The National Labor Relations Board has posted the amicus briefs submitted in response to the NLRB’s review of a case that the board could use to justify a radical change in labor policy, the authorization of “micro unions.” (See our posts immediately below here and here.)
The case is Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile and United Steelworkers, District 9. The National Association of Manufacturers is a member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which submitted its amicus brief in alliance with the HR Policy Association.
To simplify the sides, employers and employer groups believe the NLRB is going too far in turning one specific labor dispute into a broader review of what legitimately constitutes a bargaining unit. Labor unions want a million units to bloom, allowing organizers to pick and choose small groups of employees whom they can more efficiently persuade and pressure into joining a union.
The employer’s brief: Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
The union’s brief: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, i.e., USW
Amicus briefs from labor unions:
Amicus briefs from employer groups:
- National Association of Waterfront Employers
- Georgia Chamber of Commerce
- International Foodservice Distributors Association
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- American Hospital Association and American Society for Healthcare Human Resources Administration
- American Health Care Association & National Center for Assisted Living and affiliates
Submitting a letter were three Republican members of the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Comittee: Senators Mike Enzi, Orrin Hatch, Johnny Isakson
P.S. We’ve knocked the NLRB for its foray into social media and Google advertising, inappropriate activities for a quasi-judicial agency. That said, the board and its staff have made excellent improvements to the board’s website, www.nlrb.gov, allowing relatively efficient researching of this case.
A suggestion: Instead of just posting with a single title that appears repeatedly, actually identify the party that submitted the brief in the title/link. Posting the name, “Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,” is more informative than repeated entries of “Amicus Brief for 15-RC-008773.”
