
    THESIS PAINTING, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Thesis Painting, Inc., Respondent.
    No. 16-1871, No. 16-2031
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 16, 2017
    Decided: April 7, 2017
    
      Maurice Baskin, LITTLER MENDEL-SON, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Usha Dheenan, Molly Sykes, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   No. 16-1871 petition for review denied; No. 16-2031 cross-application for enforcement granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Thesis Painting, Inc. (Thesis) petitions for review of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order granting summary judgment on its complaint alleging Thesis violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2012) (NLRA), when it refused to recognize and bargain with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, District Council 51 (Union) after the Board certified the Union as the representative of Thesis’ employees. The Board’s order directed Thesis to bargain with the Union upon request. The Board has cross-petitioned, asking this court to enforce its order.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, and find that the Board’s legal interpretations of the NLRA are rational and consistent with the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) (2012); NLRB v. Air Contact Transp. Inc., 403 F.3d 206, 210 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny Thesis’ petition and grant the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

16-1871 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; 16-2081 CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED  