outrageous NLRB decision
[this looks seriously bad, but it’s gotten little attention, or so it
seems]
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.
March 4th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Looks like we will now be living in a world with too many chiefs and not enough indians. We all know, except for NLRB members evidently, what ills that bodes. Management will use this to get rid of persons they couldn’t before. Newly assigned supervisors and managers will demand a salary to fit the title. Lazy people will delegate power and smug ones will use it to lord over lesser employees. There will be chaos. Without job protection and security there will be a high turnover as people in these positions get fired or leave for better offers or due to insult. This will result in loss of quality workers, production problems or in medical settings lowered quality healthcare. How much more can we afford to lose and what is wrong with the NLRB?