Press Release

Dykema Team Helps Shape Supervisory Status of Employees in NLRB Ruling

In a much-anticipated ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) this week, Dykema Employment Law attorneys Bill Thacker, Ron Santo and Claire Harrison won a landmark decision for client Oakwood Healthcare Inc. This ruling defines the appropriate standards to be applied when determining the supervisory status of employees under the federal labor law.

In Oakwood Healthcare Inc., 348 NLRB No. 37 (2006), the NLRB agreed that Oakwood's permanent charge nurses are "supervisors" under the National Labor Relations Act and cannot form or join labor unions. In this ruling the NLRB articulated the standards to be applied in supervisory status cases, regardless of industry.

This case began early in 2002 when, after a lengthy hearing, the local Regional Director of the NLRB held that Oakwood's charge nurses were not supervisors. The Dykema team immediately appealed that decision on behalf of Oakwood and persuaded the NLRB in Washington, D.C. to review the case. Oakwood became one of three consolidated companion cases the NLRB used to clarify questions surrounding the classification of supervisors arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kentucky River decision.

Oakwood became the lead case of the three, and after careful review of evidence offered at the regional hearing, the NLRB issued a 3-2 decision holding that Oakwood's permanent charge nurses are supervisors because they exercise sufficient independent judgment in "assigning" employees.

However, after applying the standards established in Oakwood to the facts of the two companion cases, the NLRB held that employees at issue in those cases were not supervisors and could pursue unionization.

While the Oakwood decision is a clear victory for employers because it offers an objectively reasonable and unbiased standard for assessing supervisory status, it is important to remember - as the companion cases demonstrate - that questions of supervisory status are fact-specific and require careful evaluation. For a more detailed account of this ruling click here.

If you would like to discuss the NLRB's decision in Oakwood or the practical implications of this ruling, please feel free to contact a member of the Dykema team that handled the case:

William M. Thacker at734-214-7646 or [email protected]
Ronald J. Santo at 734-214-7621 or [email protected]
Claire S. Harrison at 734-214-7693 or [email protected]

Or any of our other Dykema Employment lawyers:

Janis L. Adams at 313-568-6750 or [email protected]
Timothy K. Carroll at 734-214-7650 or [email protected]
Jeffrey W. Deane at 213-457-1823 or [email protected]
Robert L. Duty at 248-203-0705 or [email protected]
John A. Entenman at 313-568-6914 or [email protected]
Kiffi Y. Ford at 517-374-9177 or [email protected]
Martin Jay Galvin at 313-568-6912 or [email protected]
Jennifer H. Gonzalez at 313-568-5391 or [email protected]
James P. Greene at 734-214-7667 or [email protected]
James F. Hermon at 313-568-6540 or [email protected]
Patrick F. Hickey at 313-568-6522 or [email protected]
Gregory L. Lacey at 312-627-2252 or [email protected]
Michael A. Little at 313-568-5327 or [email protected]
Seth M. Lloyd at 313-568-6837 or [email protected]
Debra M. McCulloch at 248-203-0785 or [email protected]
Derek I. Meier at 313-568-6590 or [email protected]
David L. Miller at 312-627-2101 or [email protected]
Stephen S. Muhich at 616-776-7543 or [email protected]
Melvin J. Muskovitz at 734-214-7633 or [email protected]
Joseph A. Ritok Jr. at 313-568-6846 or [email protected]
Todd J. Shoudy at 313-568-5330 or [email protected]
Kathleen E. Surowiec at 312-627-2190 or [email protected]
Paul A. Wilhelm at 313-568-6966 or [email protected]