UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 2 THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION) and Case No. 02-CB-130379 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION) and Case No. 02-CB-131944 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION and Case No. 02-CA-131949 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION and Case No. 02-CA-134020 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL
THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (PINNACLE INDUSTRIES II, LLC) and Case No. 02-CB-137341 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL GENERAL COUNSEL OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO REVOKE SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM A-1-L5XFMF On February 13, 2015, Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation, herein Respondent, filed a petition to revoke subpoena A-1-L5XFMF (Exhibit 1), compelling the appearance of David Bowers, herein Bowers, at the hearing scheduled for March 3, 2015. Bowers, an admitted supervisor and agent for Respondent (Exhibit 2, 7), made the decision not to hire O'Neal Woods, herein the Charging Party, in or around June of 2014, which is the subject of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. (Exhibit 3). Respondent argues that Bowers should not be compelled to appear because he currently lives in Las Vegas, Nevada and works for Respondent in Santa Ynez, California, and so it would be "an unreasonable burden" to expect him to travel to New York. Respondent further argues that if this were a proceeding in federal court, the subpoena would be beyond the geographic jurisdiction of Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and video testimony would be permitted under Rule 43(a). Finally, Respondent argues that the subpoena served on Bowers was improperly served because it was addressed to him at a location where he no longer works or resides. 2
Counsel for the General Counsel, herein the General Counsel, opposes Respondent's petition to revoke for the following reasons. First, though in another state, Bowers is still employed by Respondent and is an admitted supervisor and agent for Respondent (Exhibit 2, 7). Moreover, Respondent admits that Bowers is the only person who works for Respondent with information relevant to the proceeding (Exhibit 1, 2). Therefore, Bowers's testimony is integral to the General Counsel's case and the General Counsel is entitled to question him. In response to Respondent's reference to Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the General Counsel contends that the Board's Rules and Regulations govern here, and that under Section 11(1) of the Act, the Board may require the attendance of witnesses from any place in the United States, its territories, or possessions. See 29 U.S.C. 161 ("Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such evidence may be required from any place in the United States or any Territory or possession thereof, at any designated place of hearing."). Nevertheless, the General Counsel is willing to discuss alternatives to Bowers's presence in New York, including the possibility of receiving testimony via video conference.' Should the General Counsel determine that Bowers's physical presence at the hearing is necessary, the General Counsel will pay for his travel expenses, pursuant to Section 102.32 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. In any case, whether it is appropriate to use the video conference as an alternative to live appearance is a matter within the trial judge's discretion, but it is not a basis for a petition to revoke the subpoena. See N.L.R.B. Division of Judge's Bench Book 11.620; see also Board's Rules and Regulations 102.31(b). Though Respondent contends that the General Counsel has not responded to this request, Respondent first informed the General Counsel via telephone that Bowers no longer lived in the state on February 12, 2015, and asked if the General Counsel needed him to testify. At the time, it did not request video conference as an alternative to his appearance, and the General Counsel told Respondent she would look into the matter. On February 13, 2015 at 11:30 a.m., the General Counsel notified Respondent that it was still looking into this matter. About 2.5 hours later, the General received the instant petition to revoke. 3
In response to Respondent's incorrect contention that the subpoena was improperly served, service of subpoenas may be made by serving a copy to the principal office or place of business of the person required to be served. See Board's Rules and Regulations 102.113(c); see also Offshore Mariners United, 338 NLRB 745 (2002). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the Board insofar as applicable, and they permit service of subpoenas at a party's last known address. Charles Parker Co., 285 NLRB 56, 60 (1987) (noting respondent moved after institution of proceedings and failed to notify the General Counsel). Here, the General Counsel served the subpoena on Bowers at his last-known address Respondent's principal office or place of business located at 360 W. 31st Street, No. 1510, New York, NY 10001. Bowers is still employed by Respondent, though apparently now in a different location, and is an admitted supervisor and agent who made the decision not to hire the Charging Party. Respondent has cited no authority for the proposition that the General Counsel is required to track the various geographic locations wheie respondents transfer and/or send their agents after an investigation is complete. Moreover, a courtesy copy of the subpoena was sent to Respondent's attorney, who has since been in touch with his client to ascertain Bowers's whereabouts. Based on the foregoing, the General Counsel contends the subpoena was validly served. For the foregoing reasons, the General Counsel opposes Respondent's petition to revoke the subpoena, but will entertain alternative options to Bowers's presence in New York. 4
Dated at New York, New York February 17, 2015 Re ecca A. Leaf, Cou el f he General Counsel National Labor Relations Board, Region 2 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614 New York, NY 10278 Attachments 5
1 IIHIHX1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 2 TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION X and O'NEAL WOODS, an Individual. TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION and O'NEAL WOODS, an Individual. X X X Case No. 02-CA-131949 PETITION TO REVOKE SUBPOENA Case No. 02-CA-134020 Related Cases: 02-CB-130379 02-CB-131944 02-CB-137341 Respondents Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation, by their undersigned counsel, hereby petition under 29 CFR 102.31(b) to revoke the subpoena dated February 11, 2015 (attached as Exhibit A) that demands the appearance of David Bowers in a hearing in New York City. In the alternative, the petitioners request that Mr. Bowers' testimony be taken by videoconference or telephone. The reasons are as follows: I. Mr. Bowers no longer lives or works in the New York area. In October 2014 he was transferred to work on an expansion of the Chumash Casino Resort in Santa Ynez, California. This assignment is scheduled to continue through May of 2016. Mr. Bowers lives in Las Vegas, Nevada, where he commutes home every other week. He has 1 78094 1 2/13/2015
no plans to be in the New York area any time in the foreseeable future for business or personal reasons. 2. Mr. Bowers is the only person at Tutor Perini Corp. with information relevant to this proceeding. 3. Because the subpoena was addressed to Mr. Bowers in a location where he no longer works or resides, it was not properly served upon him. 4. It would be an unreasonable burden to expect Mr. Bowers to travel from California to New York to appear for what would likely be less than one hour on the witness stand. 5. Section 10391 of the Board's Casehandling Manual provides for video testimony in situations such as this. (See also NLRB OM Memo 11-42 (CH).) There will be few, if any, documents that Mr. Bowers will be required to deal with in his testimony. His testimony will likely be very brief. 6. Testimony by video or telephone would also be appropriate pursuant to a protective order. (See NLRB Bench Book for AL's, 8-415). 7. If this proceeding were in federal court, the subpoena would be beyond the geographic jurisdiction of Rule 45(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and video testimony would be permitted under Rule 43(a). 8. Mr. Bower had no direct contact with any union officials regarding this matter, or with the Charging Party. Therefore, his testimony is not likely to be controverted. 2 78094 1 2/13/2015
9. 1 have attempted to obtain the consent of the General Counsel and of the District Council for this request, but they have so far not gotten back to me. Because of vacation plans, today is the last day I can file this request. Dated: February 13, 2015 New York, New York Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC Attorneys for Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perin) Building Corporation 2 / By Richard G. Kass 300 Third Avenue, 22'd Floor New York, New York 10016 (646) 253-2322 rkass@bsk.com 3 78094.1 2/13/2015
V 1191HXD
FORM NLRB-32 SUBPOENA To Tutor Perini Corp. Attn: David Bowers UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 360W. 31st Street, No. 1510 New York, NY 10001 As requested by Rebecca A. Leaf, Counsel for the General Counsel whose address is 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614, New York, NY 10278 (Street) (City) (State) (ZIP) YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED AND DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE an Administrative Law Judge at 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614 in the City of New York, NY 10278 of the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, March 3,2015 or rescheduled date to testify in at 9:30 AM or any adjourned The District Council of New York and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Tutor Perini Corporation) (Tutor Perini Building Corp.) (Pinnacle Industries II, LLC) and Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation 02-CB-130379, 02-CB-131944, 02-CA-131949, 02-CA-134020, 02-CB-137341 (Case Name and Number) If you do not intend to comply with the subpoena, within 5 days (excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) after the date the subpoena is received, you must petition in writing to revoke the subpoena. Unless filed through the Board's E-Filing system, the petition to revoke must be received on or before the official closing time of the receiving office on the last day for filing. If filed through the Board's E-Filing system, it may be filed up to 11:59 pm in the local time zone of the receiving office on the last day for filing. Prior to a hearing, the petition to revoke should be filed with the Regional Director; during a hearing, it should be filed with the Hearing Officer or Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing. See Board's Rules and Regulations, 29 C.F.R Section 102.31(b) (unfair labor practice proceedings) and/or 29 C.F.R. Section 102.66(c) (representation proceedings) and 29 C.F.R Section 102.111(a)(1) and 102.111(b)(3) (time computation). Failure to follow these rules may result in the loss of any ability to raise objections to the subpoena in court. Under the seal of the National Labor Relations Board, and by direction of the Board, this Subpoena is A-1-L5XFMF Issued at Dated: February II, 2015 Chairman, National Labor Relations Board NOTICE TO WITNESS. Witness fees for attendance, subsistence, and mileage under this subpoena are payable by the party at whose request the witness is subpoenaed. A witness appearing at the request of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board shall submit this subpoena with the voucher when claiming reimbursement. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Solicitation of the information on this form is authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The principal use of the information is to assist the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in processing representation and/or unfair labor practice proceedings and related proceedings or litigation. The routine uses for the information are fully set forth in the Federal Register, 71 Fed. Reg. 74942-43 (Dec. 13, 2006). The NLRB will further explain these uses upon request. Disclosure of this information to the NLRB is mandatory in that failure to supply the information may cause the NLRB to seek enforcement of the subpoena in federal court.
Z IIHIHX1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 2 TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION X and O'NEAL WOODS, an Individual. TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION and O'NEAL WOODS, an Individual. X X X Case No. 02-CA-131949 ANSWER Case No. 02-CA-134020 Related Cases: 02-CB-130379 02-CB-131944 02-CB-137341 Respondents Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation, by their undersigned counsel, answer the Consolidated Complaint dated December 31, 2014 as follows. Said Respondents: 1. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Consolidated Complaint, except admit that the charges in Case Nos. 2-CA-131949 and 2-CA-134020 were served on the respondents by regular mail. 2. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2. 3. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3. 4. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4. 1 77181.1 1/13/2015
5. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5(a), and admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5(b). 6. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 with respect to Peter Rotolo, and deny them with respect to Paul Trantola. 7. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 with respect to David Bowers, and deny them with respect to Anthony Dellamore. 8. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8, except admit that Denis Pupovic has been on information and belief an Agent of the District Council. 9. Admit the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9(a), 9(b), and 9(d), deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9(c), and deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9(e). 10. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10. 11. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief concerning the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11. 12. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12. 13. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13. 14. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14. 15. Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15. Affirmative Defenses 16. The answering Respondents had no reasonable grounds for believing that the District Council's requests relating to Mr. Woods were unlawful. 2 77181 11/13/2015
17. Tutor Perini Building Corporation would have discharged Mr. Woods for poor performance even if it had not been for the District Council's request. 18. Tutor Perini Corporation would not have hired Mr. Woods even if it had not been for the District Council's request. WHEREFORE, Respondents Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation respectfully submit that the Consolidated Complaint should be dismissed with respect to them. Dated: January 13, 2015 New York, New York Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC Attorneys for Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corporation By Richard G. Kass 300 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10016 (646) 253-2322 3 77181 11/13/2015
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Richard G. Kass, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, does certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer was electronically filed with the National Labor Relations Board's electronic filling system, and that a copy was served upon the following individual by email (Adrienne Saldana, Esq., Spivak Lipton, LLP, 1700 Broadway, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10019-5905, asaldanagspivaklipton.com) and also served upon the following individual via U.S. Mail by depositing a true and correct copy of the pleading, in an envelope, addressed as set forth below, and depositing the envelope, postage paid in a mailbox maintained by the United States Postal Service: O'Neal Woods 1279 Union Avenue, Apt. 2 Bronx, NY 10459 Dated: January 14, 2015 Richard G. Kass 2433680 11/14/2015
E IIHIHX1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 2 THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION) and Case No. 02-CB-130379 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION) and Case No. 02-CB-131944 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION and Case No. 02-CA-131949 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORPORATION and Case No. 02-CA-134020 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL
THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (PINNACLE INDUSTRIES II, LLC) and Case No. 02-CB-137341 O'NEAL WOODS, AN INDIVIDUAL ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Case Nos. 02-CB-130379, 02-CB-131944 and 02-CB-137341, which are based on charges filed by O'Neal Woods, an Individual, (O'Neal Woods), against The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (District Council) and Case No. 02-CA-131949, which is based on a charge filed by O'Neal Woods against Tutor Perini Corporation (Tutor Perini), and Case No. 02-CA-134020, which is based on a charge filed by O'Neal Woods against Tutor Perini Building Corporation (Tutor Perini Building), are consolidated. This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and alleges Respondents have violated the Act as described below: 1. (a) The charge in Case No. 02-CB-130379 was filed by O'Neal Woods on June 9, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on the District Council on June 10, 2014. 2
(b) An amended charge in Case No. 02-CB-130379 was filed by O'Neal Woods on July 1, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on the District Council on July 1, 2014. (c) The charge in Case No. 02-CB-131944 was filed by O'Neal Woods on July 1, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on the District Council on July 2, 2014. (d) The charge in Case No. 02-CA-131949 was filed by O'Neal Woods on July 1, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on Tutor Perini on July 2, 2014. (e) The charge in Case No. 02-CA-134020 was filed by O'Neal Woods on August 4, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on Tutor Perini Building on August 6, 2014. (f) The charge in Case No. 02-CB-137341 was filed by O'Neal Woods on September 22, 2014, and a copy was served by regular mail on the District Council on September 24, 2014. 2. (a) At all material times, Tutor Perini Building, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tutor Perini, with an office and place of business located at 1000 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York, provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services to private clients and public agencies nationwide. (b) Annually, Tutor Perini Building, in conducting its business operations described above in subparagraph (a), has performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of New York. (c) At all material times, Tutor Perini Building has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. (a) At all material times, Tutor Perini, a Massachusetts corporation with an office and place of business located at 1000 Main Street, New Rochelle, New York, provides general 3
contracting, including building and civil construction, construction management, design-build services, and specialty contracting to private clients and public agencies nationwide. (b) Annually, Tutor Perini, in conducting its business operations described above in subparagraph (a), has performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of New York. (c) At all material times, Tutor Perini has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 4. (a) At 'all material times, Pinnacle Industries II, LLC (Pinnacle), a limited liability company, with an office and place of business located at 260 Park Avenue, Harrison, New York, has been engaged in the construction of concrete superstructures for high rise buildings. (b) Annually, Pinnacle, in conducting its business operations described above in subparagraph (a), has performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in states other than the State of New York. (c) At all material times, Pinnacle has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 5. (a) The District Council is an association composed of various constituent labor organizations and exists for the purpose of representing these constituent labor organizations in bargaining collectively and dealing with employers, including Tutor Perini Building, Tutor Perini, and Pinnacle, concerning grievances, labor disputes, and terms and conditions of employment. (b) At all material times, based on the facts described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent District Council has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4
6. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent Tutor Perini Building within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act): Peter Rotolo Paul Trantola Superintendent Foreman 7. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent Tutor Perini within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and/or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act): David Bowers Anthony Dellamore Superintendent Foreman 8. At all material times, the following individuals held the position set forth opposite their respective names, and have been agents of Respondent District Council within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Denis Pupovic Unknown name Heath Jackson District Council Representative District Council Representative District Council Shop Steward 9. (a) On or about June 5, 2014, Respondent District Council requested that Respondent Tutor Perini Building discharge its employee O'Neal Woods. (b) By the conduct described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent District Council attempted to cause and caused Tutor Perini Building to discharge O'Neal Woods from employment. 5
(c) Respondent District Council engaged in the conduct described above in sub paragraph (a) because O'Neal Woods was not a member of Respondent District Council and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. (d) On or about June 5, 2014, pursuant to Respondent District Council's request described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent Tutor Perini Building discharged O'Neal Woods. (e) By engaging in the conduct described above in subparagraph (d), Respondent Tutor Perini Building has encouraged its employees to join and assist Respondent District Council. 10. (a) On or about June 24, 2014, Respondent District Council requested that Respondent Tutor Perini not consider for hire or hire O'Neal Woods for employment. (b) By the conduct described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent District Council attempted to cause and caused Tutor Perini to refuse to consider for hire or hire O'Neal Woods for employment. (c) Respondent District Council engaged in the conduct described above in subparagraph (a) because O'Neal Woods was not a member of Respondent District Council and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. (d) On or about June 25, 2014, pursuant to Respondent District Council's request described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent Tutor Perini refused to consider for hire or hire O'Neal Woods for employment. (e) By engaging in the conduct described above in subparagraph (d), Respondent Tutor Perini has encouraged its employees to join and assist Respondent District Council. 6
11. (a) In and about mid September 2014, Respondent District Council requested that, Pinnacle discharge its employee O'Neal Woods. (b) By the conduct described above in subparagraph (a), Respondent District Council attempted to cause and caused Pinnacle to discharge O'Neal Woods from employment. (c) Respondent District Council engaged in the conduct described above in sub paragraph (a) because O'Neal Woods was not a member of Respondent District Council and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. 12. By the conduct described above in paragraph 9, Respondent Tutor Perini Building has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby encouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 13. By the conduct described above in paragraph 10, Respondent Tutor Perini has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby encouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 14. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 9 through 11, Respondent District Council has been attempting to cause and causing an employer to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. 15. The unfair labor practices of Respondents described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7
ANSWER REQUIREMENT Respondents are notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, they must file an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. The answer must be received by this office on or before January 14, 2015, or postmarked on or before January 13, 2014. Respondents should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office and serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties. An answer may also be filed electronically through the Agency's website. To file electronically, go to www.nlrb.gov, click on File Case Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency's website informs users that the Agency's E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency's website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Board's Rules and Regulations require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still, be accomplished by means allowed under the Board's Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no 8
answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 3, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. at the Mary Walker Taylor Hearing Room, at 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614, New York, New York, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondents and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form NLRB-4338. Dated at New York, New York December 31, 2014 16#' /1-141 7 Kafen P. Fembach, Regional Director National Labor Relations Board, Region 2 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3614 New York, NY 10278 Attachments 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on February 17, 2015, I e-filed the foregoing GENERAL COUNSEL OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO REVOKE SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM A-1-L5XFMF with the NLRB Division of Judges and caused it to be served as follows: Richard Kass, Esq. 300 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 By email: rkass@bsk.com Counsel for Respondent Dated this 17th day of February 2015.