Regency Heritage & Rehabilitation Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 603 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

REGENCY HERITAGE NURSING & REHABILITATION CTR.
355 NLRB No. 103
603
Regency Heritage Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
and SEIU 1199, New Jersey Health Care Union.
Case 22–CA–27992
August 25, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND HAYES
On February 27, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 353 NLRB 1027 (2009).1 On March
2, 2009, the Respondent filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion, which the Board denied on April 27, 2009. 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 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.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2

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.
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
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 353
NLRB 1027 supra, which has been set aside and which is
incorporated herein by reference.3

SEIU when ‘Article XX’ and other internal ‘no raiding’ issues were
litigated between Local 300, UFCW, a party of interest in [Regency
Grande Nursing & Rehabilitation Center] 22–CA–26231 and [Regency
Grande Nursing & Rehabilitation Center] 22-CA-28331, and SEIU
Local 1199. David Gross is a principal in all of these facilities and
cases.” Member Becker played no role in and has no knowledge of the
referenced art. XX proceedings. He served as counsel 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 Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, 355 NLRB No. 40
(2010), the Respondent’s request for Member Becker to recuse himself
is denied.
3 Having carefully considered the matter, we also reaffirm the earlier
decision to deny the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration.