Lexplug logoLexplug

American Hospital Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States
499 U.S. 606, 113 L. Ed. 2d 675, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2398 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An administrative agency's statutory mandate to make determinations "in each case" does not prohibit the agency from using its general rulemaking authority to promulgate a substantive rule that defines categories for an entire industry, so long as the rule is not arbitrary and capricious.


Facts:

  • In 1947, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to exempt not-for-profit hospitals from its coverage.
  • In 1974, Congress enacted amendments that brought all private acute care hospitals back under the jurisdiction of the NLRA.
  • During the legislative process for the 1974 amendments, Congress considered but ultimately rejected a bill that would have statutorily limited the number of bargaining units in health care institutions to five.
  • The congressional committee reports for the 1974 amendments included an admonition that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should give due consideration to preventing the proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry.
  • For thirteen years following the 1974 amendments, the NLRB determined appropriate bargaining units in the health care industry through case-by-case adjudication.
  • After extensive notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, the NLRB promulgated a substantive rule defining eight specific bargaining units as appropriate for acute care hospitals.
  • This rule included exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, cases where nonconforming units already existed, and cases where unions sought to combine specified units.
  • The American Hospital Association, an organization representing acute care hospitals, opposed this industry-wide rule.

Procedural Posture:

  • The American Hospital Association (petitioner) filed a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the facial validity of the Board's new bargaining unit rule.
  • The District Court agreed with the American Hospital Association's argument regarding the congressional admonition and enjoined the enforcement of the rule.
  • The NLRB (as appellant) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding no merit in any of the American Hospital Association's challenges to the rule.
  • The American Hospital Association (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the National Labor Relations Act's requirement that the National Labor Relations Board determine the appropriate bargaining unit 'in each case' under § 9(b) prohibit the Board from promulgating a substantive rule defining appropriate bargaining units for all acute care hospitals?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No. The National Labor Relations Act's requirement that the Board determine the appropriate unit 'in each case' does not limit the Board's broad authority to promulgate rules defining appropriate bargaining units for an industry. The phrase 'in each case' simply means the Board must resolve a dispute whenever one arises; it does not command the Board to exercise standardless, case-by-case discretion without the guidance of general rules. The Board's rulemaking power under § 6 is a valid tool to regularize its decision-making process. The rule is also not invalid due to the congressional admonition against unit proliferation, as this legislative history does not have the force of law and the Board did give extensive consideration to the issue. Finally, the rule is not arbitrary and capricious, as it was based on a reasoned analysis of an extensive record developed over years of adjudication and a formal rulemaking process, and it includes an exception for 'extraordinary circumstances' to account for atypical hospitals.



Analysis:

This decision is a significant affirmation of administrative agency rulemaking authority. It clarifies that a statutory duty to adjudicate matters 'in each case' does not preclude an agency from using its rulemaking power to create generally applicable standards, thereby promoting efficiency and predictability. By upholding the NLRB's rule, the Court empowered the agency to move from a slow, reactive, case-by-case approach to a proactive, regulatory one in defining bargaining units. This has had a profound impact on labor organizing in the healthcare industry, streamlining the process by resolving a frequently litigated issue and providing clear guidance to both unions and employers.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query American Hospital Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board (1991) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for American Hospital Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board