New NLRB rulings redefine employees and supervisor definitions
The National Labor Relations Board issued three decisions on Oct. 3 that draw the line between the supervisor and the supervised. Now, a whole new class of quasi-management workers designated as supervisors are excluded from potential union representation. Those designated as straight employees retain that right. But in the age of virtual workforces and work teams, we might have more "supervisors" than we think. The concern, with the advent of this new ruling, is the possibility of creating a cadre of supervisors who have lots of responsibility without authority.
As a personnel issue, this employee classification issue has been a top concern of businesses for several years. The new rulings create a more defined road map of how to structure the workplace for employers and their HR staff. But the ruling also has organized labor up in arms - not only because they affect nurses, a choice target of union organizers, but because they have the potential of reducing potential union recruits by about 8 million U.S. workers across all industry segments according to the AFL-CIO.
One of the NLRB rulings, Oakwood Healthcare Inc., has drawn fire from organized labor and its supporters. The NLRB voted 3-2 that an acute-care hospital’s full-time charge nurses are supervisors, while rotating nurses are not. The other two decisions completely ruled out supervisory status for nurses and lead operators at a manufacturing plant, giving employers more clearly-defined guidelines on which workers they can and cannot exclude from union representation.
In organizations which foster workforce "teams," and where some employees set the assignments and work schedules for others - without consulting, say, an employee handbook – independent judgment is part of the job. These workers include office administrators, college and university staff, scientific research employees, IT personnel, pharmacists, staff doctors, and, of course, nurses - and each are significant economic sectors in Central Massachusetts. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington DC research organization, reports that 34.8 percent of registered nurses in Mass a total of 27,000 nurses, share supervisory duties. The EPI also calculates that 26.4 percent of Bay State accountants and auditors, or 7,000 workers, share supervisory duties. The bottom line is this ruling could have an effect on the status of a large number of workers in our region.
Employers with support staffers who dwell in the "gray area" of not-quite-management will likely be relieved that federal labor law has become more specific on this topic. This region’s employers used to keep unions at bay by offering workers so much autonomy they wouldn’t want a union. Today, the big worry in Massachusetts, where unions are increasingly trying to woo professional and near-professional workers, should be that defensive job descriptions, designed to keep unions out, may have unintended consequences.
With personnel issues already a top concern for the region’s businesses, we need to proceed with caution in how we apply the Oakwood ruling and its cousin rulings to our workplaces. If we want to foster an innovative workforce, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of creating a class of workers who are supervisors in name only.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments