Regal Health & Rehab Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 63
352
Regal Health and Rehab Center, Inc. and Service
Employees International Union Healthcare, Lo-
cal 4. Cases 13–CA–44481, 13–CA–44482, and
13–CA–44619
August 5, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND PEARCE
On August 28, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB 466.1 Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed an application for enforcement in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir-
cuit. On June 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court
issued its decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB,

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.
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 at least three members must be
maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals dismissed
the General Counsel’s application for enforcement.
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 briefs and has de-
cided 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 354
NLRB 466 (2009), which is incorporated herein by ref-
erence.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 members who participated in the original deci-
sion. 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 adjudication of this case
at any time up to the issuance of this decision.
3 In an unpublished November 2, 2009 Order, the two sitting mem-
bers of the Board denied the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration
and motion for stay. Having carefully reconsidered the matter, we
reaffirm the earlier decision to deny those motions.