29 U.S.C. § 152
Definitions
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.
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
Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective
Amendment by Pub. L. 93–360 effective on thirtieth day after
For effective date of amendment by act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,705
cases (163 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: National Labor Relations Board v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. (2001)
“" 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…”
National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University (1980)
“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 Regional Transit Authority Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 268 (1990)
“§ 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.”
National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America (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…”
American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees, Council 75, Local 2043 v. City of Lebanon (2017)
“” 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”).”
National Labor Relations Board v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation (2017)
“” 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”).”
National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co. (1974)
“" 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. (2013)
“, 29 U. S. C. §152 (11) (defining a supervisor to include “any individual having authority .”
Rest. Law Ctr. v. City of N.Y. (2019)
“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. National Labor Relations Board (1984)
“[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.”
International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis (1986)
“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 Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
“§ 824 (f); 29 U. S. C. § 152 (2); 29 U. S. C. § 402 (e); 29 U.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(1) — 1 case
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) — 12 cases
National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America (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…”
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12) — 2 cases
Lewis v. Rodriguez (1988)
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12)(a) — 1 case
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(12)(a)(iv) — 1 case
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) — 13 cases
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 976 v. Grand River Dam Authority (1956)
Whisman v. Robbins (1995)
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) — 14 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(4) — 2 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(5) — 16 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(6) — 8 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(7) — 2 cases
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(9) — 7 cases
Ford v. Boeger (1964)
— 29 U.S.C. § 152(H) — 1 case
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.