Laurel Bay Healthcare

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

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.