Analyzing Recent Developments at the National Labor Relations Board

By Dolin, Kenneth R. | Labor Law Journal, Summer 2005 | Go to article overview

Analyzing Recent Developments at the National Labor Relations Board


Dolin, Kenneth R., Labor Law Journal


Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, this author believes that a fair analysis of recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (Labor Board or Board) shows that the current Board has done no more than simply apply well established standards and principles to the cases that have come before it. The current Board has returned Board law to the mainstream and has corrected the excesses of the Clinton-era Board. During its tenure, the Clinton-era Board reversed over 40 Board precedents, including one Board precedent that had been continuously in effect for 50 years. It was the Clinton-era Board, therefore, and not the current Board, that "revisited a lot of cases that had been fairly well settled."

In contrast to the Clinton-era Board, the current Board, under Chairman Robert J. Battista, has staked out no novel positions. Put another way, none of the current Labor Board's holdings can fairly be described as a Board holding "for the first time in the history of the Act," or even a "reversal of a long-time well established Board precedent." Indeed, there have been at least 21 panel cases at the Board where the two Democratic appointees have written the plurality opinion and a Republican appointee has dissented. These case are typically highly fact-intensive cases, involving such issues as Wright Line/§8(a)(3) discrimination, employee misconduct, §8(a)(l) balancing of employer concerns and employee rights, mandatory subjects of bargaining, common situs picketing and the need for extraordinary remedies. These cases are noteworthy because it is highly unusual for Board members who are members of the same political party as the President to be in the minority on 2-1 panel decisions.

The current Board expanded NLRA coverage for workers when it exercised jurisdiction over a large casino operated by an Indian tribe on tribal land that employed a large number of employees, most of whom were not members of the tribe.1 This decision was in line with the dominant view of the federal courts that federal labor and employment laws generally apply to tribal enterprises whether they are on or off a reservation.

All of the current Board's major decisions can fairly be placed into one or more of the following three categories:

* a return to pre-Clinton-era Board precedent;

* the mere following of existing Board precedent; or

* following guidance from the federal circuit courts of appeals.

The following is a closer look at what has happened at the Board in the past year, as well as what developments are likely to occur over the next year.

UNIT PLACEMENT OF CONTINGENT WORKERS

In Oakwood Care Center,7 the Board held in a 3-2 decision that bargaining units combining employees solely employed by a user employer with employees jointly employed by the user employer and a supplier employer (e.g., employees supplied by a temporary employment agency) are appropriate only upon the consent of all parties. The decision overruled M. B. Sturgis,3 in which the Board applied a novel definition of the statutory phrase "employer" for the purpose of deciding the case, and found that units combining jointly employed and solely employed employees were nevertheless single employer units. The Board in Sturgis permitted "mixed" bargaining units-a combination of jointly employed and solely employed employees in a single bargaining unit-if the two groups had a "community of interest," even over the objections of both employers.

In Oakwood Care Center, the Board concluded that Sturgis was wrongly decided, overruled it, and returned to the longstanding pi~eSturgis precedent4 that such units constitute multiemployer units that are appropriate only upon the consent of all parties. As the Board noted, section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act does not authorize the Board to direct elections in units encompassing the employees of more than one employer. Chairman Battista and Members Schaumber and Meisburg found that solely employed employees, on the one hand, and jointly employed employees, on the other hand, are employees of different employers and that their inclusion in the same bargaining unit creates a multiemployer unit because one employee group has its terms set by the joint employer entity and the other employee group has its terms set by only one of the employers. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Analyzing Recent Developments at the National Labor Relations Board
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.