Labor Employment Law Blog

In 2001, the United States Supreme Court criticized the National Labor Relations Board’s (“Board”) interpretation of the definition of a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) as applied to charge nurses in the healthcare industry.  NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001).  Yesterday, the Board issued a decision that squarely addresses the Supreme Court’s criticism.  Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. No. 37 (2006).  In the Oakwood decision, the Board changed course, and will now interpret Section 2(11) in a way which will make it easier for a healthcare employer to argue that charge nurses are statutory supervisors who should not be included in an RN bargaining unit.  Of course, the decision will also have broad application and will apply to supervisory employees in all industries.

A recently published opinion of the California Court of Appeal, Zavala v. Scott Brothers Dairy, Inc., expanded on the 2005 Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. decision by holding that employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement cannot be required to arbitrate claims for rest period and wage statement violations, even if those claims have already been grieved and resolved by the union representing those employees.

After twice affirming a district court's decision that two California statutes were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), a divided en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed itself last week by a 12-3 vote in Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer. The majority opinion found that the two statutes at issue were not preempted by the NLRA and did not violate the First Amendment.