Labor board redefines employee eligibility for union membership
Posted: Wednesday, October 04, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nurses permanently assigned to run work shifts should be considered supervisors and thus exempt from U.S. labor protections, a federal panel held Tuesday in a decision with major implications for workers in other fields.
The National Labor Relations Board, 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.
The ruling in the "Kentucky River" cases was long awaited by both organized labor and business.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney denounced the ruling as inviting employers "to strip millions of workers of their right to have a union by reclassifying them as 'supervisors' in name only."
Stephen Bokat, an attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praised the decision as providing "a good, clear standard" on what 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," he said.
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.
The decision is "a big blow to workers who want to be in a union," said Nancy Schiffer, an attorney for the AFL-CIO. "If an employer gives you supervisory responsibility, you lose the right to have a voice at work."
The opinion was ambiguous enough that it could lead to "more litigation and it could lead to strikes where workers have to defend their right to collective bargaining," she said.
Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Ted 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 Oakwood Health Care, an acute care facility in Michigan, because they were concerned that thousands of workers could lose their union protection under labor law.
In their dissents, two NLRB members said millions of professionals who currently 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 all the way to the Supreme court, where twice before the high court has overturned such rulings and remanded them to the NLRB for more work.
Barbara Medvec, chief nursing officer for Oakwood Healthcare Inc., said that "charge nurses" work day in and day out and this validates the work they do as supervisors."
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.
Former NLRB member John Radabaugh said he sees the decision as causing some changes in labor-employee relationship, though not as much as some are claiming.
"I see isolated thunderstorms," he said, "but not a tsunami."
The National Labor Relations Board, 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.
The ruling in the "Kentucky River" cases was long awaited by both organized labor and business.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney denounced the ruling as inviting employers "to strip millions of workers of their right to have a union by reclassifying them as 'supervisors' in name only."
Stephen Bokat, an attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praised the decision as providing "a good, clear standard" on what 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," he said.
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.
The decision is "a big blow to workers who want to be in a union," said Nancy Schiffer, an attorney for the AFL-CIO. "If an employer gives you supervisory responsibility, you lose the right to have a voice at work."
The opinion was ambiguous enough that it could lead to "more litigation and it could lead to strikes where workers have to defend their right to collective bargaining," she said.
Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Ted 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 Oakwood Health Care, an acute care facility in Michigan, because they were concerned that thousands of workers could lose their union protection under labor law.
In their dissents, two NLRB members said millions of professionals who currently 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 all the way to the Supreme court, where twice before the high court has overturned such rulings and remanded them to the NLRB for more work.
Barbara Medvec, chief nursing officer for Oakwood Healthcare Inc., said that "charge nurses" work day in and day out and this validates the work they do as supervisors."
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.
Former NLRB member John Radabaugh said he sees the decision as causing some changes in labor-employee relationship, though not as much as some are claiming.
"I see isolated thunderstorms," he said, "but not a tsunami."
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 1 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
Chris wrote on Oct 4, 2006 8:03 AM: