NLRB Pushing Specialty Healthcare Standard to Unprecedented Lengths
Time 3 Minute Read

By now, most in the employer community are all too familiar with the NLRB’s controversial “micro-bargaining unit” standard announced in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011).  In that case, the Board announced a standard that in almost all instances results in approval of a union-requested bargaining unit, unless the employer can show that an “overwhelming community-of-interest” exists between the requested unit and some other part of its workforce.  This standard has proven difficult, if not impossible, for employers to meet, and the Board has pushed the standard into retail, manufacturing, and even wineries.  Now, the Board has introduced its micro-unit rule in higher education, and the results could be disastrous for universities across the nation.In Yale University, UNITE-HERE Local 33 filed petitions with the NLRB’s Boston regional office to represent graduate fellows working in nine different academic departments at the university.  The Union sought separate units in each of the English, East Asian language and literature, history, history of art, political science, sociology, physics, geology, geophysics and mathematics departments.  Despite the fact that UNITE HERE locals represent existing, university-wide bargaining units (one for clerical and technical employees and one for service and maintenance employees), Local 33 argued that each department should be an individual unit under Specialty.

The University objected to the Union’s extreme proposal and argued that the only appropriate unit was a university-wide group of teaching fellows, much like the school’s other bargaining units.  Yale contended teaching fellows in every department (not just the nine at issue) had centralized oversight by the university and shared the same duties, hours, wages and benefits.  Amazingly, the Regional Director discounted this evidence and ruled that each department should be a separate unit.  Citing to Specialty, the Regional Director held that while a university-wide unit might also be appropriate, “Yale has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that there is such an overwhelming community of interest among all of the teaching fellows at the University that there is no rational basis for approving units based on academic departments.” [Decision at 36].  The Regional Director also ruled that graduate fellows are “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore eligible to organize.

The Yale University decision is a deeply troubling development for higher education.  The practical upshot is that the Board will conduct nine separate elections.  And, if the Union is successful, Yale will have to bargain nine different collective bargaining agreements, one for each department.  This nonsensically inefficient result is exactly what most pundits predicted would happen under the Specialty standard.

It remains to be seen whether Yale will appeal the Regional Director’s decision.  However, his ruling should come as a warning shot to colleges and universities that they may be subject to similar efforts to unionize (and balkanize) their academic departments.  Both the SEIU and UNITE HERE unions have increased their organizing efforts in higher education and show no signs of slowing down. Thanks to the Board’s decision in Yale University, their task has just gotten a whole lot easier.

  • Partner

    Kurt has a national practice focused on complex labor and employment matters and related litigation. He counsels clients on all aspects of labor-management relations, including representation elections, collective bargaining ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 6 Minute Read

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) in American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022) decided that employers must meet a heightened burden to expand a voting unit sought by a union in a union election. The decision is a significant development because it makes it easier for unions to organize workforces. And it marks yet another reversal of precedent by the Board to the benefit of unions. (We’ve discussed prior reversals here and here.)

Time 2 Minute Read

Many in the labor community are familiar with the Machinists Union’s long running effort to unionize Boeing’s South Carolina-based 787 Dreamliner manufacturing facility.  After failing in two previous attempts to organize the entire facility, the Union recently won a bid to organize a “micro-unit” limited to a group of flight line technicians and inspectors.  The Regional Director’s decision to approve the Union’s proposed bargaining unit took most labor practitioners by surprise, given the NLRB’s recent decision in PCC Structurals overturning the ...

Time 3 Minute Read

During a week that brought several notable decisions, the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling on Friday, December 15, 2017, overturning its controversial 2011 Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) (“Specialty Healthcare”) decision, which held that in order for employees to be included in a collective bargaining unit, employers had to prove the employees shared an “overwhelming community of interest” with one another.  The unions argued that the “overwhelming community of interest” burden was all but impossible to meet and effectively allowed unions to create “micro-units” of any number, group, or sub-group of employees the unions saw fit.  This in turn meant that an employer could be faced with negotiating collective bargaining agreements with multiple groups of employees who often shared the same schedule, workplace, and general terms and conditions of employment, but nonetheless were represented by different locals or divisions of the same or multiple unions.  In one particularly glaring example, the Board approved a union’s request for separate bargaining units in each of nine different graduate student departments at Yale University despite the fact that the union already represented existing, university-wide bargaining units.

Time 3 Minute Read

On May 24, 2017, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fl.) each introduced the Representation Fairness Restoration Act in their respective Houses of Congress in an attempt to reverse the controversial 2011 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. (2011). As has been discussed in previous posts, the Board in Specialty Healthcare announced a new standard for determining the appropriateness of a bargaining unit. Under the new standard, unless an employer can show that an “overwhelming community-of-interest” exists between the requested unit and some other portion of the workforce, the requested bargaining unit will be approved. This new standard has encouraged the formation of smaller “micro-bargaining units.” These micro-bargaining units have been an administrative and managerial headache for employers, requiring them to bargain with multiple small units in the same workplace, and sometimes in the same department.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page