County Waste of Ulster,LLC

COUNTY WASTE OF ULSTER, LLC 355 NLRB No. 64 413 County Waste of Ulster, LLC and Laborers Interna- tional Union of North America, Local 108, AFL– CIO and Local 124, R.A.I.S.E., IUJAT. Cases 2– CA–37437 and 2–RC–22858 August 10, 2010 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER AND PEARCE On February 11, 2009, the two sitting members of the Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election in this proceeding, which is reported at 353 NLRB 842.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the General Counsel filed a cross- application for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New 1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman, Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman, Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases. Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section 3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board, a delegee group of at least three members must be maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded this case for further proceed- ings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.2 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.3 The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de- cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu- sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 353 NLRB 842, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a motion for rehearing, asking the court to withhold its remand, and the Board filed a motion to expedite mandate. On July 21, 2010, the court granted the Board’s motion to expedite mandate, and on July 27, 2010, the court denied the Respon- dent’s motion for rehearing. 3 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy, the panel includes the members who participated in the original deci- sion. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures applicable to all cases assigned to a panel, the Board members not assigned to the panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision.