Lederach Electric, Inc. and Morris Road Partners, LLC (single employers)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 2014

361 N.L.R.B. 242 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

242 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lederach Electric, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 380 Case 04–
CA–037725
August 19, 2014
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND JOHNSON
On March 4, 2013, the Board issued a Supplemental
Decision and Order in this proceeding, which is reported
at 359 NLRB 575. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.
At the time of the Supplemental Decision and Order,
the composition of the Board included two persons
whose appointments to the Board had been challenged as
constitutionally infirm. On June 26, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court issued its decision in NLRB v. Noel
Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), holding that the chal-
lenged appointments to the Board were not valid. There-
after, the Board issued an order setting aside the Supple-
mental Decision and Order, and retained this case on its
docket for further action as appropriate.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in NLRB
v. Noel Canning, supra, we have considered de novo the
judge’s supplemental decision and the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs. We have also considered the
now-vacated Supplemental Decision and Order, and we
agree with the rationale set forth therein.1 Accordingly,
we affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions
and adopt the judge’s recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the Supplemental Decision
and Order reported at 359 NLRB 575, which is incorpo-
rated herein by reference.2
1 In finding that the discriminatees would have worked through the
claimed backpay period, Member Johnson accords substantial weight to
the fact that the signed 2011 salting agreement was entirely irrelevant
because it was signed after the end of the claimed backpay period. He
further finds that Breen’s testimony that he never spoke to other em-
ployees about union-related subjects while employed by the Respond-
ent weighs against finding that he was a salt.
2 Consistent with our decision in Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas
Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 102 (2014), we agree with the modification to
the judge’s recommended Order to require the Respondent to provide
the Social Security Administration reporting remedy.

361 NLRB No. 21