Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NLRB Rulings Regarding Supervisors Provide Clarity and Controversy
Before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its recent decisions in the Kentucky River cases, union leaders and activists predicted dire consequences ' potentially stripping millions of workers, especially in the healthcare industry, of their rights to join a union. Unions, which are trying to attract more employees to their ranks, staged rallies and other events to draw attention to these cases.
But the decisions did not dramatically redraw the lines for determining which workers are considered supervisors and which are not. Instead, they provided guidance that will be helpful to employers and unions alike in determining the status of workers whose classification falls into the gray area between supervisor and employee. The analysis remains highly fact-specific and appears unlikely to create the dramatic effects predicted.
Some fundamental facts illustrate that the Board's decisions did not usher in sweeping changes. Among the three companion cases considered, the Board classified disputed employees as supervisors in just one (Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.). In that one case, the NLRB concluded that 12 full-time charge nurses were supervisors. It found that 112 other nurses that rotated in the same job title were not supervisors. It will take a while before the practical impact of these decisions is completely clear, but two things are already certain. First, the decisions add predictability to the classification question regarding some workers; and second, the issue will continue to be a flashpoint for controversy.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.