PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Oakwood Care Center 343 N.L.R.B. No. 76 (2004)' - lynch
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Is a proposed bargaining unit that includes or is composed of employees that are employed jointly by a user employer and a supplier employer a multi-employer unit such that the consent of both the user and supplier employers is required for the Board to find the unit appropriate?
Consent of both employers not required to include jointly employed ees in a unit with singly employed ees
A joint employer relationship not the same as multi-employer bargaining and the Board will not require the consent of the both employers (supplier and user) in order to find a unit of single-employer employees and joint employer employees appropriate; decision to be based on standard community of interest criteria.
“The scope of a bargaining unit is delineated by the work being performed by a particular employer.” Whether the work is performed by solely employed or jointly employee employees, it is done for a single employer. All employees in the unit are employed by the employer
Right to organize should not require the consent of the employer
Should board give greater weight to interest of each joint employer in not being bound in its LR by an entity to which it has not ceded authority or to the interests of ees in having the choice of being represented for CB purposes in a unit of ees with which they have a community of interest?
Should the decision be viewed from the perspective of the day-to-day work situation, as employees might view it, or from the perspective of organizational structure, as the employer might view it?
“The Board now effectively bars yet another* group of employees—the sizeable number of workers in alternative work arrangements—from organizing labor unions, by making them get their employers’ permission first. That result is surely not what Congress envisioned when it instructed the Board, in deciding whether a particular bargaining unit is appropriate, “to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by th[e] Act.” 29 U.S.C. §159(b).”
*Board had previously found that graduate assistants and disabled workers in rehab environments not employees