Opinion ID: 1433395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Maxine Ritchie

Text: Finally, Jackson Hospital contends that the Board's new rule for determining whether an employee was a statutory supervisoras announced in Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. 37 (2006)should have been applied retroactively to determine whether Ritchie was such a supervisor. In arguing this point, Jackson Hospitalwho really raised the issue too late [3] and the Board both appear to get the standard wrong: they both argue that the question is whether applying Oakwood 's test retroactively would work a manifest injustice on the Board. Although the Board contends andthe ALJ agreedthat retroactive application of the Oakwood Healthcare standard would work a manifest injustice on it, Jackson Hospital has a point in asserting that it is bizarre to say that retroactive application of the Board's own rule would work such profound injustice on the Board. The larger problem is that this approach does not comport with the law of this Circuit. Instead, this Court has simply stated that unless manifest injustice can be shown, the Board's judgments on retroactivity should be upheld. Adair Standish Corp. v. NLRB, 912 F.2d 854, 866 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting Hickman Harbor Serv. v. NLRB, 739 F.2d 214, 218 (6th Cir. 1984)). In other words, appellate review is confined to determining whether, after the Board has decided to apply a new standard retroactively or not, that decision would work a manifest injustice on the parties. Applying that standard here is straightforward. Jackson Hospital has not shown that it suffered manifest injustice by the Board's not abiding by its usual practice of applying rules retroactively. There is no evidence of any detrimental reliance by Jackson Hospital in the expectation that it would and should benefit from retroactive application of the Oakwood Healthcare standard for determining whether an employee is a statutory supervisor. Moreover, neither can we say that the employee, Ritchie, suffered a manifest injustice either, and we thus agree with the Board's decision not to apply that rule retroactively, though for slightly different reasons than the Board and ALJ.