NLRB v. Engineering Contractors, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for enforcement of agency order (FRAP 15) [998822769-2]; granting Motion to submit on the briefs (Local Rule 34(e)) [998985882-2] Originating case number: 5-CA-36213,5-CA-36214,5-CA-36216,5-CA-36306,5-CA-36225 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999074378].. [12-1410]

Appeal: 12-1410

Doc: 49

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1410

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC.; ECI OF WASHINGTON, LLC, alter
egos,
Respondents,
ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24 APPRENTICESHIP FUND; ASBESTOS
WORKERS LOCAL 24 PENSION FUND; ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24
MEDICAL FUND,
Intervenors.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal
Relations Authority.
(NLRB-1 5-CA-36213; 5-CA-36214;
36216; 5-CA-36306; 5-CA-36225)

Submitted:

March 26, 2013

Decided:

Labor
5-CA-

March 28, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert J. Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, Lafe E. Solomon,
Acting General Counsel, Celeste J. Mattina, Deputy General
Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda
Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Gregoire Sauter,

Appeal: 12-1410

Doc: 49

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
BOARD,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Petitioner.
Kenneth C. Gauvey, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., Owings
Mills, Maryland, for Respondent. John R. Mooney, Andrew K. Lin,
MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Intervenors.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-1410

Doc: 49

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
The

National

Labor

Relations

Board

(“Board”)

seeks

enforcement of a Board order against Engineering Contractors,
Inc.

(“Respondent”).

The

Administrative

Law

Judge

(“ALJ”)

concluded that Respondent violated § 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the

National

§ 158(a)(1),

Labor
(3),

Relations

(5)

(2006),

Act
and

(“the

Act”),

ordered

29

remedial

U.S.C.

measures.

The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommended order in full.
Respondent

opposes

the

Board’s

petition

for

enforcement, contending that the remedies ordered by the ALJ
were overreaching and impermissibly punitive.
we

lack

because

jurisdiction
Respondent

to

failed

consider
to

raise

We conclude that

Respondent’s
its

contentions

objections

to

remedies ordered in the proceedings before the Board.

the

See 29

U.S.C. § 160(e) (2006) (“No objection that has not been urged
before the Board . . . shall be considered by the court, unless
the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused
because

of

extraordinary

circumstances.”);

Woelke

&

Romero

Framing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 456 U.S. 645, 665 (1982) (barring
from

judicial

N.L.R.B. v.

review

Daniel

1984) (same).

issues

Constr.

Co.,

not
731

raised
F.2d

191,

before
198

Board);
(4th

Cir.

Appeal: 12-1410

Doc: 49

Filed: 03/28/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we grant the Board’s motion to submit the
case on briefs and the petition for enforcement.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION GRANTED

4