Harmon Auto Glass

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 355 NLRB No. 66 364 Leiferman Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Harmon Auto Glass and its successor Auto Glass Repair and Windshield Replacement Service, Inc. and In- ternational Union of Painters and Allied Trades—District Council 82. Case 18–CA– 18134 August 6, 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER AND PEARCE On October 30, 2009, the two sitting members of the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order in this proceeding, which is reported at 354 NLRB 872.1 There- after, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the General Counsel filed an application for en- 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. forcement. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New 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 proceedings consistent with the Su- preme Court’s decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2 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 354 NLRB 872, which is incorporated by reference.3 2 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. 3 Having carefully considered the matter, we also reaffirm the Board’s underlying Decision and Order. Harmon Auto Glass, 352 NLRB 152 (2008).