Spectrum Health-Kent Community Campus

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 580 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 101
580
Spectrum Health—Kent Community Campus and
International Union, United Automo-
bile/Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL–CIO, and its Local
2600. Cases 7–CA–50996 and 7–CA–51112
August 23, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND HAYES
On February 26, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 353 NLRB 996.1 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 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

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.
3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the delegated author-
ity of the Board, a delegee group of at least three mem-
bers must be maintained. Thereafter, the Board issued an
order setting aside the above-referenced decision and
order, and retained this case on its docket for further ac-
tion as appropriate.
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 353
NLRB 996, which has been set aside and which is incor-
porated 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 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 Member Hayes agrees with the statement made by Member
Schaumber in 353 NLRB 996, 996 fn. 4, concerning the need for case-
by-case analysis of whether an affirmative bargaining order is the ap-
propriate remedy for a refusal to bargain with an incumbent collective-
bargaining representative.