17-2250 NLRB v. Deep Distributors of Greater N.Y., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of October, two thousand eighteen. Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. 17-2250 DEEP DISTRIBUTORS OF GREATER N.Y., INC., D/B/A THE IMPERIAL SALES INC., Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: USHA DHEENAN, Supervisory Attorney, JOEL A. HELLER, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC. For Respondent: SAUL D. ZABELL, ESQ., Bohemia, NY. On application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”). 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the application for enforcement is GRANTED. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) applies for enforcement of its Order issued against Respondent Deep Distributors of Greater N.Y., Inc. (“Deep Distributors”) on June 20, 2017. Deep Distributors of Greater NY d/b/a The Imperial Sales, Inc. and United Workers of America, Local 660 and Henry Hernandez., Cases 29–CA–147909, 29–CA–157108, and 29–RC–146077, 365 NLRB No. 95 (June 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “The Board’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” NLRB v. Consol. Bus Transit, Inc., 577 F.3d 467, 473 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we will not overturn the Board just because there are two conflicting views of the evidence; we reverse a factual finding only if “no rational trier of fact could reach the conclusion drawn by the Board.” Id. at 473–74. As to questions of law, “[i]f the Board’s conclusion has a reasonable basis in law,” this Court will uphold it, and we defer to the Board on mixed questions of law and fact so long as there appears to be more than one reasonable solution, one of which the Board has adopted. Sheridan Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. NLRB, 225 F.3d 248, 252 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Beverly Enters., Inc. v. NLRB, 139 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1998)). At the start, Deep Distributors has not challenged the substance of the NLRB’s Order on appeal. The company does ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals