## Facts

- Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc. operated an automotive parts distribution business whose employees were the target of a Teamsters organizing campaign.
- After a union election, Ozark filed objections alleging union agents, including employee Oscar Castillo, harassed, threatened, and coerced employees, making a fair election impossible.
- In the representation proceeding on Ozark’s objections, Ozark served subpoenas duces tecum on the union and on Castillo seeking documents tied to the organizing campaign.
- The union and Castillo moved to revoke the subpoenas, asserting employee privacy and associational interests and potential chilling of protected activity.
- The NLRB hearing officer revoked the subpoenas in full and declined to narrow them, citing employee privacy and associational concerns.
- The Board adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations and certified the union.
- To obtain review of the certification, Ozark refused to bargain; the Board then found Ozark committed unfair labor practices under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) and ordered Ozark to bargain.
- Ozark petitioned for review in the D.C. Circuit; the Board sought enforcement of its order.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB abused its discretion by upholding complete revocation of Ozark’s subpoenas without considering narrowing or other protective measures to address privacy concerns while permitting access to relevant evidence.
2. Whether the union certification and the resulting refusal-to-bargain unfair labor practice order could be enforced when the certification resulted from a representation proceeding affected by the subpoena error.

## Decision

- The court granted Ozark’s petition in relevant part, denied enforcement of the Board’s order to the extent dependent on the certification, and remanded.
- The court held the Board acted improperly by extinguishing the subpoenas on privacy grounds without considering less restrictive alternatives such as narrowing scope, redactions, or protective orders.
- Because the subpoena ruling deprived Ozark of a meaningful opportunity to develop evidence for its election objections, the certification process was procedurally defective and could not support enforcement of the bargaining order.

## Legal Principles

- NLRB control over representation-hearing subpoenas is discretionary, but must be exercised consistent with a fair opportunity to litigate material election objections.
- Employee privacy and associational interests may justify limits on discovery, but do not automatically justify categorical revocation of subpoenas seeking relevant evidence.
- When confidentiality concerns exist, the Board should consider tailored measures (e.g., narrower requests, redactions, protective orders) before denying access to potentially material evidence.
- A refusal-to-bargain unfair labor practice order premised on a certification cannot be enforced if the underlying certification is tainted by procedural error affecting the employer’s ability to present election objections.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required the NLRB to reassess Ozark’s election-objection subpoenas using narrower, protective approaches rather than total revocation, and it denied enforcement of the bargaining order because the certification rested on a procedurally unfair representation proceeding.


Ozark Auto. Distribs., Inc. v. NLRB, 779 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2015)