Regal Health & Rehab Center

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opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision. 3 In an unpublished November 2, 2009 Order, the two sitting mem- bers of the Board denied the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration and motion for stay.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.