Case Name: BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERAL LLC, a Product Line of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Petitioner Cross-Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 382 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 09-60034
Parties: BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERAL LLC, a Product Line of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Petitioner Cross-Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
BENTONITE PERFORMANCE MINERAL LLC, a Product Line of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Petitioner Cross-Respondent v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
No. 09-60034.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
Howard S. Linzy, Kullman Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner Cross-Respondent.
Linda Dreeben, Assistant General Counsel, Robert James Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, David A. Seid, Ruth E. Burdick, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, Michael Josserand, Denver, CO, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
Robert William Lowrey, Randall Vehar, International Chemical Workers Union Council, Akron, OH, for Intervenor.
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this case, we are asked to review whether the National Labor Relations Board ("the Board") erred in finding that Bentonite Performance Mineral LLC ("Bentonite") committed numerous unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
On appeal, Bentonite raised a threshold issue, arguing that under Section 3(b) of the Act, the two-member Board which issued the order in this case was without lawful authority to render a decision. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New Process Steel, L.P. v. National Relations Board, 560 U.S. - (2010) and agreed with appellant's position that the two member board had no authority to adjudicate cases pending before the Board.
Accordingly, we vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.