Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-15124
Agency No. 12-CA-026758
AMBASSADOR SERVICES, INC.,
Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,
versus
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.
Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
National Labor Relations Board
(November 15, 2013)
Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable J. Frederick Motz, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland,
sitting by designation.
Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Ambassador Services, Inc. (“Ambassador”) petitions this Court for review
of the National Labor Relations Board’s Decision and Order, which found
Ambassador in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the “NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (5). The Board cross-
petitions for enforcement of its order.
On appeal, Ambassador asserts that the Board lacked a quorum to issue its
order because—at the time that the Board issued its decision and order—three of
the Board’s five members were intra-session recess appointments made without
Senate consent. We first conclude that Ambassador did not waive the right to raise
the issue of the Board’s authority to act. As to the Board’s authority to act, we do
not write on a clean slate given our precedent in Evans v. Stephens. See 387 F.3d
1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (interpreting the Constitution’s Recess
Appointments Clause). While there are certainly some differences between this
Court’s opinion in Evans and this case, the reasoning in Evans persuades us that
Ambassador’s quorum claim lacks merit and that the authority of the Board to act
does not affect our subject matter jurisdiction over the merits issues in this case.
See Evans, 387 F.3d at 1222 n.1, 1224-27; see also NLRB v. RELCO
Locomotives, Inc., No. 12-2111, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4420775, *26-28 (8th Cir.
Aug. 20, 2013); GGNSC Springfield LLC v. NLRB, 721 F.3d 403, 406-07 (6th
Cir. 2013).
2
Case: 12-15124 Date Filed: 11/15/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Proceeding to the merits, Ambassador claims that substantial evidence did
not support the Board’s decisions that
• John Martin was a statutory supervisor;
• Donnie May’s conduct violated NLRA § 8(a)(1);
• Ambassador’s safety rule prohibiting “walking off the job”
violated NLRA § 8(a)(1);
• Ambassador did not establish that a majority of employees
signed the decertification petition; and
• Ambassador unlawfully failed and refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union.
After oral argument and careful consideration of the entire record and all of the
merits issues, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the Board’s
determinations. Thus, we affirm the Board’s decision and grant the Board’s
petition for enforcement.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Ambassador’s petition for review and
GRANT the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order in full.
3