Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

LAUREL BAY HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER 3
Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center and SEIU
1199 New Jersey Health Care Union. Cases 22–
CA–27192, 22–CA–27324, 22–CA–27500, and
22–CA–27779
October 15, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
On September 30, 2008, the two sitting members of
the Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceed-
ing, which is reported at 353 NLRB 232 (2008).1 There-
after, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia Circuit, 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 authority of the Board, a delegee group of
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.
at least three members must be maintained. Thereafter,
the court of appeals remanded this case for further pro-
ceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
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 232, which is incorporated herein 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 adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s issuance of
merit bonuses violated Sec. 8(a)(5), Member Hayes joins former Mem-
ber Schaumber in not relying on the judge’s alternative analysis under
McClatchy Newspapers, 321 NLRB 1386, 1390 (1996), enfd. 131 F.3d
1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied 524 U.S. 937 (1998).
356 NLRB No. 3