Harmon Auto Glass

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 364 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 66
364
Leiferman Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Harmon Auto
Glass and its successor Auto Glass Repair and
Windshield Replacement Service, Inc. and In-
ternational Union of Painters and Allied
Trades—District Council 82. Case 18–CA–
18134
August 6, 2010
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND PEARCE
On October 30, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order in this
proceeding, which is reported at 354 NLRB 872.1 There-
after, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
and the General Counsel filed an application for en-

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.
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
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 354
NLRB 872, which is incorporated by reference.3

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-
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.
3 Having carefully considered the matter, we also reaffirm the
Board’s underlying Decision and Order. Harmon Auto Glass, 352
NLRB 152 (2008).