 1945). Cf. Myers v.Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50 (1938), where Bethlehem challenged theBoard’s jurisdiction in an injunction proceeding. If the subpoenaed party argues that theBoard’s jurisdiction is lacking based upon the particular facts of its case, the RegionalOffice should respond that such argument is not a valid basis to defend against subpoenaenforcement for the above reasons. If the subpoenaed party makes a substantial argumentthat the Board jurisdiction is lacking as a matter of law, the Special Litigation Branchshould be consulted.11794 RelevanceThe testimony or documentary evidence sought by enforcement of a subpoenamust be relevant to the matter under investigation or in question before the Board. Theapplication should assert that the evidence is relevant to the petition, charge, complaint,Revised 01/11