Thesis Painting, Inc. v. NLRB


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Application for Enforcement of agency order (FRAP 15) [999925421-2] in 16-2031. Originating case number: 05-CA-172905. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000057762] [16-1871, 16-2031]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1871 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1871 THESIS PAINTING, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 16-2031 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THESIS PAINTING, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Review and Cross-application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (05-CA-172905) Submitted: March 16, 2017 Decided: April 7, 2017 Appeal: 16-1871 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/07/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 16-1871 petition for review denied; No. 16-2031 cross-application for enforcement granted by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Baskin, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Usha Dheenan, Molly Sykes, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1871 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/07/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Thesis Painting, Inc. (Thesis) petitions for review of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order granting summary judgment on its complaint alleging Thesis violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151169 (2012) (NLRA), when it refused to recognize and bargain with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, District Council 51 (Union) after the Board certified the Union as the representative of Thesis’ employees. The Board’s order directed Thesis to bargain with the Union upon request. The Board has cross-petitioned, asking this court to enforce its order. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, and find that the Board’s legal interpretations of the NLRA are rational and consistent with the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (2012); NLRB v. Air Contact Transp. Inc., 403 F.3d 206, 210 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny Thesis’ petition and grant the Board’s crosspetition for enforcement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 16-1871 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; 16-2031 CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?