NLRB v. Diversified Enterprise, Inc, No. 10-1950 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1950 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISE, INCORPORATED, Respondent. On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (9CA-43110) Submitted: June 29, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wesley V. Queen, Mount Hope, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Lafe E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, Celeste J. Mattina, Acting Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith L. Jason, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Christopher W. Young, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: The enforcement Inc. National of a Labor Board ( Diversified ). Relations order The against Board ( Board ) Diversified Administrative Law seeks Enterprise, Judge ( ALJ ) concluded that Diversified violated § 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3) (2006). The Board, by a two-member delegee group, adopted the ALJ s recommended order with minor modifications. In its prior appeal to this court, the Board filed an unopposed motion to remand the case based on the Supreme Court s holding in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), that the Act does not authorize fewer than three members to form a valid delegee group. We granted the motion and remanded to the Board for further proceedings. On affirmed conclude decision. We remand, the ALJ s that the Board, findings substantial of by a fact evidence three-member and panel, conclusions. supports the We Board s Accordingly, we grant the petition for enforcement. dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION GRANTED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.