Wanigas Credit Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 2014

07-CA-118028 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WANIGAS CREDIT UNION
and Case 07-CA-118028
LOCAL 393, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
(OPEIU), AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING MOTION1
The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment is
denied. The Respondent has failed to establish that there are no material issues of fact
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 As to the Respondent’s assertion that it was required to report certain information to
its bonding agency, that requirement is not necessarily dispositive of whether the
Respondent violated the Act as alleged. Rather, this case is more appropriately
resolved on a fully developed record. We also note that the Respondent is free to raise
with the administrative law judge any factual issues regarding the Sec. 10(b) issue and
regarding its affirmative defenses on the merits of the allegations.
Regarding the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the
defense that it was independently required to report the employment terminations to its
bonding agency, Member Miscimarra would issue a notice to show cause. The
Respondent’s motion identifies, among other things, relevant provisions of state law and
the NCUA Examiners Guide, as well as supporting affidavits indicating that the bonding
agency requested that the information be forwarded. The Region’s response – stating
that the Respondent’s motion pertains to a “fact in contention” that is “best left to be
resolved through testimony and examination in a hearing” – fails to identify any genuine
issue as to specific disputed facts that would render inappropriate judgment in the
Respondent’s favor. Consistent with Board practice, therefore, Member Miscimarra
would issue a notice to show cause and grant summary judgment in the Respondent’s
favor unless the Region identified specific disputed material facts or otherwise indicated
with specificity why summary judgment is unwarranted based on this defense. Member
Miscimarra agrees that the Respondent is not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on
10(b) grounds.
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 17, 2014
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER