AND · 29usc158:covered-employee
Section 152(3) coverage and statutory status loss qualify employer unfair-labor-practice routes; section 158(d) specifies status loss for strikers within required notice periods and restoration on reemployment. Do not extend that strike language automatically to every picketer or every protected activity. The d(4) contract-notice status gate must include Mastro Plastics; do not apply it to every strike occurring during a pending contract-modification notice. Its qualification is not automatically extended to health-care section g or mixed-purpose strikes.
Exact element source
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employeesSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [126:174] (end exclusive); SHA-256 caadb20cedf4fd4e200812fc0ec46617cc7978ef7a6b0a30e355bccfeb7e0d06.Any employee who engages in a strike within any notice period specified in this subsection, or who engages in any strike within the appropriate period specified in subsection (g) of this section, shall lose his status as an employee of the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute, for the purposes of sections 158, 159, and 160 of this title, but such loss of status for such employee shall terminate if and when he is reemployed by such employer.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [12776:13232] (end exclusive); SHA-256 caadb20cedf4fd4e200812fc0ec46617cc7978ef7a6b0a30e355bccfeb7e0d06.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univ. of S. Cal. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 918 F.3d 126 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — not reached (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered employee and applicable retained status | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits party: University of Southern California; count: bargaining unit certification (Roski School non-tenure-track faculty); subject: party=University of Southern California; count=bargaining unit certification (Roski School non-tenure-track faculty) The court fixes the test for when a faculty subgroup is "managerial" (and so outside the Act's coverage): the Board's subgroup majority status rule conflicts with Yeshiva, its "effective control" standard does not. It does not decide whether the Roski non-tenure-track faculty are covered employees; that goes back to the Board. The refusal to bargain itself was admitted by USC as the vehicle for testing the certification; the court makes no § 8(a)(5) merits ruling and no block is recorded for it. | managerial-employee exclusion of a university faculty subgroup (non-tenure-track faculty holding a minority of seats on governance committees) | Put another way, the question the Board must ask is not a numerical one-does the subgroup seeking recognition comprise a majority of a committee-but rather a broader, structural one: has the university included the subgroup in a faculty body vested with managerial responsibilities?Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [38863:39145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9.We see nothing in the Board's two-part standard for "effective" control that runs afoul of Yeshiva .Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [49220:49320] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9.But given our conclusion that the Board's subgroup majority status rule runs afoul of Yeshiva , and because we are uncertain whether the Board would have reached the same conclusion absent that rule, we think it best to leave these arguments unaddressed and to instead give the Board an opportunity to reconsider the case afresh under the proper legal standard.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0126-01; Unicode character offsets [54522:54883] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d583554e61efa1a96a8ede88d054261881d1bc9f19cf568c23c9a4dcf54f7ae9. |