U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

29 U.S.C. § 152

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
When used in this subchapter—(1) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11, or receivers.(2) The term “employer” includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.(3) The term “employee” shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.(4) The term “representatives” includes any individual or labor organization.(5) The term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.(6) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State or other Territory, or between any foreign country and any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory, or between points in the same State but through any other State or any Territory or the District of Columbia or any foreign country.(7) The term “affecting commerce” means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.(8) The term “unfair labor practice” means any unfair labor practice listed in section 158 of this title.(9) The term “labor dispute” includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.(10) The term “National Labor Relations Board” means the National Labor Relations Board provided for in section 153 of this title.(11) The term “supervisor” means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.(12) The term “professional employee” means—(a) any employee engaged in work (i) predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or physical work; (ii) involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; (iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; (iv) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes; or(b) any employee, who (i) has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study described in clause (iv) of paragraph (a), and (ii) is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person to qualify himself to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a).(13) In determining whether any person is acting as an “agent” of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.(14) The term “health care institution” shall include any hospital, convalescent hospital, health maintenance organization, health clinic, nursing home, extended care facility, or other institution devoted to the care of sick, infirm, or aged person.11 So in original. Probably should be “persons.”(July 5, 1935, ch. 372, § 2, 49 Stat. 450; June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title I, § 101, 61 Stat. 137; Pub. L. 93–360, § 1(a), (b), July 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 395; Pub. L. 95–598, title III, § 319, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2678.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Railway Labor Act, referred to in pars. (2) and (3), is act May 20, 1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577, which is classified principally to chapter 8 (§ 151 et seq.) of Title 45, Railroads. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 151 of Title 45 and Tables.

Amendments

1978—Par. (1). Pub. L. 95–598 substituted “cases under title 11” for “bankruptcy”.

1974—Par. (2). Pub. L. 93–360, § 1(a), struck out provisions which had excepted from definition of “employer” corporations and associations operating hospitals if no part of the net earnings inured to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Par. (14). Pub. L. 93–360, § 1(b), added par. (14).

1947—Act June 23, 1947, amended section generally to redefine terms used in this subchapter and to define several new terms.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(a) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–360 effective on thirtieth day after July 26, 1974, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–360, set out as an Effective Date note under section 169 of this title.

Effective Date of 1947 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section 104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,705 cases (163 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001). · cites it 22× “" 29 U. S. C. § 152 (11). This case presents two questions: which party in an unfair-labor-practice proceeding bears the burden of proving or disproving an employee's supervisory status; and whether judgment is not "independent judgment" to the extent that it is informed by…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 (1980). · cites it 26× “29 U. S. C. § 152 (12). But the court found that the Board had ignored "the extensive control of Yeshiva's faculty" over academic and personnel decisions as well as the "crucial role of the full-time faculty in determining other central policies of the institution.”
Michael T. Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 268, 895 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 15× “§ 185 (a), as amended by Section 2(2) of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 152 (2). Moir complains that by rescinding his promotion, GCRTA violated his rights under the collective bargaining agreement.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 511 U.S. 571 (1994). · cites it 16× “137 -138, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3). Congress defined a supervisor as: "[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to…”
Am. Fed'n of State Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanon, 388 P.3d 1028 (Or. 2017). · cites it 16× “” See 29 USC § 152 (2) (noting that an “employer” under the NLRA “shall not include the United States or * * * any State or political subdivision thereof”).”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 870 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 19× “” 29 U.S.C. § 152 (11). New Vista explains that the LPNs had such authority because their duties included filling out forms known as “Employee Warning Notices” or “Notices of Corrective Action,” which 4 recommended discipline for certified nursing assistants (“CNAs”).”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974). · cites it 11× “" 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3). The issue in this case is whether the term "employee" excludes not only those specifically excluded by § 2 but also the broad category of "managerial" employees who, although literally "employees" of the employer and not expressly excluded by § 2, are…”
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013). · cites it 4× “, 29 U. S. C. §152 (11) (defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority .”
Rest. Law Ctr. v. City of N.Y., 360 F. Supp. 3d 192 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 13× “Code § 20-1310(b) ) Under the Deductions Law, a "labor organization" is, inter alia , [a] "labor organization" within the meaning of [ 29 U.S.C. § 152 (5) ], which defines a labor organization as "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee…”
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 467 U.S. 883 (1984). · cites it 6× “[5] That provision broadly provides that "[t]he term `employee' shall include any employee," 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3), subject only to certain specifically enumerated exceptions.”
Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (1986). · cites it 6× “It does not argue that Davis' job was different from Trione's or that the Regional Director was wrong in finding that Trione was a supervisor. Its sole submission is that Davis was arguably an employee because the Board has not decided that he was a supervisor.”
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985). · cites it 4× “§ 824 (f); 29 U. S. C. § 152 (2); 29 U. S. C. § 402 (e); 29 U.”
Show all 2,705 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(1) — 1 case
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Madrid Mfg. Co., a Corp., & Harold Jones, an Individual, D/B/A Jones Mfg. Co., 215 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1954).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) — 12 cases
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 511 U.S. 571 (1994). “137 -138, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3). Congress defined a supervisor as: "[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to…”
United States v. Thomas Pearson, 274 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2001).
Rafael Oscar Martinez Del Vall v. OfficeMax North Am. Inc, 680 F. App'x 51 (3rd Cir. 2017).
State v. Local No. 2883, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, 463 A.2d 186 (R.I. 1983).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wilson-Crissman Cadillac, Inc., 659 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1981).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12) — 2 cases
Saf. HARBOR v. Commc'ns Workers, 715 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Lewis v. Rodriguez, 759 P.2d 1012 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12)(a) — 1 case
Saf. HARBOR v. Commc'ns Workers, 715 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12)(a)(iv) — 1 case
Saf. HARBOR v. Commc'ns Workers, 715 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) — 13 cases
Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 929 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Div. 1287, Amalgated Transit Union v. Kansas City Area Transp. Auth., 485 F. Supp. 856 (W.D. Mo. 1980).
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 976 v. Grand River Dam Auth., 292 P.2d 1018 (Okla. 1956).
United States v. Edward J. Donovan, 339 F.2d 404 (7th Cir. 1965).
Whisman v. Robbins, 55 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir. 1995).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) — 14 cases
New Jersey Tpk. Auth. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, 696 A.2d 585 (N.J. 1997).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Plasma Corp., 626 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1980).
Beverly Enter., Virginia, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 165 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 1999).
Fur Workers Union, Local No. 72 v. Fur Workers Union, No. 21238, 105 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1939).
The Berry Schs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., N. Gordon Carper, Joyce Carper v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 627 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1980).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(4) — 2 cases
Hughes Tool Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 147 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1945).
United States v. Joseph P. Ryan, 225 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1955).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(5) — 16 cases
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Walton Mfg. Co., 289 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1961).
West Texas Utils. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers [A. F. L.], Intervenor), 184 F.2d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Postex Cotton Mills, Inc., 181 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1950).
New Bedford Def. Prods. Div. of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local No. 1113 of Int'l Union, 160 F. Supp. 103 (D. Mass. 1958).
Int'l Org. of Masters v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 486 F.2d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(6) — 8 cases
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. N. Trust Co., 148 F.2d 24 (7th Cir. 1945).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pease Oil Co., 279 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1960).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eanet, 179 F.2d 15 (D.C. Cir. 1949).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists Aeronautical Indus. Dist. Lodge 727 & Local Lodge 758, Afl-Cio, 279 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1960).
Juneau Spruce Corp. v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 83 F. Supp. 224 (D. Alaska 1949).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(7) — 2 cases
Evanston Cab Co., Skokie Red Top Cab Co., & Lincolnwood Red Top Cab Co., Illinois Corporations v. City of Chicago, a Mun. Corp., 325 F.2d 907 (7th Cir. 1963).
Gallogly v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int'l Union, 180 F. Supp. 778 (D.R.I. 1960).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(9) — 7 cases
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 130 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1942).
Union Premier Food Stores, Inc. v. Retail Food Clerks & Managers Union, Local No. 1357, 98 F.2d 821 (3rd Cir. 1938).
Airport Casino, Inc. v. Jones, 741 P.2d 814 (Nev. 1987).
Ford v. Boeger, 236 F. Supp. 831 (E.D. Mo. 1964).
Smith v. Am. Guild of Variety Artists, 349 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1965).
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(H) — 1 case
West Penn Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 337 F.2d 993 (3rd Cir. 1964).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.