THESIS PAINTING, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 16-1871 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20170407061
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. 151-169 (2012) (NLRA), when it refused to recognize and bargain with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, District Council 51 (Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. 151-169 (2012) (NLRA), when it refused to recognize and bargain with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, District Council 51 (Uni..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. §§ 151-169 (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 cross-petition 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.
Source: Leagle
