Atrium at Princeton, LLC D/B/A Pavilion at Forrestal and Princeton Healthcare, LLC D/B/A Pavilions a

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

PAVILLIONS AT FORRESTAL & PRINCETON HEALTHCARE 5
Atrium at Princeton, LLC d/b/a Pavilions at Forrestal
and Princeton Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Pavilions
at Forrestal and SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health
Care Union. Cases 22–CA–27066, 22–CA–
27289, 22–CA–27315, and 22–CA–27601
October 22, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
On December 5, 2008, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 353 NLRB 540 (2008).1 Thereafter,
the Respondents filed a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit, and the General Counsel filed a cross-application
for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in New Process Steel,
L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section
3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the delegated authori-
ty of the Board, a delegee group of at least three mem-
bers must be maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals
remanded this case for further proceedings consistent
with the Supreme Court’s decision.
1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decid-
ed to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 353
NLRB 540, which is incorporated here by reference.3
2 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the remaining member who participated in the origi-
nal decision. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures
applicable to all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not
assigned to the panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudica-
tion of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision. Howev-
er, Member Pearce is recused, and has taken no part in the considera-
tion of this case.
3 In doing so we rely on Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier,
LLC, 355 NLRB 599 (2010), incorporating by reference the rationale of
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, 352 NLRB 179 (2008).
In agreeing with the judge that Respondent Atrium violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to bargain in good
faith with the Union for a successor collective-bargaining agreement,
Chairman Liebman and Member Hayes find it unnecessary to decide
whether the parties had reached a genuine impasse in their negotiations,
as any impasse that existed was broken in January 2006 when Re-
spondent Atrium unilaterally implemented a new health insurance plan
without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain
and failed and refused to provide the Union with requested information
concerning the new plan. 353 NLRB 540, 541. Member Becker would
also find that any impasse was broken by the imposition of a duty to
bargain on a new employer, the successor, Respondent Atrium, on
December 9, 2005.

356 NLRB No. 6