WHITE OAK MANOR

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 211
1280
White Oak Manor and Nichole Wright-Gore. Case
11–CA–21786
September 30, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
On January 30, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 353 NLRB 795.1 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,

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.
L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section
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 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.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 795 (2009), which is incorporated herein by ref-
erence.

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.