Appropriate Bargaining Units and the Community of Interest
The unit question decides the election before a ballot is printed. It is settled by comparing skills, supervision, interchange and working conditions, and by applying a short list of exclusions that no amount of shared interest can overcome.
The rule in short
Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act directs the Board to decide in each case the unit appropriate for collective bargaining. The test is whether the employees share a community of interest, judged by skills, functions, supervision, contact and interchange, and terms of employment. The unit need only be appropriate, not the most appropriate. Supervisors, guards paired with other employees, and several categories excluded from the definition of employee cannot be placed in a unit.
Section 9(b) tells the Board to decide in each case the unit appropriate for collective bargaining. The wording is deliberate. The question is never which grouping would be best, only whether the grouping proposed is one that can function. A petitioner who understands that writes a unit description it can defend rather than one it would prefer.
An appropriate unit, not the ideal one
Because more than one unit can be appropriate on the same facts, the petitioner's description usually stands unless a party shows it is arbitrary or excludes employees who cannot fairly be left out. That gives the petitioner real control over the shape of the electorate, which is why the unit is fought over in the petition and the showing of interest long before anyone reaches the ballot box.
One limit is statutory. In deciding the unit, the extent to which the employees have already organized may not be controlling. The Board may notice that a group is organized; it may not make that the reason for the finding. In practice the constraint is soft, since the same facts that produce successful organizing usually reflect shared conditions.
The factors that make a community of interest
The Board looks at whether the employees are organized into a separate department; have distinct skills and training; perform distinct job functions; are functionally integrated with other employees; have frequent contact and interchange with them; have distinct terms and conditions of employment; and are separately supervised. No factor controls. The inquiry is comparative, and the evidence is mundane: schedules, pay structures, transfer records, organizational charts, supervisor testimony.
Where a petitioner seeks a fraction of a larger group, the Board asks whether the excluded employees share an overwhelming community of interest with those included. That phrasing, and the burden it carries, has been reformulated more than once. The stable point is that the further a proposed unit departs from the employer's own operational lines, the more evidence it takes to sustain.
The definition turns on authority 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, if the exercise of that authority requires independent judgment rather than routine application of instructions. A lead worker with a title and no authority is an employee. A working foreman with real assignment authority is a supervisor, and including one in the unit taints the election.
Exclusions written into the statute
Several categories never reach the community of interest analysis because the definition of employee does not reach them. Agricultural laborers, domestic servants in a family home, a person employed by a parent or spouse, independent contractors, supervisors, and employees subject to the Railway Labor Act are all outside. Public employees of a federal, state or municipal employer are likewise outside the Act, and are covered instead by their own statutes.
| Category | Source of the exclusion | Effect on a unit | Route to bargaining, if any |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supervisors | Definition of employee in Section 2 | Cannot be included; presence taints an election | No statutory right; voluntary recognition only |
| Guards | Section 9(b)(3) | May be a unit alone, never mixed with other employees | Certification only to a union admitting no nonguards |
| Professional employees | Section 9(b)(1) | Included with nonprofessionals only by their own vote | A separate professional unit, or a self-determination election |
| Managerial and confidential employees | Board and court decisions | Excluded from any unit of rank-and-file employees | None under the Act |
| Agricultural laborers | Definition of employee in Section 2 | Outside the Act entirely | State agricultural labor statutes where they exist |
Professionals, guards and craft groups
Professional employees may not be placed in a unit with nonprofessionals unless a majority of the professionals vote for inclusion. The mechanism is a separate ballot asking the professionals first whether they wish to be included and second which representative they want. The order matters, and mishandling it is a standard objection.
Guards get an absolute rule. A unit containing guards may contain no other employees, and the Board may not certify a labor organization as representative of guards if that organization admits nonguards to membership or is affiliated with one that does. Craft employees get a narrower protection: a unit may not be held inappropriate merely because a different unit was established by a prior determination, though the Board may still weigh integration.
Units fixed by rule, and units fixed by relationship
Some units are set by regulation rather than case-by-case judgment. The Board's rules prescribe the bargaining units in acute care hospitals, which removed a recurring source of litigation from that industry, and its other rules fix jurisdictional thresholds for institutions such as colleges and universities. Where a rule applies, arguing community of interest is beside the point.
Unit questions also arise between related companies. Where two entities are so integrated in ownership, management, operations and labor relations that they function as one, they may be treated as a single employer, and a unit may span both. That analysis resembles the affiliation inquiry used in size protests in federal procurement, though the purposes differ.
When a business changes hands, the unit generally survives, and the question becomes whether the buyer inherits a duty to bargain with the incumbent representative. A unit once certified is also the frame within which every later dispute over which subjects a party may insist upon is measured, so the description drafted at the petition stage keeps working for years.
Points to carry away
- The statute requires an appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit that could be drawn.
- Community of interest is judged on shared skills, functions, supervision, interchange and conditions of employment.
- The extent to which employees have already organized may not be controlling in the decision.
- Supervisors are outside the definition of employee and cannot be included in a statutory unit.
- Professional employees may not be combined with nonprofessionals unless the professionals vote for inclusion.
- A unit of guards may not include other employees, and no union admitting nonguards may be certified for it.
Questions readers ask
Are temporary or jointly employed workers counted in the unit?
It depends on who controls their terms of employment, and the answer has moved with the Board's joint employer standard. Where two entities share or codetermine essential terms such as wages, hours, supervision and discipline, employees supplied by one may be included in a unit with employees of the other. Where the supplier alone sets those terms, they are not. Because the standard has been rewritten repeatedly by rulemaking and by decision, the current formulation should be confirmed before a unit is described in a petition.
Can a single facility be organized when the employer runs several?
Usually yes. A single location is presumptively appropriate, and the party arguing for a broader unit carries the burden of rebutting that presumption with evidence of central control, functional integration, employee interchange and uniform terms across locations. Geographic separation, distinct local supervision and separate hiring reinforce the presumption. The presumption is not a rule of preference for small units; it reflects the everyday reality that employees at one site share supervision and conditions with each other before they share them with strangers.
What happens to a unit when a new job classification is created?
Either the classification is accreted into the existing unit or it is not, and there is no vote either way when accretion applies. Accretion is reserved for groups so completely integrated into the existing unit, in skills, supervision, interchange and conditions, that they have no separate identity worth protecting. The Board reads the doctrine narrowly, because accretion adds employees to a representative they never chose. A genuinely distinct group is added only through a petition and an election.
Sources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 29 U.S.C. 159, Representatives and electionsSection 9(b) unit authority, the professional, craft and guard provisions, and the extent-of-organization limit.
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 29 U.S.C. 152, DefinitionsThe definitions of employee and supervisor that place whole categories outside any unit.
- eCFR — 29 CFR Part 103, Other RulesUnits in acute care hospitals and the jurisdictional rules adopted by rulemaking.
- eCFR — 29 CFR Part 102, Rules and Regulations, Series 8The hearing and decision procedure through which a unit dispute is resolved.
- National Labor Relations Board — National Labor Relations ActThe statutory text as the agency publishes it, section by section.
- National Labor Relations Board — Conduct ElectionsHow the unit description in a petition governs the balance of the representation case.
Lawwise is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in Labor Relations
Grievance Arbitration and the Narrow Standard of Review
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization, and the law built on it favors arbitration. A court orders arbitration unless it can say with positive assurance that the clause does not cover the dispute. An award stands if it draws its essence from the agreement.
Economic and Unfair Labor Practice Strikes Compared
A strike over wages, hours or working conditions is an economic strike. The employer may hire permanent replacements, and strikers are entitled not to displace them but to recall as substantially equivalent vacancies arise. A strike caused or prolonged by an employer's unfair labor practices is different: those strikers are entitled to reinstatement on an unconditional offer to return, even if replacements must be discharged, with back pay running if reinstatement is not made promptly.
The Duty to Bargain in Good Faith, and Impasse
Section 8(d) defines bargaining as the mutual obligation to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith over wages, hours and other terms of employment, while compelling neither agreement nor concession. A party seeking to modify a contract must give sixty days' written notice and notify federal and state mediation agencies within thirty days after it. On genuine impasse an employer may implement its pre-impasse offers.