ART, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 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.