<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1476" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 12pt Times New Roman; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px" bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We can expect a major accelleration of these 3-2 decisions stripping increasing number of workers of rights under the NLRA.  (The NLRB is structured essentially with three appointees from the party holding the Presidency and two from the opposition party.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=BernhardtA@juris.law.nyu.edu href="mailto:BernhardtA@juris.law.nyu.edu">Annette Bernhardt</A> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2 ?><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></DIV> <DIV>NLRB 3-2 OVERTURNS "STURGIS" ON UNITS INCLUDING TEMPS,<BR>REGULAR WORKERS</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In a major decision involving temporary workers supplied by<BR>staffing firms, the National Labor Relations Board reverses<BR>a four-year-old precedent and rules 3-2 that both the<BR>staffing firm and the user employer must consent before the<BR>board will allow a representation election in a bargaining<BR>unit consisting of both jointly employed temporary workers<BR>and regular workers employed solely by the user employer<BR>(H.S. Care L.L.C., d/b/a Oakwood Care Ctr., 343 N.L.R.B. No.<BR>76, 11/19/04 [released 11/26/04]).</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>The board majority consisting of Chairman Battista and<BR>Members Schaumber and Meisburg overrule the board's decision<BR>in M.B. Sturgis, which held that it is permissible, without<BR>employer consent, to have a bargaining unit combining both<BR>temporary workers jointly employed by a supplier employer<BR>and a user employer with regular workers solely employed by<BR>the user employer.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Saying that "Sturgis was wrongly decided," the board<BR>majority holds instead that such bargaining units constitute<BR>multiemployer units, which require the consent of both<BR>employers. Dissenting, Members Liebman and Walsh say the<BR>board majority "seems to have gone out of its way to make it<BR>impossible for joint employees to exercise their section 7<BR>rights [to choose union representation] effectively.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>Ana Avendaño Denier<BR>Associate General Counsel and<BR>Director, Immigrant Worker Program<BR>AFL-CIO<BR>815 Sixteenth St. N.W.<BR>Washington, D.C. 20006</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>202-637-3949 (tel)<BR>202-637-5323 (fax)<BR><A href="mailto:aavendan@aflcio.org">aavendan@aflcio.org</A> (email)</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.aflcio.org/">www.aflcio.org</A> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>