The prospects for multifacility bargaining units in the health-care industry.

The 1974 amendments of the National Labor Relations Act expanded regulation of the health-care industry. Subsequently, as health-care providers have diversified their institutions, the scope of employees' bargaining units has become a confusing issue in labor relations. In the following article, the author reviews relevant post-1974 cases and examines apparently conflicting presumptions about the appropriateness of single- and multifacility bargaining units. The author predicts that, in view of the new "disparity-in-interests" standard for determining units, the future interplay of policies, presumptions, and the new standard will favor multifacility bargaining units--if labor and management appreciate their respective opportunities.     

Judicial review of NLRB rulemaking in the health care industry: implications for labor and management

In 1987 the National Labor Relations Board set out to promulgate a rule to define the appropriate bargaining units for the health care industry, making the first use of its substantive rulemaking powers. This departure from the traditional process of adjudication of unit determination issues occurred because of thirteen years of NLRB frustration resulting from congressional admonition against proliferation of bargaining units and subsequent inconsistent judicial interpretation of that admonition. This article traces the factors that led to the decision to rulemake, discusses the development of the rule itself, and examines the rule's judicial experience to date. It presents empirical findings of hospital union election activity during the period from 1985 through 1987 that confirm the thesis that bargaining unit size is a significant variable in election outcomes. Finally, the authors assess the likely outcome of the impending Supreme Court decision on the rule, along with implications for labor and management.     

Hospital strikes: complying with NLRA notice requirements

Section 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act, added in the 1974 amendments to the Act, requires a labor organization to give an employer in the health-care field ten days' notice of an intended strike or picketing. The purpose is to allow the health-care employer time to make arrangements to ensure the continuation of health-care services to critically ill patients. Failure of a union to give this notice constitutes a violation of the Act, and individuals who engaged in the activity may, as a result, lose their status as employees under the Act. In the following article, the authors examine the requirements of section 8(g) and the case law interpreting this statute. They suggest likely future interpretations of this law and make practical suggestions for responding to strikes in the health-care setting.     

A proposal for a nonreinstatement rule in unfair labor practice cases involving patient abuse

Nursing home discharges of employees based on patient abuse raise a difficult issue when the motivating factor for the disciplinary action is union activism. A tension is created between the rights of employees to engage in protected concerted activity and the rights of patients to quality care. In 1974, Congress passed the Health Care Institutions Amendments, which granted to non-profit health care workers collective organizing and bargaining rights substantially similar to those which workers in other industries had enjoyed for decades under the National Labor Relations Act. Congress intended to give health care workers only that degree of parity, however, which is compatible with the provision of high quality patient care. The agency charged with enforcing the Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), has failed to distinguish employee misconduct in industrial settings from patient abuse in health care institutions when fashioning remedies for discriminatorily discharged union activists. The NLRB typically has ordered the reinstatement, with back pay, of the patient abuser as the patient's primary care-giver. This Article suggests that a front pay remedy is more appropriate to these cases because it protects the patient's right to be free from abuse without sacrificing employee unionization rights.     

Protected activities of nonunion employees

The vast majority of American workers are nonunion and therefore unprotected by many of the mechanisms established through collective bargaining. They are protected to some degree, however, by a number of statutes and evolving legal doctrines that limit the employer's right to hire, fire, or otherwise discipline its nonunion people. The most elemental of these limitations is embodies in the National Labor Relations Act: section 7 protects the concerted activities of nonunion employees, section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with the section 7 rights of its employees; and section 10(c) grants the National Labor Relations Board broad remedial powers to correct violations, including the power to reinstate workers with or without back pay. The following article will examine this basic protection of nonunion employees and will point out those areas in which the Board has attempted to expand the scope of section 7's protection.     

Plant Closings and Public Policy: Achieving an Optimal Level of Plant Closings

A severe problem confronting the Northeast portion of the United States has been the closing of plants. In making the decision to close a plant, firms tend to consider private benefits and costs. However, there are significant external costs to the community and workers which an appropriate public policy should require firms to consider. The law has dealt with the plant closing issue in several ways, including the collective bargaining process through the National Labor Relations Act, court challenges, and state and local legislation. This study examines each of these and concludes by calling for comprehensive federal legislation.     

Health Care Institution Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act: an analysis.

Ira M. Shepard, J.D. herein analyzes the legislative history and the substantive provisions of the 1974 Health Care Institution Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. The Amendments bring private, non-profit health care institutions and their employees under the coverage of the NLRA, the goal of Congress being to reach a successful compromise of the public's right to receive uninterrupted health care; the health care institution's obligation to provide these services to the fullest extent possible; and the right of health care employees to have the same voice in the determination of their wages, hours, and working conditions accorded other workers under the NLRA.     

Is "ten days" really ten days?--the National Labor Relations Act's strike notice requirement in the healthcare industry

Nearly thirty years ago, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act (Act) and provided employees of healthcare institutions with the right to strike and picket. At the same time, Congress added a new Section 8(g) requiring a labor organization to provide a healthcare institution with ten days' notice before engaging in various types of concerted activity--primarily strikes and picketing--against the institution. Thus, Section 8(g) is an important statute for healthcare employers. But since the time Congress added Section 8(g), the National Labor Relations Board has taken various views on Section 8(g) and whether "ten days" is really ten days. This Note explores the purposes of Section 8(g), as well as the reach and limits of its language, noting areas in which the board may wish to reconsider its application of the statute. Ultimately, the Note provides a checklist for healthcare employers to keep in mind with respect to Section 8(g).     

The Consequences of Culture: Legal History,Labor Law,and the Contributions of Christopher Tomlins

This article reviews three books on labor law written by Christopher Tomlins. They are, in order of publication, The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880–1960 (1985); Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic (1993); and Freedom Bound: Law, Labor, and Civic Identity in Colonizing English America, 1580–1865 (2010). Tomlins has been an influential figure in the movement known as “critical legal studies” and has helped shape a new approach to the field of labor history, labor law, and the study of US workers. Over the span of twenty‐five years, Tomlins's research has been central to evolving theories of law and social interaction and has continuing relevance to more recent scholarly developments such as the field of “cultural cognition” studies.     

雇主不当劳动行为的民事救济——基于我国和美国不当劳动行为救济制度之比较

我国《工会法》第52条规定的责令雇主承担不当劳动行为的民事责任,与美国《国家劳资关系法》第10(c)条的规定看起来很相似,相比之下,这一规范在美国劳动法的实践中很有效,在我国却极少被适用,解释方面也存在较大的分歧。美国是世界上最早创设不当劳动行为救济制度的国家,从《瓦格纳法》规定的雇主不当劳动行为的禁止规范及救济措施,到《塔夫托—哈特莱法》将适用对象扩大到工会和雇员,在雇用自由原则和劳资自治模式的背景下,其演变始终以保护雇员团结权的松紧程度和收放态度为线索。我国《工会法》现正处于第三次修改阶段,适时检讨第52条的解释和适用的障碍,还可以解决其与《劳动合同法》规范的竞合问题。     

Continuation coverage requirements applicable to group health plans. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Treasury. Final rule

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) added health care continuation requirements that apply to group health plans. Coverage required to be provided under those requirements is referred to as COBRA continuation coverage. Proposed regulations interpreting the COBRA continuation coverage requirements were published in the Federal Register of June 15, 1987 and of January 7, 1998. This document contains final regulations based on these two sets of proposed regulations. The final regulations also reflect statutory amendments to the COBRA continuation coverage requirements since COBRA was enacted. A new set of proposed regulations addressing additional issues under the COBRA continuation coverage provisions is being published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The regulations will generally affect sponsors of and participants in group health plans, and they provide plan sponsors and plan administrators with guidance necessary to comply with the law.     

Who Is a Worker? Partisanship,the National Labor Relations Board,and the Social Content of Employment

In opinions addressing whether graduate students, medical residents, and disabled workers in nonstandard work arrangements are employees under the National Labor Relations Act, I analyze partisan differences in how National Labor Relations Board members, under the previous two US presidents, confronted the contradictory permeation of wage‐labor into relatively noncommodified relationships. I argue that Republicans mediated the contradictions by interpreting indicia of employer property rights as status authority. They constructed employment as a contractual relationship consummated through exchange relations and demarcated a nonmarket social sphere in which to locate the relationships before them. This construction suppressed the class dimension of employment and the connection between relations of production and relations in production ( Burawoy 1979 ). Democrats mediated the contradictions by recognizing them in part and arguing that the workers were engaged in commodity production. They proposed the Act as a means for workers to negotiate “differentiated ties” ( Zelizer 2005 ) in nonstandard employment.     

被派遣劳动者社会保险权保障:必要性及法律规制

最新修订的《劳动合同法》充分回应了劳务派遣法律问题学术讨论达成的基本共识,但问题并未因此而得到一劳永逸的解决。被派遣劳动者的社会保险权利救济问题,不仅有利于解决劳务派遣被滥用的现实困境,也是劳动法与社会保障法衔接的关键,学界对此研究甚少。现有关于保护被派遣劳动者社会保险权利的法律规定,存在雇主责任制度失效、异地派遣滥用规制不足、社会保险费征缴主体责任缺失、工伤保险待遇支付责任分配不公等问题。只有跳出单一视角,通过民事规则的完善、行政救济的补足和刑事制裁的法律创新的公私法双重路径,才能实质有效地保护被派遣劳动者的社会保险权利,实现生存权保障和社会安全秩序的法益目标。     

《劳动合同法》中工会的职权分析

维护职工合法权益既是工会的基本职权,也是工会的基本职责。在新的历史条件下,构建工会的职权体系是有效防范和化解劳资双方矛盾的一条切实可行的路子。我国新近颁布的《劳动合同法》赋予工会的职权可以概括为5个方面的内容,即协商权、异议权、签约权、起诉权和监督权。工会的这一职权体系是一个整体,但这些规定也存在一些问题和不足,尤其是关于签约权、监督权和起诉权的规定均需要进一步完善。     

New Battles and Battlegrounds for Mandatory Arbitration After Epic Systems,New Prime,and Lamps Plus

The Supreme Court's recent decisions interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in the employment context generally prioritize arbitration over workers’ labor law rights. The majority in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis upheld mandatory individual employment arbitration agreements despite their conflict with the labor law right to act in concert. The same majority in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela rejected a state law interpretation of a contract provision to find that parties to an employment contract intend individual arbitration absent reference to group arbitration. A unanimous Court in New Prime v. Oliveira interpreted the FAA to include independent contractors under the transportation worker exemption, reinvigorating the battle over what it means to be engaged in interstate commerce to qualify for the exemption. These decisions resolved some disputes about the breadth of the FAA, but other questions remain. In the wake of Epic Systems and Lamps Plus, state courts and legislatures are testing the boundaries of the FAA's saving clause, with limited success. Confidentiality provisions, frequently associated with arbitration agreements, may unlawfully interfere with employees’ federal labor law rights. This article recommends that Congress amend the FAA to address these issues by excluding all workers engaged in interstate commerce, not just transportation workers, because the Court has strayed far from the original intent of the Act—to enforce commercial agreements in which the parties had equal bargaining power. State legislation also should provide guidance on what makes arbitration voluntary and fair, and provide a choice to employees on collective action, forum, and confidentiality.     

The labor impacts of policy change in health care: how federal policy transformed home health organizations and their labor practices

Health care organizations are highly labor-intensive; policies designed to stimulate organizational change are likely to have labor impacts. This paper examines the labor effects of policy change in home health care. Major federal home care policy trends since 1980 have spurred the evolution of the typical home care provider toward greater organizational and market rationality. Greater managerial sophistication has introduced changes in management/labor relations. Survey data from the 1986 DRG Impact Study are used to show how the pressure of cost-containment policies has pushed agencies to cut labor costs by increasing workloads, managerial supervision, and control of the work process. Research on the effects of recent policy change in health care has to date focused primarily on potential client effects. Labor impacts are rarely examined and are poorly understood at the time that policy is made. Findings in this article suggest that these issues deserve greater, more systematic attention, because unanticipated labor impacts may prove to be significant impediments to the realization of intended policy goals.     

南非调解仲裁委员会初探

南非调解仲裁委员会是根据1995年劳动关系法建立的主要劳动争议解决机构之一。该委员会自运行伊始,即显现出其优越性,但也暴露出许多问题,如争议提交率过高,处理迟延,委员不称职,仲裁低质量。为解决这些问题,委员会改进了争议解决程序,采取限制权利滥用措施,进行机构改革,大力培训仲裁员,并对雇主和雇员进行教育,取得了一定的效果,对我国劳动争议仲裁机构改革有一定的借鉴意义。     

Technical revisions to conform to the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. Final rule

This final rule amends Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations to incorporate statutory amendments. Certain statutes authorizing VA health care benefits were amended by the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. The statutory amendments affect enrollment in certain health care priority categories and exempt catastrophically disabled veterans from copayment requirements.     

The National Labor Relations Act and health care institutions: the persistent paradox.

In the wake of 1974 amendments to the NLRA, nonprofit health care institutions have been involved in a steady stream of labor relations cases. This article examines some of the new labor relations problems facing these institutions, and it provides valuable information and analysis to help administrators keep abreast of the legal and practical developments stemming from the cases.     

国际私法中强制性规范的界定——兼评《关于适用<涉外民事关系法律适用法>若干问题的解释(一)》第10条

《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第4条于我国国际私法中首次明确规定我国法律的强制性规定应予直接适用。作为多边选法体系的例外,强制性规范理论在适用中最核心的问题之一,是识别哪些规范属于需要直接适用的国际强制性规范。国际私法中的强制性规范仅指国际强制性规范。比较法上提出界定国际强制性规范的客观标准和主观标准,随之产生仅采客观标准和兼采主客观标准两种立法模式。《关于适用<涉外民事关系法律适用法>若干问题的解释(一)》第10条对何为我国法律的强制性规定进行了定义,并以不完全列举的方式来解决可操作性问题,但在理论和实践方面仍存在缺失。