Schiff Hardin Labor and Employment Breakfast Briefing: "Can't You Hear the Whistle Blowing?" will take place October 18, 2006 at our offices in the Sears Tower. We hope that you are able to join us and look forward to seeing you at our Breakfast Briefings throughout the year.

 

NLRB Clarifies "Supervisor" Definition

On October 3, 2006, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a highly anticipated decision in Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., which — along with two companion cases — provides guidance on the definition of "supervisor" under the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act"). This issue is important to employers because supervisors are not considered "employees" under the Act and therefore are not eligible for union membership.

In Oakwood Healthcare, the NLRB determined that the 12 registered nurses ("RNs") who served as charge nurses on a permanent basis were supervisors under the Act because they assigned particular work to their co-workers, and because they used their informed and independent judgment when making these assignments. The NLRB also concluded that the 112 RNs who served as charge nurses on a "rotating" basis were not supervisors because they were not assigned supervisory duties according to an established pattern or a predictable schedule.

Section 2(11) defines a "supervisor" as any individual who has the authority to do, or to effectively recommend, any of the following 12 tasks: hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances. In addition, the exercise of such authority must not merely be of a routine or clerical nature, but must include the use of independent judgment.

Oakwood Healthcare provides direction in the ongoing and heated debate about this definition. Specifically, the NLRB offered guidance on three parts of the "supervisor" definition — what it means to "assign" other employees, to "responsibly direct" them, and to use "independent judgment."

The NLRB held that "assign" means the act of "designating an employee to a place (such as a location, department, or wing), appointing an individual to a time (such as a shift or overtime period), or giving significant overall duties, i.e., tasks, to an employee." However, simply choosing the order in which an employee will perform discrete tasks (e.g., restocking toasters before coffeemakers) is not indicative of the authority to assign. Basically, "assign" means the designation of significant overall duties, not the ad hoc instruction that an employee perform a discrete task.

"Responsibly to direct" means that the supervisor has been delegated the authority to direct others' work and the authority to take corrective action. In addition, there must be some accountability for the performance of others, some prospect of adverse consequences that could result from the supervisor's direction if the tasks are not performed properly.

In explaining "independent judgment," the NLRB stated that judgment is not independent if it is dictated by detailed instructions such as company rules, instructions from a boss, or the provisions of a collective-bargaining agreement.

Moreover, in evaluating whether the "rotating" charge nurses could be considered supervisors, the NLRB reminded that a supervisor must be assigned his or her supervisory duties according to a pattern or schedule, and must spend at least 10-15% of his or her total work time performing the supervisory functions.

The Oakwood decision has been immediately reviled by unions and labor groups as a wholesale expansion of the meaning of "supervisor" under the Act. While it does appear that some employees who assign or direct a limited number of co-workers could now be considered supervisors, the impact is unlikely to be as significant as unions and labor groups suggest. As always, the "supervisor" determination will be a highly fact-based inquiry, dependent on the specific job duties and functions of the employees involved. It is also important to note, however, that the standards outlined above differ significantly from the standards for exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a result, the NLRB's decision should not be taken to impact the analysis of whether supervisors are eligible for overtime.

Eric L. Barnum
404.437.7013
ebarnum@schiffhardin.com
Paula M. Ketcham
312.258.5539
pketcham@schiffhardin.com
Patricia Costello Slovak
312.258.5665
pslovak@schiffhardin.com
Howard R. Barron
312.258.5558
hbarron@schiffhardin.com
Matthew D. Lahey
312.258.5674
mlahey@schiffhardin.com
Drahcir M. Smith
312.258.5557
dsmith@schiffhardin.com
Max G. Brittain Jr.
312.258.5544
mbrittain@schiffhardin.com
Neil Lloyd
312.258.5628
nlloyd@schiffhardin.com
Richard L. Verkler
847.295.4300
rverkler@schiffhardin.com
Jennifer M. Cerven
312.258.5599
jcerven@schiffhardin.com
Catherine M. Masters
312.258.5565
cmasters@schiffhardin.com
Nora Kersten Walsh
312.258.5530
nkerstenwalsh@schiffhardin.com
Nicole Finitzo
847.295.4308
nfinitzo@schiffhardin.com
Ralph A. Morris
312.258.5553
rmorris@schiffhardin.com
Dorothy A. Weber
312.258.5749
daweber@schiffhardin.com
Laura B. Friedel
312.258.5673
lfriedel@schiffhardin.com
Lee Ann Rabe
312.258.5527 
lrabe@schiffhardin.com
Ronald Wilder
312.258.5610
rwilder@schiffhardin.com
Julie J. Furer
312.258.5689
jfurer@schiffhardin.com
Dana D. Rice
312.258.5622  
danarice@schiffhardin.com
Tamera M. Woodard
404.437.7016
twoodard@schiffhardin.com
Charlene Q. Kalebic
847.295.4335
ckalebic@schiffhardin.com
Marc L. Silverman
212.745.0872 
msilverman@schiffhardin.com
Brenna Woodley
312.258.5738
bwoodley@schiffhardin.com


Henry W. Sledz Jr.
312.258.5525
hsledz@schiffhardin.com



Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 S Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
   
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
 
623 Fifth Avenue
28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
         
One Westminster Place
Suite 200
Lake Forest, IL 60045-1885
  One Atlantic Center, Suite 2300
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
  3 Burlington Road
Dublin 4,
Ireland
 

© 2006 Schiff Hardin LLP

This publication is for the general information of clients and friends of our firm. It does not provide legal advice for any specific matter. Readers should consult a lawyer directly for such advice. This publication, or parts of it, may be considered advertising material under professional conduct rules applicable to lawyers.

Click here to unsubscribe from this list.