Long Mechanical, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2012

07-CA-052917 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

NOT INCLUDED IN HGB
BOUND VOLUMES Northville, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LONG MECHANICAL, INC.,
and Cases 7-CA-52917
7-CA-53146
7-CA-53200
LOCALS 98 AND 636, UNITED ASSOCIATION
OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 9, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order1 in this proceeding, granting the
Acting General Counsel’s motion for default judgment based on
the Respondent’s breach of an informal settlement agreement.
Specifically, the Board found that the Respondent’s broad
general denial that it breached the settlement agreement was
insufficient to raise an issue of material fact warranting a
hearing. On August 31, 2012, the Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration. On September 14, 2012 and September 18, 2012,
respectively, the Acting General Counsel and the Charging Party
Union each filed an opposition to the Respondent’s motion.

1 358 NLRB No. 98.
2
In its motion, the Respondent contends that the Board
committed material error by failing to consider information
pertaining to its compliance with the settlement agreement that
was contained in the exhibits attached to the Acting General
Counsel’s motion for default judgment.
The Respondent’s argument is without merit because, as
noted by the Acting General Counsel and the Charging Party, the
Respondent does not argue that it presented any of its alleged
specific responses to the motion for default judgment to the
Board.2 Although these documents were attached to the Acting
General Counsel’s motion for default judgment, the Respondent
did not rely on them in its responses to the Board and never
referenced or cited them in any manner. Further, these documents
are obviously not newly discovered or previously unavailable.
Having duly considered the matter, we find that the Respondent’s
motion is lacking in merit and fails to present “extraordinary
circumstances” warranting reconsideration under Section
102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the Respondent’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.

2 The Respondent relies on Vocell Bus Company, Inc., 357 NLRB No.
148 (2011), as support for its motion for reconsideration.
However, Vocell is distinguishable because unlike here, the
respondent in that case did not generally deny that it had
breached the settlement agreement, but instead specifically
asserted how it complied with the agreement.
3
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 27, 2012.
______________________________________ Brian E. Hayes,
Member

______________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member

______________________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD