The Time May Be Right for Isakson's Bill on Unions
Whether by board reversal or by legislation, employers displeased with the fragmented workforce that resulted from Specialty Healthcare can be optimistic that this particular precedent may not last much longer.
August 02, 2017 at 10:51 AM
10 minute read
Every year since 2011, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, has introduced the same bill … and every year since 2011, the bill has failed to muster the necessary support to become law. On May 24, Sen. Isakson again reintroduced his bill, called the Representation Fairness Restoration Act. Will this bill finally succeed, or will it suffer the same fate as in prior years? The answer to that question requires us to travel back to Aug. 26, 2011. On that day, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a precedent-setting order regarding Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). The decision, which dealt specifically with health care settings, allowed a unit of certified nursing assistants (CNA) to comprise a standalone bargaining unit for purposes of unionizing. The board thus adopted a controversial new standard for determining appropriate bargaining units and opened the door to micro-unit bargaining in all industries.
As a result of the board's ruling in Specialty Healthcare, micro-units have been surfacing in various industries, replacing at times the historical “wall-to-wall” bargaining unit. Under this new standard, a union's petitioned-for unit only need consist of a “clearly identifiable” group of employees for the board to presume that the unit is appropriate. The burden on the employer to defeat this presumption is quite high, as employers must demonstrate that employees in a proposed larger unit share an “overwhelming” community of interest with those in the proposed micro-unit. For employers, this decision meant a challenging expansion of potential bargaining units.
For example, a retail employer could face multiple bargaining units (e.g., a micro-unit of cashiers, a micro-unit of salespersons, a micro-unit of shelf-stockers, etc.) This is almost exactly what happened in Macy's Inc., 361 NLRB No. 4 (2014), when the board allowed cosmetic and fragrance sales associates to form their own union, apart from the remainder of the store. These separate micro-units could all potentially bring different demands and different tactics with different representation. Indeed, business advocates argue that Specialty Healthcare has made it harder for employers to run their businesses, as they must deal with the potential for a fragmented workforce, with different terms of employment applicable to different units of employees. Unions, on the other hand, believe Specialty Healthcare gives power to a larger variety of workers and allows similarly-situated employees to collectively bargain as to their own collective interests. So what can be done about the Specialty Healthcare ruling and its potentially adverse effect on business?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Harris Administration Would Likely Review Merger Effects on Workers, Consumers, Antitrust Experts Say
4 minute readEmployment Lawyers in Big Law Optimistic About More Work Ahead After Noncompete Rule
5 minute readChild Labor Probe Hammers Tennessee Factory, Highlighting Risks to Employers From Feds' Stepped-Up Enforcement
6 minute readMexican Nationals Allege 'Bait-and-Switch' Scheme That Misled Them Into Manual Labor Job
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250