NLRB v. Engineering Contractors, Inc. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                              Filed:    March 28, 2013
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-1410
    (5-CA-36213; 5-CA-36214; 5-CA-36216;
    5-CA-36306; 5-CA-36225)
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC.; ECI OF WASHINGTON, LLC, alter
    egos,
    Respondents,
    ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24 APPRENTICESHIP FUND; ASBESTOS
    WORKERS LOCAL 24 PENSION FUND; ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24
    MEDICAL FUND,
    Intervenors.
    O R D E R
    The Court amends its opinion filed March 28, 2013, as
    follows:
    On the cover sheet, agency information section, “On
    Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Labor Relations
    Authority” is corrected to read “On Application for Enforcement
    of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board”
    For the Court – By Direction
    /s/ Patricia S. Connor
    Clerk
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-1410
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC.; ECI OF WASHINGTON, LLC, alter
    egos,
    Respondents,
    ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24 APPRENTICESHIP FUND; ASBESTOS
    WORKERS LOCAL 24 PENSION FUND; ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 24
    MEDICAL FUND,
    Intervenors.
    On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor
    Relations Board. (NLRB-1 5-CA-36213; 5-CA-36214; 5-CA-36216; 5-
    CA-36306; 5-CA-36225)
    Submitted:   March 26, 2013                  Decided:   March 28, 2013
    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert J. Englehart, Supervisory Attorney, Lafe E. Solomon,
    Acting General Counsel, Celeste J. Mattina, Deputy General
    Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda
    Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Gregoire Sauter,
    NATIONAL    LABOR   RELATIONS  BOARD,  Washington,  D.C.,   for
    Petitioner.     Kenneth C. Gauvey, OFFIT KURMAN, P.A., Owings
    Mills, Maryland, for Respondent. John R. Mooney, Andrew K. Lin,
    MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
    for Intervenors.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    The    National      Labor       Relations    Board       (“Board”)         seeks
    enforcement of a Board order against Engineering Contractors,
    Inc.    (“Respondent”).             The    Administrative        Law     Judge       (“ALJ”)
    concluded that Respondent violated § 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
    the    National       Labor       Relations      Act     (“the    Act”),       
    29 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(1),        (3),    (5)    (2006),      and    ordered    remedial       measures.
    The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommended order in full.
    Respondent          opposes        the     Board’s         petition           for
    enforcement, contending that the remedies ordered by the ALJ
    were overreaching and impermissibly punitive.                       We conclude that
    we     lack    jurisdiction         to    consider       Respondent’s          contentions
    because       Respondent      failed      to     raise     its   objections          to    the
    remedies ordered in the proceedings before the Board.                                See 
    29 U.S.C. § 160
    (e) (2006) (“No objection that has not been urged
    before the Board . . . shall be considered by the court, unless
    the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused
    because       of    extraordinary         circumstances.”);         Woelke       &    Romero
    Framing, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 
    456 U.S. 645
    , 665 (1982) (barring
    from     judicial       review       issues       not      raised       before       Board);
    N.L.R.B. v.        Daniel   Constr.       Co.,    
    731 F.2d 191
    ,    198     (4th      Cir.
    1984) (same).
    Accordingly, we grant the Board’s motion to submit the
    case on briefs and the petition for enforcement.                We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are
    adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this    court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION GRANTED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-1410

Filed Date: 3/28/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021