Coastal Insulation Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

COASTAL INSULATION CORP.
355 NLRB No. 146
705
Coastal Insulation Corporation and Elmsford Insula-
tion Corporation and Sealrite Insulation of New
York, a single employer and Sergio Santos. Case
22–CA–28439
August 27, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND PEARCE
On August 31, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB 495.1 Thereafter, the
Respondent filed a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the
General Counsel filed a cross-application for enforce-
ment. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme
Court issued its decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v.
NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section 3(b) of

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
the Act, in order to exercise the delegated authority of the
Board, a delegee group of at least three members must be
maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded
this case for further proceedings consistent with the Su-
preme Court’s decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 354
NLRB 495, which is incorporated herein by reference.3

2 Consistent with the Board's general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the members who participated in the original deci-
sion. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures applicable to
all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not assigned to the
panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case
at any time up to the issuance of this decision.
3 Member Pearce does not adopt the judge’s analysis of the installer
employees’ concerted activity at the July 2, 2008 meeting, or the de-
scription of its purpose, but he agrees with the judge’s conclusion that
their conduct was protected. Given the varying contexts in which terms
and conditions of employment are established, Member Pearce does not
adopt the judge’s blanket statement that “[i]t is axiomatic under Board
law that an employer is entitled to set the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of its work force.”