MPE, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 29, 2015

09-CA-084228 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MPE, INC.
and Case 09-CA-084228
RICHARD RANKIN
and Case 09-CA-084595
NATHAN RANKIN
ORDER DENYING MOTION1
The Respondent’s Renewed and Amended Motion for Summary Judgment or
alternatively, Motion to Dismiss and compel arbitration is denied.2 The Respondent has
failed to establish that there are no material issues of fact warranting a hearing and that
it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, or that that the allegations are
barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.3 Further, we decline to defer the complaint
allegations to arbitration in this matter, where the Respondent has not agreed to waive

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 We agree that references to the Charging Parties’ criminal records are not relevant to
the disposition of the pending motion. However, in light of the General Counsel’s
pleadings, which referenced the Charging Parties’ incarceration, we deny the General
Counsel’s request that the Board strike from Respondent’s motion all references to the
Charging Parties’ criminal records.
3 Member Johnson expresses no opinion on the merits of the Respondent’s laches
defense at this juncture. He agrees with the Respondent that “at some point laches
[will] apply against the Board for inordinate delay in bringing an action.” Pleasantview
Nursing Home v. NLRB, 351 F.3d 747, 765 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting NLRB v. Mich.
Rubber Prods., 738 F.2d 111, 113 (6th Cir.1984)). However, although counsel for the
General Counsel does not specifically argue in his opposition that there is a factual
dispute preventing summary judgment on the basis of laches, he generally argues facts
that would undermine the defense, e.g., that no prejudice existed to the Respondent. In
this circumstance, Member Johnson finds that the laches defense is inappropriate for
disposition on summary judgment.
2
the procedural issue of timeliness. See United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557, 560
fn. 22 (1984).
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 29, 2015
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER