International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
Citation | 259 U.S.App.D.C. 168,814 F.2d 697 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1987 |
Docket Number | AFL-CI,P,No. 85-1642,85-1642 |
Parties | 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2993, 259 U.S.App.D.C. 168, 55 USLW 2530, 106 Lab.Cas. P 12,256 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 474,etitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, St. Francis Hospital, Inc., Intervenor. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Allen S. Blair, with whom James R. Newsom, III, Memphis, Tenn., Laurence J. Cohen, David M. Silberman and Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for petitioner.
Victoria A. Higman, Atty., N.L.R.B., with whom Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.
James V. Coggin, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., was on brief, for intervenor, St. Francis Hosp.
George Kaufmann, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for amicus curiae, American Nurses' Ass'n, urging remand to the N.L.R.B.
Bruce P. Saypol, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for amicus curiae, American Hosp. Ass'n, urging the denial of the petition for review.
Before EDWARDS and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges, and JOYCE HENS GREEN, * District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
I. INTRODUCTION
This petition for review challenges a dismissal by the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") of an unfair labor practice complaint charging the intervenor, St. Francis Hospital (the "Hospital"), with an unlawful refusal to bargain. St. Francis Hosp., 271 N.L.R.B. 948 (1984) ("St. Francis II "). In a prior decision, St. Francis In the decision we review today, St. Francis II, 271 N.L.R.B. 948 (1984), the Board has reconsidered its initial designation of the maintenance unit. The Board has now concluded that the 1974 Amendments to the Act require it to apply a standard stricter than the traditional community-of-interest criteria when determining appropriate bargaining units in nonprofit health-care institutions. Specifically, the Board's latest decision holds that the 1974 Amendments mandate a "disparity-of-interest" standard. Thus, the Board now apparently presumes that there are only two appropriate units in the health-care industry (professional and nonprofessional), see note 25 infra, and it requires "sharper than usual differences (or 'disparities') between the wages, hours, and working conditions, etc., of the requested employees and those in the overall professional or nonprofessional unit" in order to certify a unit other than one presumed to be valid. 271 N.L.R.B. at 953. Under this revised legal standard, the Board dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint against the Hospital, finding that the maintenance unit did not possess the requisite disparity-of-interest to justify separate representation. 5
II. BACKGROUND
Section 7 of the Act provides that "[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations [and] to bargain collectively...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157 (1982). Under the Act, one way for a union to gain recognition for purposes of collective bargaining is to petition the Board for a certification election among employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. NLRA Sec. 9, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159 (1982). The Act sets forth relatively few standards to guide the Board in its certification of collective bargaining units, and therefore in this area the Board possesses broad discretion. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Local No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 171-72, 92 S.Ct. 383, 393-94, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971). The Board must determine whether an "employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof" constitutes an "appropriate" employee unit for collective bargaining. 10 NLRA Sec. 9(b), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(b) (1982). Section 9(b) defines a "unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining" as one which "assure[s] to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by ... [the] Act." Id. In certifying a bargaining unit, however, the Board shall not find controlling "the extent to which the employees have organized." NLRA Sec. 9(c)(5), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(c)(5) (1982). In enforcing the Act--except in special cases (for example, involving "professional" employees)--the Board has consistently adhered to a community-of-interest test in defining appropriate units for collective bargaining. See, e.g., American Cyanamid Co., 131 N.L.R.B. 909, 910 (1961). Under this test, the Board has followed a long-standing policy of holding 1948 NLRB Ann.Rep. 36 (1949) (citing In re Chrysler Corp., 76 N.L.R.B. 55, 58-59 (1948)). See note 15 infra.
In 1974, Congress amended the Act to cover nonprofit health-care institutions. 11 Act of July 26, 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-360, 88 Stat. 395. The 1974 Amendments
reflected Congress' judgment that hospital care would be improved by extending the protection of the Act to nonprofit health-care employees. Congress found that wages were low and working conditions poor in the health-care industry, and that as a result, employee morale was low and employment turnover high. Congress determined that the extension of organizational and collective-bargaining rights would ameliorate these conditions and elevate the standard of patient care.
Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 497-98, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2471-72, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978) (footnotes omitted).
In extending the Act to nonprofit health-care employees, Congress recognized the potential for interruptions in patient care. It therefore enacted special provisions that lengthen the strike notice period and require federal mediation. NLRA Sec. 8(d)(A)-(C), (g), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d)(A)-(C), (g) (1982). 12 Congress, however, did not adopt a provision proposed by Senator Taft which would have limited the number of bargaining units in nonprofit health-care institutions to four (professional, technical, clerical, and service and maintenance) unless the employer and the union agreed otherwise. S. 2292, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), reprinted in SEN. SUBCOMM. ON LABOR, COMM. ON LABOR & PUBLIC WELFARE, 93d CONG., 2d SESS., LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COVERAGE OF NONPROFIT HOSPITALS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT at 457-58 [hereinafter "LEGISLATIVE HISTORY"]. In fact, Congress did not in any way modify the section of the Act which covers bargaining units--section 9, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159 (1982). Instead, both the House and the Senate Committee Reports contain language "agreed upon" by supporters and opponents of the Taft provision. 13 This legislative history reads as follows:
EFFECT ON EXISTING LAW
Due consideration should be given by the Board to preventing proliferation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Hamrick
...(9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1361, 122 L.Ed.2d 740 (1993); International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 717 (D.C.Cir.1987) (Buckley, J., concurring). Whatever the value of such remarks in construing the meaning of the bill being discussed, ......
-
State v. $223,405.86, 1141044
...provisions they were unable to persuade their colleagues to accept...." International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL–CIO v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 717 (D.C.Cir.1987) (Buckley, J., concurring). Another judge makes the same point: "The propensity of judges to look past the statu......
-
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United States
...reference point.'" Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 583-84 (1994) (quoting Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 814 F.3d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Indeed, in construing a statute courts "'must begin with the ......
-
Associated Gas Distributors v. F.E.R.C., 85-1811
...authority to enforce principles gleaned solely from legislative history that has no statutory reference point." IBEW, Local No. 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir.1987) (emphasis deleted) (citing United States v. American College of Physicians, 475 U.S. 834, 106 S.Ct. 1591, 1598, 89 L......
-
Agency Legislative History
...(1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 717 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Buckley, J., concurring) (arguing that the use of legislative history by courts creates an incentive "to salt the le......
-
Reconsidering Makin v. Hawaii: the Right of Medicaid Beneficiaries to Home-based Services as an Alternative to Instutionalization
...(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 583 (1994)). 175. Int'l Bd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis omitted). "The principle that committee report language has no binding legal effect is grounded in the text......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - John O'shea Sullivan and Ashby L. Kent
...an independent statutory source having the force of law.'" Id. at 1577 (quoting Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 474 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). 51. Miedema, 450 F.3d at 1328. 52. Id. at 1329 (internal punctuation omitted). 53. Id. at 1328 (citations omitted). 5......
-
Textualism: Definition, and 20 Reasons Why Textualism is Preferable to Other Methods of Statutory Interpretation.
...was...to influence judicial construction.")(emphasis added); see also Int'l Bd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 474 v. N.L.R.B., 814 F.2d 697, 717 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Buckley, J., concurring) (the use of legislative history can encourage legislators "to salt the legislative record with unil......