I am repeating what I was told by a BA in my local if I am wrong I apologize till someone comes up with something that is fact then I stand by my post.
it is not legal NLRB
Lesson time.
The NLRB hears cases and makes decisions based on how they interpret the
National Labor Relations Act. Their decisions can be overturned by congress. That is fact.
The NLRB members are appointed by the President of the united states with final aproval from the senate. Another fact
Obama will fill the vacancies at the NLRB with democratic, union friendly appointees. Speculation
Wilma Liebman has already been appointed chairman of the NLRB, and is pro-union. Fact
Obama was a co-sponsor of a bill that would change the present wording of the
National Labor Relations Act. The
National Labor Relations Act is what the NLRB bases their rulings when it comes to unionization. Here is the bill as it stands today.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1644/text
This bill would put a more clear definitions of who is a supervisor in the eyes of the NLRB. Regardless of how an employer classifies their employees, it will ultimately be up to the NLRB to decide whether the employees are truly supervisors. To be classified as a supervisor in the eyes of the NLRB, if this act passes, anyone who spends 50% or more of their time, hiring, firing and disciplining willbe considered a supervisor. If the said employee spends less then 50% of their time doing these things they will not be considered a sup. Any company could argue and say that their employees do spend more then 50% of the time doing the hiring, firing and so forth, but the employees could argue that they do not do that. The NLRB will make the decision.
This whole thing goes back to 3 cases. Collectively know as the "Kentucky river cases".
Under federal law "supervisors" are NOT allowed to unionize. The argument that was brought to the NLRB was that some employees are misclassified as supervisors. Kind of like the battle with FedEx and the classification of contractors. The employees from Oakwood Health care Inc, (nurses) were denied the right to unionize because their employer classified them as supervisors. The case was solely determined by the NLRB ( Bush appointed) who ruled in favor of the employer based on their interpretation of
National Labor Relations Act. How would this of played out with an Obama appointed NLRB?? How would of it played out with an Obama NLRB with also having the respect act thrown in the mix?? Bet the nurses would be in a union now.
Notice where as it stands NOW, anyone who spends more then 10% of their time doing hire, fire, promote, discipline, etc. The act that Obama has sponsored would change that to 50% of their time, or more, to be exempt from joining a union.