National Labor Relations Board v. Karavites Restaurant 6676, LLC

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM Opinion. Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 1/20/2016. Mailed notice(rm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,

)
)
)
Applicant,
)
)
v.
)
)
K. MARK ENTERPRISES, LLC;
)
KARAVITES RESTAURANT 6676, LLC; )
KARAVITES RESTAURANT 11102,
)
LLC; KARAVITES RESTAURANT 26, )
INC.; KARAVITES RESTAURANT
)
5895, INC.; TAYLOR & MALONE )
MANAGEMENT; TOPAZ
)
MANAGEMENT, INC.; &V. OVIEDO, )
INC.; MCDONALD’S FRANCHISEES )
)
Respondents.
)

No.

15 C 9353
15 C 9415
15 C 9421
15 C 9475
15 C 9495
15 C 9529
15 C 9538
15 C 9563

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on the National Labor Relations Board’s
(NLRB) application for an order requiring obedience to a subpoena duces tecum.
For the reasons stated below, the application is granted in its entirety.

BACKGROUND
Beginning in November 2012, various organizations (Charging Parties) filed

1

unfair labor practice charges (Charges) against McDonald’s USA, LLC
(McDonald’s) and certain McDonald’s franchises (Franchises). Respondents are
some of the Franchises that were named in the Charges. After an investigation by
the NLRB, the NLRB issued complaints against McDonald’s and the Franchises.
The complaints filed against the Franchises were then consolidated in proceedings
(Administrative Proceedings) before an administrative law judge (ALJ). As part of
the Administrative Proceedings, the NLRB served Respondents with identical
subpoenas duces tecum (Subpoenas) in the Administrative Proceedings pursuant to
29 U.S.C. § 161(1) (Section 161(1)) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Subpoenas seek information in a 68-paragraph attachment that seeks categories
of details such as information relating to: (1) the relationship between the Franchises
and McDonald’s, (2) the Franchises’ hiring processes and policies, (3) the
Franchises’ training policies, (4) the Franchises’ employee handbooks, manuals, and
other rules and polices, (5), the wages, benefits, promotions, transfers, and
assignment of the Franchises’ employees, (6) the scheduling, staffing, work
assignments, and work hours of the Franchises’ employees, (7) the methods used by
McDonald’s to review the Franchises’ locations, and (8) the activities by
McDonald’s and the Franchises in response to the campaigns conducted by the
Charging Parties. In the Administrative Proceedings, Respondents filed petitions to
revoke the Subpoenas, and on March 19, 2015, the ALJ issued an order, denying the
petitions, and finding that the Subpoenas sought relevant information and were not
overly burdensome. Respondents have allegedly failed to comply with the
2

Subpoenas, and the NLRB initiated the instant action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 161(2)
(Section 161(2)) of the NLRA seeking an enforcement of all paragraphs of the
Subpoenas except for Paragraphs 31 and 32. (Reply 10 n.10).

LEGAL STANDARD
Section 161(1) provides in part that the NLRB shall have authority to issue
“subpenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of
any evidence in such proceedings or investigation requested in such application.”
29 U.S.C. § 161(1). Section 161(2) provides the following:
(2) Court aid in compelling production of evidence and attendance of
witnesses
In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person, any
district court of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory
or possession, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or
within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to
obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the Board
shall have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring such person
to appear before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, there to produce
evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under
investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court
may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.
29 U.S.C. § 161(2); N.L.R.B. v. Marano, 996 F. Supp. 2d 720, 722 (E.D. Wis.
2014)(stating that “[u]nder the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has the
authority to issue subpoenas in aid of an investigation, but lacks the power to enforce
those subpoenas”).
Generally, a court should “enforce an administrative subpoena if it seeks
reasonably relevant information, is not too indefinite, and relates to an investigation
3

within the agency’s authority.” E.E.O.C. v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 63 F.3d 642,
644-45 (7th Cir. 1995). A subpoena should not be enforced if the demand for
information was “made for an illegitimate purpose,” or is “excessively burdensome,”
such that “compliance would threaten the normal operation of a respondent’s
business.” Id.; see also Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading
Comm’n, 233 F.3d 981, 986 (7th Cir. 2000)(stating that “[a]s a general rule, courts
enforce an administrative subpoena if: (1) it reasonably relates to an investigation
within the agency’s authority, (2) the specific inquiry is relevant to that purpose and
is not too indefinite, (3) the proper administrative procedures have been followed,
and (4) the subpoena does not demand information for an illegitimate purpose”); N.
L. R. B. v. Williams, 396 F.2d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 1968)(stating that “[d]uly issued
subpoenas are to be enforced if the agency is seeking information not plainly
incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose”)(internal quotations
omitted)(quoting Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 63 (1943)). The
district court’s role in a subpoena enforcement proceeding is “sharply limited” and
“[s]uch proceedings are designed to be summary in nature.” E.E.O.C. v. Tempel
Steel Co., 814 F.2d 482, 485 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Commodity Trend Serv., Inc.,
233 F.3d at 986 (stating that “[a] court exercises only limited review of an agency’s
actions in a subpoena enforcement proceeding and does not normally consider the
merits of a party’s claim that it has not violated a statute administered by the
agency”).

4

DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that the information sought in the Subpoenas is not
reasonably relevant and that the Subpoenas impose an unreasonable and undue
burden on Respondents. NLRB contends that Respondents’ objections are meritless
and points to a subpoena enforcement proceeding in a New York district court in
which the court rejected similar objections by certain Franchises, and enforced the
Subpoenas. N.L.R.B. v. AJD, Inc., 2015 WL 7018351 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

I. Definite Terms and Relation to Investigation Within Authority
Respondents do not dispute that the information sought in the Subpoenas is
sufficiently definite or that the information relates to an investigation within the
NLRB’s authority. The NLRB has shown that information sought in the Subpoenas
is sufficiently delineated in the Subpoenas, limiting the scope of the information
sought, and limiting the period in question to a three-year period from January 1,
2012, through December 31, 2014. The NLRB has also shown that the information
relates to the investigation of charges of labor violations such as that the Franchises
obstructed union-related activities. That type of investigation is directly within the
NLRB’s statutory authority relating to the prevention of unfair labor practices. 29
U.S.C. § 160. The NLRB has also shown that the allegations that McDonald’s is the
joint employer of Respondents’ employees are directly relevant to the NLRB’s
investigation.
5

II. Characterization of Subpoenas
The record reflects that Respondents have argued that the Subpoenas are
investigative subpoenas. NLRB contends that the Subpoenas are instead trial
subpoenas, which were due at the start of the proceedings before the ALJ on March
30, 2015. Although Section 161(1) does not make any distinction between
investigative subpoenas and trial subpoenas, Respondents have contended that the
subpoenas are investigative subpoenas and should have been issued before the
issuance of the consolidated complaint. Respondents also point out in the instant
action that the NLRB did not issue any subpoenas to Respondents during the
investigation by the NLRB prior to the consolidated complaint. (R Resp. 20). The
ALJ agreed with the NLRB that the Subpoenas are not investigative subpoenas.
(3/19/15 OR: 3). This court likewise agrees that the Subpoenas are not properly
characterized as investigative subpoenas. Respondents have not pointed to any law
that would prohibit the NLRB from pursuing the Subpoenas in the manner in which
they were issued.

III. Relevancy of Information
Respondents contend that the information sought in the Subpoenas was not
reasonably relevant to the allegations of an unlawful labor practice or to the
allegations of a joint employer status. Respondents also contend that the sole
relevancy of the information sought in the Subpoenas is to a determination of
damages.
6

A. Unlawful Labor Practice
Respondents argue that the Subpoenas seek extensive information that is not
related to the allegations of an unlawful labor practice. Respondents contend that the
NLRB has improperly given the same 68 “cookie-cutter requests” to Respondents
even though there will need to be an individualized inquiry of the Respondents. (R
Resp. 19). Respondents argue that the allegations of unfair labor practices mainly
relate to alleged unfair labor practices, and with respect to three of Respondents, the
allegations relate to a single employment policy. Respondents also contend that the
allegations pertain to the conduct of the Franchises’ supervisory employees and
individual policies at the restaurant level. Respondents further argue that the
adjudication of the unfair labor practices allegations will mainly involve credibility
determinations relating to what the Franchises’ employees claim to have done at the
restaurant level.
The NLRB acknowledges that the information being sought from each of
Respondents is identical, but points out that the parties are different and their
responses will likely be different. Thus, the information sought will not necessarily
be redundant and could include relevant information. The NLRB also indicates that
to the extent that Respondents contend that the same “cookie-cutter” requests should
not have been sent to all Franchises, the NLRB indicates that it is willing to accept
stipulations from Respondents to enable Respondents to avoid irrelevant and
redundant responses.
Respondents also contend that the Subpoenas seek information of such a
7

magnitude that the NLRB is improperly using its subpoena power to engage in what
is “akin” to pretrial discovery. (R Resp. 20). There has been no showing that the
NLRB in issuing the Subpoenas acted outside of the statutory authority provided to
the NLRB in the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. § 161(a)(authorizing agency issuance of
subpoenas). The NLRB has properly sought information in the Subpoenas relating
to the investigation and Charges. The fact that a significant amount of information is
relevant to that investigation is not the fault of the NLRB. Respondents’ subjective
belief that the requested production is “akin” to discovery is not a legitimate basis to
excuse compliance with the Subpoenas.

B. Joint Employer Status
Respondents argue that the information sought in the Subpoenas is well
beyond what would be relevant for a joint employer status determination. The
NLRB alleges that McDonald’s has been a joint employer of the employees of
Respondents. Entities are considered to be “joint employers of a single work force if
they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and
conditions of employment,” and “[t]he relevant facts involved in this determination
extend to nearly every aspect of employees’ terms and conditions of employment and
must be given weight commensurate with their significance to employees’ work
life.” In Re Aldworth Co., Inc., 338 NLRB 137, 139 (2002); see also DiMucci Const.
Co. v. N.L.R.B., 24 F.3d 949, 952 (7th Cir. 1994)(stating that “[f]actors to consider in
determining joint employer status are (1) supervision of employees’ day-to-day
8

activities; (2) authority to hire or fire employees; (3) promulgation of work rules and
conditions of employment; (4) issuance of work assignments; and (5) issuance of
operating instructions”); Teamsters Local Unions Nos. 75 & 200 v. Barry Trucking,
Inc., 176 F.3d 1004, 1008-09 (7th Cir. 1999)(stating that to show that there was a
joint employer “there must be a showing that the employer meaningfully affects
matters relating to the employment relationship such as hiring, firing, discipline,
supervision, and direction”)(internal quotations omitted)(quoting Osco Drug v. Truck
Drivers, Oil Drivers, Local Union 705, 294 NLRB 779 (1989)).
In Paragraphs 1-7 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB is seeking information relating
to the Respondents’ operations and relationship with McDonald’s, such as the
franchise agreements, and operations and training manuals issued to the Franchises
by McDonald’s. Such information would relate to issues such as the authority to hire
or fire employees, the promulgation of work rules and conditions of employment,
and the supervision of employees’ day-to-day activities. Such information could also
be relevant to the allegations relating to unfair labor practices.
In Paragraphs 8-14 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating to
the hiring of employees such as communications between the Franchises and
McDonald’s regarding the soliciting of employees and hiring of employees, and
materials provided by McDonald’s to Respondents to assist Respondents in hiring
employees. Such information would relate to issues such as the authority to hire or
fire employees, and control over the hiring process.
In Paragraphs 15-21 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating to
9

the training of employees, such as training materials provided to Respondents by
McDonald’s. In Paragraphs 22-30 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information
relating to employee conduct such as employee handbooks or manuals, and records
of employee discipline, evaluation, and attendance. In Paragraphs 31-38 of the
Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating to wages and benefits such as
documents showing the monthly earning and hours of non-supervisory, nonmanagerial employees, and communications between Respondents and McDonald’s
regarding promotion, wages, benefits, or reassignments. In Paragraphs 39-48 of the
Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating to hours and assignments such as
daily activity reports and communications with McDonald’s regarding hours,
scheduling, and assignments. The information sought in Paragraphs 15-48 of the
Subpoenas would relate to the supervision of employees’ day-to-day activities, the
promulgation of work rules and conditions of employment, and the issuance of
operating instructions. Such information would also be relevant to the allegations
relating to unfair labor practices.
In Paragraphs 49-61 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating to
the direct review and control of employees such as documents concerning reviews or
visits, and communications between Respondents and McDonald’s. Such
information would be relevant to the ultimate control of McDonald’s over the
operations of Respondents and issuance of operating instructions.
In Paragraphs 62 to 68 of the Subpoenas, the NLRB seeks information relating
to response to the “Fast Food Fight for $15 Campaign,” such as communications to
10

McDonald’s concerning the campaign, and documents concerning no-solicitation
rules. Such information could be relevant both to the joint employer issue and to the
unfair labor practices issue.
Given the broad range of relevant factors for a joint employer determination,
the NLRB necessarily needs to seek a broad range of information in order to properly
address its joint employer allegations. It is apparent from a review of the Subpoenas
that the NLRB has not asked for an excessively broad range of documents. The
record does not reflect that the NLRB is engaging in a fishing expedition, as
Respondents claim. (R Resp. 24). The NLRB has attempted to limit the production
request to discrete categories that are specifically relevant to the Charges.

C. Damages Issue
Respondents also argue that the information sought in the Subpoenas is
relevant only to a later determination as to damages and thus not relevant at this
juncture. The NLRB has shown, however, that the information is needed for the first
phase of the Administrative Proceedings in accordance with the case management
order in the Administrative Proceedings. Thus, the relevance of such information
will not be limited to a later damages phase in the proceedings.

IV. Burden on Respondents
Respondents argue that the requests in the Subpoenas place an unreasonable
burden on them. Respondents complain that the Subpoenas cover a broad range of
11

their business activities. However, as explained above, in order to properly evaluate
the joint employer issue, a broad range of issues must be addressed. The NLRB
properly delineated limited categories of information covering a modest period of
time in order to limit the burden on Respondents. Respondents also complain that
certain information may be duplicative. However, the NLRB has indicated that it has
informed Respondents that appropriate stipulations as to duplicative responses could
limit the need for certain production. As with any subpoena, there is a certain burden
placed upon the recipient.
Respondents have also failed to establish that compliance would threaten the
normal operation of Respondents’ businesses. The mere fact that Respondents may
not have human resources departments or extensive staff specifically designated for
human resources issues does not mean that Respondents will be unable to properly
run their Franchises and comply with the Subpoenas. Respondents chose to enter
into business and employ a substantial number of employees. There are certain costs
associated with doing any business, and responding to allegations by the NLRB
relating to labor issues may be one of those necessary costs. Respondents have not
shown that those costs are unduly burdensome. Thus, Respondents have not shown
that the Subpoenas are excessively burdensome. Finally, the NLRB has shown that
Respondents have failed to take available steps to reduce the burden on Respondents
in responding to the Subpoenas. Based on the above, the application for an order
requiring obedience to a subpoena duces tecum is granted in its entirety.

12

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the NLRB’s application for an order
requiring obedience to a subpoena duces tecum is granted in its entirety.

___________________________________
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Dated: January 20, 2016

13