enforcement of its hiring policy against them or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges they would have enjoyed absent the discrimination against them. Id. at *3 (emphasis added). On October 21, 2009, the Board filed an application for enforcement with this court. On June 17, 2010, in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2635, 2639-45, 177 L.Ed.2d 162 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that the Board did not have ’s remedial order, a party must object to the order with sufficient specificity; it is not enough for a party to object to the remedy generally. See Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB, 318 U.S. 253, 255, 63 S.Ct. 585, 87 L.Ed. 744 (1943) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also NLRB v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge,
holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that petitioners general objection to each and every recommendation was not specific enough to preserve an issue under section 10e holding that plaintiffs objection to an r  r was not specific enough to constitute an adequate objection under  fedrcivp 72b holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal