County Waste of Ulster,LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

COUNTY WASTE OF ULSTER, LLC
355 NLRB No. 64
413
County Waste of Ulster, LLC and Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, Local 108, AFL–
CIO and Local 124, R.A.I.S.E., IUJAT. Cases 2–
CA–37437 and 2–RC–22858
August 10, 2010
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND PEARCE
On February 11, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second
Election in this proceeding, which is reported at 353
NLRB 842.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition
for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, and the General Counsel filed a cross-
application for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the
United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New

1 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.
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.2
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.3
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 353
NLRB 842, which is incorporated herein by reference.

2 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a motion for rehearing, asking the
court to withhold its remand, and the Board filed a motion to expedite
mandate. On July 21, 2010, the court granted the Board’s motion to
expedite mandate, and on July 27, 2010, the court denied the Respon-
dent’s motion for rehearing.
3 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 members who participated in the original deci-
sion. 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 adjudication of this case
at any time up to the issuance of this decision.