Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MCELROY COAL COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 10-1989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2011.
    Decided: Feb. 18, 2011.
    Lafe E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Julie B. Broido, Supervisory Attorney, Amy H. Ginn, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David C. Burton, Williams Mullen, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Respondent.
    Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition for enforcement granted by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) brings this action to enforce a Board order against McElroy Coal Company. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concluded McElroy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (2006). The Board, by a two member group, affirmed the ALJ’s factual determinations and legal conclusions that McElroy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

In its previous 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, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2635, 177 L.Ed.2d 162 (2010), that the Act does not authorize fewer than three members to form a valid delegee group. We granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s order, and remanded to the Board for further proceedings. McElroy Coal Co. v. NLRB, 392 Fed.Appx. 137 (4th Cir.2010).

On remand, the Board, by a three-member panel, concluded that McElroy violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion, we grant the petition for enforcement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.