SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for enforcement is GRANTED and the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioner the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") petitions to enforce its August 10, 2010 decision and order (the "August 2010 Decision"), concluding that County Waste, LLC ("County Waste") violated section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), by allowing Local 124, to distribute a bonus to employees when an election was pending. County Waste of Ulster, LLC, 355 N.L.R.B. No. 64 (2010).1 The competing union, Local 108, Laborers International Union of North America ("Local 108"), was granted permission to intervene. Respondent County Waste cross-petitions for review of the August 2010 Decision. In its petition for review, County Waste asserts, inter alia, that substantial evidence does not support the Board's finding that County Waste permitted Local 124 to distribute the bonus; that even if Local 124 distributed the bonus, this conduct would not violate the NLRA; and, that the Board engaged in "sham" decisionmaking.2 We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

County Waste first argues that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") finding that County Waste allowed Local 124 to distribute the bonus was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. This Court "will not reject factual findings unless no rational trier of fact could have arrived at the Board's conclusion." NLRB v. Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc., 13 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir. 1994). Here, the evidence in the record includes County Waste's general manager Ernie Palmer's testimony that he had directed County Waste's dispatcher to let Local 124 distribute a few of the bonuses; a note from Local 124 to County Waste's employees that stated, "Enclosed please find your 2005 Holiday Bonus Check," J.A. 86; and the testimony of one of County Waste's employees, Michael Schiavone, that Local 124 had distributed the bonus. This Court cannot say that no rational trier of fact could have arrived at the ALJ's conclusion that County Waste allowed Local 124 to distribute the bonus.

County Waste next contends that even if it had allowed Local 124 to distribute the bonus, this would not have violated the NLRA. This argument too is unavailing. We "review[] the Board's legal conclusions to ensure they have a reasonable basis in law." Long Island Head Start Child Dev. Servs. v. NLRB, 460 F.3d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the ALJ reasonably concluded that, by allowing Local 124 to distribute the bonus, County Waste sought to influence the election in violation of section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. That Local 124 remained the collective bargaining representative until December 2 does not change our analysis. As the ALJ concluded, Local 124 lost the legal advantage of non-neutrality permitted by RCA del Caribe, Inc., 262 N.L.R.B. 963, 965-66 (1982), as soon as it entered into a stipulated election agreement. Therefore, permitting Local 124 to distribute a bonus right before an election is not a privileged breach of neutrality.

Finally, County Waste alleges that the Board's review of its case prior to entering the August 2010 Decision was cursory and therefore, inadequate. "`The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'" Nat'l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (quoting United States v. Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)); see also J. Andrew Lange, Inc. v. FAA, 208 F.3d 389, 394 n.7 (2d Cir. 2000) ("Absent a showing to the contrary, it is presumed the agency considered all evidence in the record when making its determination."). Furthermore, federal courts are not to probe the mental processes of agency decisionmakers because, "[j]ust as a judge cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny, so the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected." United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941) (internal citation omitted) (finding that it was error to depose the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the process by which he reached a decision).

None of the evidence on which County Waste relies is sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity. First, County Waste emphasizes the short amount of time that elapsed between the Board receiving the mandate and entering the August 2010 Decision. Speed, however, is not an adequate basis to rebut the presumption of regularity. See Nat'l Nutritional Ass'n v. FDA, 491 F.2d 1141, 1146 & n.6 (2d Cir. 1974) (rejecting claim that the presumption of regularity was overcome because it was impossible for the FDA Commissioner to have reviewed 1000 pages of exceptions filed to proposed regulations and twenty thousand additional letters in thirteen days). Second, County Waste argues that the Board failed to adequately address its August 9 letter, in which it objected to permitting Board members who authored an earlier decision in this matter to participate in the review of the case on remand. But the August 10 Decision directly addressed this request when it explained that the two members who issued the prior decision participated on the remand panel in accordance with the Board's general practice, which was designed to promote "administrative economy" by assigning the case on remand to "the members who participated in the original decision." County Waste of Ulster, LLC, 355 N.L.R.B. No. 64, at 1 n.3 (2010). Finally, County Waste asserts that the Board must not have reviewed its case since the August 2010 Decision fails to account for issues that were remanded to the ALJ by an earlier Board decision. In its September 2010 Decision denying County Waste's motion for reconsideration, the Board squarely responded to this concern, explaining that "the August 2010 decision left no doubt as to its adoption of the . . . severance and remand of the separate 8(a)(1) issue." County Waste of Ulster, LLC, 355 N.L.R.B. No. 193, at 1 (2010). Nor does the fact that the Board did not reaffirm its order with respect to the severed section 8(a)(1) issues, see County Waste of Ulster, LLC, 354 N.L.R.B. No. 54 (2009), until its denial of County Waste's motion for reconsideration, rehearing, and/or reopening of the record serve to rebut the presumption of regularity.

We have considered all of Respondent/Cross-Petitioner's arguments and, for the reasons stated above, we GRANT the Board and Local 108's petition to enforce and DENY County Waste's petition for review.