|
|
|
|
Republicans Form Union-Busting MajorityOutrageous NLRB Ruling A Blow to OrganizingThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted on September 29th, along party lines, to exempt certain nurses who “assign others to a location, shift or significant tasks” from union eligibility. The AFL-CIO promptly criticized the ruling, pointing out that it could be used to exclude “up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others…from joining unions.” The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union. Prior to the decision, the NLRB refused union requests to hear oral arguments on the Kentucky River cases—and has heard no oral arguments, a fundamental part of any due process, since the Bush administration took office. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney is quoted on aflcio.org calling the decisions “outrageous and unjustified…It’s the latest example of how the Bush-appointed NLRB is prepared to use legal maneuvering to deny as many workers as possible their basic right to have a voice on the job through their union. The NLRB should protect workers’ rights, not eliminate them. If the administration expects us to take this quietly, they’re mistaken.” In 21 cities, workers took to the streets in a week of action to protest the NLRB’s failure to do its job and protect workers’ freedom to join a union. (See box, page 6.) The ruling of the Board’s Republican majority excluded 12 charge nurses in a Minnesota hospital from union eligibility based on broadening three of twelve terms used in the National Labor Relations Act to identify supervisors: assign, responsibility to direct, and independent judgment. Assign was taken to mean “designating an employee to a place,…or to a time,…or giving significant overall duties to an employee.” Responsibility to direct meant that the “employer delegated to the [supposed] supervisor the authority to direct work…and take corrective action, if necessary,” and that “there is a prospect of adverse consequences for the [supposed] supervisor” if his/her direction of other employees leads to poor performance. Independent judgment must “not be effectively controlled by another authority” and must rise above the “routine or clerical” in order to constitute independent judgment. The application of these new definitions will be fought over as the Board defines new Bargaining Units prior to union certification votes. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others. The two remaining Democrats on the Board strongly dissented from the majority opinion: “Today’s 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.” The New York Times (10/4/06) cited William Gould, former NLRB Chairman under President Clinton, as saying “the decision’s ‘shift in statutory interpretation is a seismic one.’ Mr. Gould said that with the board setting forth rules on what employers must do to prove that employees are supervisors, ‘the potential for manipulation is substantial.’” CWA President Larry Cohen, in a harshly worded letter to NLRB Chairman “There has never been a Labor Board in the history of this country that has done more to destroy collective bargaining rights. There is nothing like it anywhere among democratic countries in our global economy. Collective bargaining density, described by the percentage of the workforce covered, is expanding around the world while you and your colleagues on this NLRB do everything possible to eliminate collective bargaining in our nation. This will be your legacy forever.” Dissenting Labor Board members aptly expressed their grave concern about the ruling, stating that, “The result could come as a rude shock to nurses and other workers who for decades have been effectively protected by the NLRA, but who now may find themselves treated, for labor-law purposes, as members of management, with no right to pursue collective bargaining or engage in other concerted activity in the workplace.. ..The majority’s decision thus denies the protection of the Act to yet another group of workers, while strengthening the ability of employers to resist the unionization of other employees.”
Across the Country, Workers Protest NLRB Ruling
Workers also rallied in Albuquerque, N.M; Boston; Buffalo, N.Y.; Des Moines, Iowa; Hartford, Conn.; Milwaukee; Newark, N.J.; Phoenix; and San Diego. The AFL-CIO and a group of 30 labor law professors filed separate motions yesterday to have the NLRB reconsider its refusal to hold oral arguments. “These cases may radically shift the line between labor and management, not only in the healthcare industry, but in virtually every industry and occupation,” the legal scholars said in a letter to the NLRB. “These cases deserve oral argument.” www.aflcio.org
|
For further information contact Local 201 IUE-CWA at (781) 598-2760 |
||
|
||
Please feel
free to contact the webmaster to
let us know what you think of our site |
||
|