## Facts

- A union filed a representation petition seeking to represent a unit of all journeymen and apprentice field ironworkers employed by an employer.
- The employer argued the petitioned-for unit was underinclusive and that any appropriate unit must also include painters, drivers, and fabricators.
- Applying then-controlling precedent, the Regional Director found the ironworkers’ interests were not sufficiently distinct from the excluded classifications and rejected the petitioned-for unit.
- The union requested Board review.
- The Board invited briefing on whether to retain the existing unit-determination framework or return to the prior “overwhelming community of interest” approach.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board should retain the unit-determination framework that made it easier to invalidate petitioned-for units as underinclusive, or instead restore the Specialty Healthcare framework.
2. Whether the petitioned-for unit of journeymen and apprentice field ironworkers is an appropriate bargaining unit despite excluding painters, drivers, and fabricators.

## Decision

- The Board overruled PCC Structurals and The Boeing Co. and restored the Specialty Healthcare framework for employer claims that a petitioned-for unit is underinclusive.
- The Board held that a petitioned-for unit is appropriate if it is readily identifiable and shares a community of interest.
- The Board further held that an employer seeking to require inclusion of excluded employees must prove those employees share an overwhelming community of interest with the petitioned-for employees.
- Applying that standard, the Board reversed the Regional Director and found the field-ironworkers unit appropriate because the employer did not meet the overwhelming-community-of-interest burden.
- Two members dissented, arguing the restored standard is overly deferential to petitioned-for “micro-units” and insufficiently protects broader unit appropriateness.

## Legal Principles

- A petitioned-for bargaining unit must be readily identifiable as a group and share a community of interest under the Board’s traditional factors.
- When a unit is challenged as underinclusive, the challenger must prove the excluded employees share an overwhelming community of interest with the petitioned-for employees to mandate inclusion.
- Similarity of interests is insufficient; the showing must be strong enough that there is no legitimate basis for separate representation of the petitioned-for group.
- The Board may reconsider and overrule prior unit-determination precedent when it concludes the prior framework is inconsistent with the Act’s policies and established unit-determination doctrine.

## Conclusion

The Board reinstated the Specialty Healthcare unit-determination framework, increasing the employer’s burden to expand a petitioned-for unit and approving the field-ironworkers unit because the employer failed to prove an overwhelming community of interest requiring inclusion of other classifications.


Am. Steel Constr., Inc., 372 N.L.R.B. No. 23 (2022)