The American National Red Cross, Great Lakes Blood Services Region and Mid-Michigan Chapter

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 12, 2010

07-CA-052033 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS
and Cases 7-CA-52033
7-CA-52288
LOCAL 459, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL 7-CA-52544
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO
and Cases 7-CA-52282
7-CA-52308
TEAMSTERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL 7-CA-52487
UNION NO. 580, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
ORDER DENYING MOTION1
The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.2 The Respondent has

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 Board’s powers in anticipation of
the expiration of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31,
2007. Pursuant to this delegation, Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber
constitute a quorum of the three-member group. As a quorum, they have the
authority to issue decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation
cases. See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Teamsters Local 523 v. NLRB, 590 F.3d
849 (10th Cir. 2009); Narricot Industries, L.P. v. NLRB, 587 F.3d 654 (4th Cir.
2009); Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for
cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3130 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009) (No. 09-328); New Process
Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. granted 130 S.Ct. 488 (2009);
Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), petition for
cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3098 (U.S. Aug. 18, 2009) (No. 09-213). But see Laurel
Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3185 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2009) (No. 09-377).
2 The General Counsel argues that the motion should be dismissed as
untimely because it was served on only Region 7 and the parties, and therefore
was not filed with the Board 28 days prior to the scheduled March 16, 2010
hearing as required by Sec. 102.24(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. In
light of the fact that no party has shown that it was prejudiced by the
Respondent’s procedural error in filing its motion with the Region, we accept the
motion as timely filed.
2
failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2010.
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
PETER C. SCHAUMBER, MEMBER

3 This order is without prejudice to the Respondent raising its argument before
the administrative law judge, and on any exceptions that may be filed to the
judge’s decision, if appropriate.