Committee to Preserve the Religious Right to Organize

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 11, 2019

SP-600 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 11, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

THE COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE THE
RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO ORGANIZE

ORDER REJECTING MOTIONS

The Committee to Preserve the Religious Right to Organize’s (the Committee’s)
Motion In Re Recusal of William Emanuel and Motion for Recusal of Chairman and
Certain Members of the National Labor Relations Board are rejected as improper.
Neither motion specifies, either by case name or by case number, any proceeding as to
which it is filed.1
Nothing in the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides for the filing of a motion
unconnected to a particular case or proceeding. To the contrary, the Rules expressly
contemplate that motions and other filings will relate to a “case” or “proceeding.”2

1 The Committee submitted the motions using its e-filing privileges in two cases to which
it is a party, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case Nos. 20-CA-139745 and 20-CA-162492.
Nevertheless, the motions’ single-entity captions and expansive text demonstrate that
the Committee seeks to have the Board apply these motions to every case pending
before the Board, rather than to the particular cases in whose records the Committee
filed them. We reject those broad requests, but nothing in this Order prevents the
Committee from refiling its motions in relation to particular cases to which it is a party or
in which it can demonstrate that intervention is proper under existing Board standards.

2 See, e.g., Board’s Rules and Regulations Sec. 102.1(h) (defining “party” as person
named or admitted, or seeking and entitled by right to be admitted, “in any Board
proceeding”); id. Sec. 102.2(b) (specifying how timeliness of filings will be determined
“in any proceeding”); id. Sec. 102.5(f) (providing that “documents filed with the Agency
must be simultaneously served on the other parties to the case”) and (i) (stating that
“failure to comply with the requirements of this section relating to timeliness of service
on other parties will be a basis for . . . [r]ejecting the document. . . .”). Further, Sec.
102.23(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that all motions filed with the
Board must include “an affidavit of service on the parties.” Even assuming that the
Rules provided for the filing of a motion applicable to all cases pending before the
2

Absent a connection with a particular case, parties cannot be identified, documents
cannot be properly served, and timeliness of filings and service cannot be determined.
The Committee’s motions are improper under, and noncompliant with, the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 11, 2019.
By direction of the Board:
/s/ Roxanne L. Rothschild
Executive Secretary

Board, such a motion would presumably need to be served on all parties to all those
cases, along with proof of service reflecting that such service had been made, which
Petitioner clearly failed to do here. The Committee’s motions thus fail to provide notice
and an opportunity to respond for the parties in the numerous cases pending before the
Board, and granting such motions without that opportunity would be inconceivable.