1. In this instance, state law did not mirror the National Labor Relations Act as to those employees excluded from coverage. The court felt this was done intentionally to allow supervisory employees in the public service to bargain collectively with the public employer. Why would a state legislature take such a position?
2. A literal interpretation of this statute would allow a confidential employee whose job title did not fall into one of those three categories, that is, deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary, to be part of a bargaining unit which is bargaining collectively with an immediate supervisor. Should the statute be read so literally?