NLRB Weekly Summary, April 7 – 11, 2014
Targeted News Service |
The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB. Inquiries should be directed to the
Summarized Board Decisions
The Board granted the General Counsel's petition for summary judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent did not raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation case in which the unit was clarified to include Content Producers in
***
The Board overruled the Employer's objections to an election held
***
The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for default judgment in this compliance proceeding, on the ground that the Respondents failed to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the absence of an answer, the Board deemed the allegations to be true, and ordered the Respondents to jointly and severally make whole certain named bargaining-unit employees, the Union, and the employee insurance funds, as specified in the compliance specification. The Board's Order sets forth the specific amounts due each individual and organization. Charge filed by Local 24,
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Airgas
C Cases
Land's
***
Appellate Court Decisions
In a published decision on the Board's motion to transfer to the Ninth Circuit, the D.C. Circuit granted the motion and affirmed the Board's position that the circuit court clerk's service of a party's petition for review on the Board does not constitute service "from the persons instituting the proceeding" sufficient to send a circuit race to the
Under 28 U.S.C. section 2112(a), when two parties file petitions for review of the same Board order in different circuits, the Board will submit the "circuit race" to the
The Court disagreed. Quoting the Board's brief, the Court observed:
According to the Board, section 2112(a)(1)'s language--requiring receipt "from the persons instituting the proceedings"--means what it says: that "it is the petitioner's (and not the court's) service of a court-stamped petition on the agency that is determinative." Respondent's Br. 9. This also makes policy sense, the Board contends, because it "rightly places the responsibility in the hands of the party seeking to secure the protection of Section 2112" and allows the agency to "promptly move to secure the proper forum without waiting for a clerk's office to process and serve the petition for review." Respondent's Br. 10. And, as the Board points out, both this and the Second Circuit have, in unpublished opinions, found section 2112(a)(1) unsatisfied where the Board received the petition for review only from the Clerk's Office.
The employer's contrary reading, according to the Court, would render 28 U.S.C. section 2112(a)'s "from the persons instituting the proceeding" meaningless. Thus, "far from being an 'absurd' or meaningless formality . . . requiring petitioners to comply personally with section 2112(a) makes a good deal of sense." The Court therefore granted the Board's motion and transferred the employer's petition for review to the Ninth Circuit.
The Court's opinion is available here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
TNS 30FurigayJof-140417-4706909 30FurigayJof
Copyright: | (c) 2014 Targeted News Service |
Wordcount: | 1737 |
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News