Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Labor Relations Board v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity

June 26, 1989

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
v.
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY, AFL-CIO, RESPONDENT, AND PATRICK GILLESPIE, ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT, IN CONTEMPT



P. Douglas Sisk, Special Master.

Author: Sisk

Presented for consideration are the objections of Petitioner, National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B. or Board), and Delran Builders, Inc., and some of its employees (Delran), to the production of certain documents sought in subpoenas duces tecum issued by respondents, Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia (BCTC). Respondents have filed an answer, and Delran has filed a reply. To the extent that objections of the Board and Delran are parallel, I will dispose of them jointly.

Objections :

I will briefly summarize the objections of Delran and the Board and the answers of Respondents. Delran and its employee-deponents file three general objections to the document requests: late service of the subpoenas;*fn1 overbreadth in the requests with respect to time frame; and, much of the requested documentation is privileged. Delran poses other specific objections, as follow:

1. BCTC's request for "any and all" photographs, audio/video tapes, and logs is overbroad, burdensome, and not relevant to the days at issue. (Delran agrees, however, to provide any such information with respect to the days in question);

2. BCTC's request for copies of the contracts between Delran and the construction users for the site seeks information which is not relevant to the issues, and the documents sought contain confidential and proprietary information;

3. BCTC's request for copies of contracts between Delran and each subcontractor is objectionable for essentially the same reasons set forth in #2, supra ;

4. BCTC's request for correspondence/memoranda sent between Delran and any subcontractors/suppliers who provided work or services during the period of alleged illegal activities is overbroad and seeks information which is not relevant. Delran asserts, notwithstanding, that it has no documents responsive to the request in its custody or control;

5. BCTC's request for copies of all proposals, offerings, bids, etc., which would lead to the identities of all bidders in connection with the sites seeks information which is not relevant, which is confidential and proprietary, and therefore, privileged from disclosure;

6. BCTC's request for copies of any statements Delran may have made in connection with the alleged illegal activities is an improper attempt to circumvent the Order of the Special Master entered April 7, 1989;

7. BCTC's request for copies of all police reports relating to the job sites is overbroad, not relevant, and in any event such documents are not in Delran's control;

8. BCTC's request for all internal memoranda prepared by any of Delran's employee with respect to the activities of BCTC at the job sites is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant to the issues. (However, to the extent the request seeks documents relevant to the illegal activity, Delran has no such documents in its control); and,

9. BCTC's request for copies of any and all log books, diaries, or other documents which relate to BCTC's activities at the job site is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks documentation not relevant to the issues. (However, Delran agrees to provide any documents in its control relating to the alleged illegal activity.)

The Board's objections essentially are parallel to those offered by Delran, but the Board proffers certain additional objections. The Board anticipates BCTC's defense theories of a conspiracy among Delran and other entities to operate in a manner to destroy the Union's area standards which would justify its picketing of both primary and neutral gates. The Board argues that even if a conspiracy were proven, it is not a defense to unlawful picketing, and therefore, that any documents sought to support a conspiracy theory are improperly sought. The Board further argues that the defense cannot be developed ex post facto, but must have been a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.