Greensburg Manfacturing, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 2010

355 NLRB No. 139 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

355 NLRB No. 139
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Greensburg Manufacturing, LLC and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Ag-
ricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW. Case 25–CA–30467
August 26, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND HAYES
On June 24, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB No. 35.1 Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed an application for summary en-
forcement. 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 proceedings consistent with the Su-
preme Court’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2

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.
2 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-
As described more fully in the above-referenced deci-
sion, the Acting General Counsel seeks a Judgment on
the Pleadings in this case on the ground that the Respon-
dent has filed an answer to the amended compliance
specification that admits all the allegations set forth in
the amended compliance specification and raises no af-
firmative defenses.
Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
As stated above, the Respondent’s answer to the
amended compliance specification admitted all of the
allegations in the compliance specification, including the
allegations that the Respondent owes certain amounts of
backpay to each of the 30 listed individuals. Absent any
material issue of fact or law, we grant the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Accord-
ingly, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and Order set
forth in the Decision and Order reported at 354 NLRB
No. 35, which is incorporated by reference.
. Dated, Washington, D.C. August 26, 2010
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

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.