Supreme Airport Shuttle, LLC, (2017)

Docket Number:05-RC-187864
 
FREE EXCERPT

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

Supreme Airport Shuttle LLC and Shuttle Drivers

Association of BWI. Case 05–RC–187864

February 7, 2017

ORDER

BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS

PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

The Employer’s Appeal from the November 18, 2016 Order of the Regional Director Denying Employer’s Motion to Require Petitioner’s Counsel to Withdraw is granted in part.

In brief, the Employer on November 17, 2016, filed a motion with the Regional Director, requesting that he issue an order pursuant to Section 102.177 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations requiring the Petitioner’s counsel to withdraw from his representation of the Petitioner. The motion was based on the contention that Petitioner’s counsel, because he had previously represented the Employer in another matter, suffered from a disqualifying conflict of interest in light of Rule 1.9 of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, as applicable here by virtue of Section 102.177(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.1 On November 18, 2016, the Regional Director denied the Employer’s motion, after determining that he lacked the authority under Section 102.177 to grant the relief sought. The Employer has appealed, urging the Board to direct the General Counsel to initiate an investigation of the Employer’s allegations, pursuant to Section 102.177.

After careful consideration, the Board has determined that the Regional Director, pursuant to the authority delegated by the Board to Regional Directors with respect to representation proceedings and subject to the Board’s review, has the authority to decide whether the relief sought by the Employer is warranted, independent of the disciplinary procedure established by Section 102.177, which is administered by the Board’s General Counsel.

The Board’s decisions make clear that, in an unfair labor practice proceeding, an administrative law judge, subject to the Board’s review, has the authority to disqualify a party’s counsel based on an impermissible con-

1 Sec. 102.177(a) provides that “[a]ny attorney or other representative appearing or practicing before the Agency shall conform to the standards of ethical and professional...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP