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