NLRB Redefines Union Eligibility
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 4, 2006 Filed at 11:07 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal panel has redefined which workers are supervisors exempted from legal protection to join unions, bringing cries of protest from organized labor and sharp criticism from a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.
The labor relations board ruled that nurses who regularly run shifts at health care facilities should be considered supervisors and be exempt from federal protections that cover union membership. The decision Tuesday potentially has major implications for workers in other fields.
Former NLRB chairman William Gould described the ruling as ''a radical reinterpretation of the statute to make it more difficult for 'charge nurses' to organize.''
''This decision constitutes a flawed and erroneous interpretation,'' said Gould, who served on the NLRB in the 1990s and is now a professor at Stanford Law School. ''It has potential for harm to the collective bargaining process.''
Business advocates praised the NLRB decision.
Stephen Bokat, an attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the decision provided ''a good, clear standard'' on which workers are supervisors.
''When undergoing any organizing efforts by unions, you have to know who in the work force belongs to you and who belongs to the union,'' Bokat said.
The NLRB, in a 3-2 ruling, also said people who work supervisory shifts only on a rotating basis may be exempt from supervisory status in some cases but not others, depending on the frequency and consistency of the shifts.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney denounced the ruling as inviting employers to strip ''workers of their right to have a union by reclassifying them as 'supervisors' in name only.''
The decision was one of three related rulings issued Tuesday, grouped as the ''Kentucky River'' cases because they were intended to clarify the supervisor question from a case several years ago involving Kentucky River Community Care Inc.
Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California joined with labor leaders in harshly criticizing the decision.
Anna Burger of the Change to Win Federation, a group of unions that split with the AFL-CIO last year, called it ''another example of the Bush administration's disdain for the rights of working men and women.''
Labor unions had been closely watching the decision involving an acute care facility in Michigan run by Oakwood Health Care because they were concerned that thousands of workers could lose their union protection under labor law.
Former NLRB member John Raudabaugh, now an attorney in Chicago, said he sees the decision as causing some changes in the labor-employee relationship, though not as much as some are claiming.
''I see isolated thunderstorms,'' Raudabaugh said, ''but not a tsunami.''
In their dissents, two NLRB members said millions of professionals who have some supervisory duties could be hurt by the ruling.
The decision ''threatens to create a new class of workers under federal labor law: workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees,'' they wrote.
The decision is likely to be challenged before the Supreme Court, which has twice rejected board decisions for failing to give adequate consideration to such issues as a supervisor's use of independent judgment and the assignment or direction of staff. In those cases, the Board found that nurses who direct other employees in their patient care duties are not supervisors. The court sent the issue back to the board for more work.
The board considered such issues as a supervisor's use of independent judgment and the assignment and direction of staff.
The ruling didn't clearly say when workers who supervise only some of the time could be ruled as supervisory staff, said Cheryl Johnson, president of the United American Nurses.
''The NLRB was designed to protect the workforce and the fact they would come up with anything that could jeopardize workers is problematic,'' she said. In two related cases, the NLRB also ruled:
--Charge nurses at Golden Crest Healthcare Center in Hibbing, Minn., did not carry out supervisory work, using the definitions outlined in the lead Oakwood case.
--Lead employees at Croft Metals, Inc. in McComb, Miss., did not exercise supervisory authority under federal law, using those same definitions in the Oakwood case.
The unions directly involved were the United Auto Workers in the Oakwood case, the United Steel Workers in the Golden Crest case and the Boilermakers union in the Croft Metals case.