As discussed previously, the Board historically has taken a more flexible approach as to what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit for unionization of non-acute health care facilities, opting to evaluate appropriate bargaining units on a case-by-case basis. See 29 CFR § 103.30(g). Under this case-by-case approach, the Board has typically applied a “pragmatic” or “empirical”, “community-of-interests” standard, grouping employees by, among other things, similarity of wages and hours, extent of common supervision, frequency of contact with other employees, areas of practice, and patterns of bargaining in a non-acute care setting.
The practical result of non-acute “community-of-interests” approach has been the frequent certification of broader bargaining units of all non-professional service and maintenance employees, such as: dietary aides, cooks and clerks. The Board’s rationale in certifying such broader bargaining units has been that non-acute health care facilities that provide long-term care rather than medical treatment of a specific illness are more functionally integrated in their functions than acute health care facilities, where the division of labor is far more explicit. Under this rationale, non-acute health care facilities’ broader focus on the day-to-day general well-being of patients and staffing models that involve employees of varying skill levels working interchangeably in providing services justified such bargaining units.
The Board scrapped this approach and announced that it would use its “traditional” community-of-interest test. In evaluating the appropriateness of a unit under the traditional community-of-interest test, the Board considers variables such as: similarity of wages, benefits, skills, training, contact with other employees, interchange of employees, supervision, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Notwithstanding the Board’s purported new reliance on the “traditional” community of interest test, the Board’s application, as noted by Member Hayes in his dissent, is a much different standard. In concluding that a unit of CNAs was only an appropriate unit, the Board majority accepted the proposed unit petitioned-for (CNAs only); applied the traditional community of interest test to show that those employees (CNAs only) did, in fact, share a community-of-interests; and then, put the burden on the employer to show that other employees had to share an “overwhelming” community-of-interest with the CNAs to justify inclusion of the other employees in the petitioned-for unit of CNAs.
A legitimate concern is that this Board will use whatever community-of-interest standard it has articulated to create a proliferation of bargaining units in non-acute care settings. That is, given this Board’s application of the community-of-interest test here, it seems clear that a non-acute care employer (any employer other than an acute care facility) could be subject to multiple smaller, fractured bargaining units resulting in increased bargaining obligations and corresponding increased inefficiencies.
As the Board’s goal seems to be finding ways to make it easier for unions to organize workers, it should be no surprise that it is easier for unions to organize smaller units than larger units.
The Board’s aggressiveness in removing any perceived barriers to union organization of employees is unparalleled. Now, more than ever, it is essential for union-free employers to proactively insulate their workplace against the threat of unionization. Non-union employers must be very aware of the potential for unionization of their workforce and take steps to minimize the likelihood that this will occur, including putting in place policies prohibiting organizing efforts during working time, preventing access to your workplace by outside parties, as well as training supervisors to recognize incipient unionism.
For more information, please contact:
Todd L. Sarver
614.458.0042
tsarver@mcdonaldhopkins.com
or any of our labor and employment counseling and litigation attorneys by clicking on the Labor and Employment Practice link below:
Labor and Employment Practice
We have an impressive team of labor and employment attorneys who specialize in representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law at both the state and federal level. They have significant expertise in counseling clients on labor, employment and human resources issues and representing employers in state and federal courts and administrative agencies in all aspects of labor and employment-related litigation.
600 Superior Avenue, East, Suite 2100, Cleveland, Ohio 44114
|
Chicago
312.280.0111
Fax: 312.280.8232 |
Cleveland
216.348.5400
Fax: 216.348.5474 |
Columbus
614.458.0025
Fax: 614.458.0028 |
Detroit
248.646.5070
Fax: 248.646.5075 |
Miami
305.714.9452
Fax: 305.714.9453 |
West Palm Beach
561.472.2121
Fax: 561.472.2122 |
