In determining whether or not the above language includes a particular worker, the Board has consistently applied an expansive interpretation of the language and has defined employee in the "broad generic sense" to "include members of the working class" in general. Sunland Construction 309 NLRB 1224, 1227 (1992). See also, Town & Countrv Electric 309 NLRB 1250(1992)

Most recently, the Supreme Court in Town & Countrv Electric. 116 S.Ct. 450 (1995), 150 LRRM 2897 (1995) upheld the Board's broad reading of Section 2(3). In that case, the Court focused upon the definition of Section 2(3) of the Act and whether paid union organizers were employees within the meaning of the Act. Consistent with the Board's expansive view of the definition, the Supreme Court applied a broad interpretation and held that the paid organizers were statutory employees.

In reaching this decision, the Court cited various statements from Congressional reports and other sources concerning the definition of "employee." One such definition was that an "employee" simply "means someone who works for another for hire." Id. at 150 LRRM 2897,2899. Another definition was that an employee was a "worker." Finally, the Court concluded that a broad literal reading of the statute was consistent with other Supreme Court cases where the Court wrote that the "breath of Section 2(3)'s definition is striking: the Act squarely applies to 'any employee'". Id. citing Sure-Tan. Inc. V. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 891.(5) Based on its broad interpretation of the statute, the continued on next page


5. ----- The Court recognized that a narrow or qualified view of the definition was "scarce or nonexistent" except with respect to the specific exclusions written into the statute and with respect to certain individuals such as confidential employees, retired employees and independent contractors.


Back to previous page Previous page-----Back to the Contract negotiations page Back to the Contract negotiations page-----Next page Next page