Laurel Bay Healthcare

LAUREL BAYE HEALTHCARE OF LAKE LANIER, LLC 355 NLRB No. 118 599 Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, LLC and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1996. Cases 10–CA–35958 and 10–CA– 35983 AUGUST 24, 2010 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER AND BECKER On February 29, 2008, the two sitting members of the Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding, which is reported at 352 NLRB 179.1 Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir- cuit, and the General Counsel filed a cross-application for enforcement. On May 1, 2009, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the Board’s underlying Decision and Order. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake 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. Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 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 main- tained.2 Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.3 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 352 NLRB 179, which is incorporated herein by reference. 2 On June 28, 2010, following the issuance of New Process Steel, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in this case. 3 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.