# National Labor Relations Board v. Diversified Enterprise, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 13, 2011 · 438 F. App'x 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/220869

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISE, INCORPORATED, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 13, 2011
- **Citations:** 438 F. App'x 244
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Davis, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/220869

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1950

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

v.

DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISE, INCORPORATED,

Respondent.

On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board. (9CA-43110)

Submitted: June 29, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley V. Queen, Mount Hope, West Virginia, for Petitioner.
Lafe E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, Celeste J. Mattina,
Acting Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate
General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General
Counsel, Meredith L. Jason, Deputy Assistant General Counsel,
Christopher W. Young, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) seeks

enforcement of a Board order against Diversified Enterprise,

Inc. (“Diversified”). The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

concluded that Diversified violated § 8(a)(1) and (3) of the

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3) (2006).

The Board, by a two-member delegee group, adopted the ALJ’s

recommended order with minor modifications.

In its prior appeal to this court, the Board filed an

unopposed motion to remand the case based on the Supreme Court’s

holding in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635

(2010), that the Act does not authorize fewer than three members

to form a valid delegee group. We granted the motion and

remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

On remand, the Board, by a three-member panel,

affirmed the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions. We

conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s

decision. Accordingly, we grant the petition for enforcement.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION GRANTED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/220869. Public record. Not legal advice.