Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-impact-of-recent-nlrb-decisions-on-supervisory-status/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:23:03+00:00

Document:
On September 29, 2006, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or board) issued a trilogy of landmark decisions that could have significant and far-reaching implications for as many as eight million American workers.1 In these decisions, the board set forth important guidelines for determining whether an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Labeling a worker as a supervisor has important implications for that worker’s rights to unionize because supervisors are not permitted to bargain collectively.
In Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 1999), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the RNs were supervisors because their duties, which included ensuring adequate staffing and overseeing the rendering of medical services, were supervisory in nature, were conducted in the interest of their employer, and involved the use of independent judgment.
On September 29, 2006, the NLRB decided three cases in response to the Supreme Court’s mandate to redefine its test for determining supervisory status. In the first, and most important case, Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37 (Sept. 29, 2006), the board endeavored to reexamine and clarify its interpretations of the terms “assign,” “responsibly to direct,” and “independent judgment,” as used in §152(11) of the NLRA.
In response to these problems, the NLRB most likely will search for other avenues by which to find that employees are not supervisors. Clearly, the guidelines for determining supervisory status established in Oakwood Healthcare must be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending entirely on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
1 Ross Eisenbrey & Lawrence Mishel, Supervisor in Name Only: Union Rights of Eight Million Workers at Stake in Labor Board Ruling, Econ. Pol’y. Inst. (July 12, 2006), available at www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib225.
2 29 U.S.C. §151-169 (2006).
4 NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 717-18 (2001).
5 29 U.S.C. §52(3) (2006).
6 29 U.S.C. §152(11) (2006).
7 Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 444, 453 (6th Cir. 1999).
8 Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 323 N.L.R.B. No. 209 (July 10, 1997).
11 John E. Lyncheski, Who’s a Supervisor? U.S. Supreme Court Redefines Supervisors in National Labor Relations Board Case, H.R. Mag. (2001), available at findarticles.com.
12 Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 323 N.L.R.B. No. 209 (July 10, 1997).
13 See Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. v. NLRB, 532 U.S. 706 (2001).
14 Id. at 712, 714.
16 See id. at 720-22.
17 See id. at 722-30.
19 See Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37 at 5-9.
25 Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37 at 32.
31 Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37 at 81.
35 Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 N.L.R.B. No. 39, 25 (Sept. 29, 2006).
36 Croft Metals, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 38, at 26-27 (Sept. 29, 2006).
37 See, e.g., Avante at Wilson, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 71 (Oct. 31, 2006); Loyalhanna Health Care Assocs., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 54 (Sept. 30, 2006); ADB Util. Contractors, 348 N.L.R.B. No. 53 (Sept. 30, 2006); Terry Mach. Co., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (Sept. 30, 2006); Bay Harbour Elec., Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 59 (Sept. 30, 2006).
38 Jane M. Von Bergen, Nurse-Supervisor Cases Bear Major Issues for Unions, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Aug. 10, 2006), available at www.philly.com.
39Id.; Paul Bigman, Kentucky River Threatens to Swamp Labor: An NLRB Ruling Could Eliminate Millions of Workers’ Right to Unionize, Dollars & Sense (Oct. 2006), available at www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0906bigman.html.
40 Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37, at 70 (Sept. 29, 2006).
41 Lyncheski, supra note 11.
42Susan Davis, Cynthia E. Nance, and Jeff Starling, Kentucky River: The Impact of the NLRB’s New Interpretation of Supervisory Status Under the NLRA and Beyond, ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education, Live Webcast (Oct. 31, 2006).
Scott T. Silverman is a partner in Zinober & McCrea, P.A., Tampa, where he represents management in labor and employment matters. He is board certified as a specialist in labor and employment law.
Jennifer L. Watson is an associate with Zinober & McCrea, P.A., Tampa, where she represents management in labor and employment matters.

References: v. 
 §152
 §151
 v. 
 §52
 §152
 v. 
 v.