Opinion ID: 222767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Motion to Recuse Member Becker

Text: Finally, Regency Grande argues that the Board erred in denying its motion to recuse Member Becker. Regency Grande claims that recusal was appropriate because, prior to his appointment on the Board, Member Becker served as counsel to the SEIU. In fact, according to Regency Grande, Member Becker was serving as general counsel to the SEIU when an arbitration involving SEIU Local 1199 and Local 300S took place in 2003. We see no error in the Board’s decision denying Regency’s motion. In Service Employees Local 121RN (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center), 355 NLRB No. 40 (2010), 2010 WL 2311381 (June 8, 2010), Member Becker explained the standards to apply in evaluating recusal requests. He first noted that, pursuant to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch set forth in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, decision-makers may not sit on cases involving parties they represented in the prior year. 2010 WL 2311381, at  (citing 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a), (b)(iv)). In addition, based on the standards set forth in Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,” a member of the executive branch may 10 not, for a period of two years from the date of his appointment, “participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that directly and substantially related to [the member’s] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.” Id. at  (citing Exec. Order No. 13490, 74 Fed. Reg. 4673 (Jan 21, 2009)). Applying those principles here, the Board concluded that there was no basis for Member Becker’s recusal. The Board also noted that Member Becker “played no role in and has no knowledge of” the 2003 proceeding, and that, although he did serve as counsel to the SEIU in the past, he never served as its “general counsel.” (A-1.) Given that Regency has not shown that Member Becker’s participation in this matter violated the above-described standards, or that there was any other reason for him to excuse himself from this case, we will not disturb the Board’s decision.