Alton H. Piester, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 26, 2009

11-CA-021531 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 26, 2009)

NOT TO BE INCUDED LS
IN BOUND VOLUMES Newberry, SC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ALTON H. PIESTER, LLC
and Case 11-CA-21531
DARRELL CHAPMAN
ORDER DENYING MOTION'
On September 30, 2008, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and
2Order in this case , finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by, on two
occasions, impliedly threatening employees with discharge if they engaged in protected
concerted activity, and by discharging employee Darrell Chapman because he engaged in
protected concerted activity.
On October 13, 2008, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Stay
of Enforcement. The motion requests that the Board reconsider the above findings.
Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board's Rules and Regulations permits a party in
"extraordinary circumstances" to move for reconsideration of a Board Order. There has
been no showing of extraordinary circumstances here. The Respondent has not shown
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 Board's powers in anticipation of the expiration of the
terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this
delegation, Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue decisions and
orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases. See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 353 NLRB No. 33.
44material error," and it raises only arguments that were previously considered and rejected
by the Board.
The Respondent contends, among other things, that the Board incorrectly held that
there were no exceptions to the judge's finding that Chapman's conduct on April 2, 2006,
was not so egregious as to lose the Act's protection. The Respondent asserts that it
contested this finding in its answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions.
However, cross-exceptions may not be asserted in answering briefs. 3 Section
102.46(d)(2) of the Board Rules and Regulations provides, "[flhe answering brief to the
exceptions shall be limited to the questions raised in the exceptions and in the brief in
support thereof " In any event, the Board considered whether Chapman's conduct on April
2, 2006, was so egregious as to lose the Act's protection. In doing so, it agreed with the
4judge that Chapman had not lost the Act's protection. Therefore, we reject the
Respondent's contention that the Board should reconsider its finding on that issue.
Accordingly, we shall deny the motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.
Dated, Washington, D.C. , January 26, 2009.
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 E.g., Teddi of California, 338 NLRB 1032 (2003).
4 Id., slip op. at 5.
2