Regency Grande Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 587 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

REGENCY GRANDE NURSING & REHABILITATION CTR.
355 NLRB No. 109
601
Regency Grande Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
and SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health Care Union
and Local 300s, Production Services and Sales
District Council, United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union. Cases 22–CA–
28331, 22–CA–28384, 22–RC–12889, and 22–RC–
12895
August 23, 2010
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND BECKER
On September 3, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision, Order, and Certification of Rep-
resentative in this proceeding, which is reported at 354
NLRB 530.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition
for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, and the General Counsel
filed a cross-application for enforcement. On June 17,
2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its deci-
sion 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 at least three members must be maintained.
Thereafter, the Board issued an order setting aside the
above-referenced decision and order, and retained this
case on its docket for further action as appropriate.

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 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 530, which has been set aside and which is incor-
porated 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 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.
The Respondent has filed a motion requesting that Members Pearce
and Becker recuse themselves from participating in this proceeding.
Member Pearce is recused, and has taken no part in considering this
case. The Respondent’s motion requests that Member Becker be
recused as a result of his having served as “General Counsel of the
SEUI when ‘Article XX’ and other internal ‘no raiding’ issues were
litigated between Local 300, UFCW, the party of interest in this case,
and SEIU Local 1199.” Member Becker played no role in and has no
knowledge of the referenced art. XX proceedings. He served as coun-
sel to the Service Employees International Union prior to his service on
the Board, but never as general counsel to the Union. Consistent with
the principles set forth in Service Employees Local 121RN (Pomona
Valley Hospital Medical Center), 355 NLRB 234 (2010), the Respon-
dent’s request for Member Becker to recuse himself is denied.
3 We find it unnecessary to rely on Hanson Material Service Corp.,
353 NLRB 71 (2008), cited at 354 NLRB 530, 532 fn. 11.