Allied Mechanical Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 14, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 2 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
Allied Mechanical Services, Inc. and Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 357, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA–40907 and 7–
CA–41390
October 14, 2010
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
On September 28, 2007, the National Labor Relations
Board, by a three-member panel, issued its Supplemental
Decision and Order in this case.1 The Supplemental De-
cision and Order granted the General Counsel’s and the
Union’s motions for reconsideration of the original Deci-
sion and Order2 and overruled prior dismissals of allega-
tions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.3
On November 16, 2007, the Respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel and the Union filed answering briefs.4
On May 30, 2008, the two sitting members of the
Board issued an Order Denying Motion for Reconsidera-
tion in this proceeding, which is reported at 352 NLRB
662 (2008).5 In the order, they rejected the Respondent’s
contentions that the Board had erred in retroactively ap-
1 351 NLRB 79 (2007).
2 341 NLRB 1084 (2004).
3 Specifically, the Board found that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from Local 357 on July 22,
1998, by revising its job application procedure without notice to Local
357 on August 1, 1998, and by failing to provide a response to Local
357’s July 29, 1998 information request.
4 The Respondent also filed a statement of additional authority.
5 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
plying its decision in Raymond F. Kravis Center for the
Performing Arts, 351 NLRB 143 (2007), in finding that
the parties had a 9(a) relationship, and in ordering the
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union.
They also rejected the Respondent’s contention that the
case should be remanded to the judge to apply the
Board’s decision in Toering Electric Co., 351 NLRB 225
(2007).
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit,6 and the General Counsel filed a
cross-application for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the
United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New
Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that
under Section 3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the
delegated authority of the Board, a delegee group of at
least three members must be maintained. Thereafter, the
court of appeals remanded this case for further proceed-
ings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.7
Having considered the Respondent’s motion for recon-
sideration and the parties’ briefs, the Board has decided
to deny the motion for reconsideration for the reasons set
forth in the Order reported at 352 NLRB 662 (2008),
which is incorporated herein by reference.
ORDER
It is ordered that the Respondent’s motion for recon-
sideration is denied.
6 The Respondent sought review of the Board’s Decision and Order
(341 NLRB 1084), Supplemental Decision and Order (351 NLRB 79),
and Board Order denying the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration
(352 NLRB 662).
7 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the remaining member who participated in the origi-
nal decision. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures
applicable to all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not
assigned to the panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudica-
tion of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision. Mem-
ber Becker is recused, and has taken no part in considering this case.

356 NLRB No. 1