Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center.

LAUREL BAY HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER 3 Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center and SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health Care Union. Cases 22– CA–27192, 22–CA–27324, 22–CA–27500, and 22–CA–27779 October 15, 2010 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYES On September 30, 2008, the two sitting members of the Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceed- ing, which is reported at 353 NLRB 232 (2008).1 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 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. at least three members must be maintained. Thereafter, the court of appeals remanded this case for further pro- ceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. 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 brief and has decid- ed 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 232, which is incorporated herein 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 remaining member who participated in the origi- nal decision. 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 adjudica- tion of this case at any time up to the issuance of this decision. Howev- er, Member Pearce is recused, and has taken no part in the considera- tion of this case. 3 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s issuance of merit bonuses violated Sec. 8(a)(5), Member Hayes joins former Mem- ber Schaumber in not relying on the judge’s alternative analysis under McClatchy Newspapers, 321 NLRB 1386, 1390 (1996), enfd. 131 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied 524 U.S. 937 (1998). 356 NLRB No. 3