New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 15, 2012

22-CA-029988 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 15, 2012)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NEW VISTA NURSING AND
REHABILITATION, LLC
and Case 22-CA-029988
1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST, NJ REGION
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 3, 2012, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Board’s December 30, 2011 Order in this proceeding. The December 30, 2011 Order
denied the Respondent’s September 9, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s
August 26, 2011 Decision and Order.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to a three-member panel.
The Respondent contends that the Board’s December 30, 2011 Order was
improper because it issued without the participation of a quorum, as Chairman Mark
Gaston Pearce, who was a member of the panel together with former Member Craig
Becker and current Member Brian E. Hayes, was recused. The Respondent states that
it will be unable to litigate the Board’s opinion in the U.S. Court of Appeals unless it
seeks reconsideration of this opinion before the Board.
At footnote 2 of the Board’s December 30, 2011 Order, the Board stated:

1 New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation, LLC, 357 NLRB No. 69 (2011) (Board granted
Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and, inter alia, ordered the
Respondent, on request, to bargain with 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East,
NJ Region as the certified collective bargaining representative of its unit employees).
2
Chairman Pearce, who is recused and did not participate in the underlying
decision, is a member of the present panel but did not participate in
deciding the merits of this proceeding.
In New Process Steel v. NLRB, _ U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), the
Supreme Court left undisturbed the Board’s practice of deciding cases
with a two-member quorum when one of the panel members has recused
himself. Under the Court’s reading of the Act, “the group quorum
provision [of Sec. 3(b)] still operates to allow any panel to issue a decision
by only two members if one member is disqualified.” New Process Steel,
130 S. Ct. at 2644; see also Correctional Medical Services, 356 NLRB No.
48, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2010).
Having duly considered the matter, the Respondent’s motion is denied. We find
that our December 30, 2011 Order was properly issued, for the reasons stated therein.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 15, 2012.
____________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
____________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
____________________________
Sharon Block, Member