ART, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsJan 31, 2017

18-CA-168725 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ART, INC. and Case 18-CA-168725 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 653 GLEN LAKE’S MARKET, LLC and Case 18-CA-168726 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 653 THOMAS B. WARTMAN and Case 18-CA-168727 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 653 THOMAS W. WARTMAN and Case 18-CA-168728 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 653 VICTORIA’S MARKET, LLC and Case 18-CA-168729 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 653 2 ORDER The Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. This denial is without prejudice to the Respondent's right to renew its arguments to the administrative law judge and to raise the issues before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge's decision, if appropriate.1 Dated, Washington, D.C., January 31, 2017. PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, ACTING CHAIRMAN MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER 1 Acting Chairman Miscimarra agrees with the denial of the Respondents’ motion as stated in the Board’s Order. As he stated in L’Hoist North America of Tennessee, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 110, slip op. at 3 (2015) (concurring), “[I]n response to a motion for summary judgment, I believe that the General Counsel at least must explain in reasonably concrete terms why a hearing is required. Under the standard that governs summary judgment determinations, this will normally require the General Counsel to identify material facts that are genuinely in dispute.” See also Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, 363 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 2 (2016) (then-Member Miscimarra, dissenting). In the instant case, the General Counsel has described, in reasonably concrete terms, why, based on material facts that are genuinely in dispute, a hearing is required.