The NAM filed an amicus brief on July 10, 2012, arguing that the ruling in Specialty Healthcare, which allows very small numbers of employees to form a union, should be overruled because it violates provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That decision creates policy implications that will upset and reduce American investments and competitiveness. We argued that Specialty Healthcare prevents all of the employees from fully controlling the creation of the union. This violation allows micro-unions of as little as 2 employees to circumvent employees who do not wish to unionize. Further, by its ruling in Specialty Healthcare, the NLRB does not determine bargaining units “in each case,” and gives nearly all the control of determining who will be in the union to a very small group. The labor uncertainty from this precedent endangers investment in manufacturing, as employers would be required to deal with multiple and often conflicting unions.
In 2014, the court vacated and remanded the case to the NLRB. The original decision had been made by a Board that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Noel Canning case. In 2016, the 4th Circuit denied Nestle Dryer’s petition for review, stating the NLRB was correct in allowing a maintenance-only bargaining unit, holding that the maintenance workers shared a community of interest distinct enough from the production workers for them to have their own bargaining unit.