• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

工会选举与美国国家劳资关系委员会。医疗行业继续对谈判单位的确定提出质疑。

Union elections and the NLRB. The healthcare industry continues to challenge bargaining unit determinations.

作者信息

Zimmerman D A, King G R

出版信息

Health Prog. 1990 Jan-Feb;71(1):96-101.

PMID:10103410
Abstract

In the healthcare industry today, unions and management must cope with a confused, contradictory, and often changeable body of law and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policy when unions attempt to establish themselves at a particular institution. More than 15 years ago, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act to grant labor unions the right to organize employees of not-for-profit hospitals and other healthcare organizations. An election to form a union cannot be held, however, until the NLRB determines which employee classifications constitute an "appropriate" collective bargaining unit. Since 1974, labor and management have fought over this basic question before Congress, the NLRB, and the federal courts. One paragraph of congressional instruction to the NLRB, which stipulates that the board prevent "proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry," has over the years been construed in widely varying ways by the board and the courts. Management has argued that two units should be the maximum number allowed as appropriate whereas unions have argued for more. Last April the NLRB established a rule allowing for as many as eight bargaining units at a particular institution, but three months later a federal district court issued a permanent injunction against the rule. The board has appealed the injunction, and as both sides await a ruling, dozens of pending hospital union election cases have mounted up. Nor does a decision by a court of appeals promise to resolve the issue.

摘要

在当今的医疗行业中,当工会试图在某一特定机构组建自己时,工会和管理层必须应对一套混乱、矛盾且经常变化的法律以及美国国家劳动关系委员会(NLRB)的政策。15年多以前,国会修订了《国家劳动关系法》,赋予工会组织非营利性医院及其他医疗组织员工的权利。然而,在NLRB确定哪些员工类别构成一个“合适的”集体谈判单位之前,不能举行组建工会的选举。自1974年以来,劳资双方就在国会、NLRB以及联邦法院就这个基本问题展开了斗争。国会给NLRB的一段指示规定,该委员会应防止“医疗行业中谈判单位的激增”,多年来,该委员会和法院对这一规定的解释大相径庭。管理层认为,合适的谈判单位最多允许有两个,而工会则主张更多。去年4月,NLRB制定了一项规定,允许在某一特定机构设立多达8个谈判单位,但三个月后,一家联邦地方法院发布了一项针对该规定的永久禁令。该委员会已对该禁令提起上诉,在双方等待裁决之际,数十起悬而未决的医院工会选举案件不断增加。而且上诉法院的裁决也不一定能解决这个问题。

相似文献

1
Union elections and the NLRB. The healthcare industry continues to challenge bargaining unit determinations.工会选举与美国国家劳资关系委员会。医疗行业继续对谈判单位的确定提出质疑。
Health Prog. 1990 Jan-Feb;71(1):96-101.
2
Judicial review of NLRB rulemaking in the health care industry: implications for labor and management.美国国家劳资关系委员会(NLRB)在医疗行业制定规则的司法审查:对劳资双方的影响
Employee Relat Law J. 1990;16(3):333-6.
3
Health care institution labor law: case law developments, 1974-78.《医疗机构劳动法:判例法发展,1974 - 1978年》
Am J Law Med. 1978 Spring;4(1):1-14.
4
NLRB proposed rules for determining health care bargaining units.美国国家劳资关系委员会提出了确定医疗保健谈判单位的规则。
Employee Relat Law J. 1989 Spring;14(4):627-32.
5
NLRB's St. Francis decision signals broader-based bargaining units.
Health Prog. 1985 May;66(4):50-3.
6
Special report. The new hospital labor picture: More unions? More strikes? More problems for security directors?
Hosp Secur Saf Manage. 1991 Aug;12(4):5-10.
7
Physician unions: any doctor can join, but who can bargain collectively?医师工会:任何医生都可以加入,但谁能进行集体谈判呢?
Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1990 Fall;35(3):327-40.
8
A profile of hospital union election activity, 1985--1994 NLRB rulemaking and results in right-to-work states.
Hosp Top. 2004 Spring;82(2):2-11. doi: 10.3200/HTPS.82.2.2-11.
9
Nurses and the new NLRB rules. Implications for healthcare management.护士与美国国家劳资关系委员会的新规定。对医疗管理的影响。
Health Prog. 1991 Oct;72(8):20-2.
10
Union organizing activity in the hospital industry.
Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1984 Nov-Dec;29(6):79-90.