[PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT Nos . 11 -1 20 00 , 11 -1 26 38 N.L.R.B. Cas e No. 1 2- CA-2 70 44 LAKELA ND HEAL TH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t-C ro ss -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee-C ro ss -Ap pe ll an t.

Pet it io ns forRev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard (Oct ob er 2 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andHUCK, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Paul C. Huck, Senior United States District Judge f or the S outhern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 52HUCK, Dis tri ctJu dg e:

App el la nt , Lake la ndHeal th care Ass oc ia te s, LLC (“ Lak el an d” ), ap pe al s a de ci si on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard(“ Bo ard ” o r “NLRB”) f in di ng Lak el an d i n v io la ti onof s ect io ns 8(a )(5 ) an d (1 ) of th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Act ( th e “ Act” ), 29 U.S.C. §§ 15 8( a)(5 ), (1 ), fo r it s re fu sa l t o b arg ai n wi th th e Uni te d F oo d a ndCo m

m erci al W orke rs Uni on , Loca l 1 62 5 (“ Uni on ”). The Bo ard cro ss -ap pe al s fo r en fo rcem en t o f th e d eci si on be lo w. Lakel an d a dm it s tha t i t refu se d t o b arg ai n wi th th e Uni on , bu t ar gu es th atit s re fu sa l d oe s n otvi ol at e th e Act b ecau se th e Uni on was i m pr op erl y cert ifi edinth e und erl y in g re pr es en ta ti on pr oc eed in gs (Bo ardCas e No. 1 2- RC-9 42 6) . Accor di ng ly, th e so le is su e o n app eal is whethe r subs ta nt ia l re co rdev id en ce s up po rts th e Bo ard ’s det erm in at io n t ha t cert ai n l ic en se d p ract ic al nu rs es (“ LPNs” ) em pl oyed b y Lake la ndare 1

“ supe rv is or s” withi n t he m ean in g o f se ct io n 2 (1 1) of t he Act. Fo r th e rea so ns de sc rib edbe lo w, we vac at e th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n a ndde ny the pe ti ti on for en fo rcem en t.

All of the LPNs at issue in this case also ser ve as “ team lea ders”—a ter m which 1 L akela nd uses interc hang eably

with the term “c harg e nurse s.” F or conve nience , we use the term “team leader s” as the umbr ella ter m for both L PNs and Resident Nurse s (“RNs”) who per form the func tions of team leade rs / charg e nurse s. We assign no significanc e to our use of one ter m over the other. 2

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 2 of 52I. BACKGROUND

The fact s re le va ntto th is ap pe al are i n a ll m at eri al res pe ct s n otindi sp ut e. Lak el an d i s a n ur si ng an d l on g- te rm care faci li ty tha t em

pl oys LPNs, RNs , and cert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is tant s (“ CNAs” ), am on g o th er fu ll -ti m e an d p art -ti m e em pl oyees. Th e Uni on curren tl y rep res en ts all of Lak el an d’s CNAs . On Au gu st11 , 20 10 , th e Uni on fil eda pe ti ti on with t he Bo ardsee ki ng a rep res en ta ti on ele ct io n t o e st ab li sh th e Uni on as t he co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng rep res en ta ti ve forLake la nd ’s LPNs. Lak el an d o pp os edth e p et it io n, ar gu in g t ha t th e LPNs a re “ supe rv is or s” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e Actan d are the refo re in el ig ib le forun io n re pr es en ta ti on . See 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 2( 11 ). Bet weenAug us t 2 5, 2 01 0 a ndAug us t 3 0, 2 01 0, an NLRB he ari ng off ic er he lda he ari ng de vo te d s ol el y to th e “ supe rv is or ” is su e. The p art ie s p res en te d te st im on y fro m eig htdi ffer en t wi tn es se s, an d, fo ll owi ng th e h eari ng , subm it te d subs ta nt iv e b rie fs to th e NLRB’s Reg io na l Di rect orforReg io n 1 2. OnSep te m be r 24 , 20 10 , aft er re vi ewin g t he reco rdan d t he bri efs , th e Reg io na l Di rect oris su eda 49 -p ag e Deci si on an d Di rect io n o f Elec ti on(“ DDE”) fin di ng th atth e LPNs wer e no t s up erv is or s und er the Act. The Bo ardde ni edLake la nd ’s reque stforrev ie w 2 As a g ener al rule, N L RB orde rs in repr esentation procee dings a re not re viewable by

the 2 courts unless and until the employer ha s ref used to barg ain with the union once the union has been c ertified. See Boire v. Gre y hound Corp
. , 376 U.S. 473, 477-79 (1964). I n such ca ses, section 9(d) of the Ac t, 29 U.S.C. 159(d), provides that the finding s in the underlying 3 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 3 of 52of

th e Reg io na l Di rect or ’s dec is io n o n Dec em be r 6, 2 01 0, wi th on e m em be r of th e th ree- m em

be r pane l d is se nt in g. Fo ll owi ng a rep res en ta ti on ele ct io n, the Uni on was cert ifi edonJan ua ry

6, 2 01 1 a s the ex cl us iv e b arg ai ni ng rep res en ta ti ve for Lak el an d’s LPNs . Inord er t o s eekjud ic ia l re vi ew of th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng s, Lak el an d re fu se d t o reco gn iz e an d b arg ai n wi thth e Uni on as t he LPNs’ repr es en ta ti ve . The Un io n res po nd edby fili ng anun fai r labo r pr act ic e ch arg e wit h t he Bo ard , whi ch , th ro ug h th e Bo ard ’s gen eral co un se l, fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t Lak el an d o n F eb ru ary 22 , 20 11 . On Apr il 29 , 20 11 , th e Bo arden te reda 3- pa ge Deci si on an d Ord er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Bo ard ’s gen eral co un se l (a ndth ereb y th e Uni on ), fin di ng th atLake landvi ol at edsec ti on s 8 (a)( 5) an d (1 ) of th e Act . Lak el an d app eal s. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Bec au se th e Bo ard ’s su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er i s p red ic at edon th e fi nd in gs in th e und erl y in g re pr es en ta ti on cas e, we rev ie w th e m eri ts of t ho se de ci si on s to ge th er o n app eal . See Bo ire , 37 6 U.S. at47 7- 79 . Whe n re vi ewin g a n o rd er o f th e Bo ard , we are “bo un d b y th e Bo ard ’s factua l fi nd in gs if t he y are s up po rte d b y

repr esentation procee ding a re ma de a pa

rt of the r ecor d and ar e subjec t to review on a ppeal. Boire , 376 U.S. at 477-79. We ref er to the Reg ional Direc tor’s dec ision throughout this opinion as a de cision of the “B oard.” 4

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 4 of 52subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdas awho le .” In t’l Bh d. o f Bo il erm ak ers v.

NLRB, 12 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ti ng NLRB v. M al taCo ns tr. C o, 80 6 F .2d10 09 , 10 10 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ); s ee al so 29 U.S.C. § 1 60 (e). Th e Bo ard ’s in fere nc es fro m

th e rec or d e vi de nc e, if

pl au si bl e, sh ou ldno t b e o ve rtu rn ed , eve n i f we wou ldha ve m ad e d iff eren t fi nd in gs up on a de no vo rev ie w of the ev id en ce. In t’l Bh d. o f Bo il erm ak ers , 12 7 F .3dat 1 30 6. “ [C]red ib il it y res ol ut io ns are pe cu li arl y

withi n t he pro vi nc e o f th e [ad m in is tra ti ve law ju dg e] andth e Bo ardan d are e nt it le d t o d efer en ce u nl es s i nh eren tl y un reas on ab le or s el f-co nt rad ic to ry .” NLRB v . Uni te d S an it at io n S erv ., 73 7 F .2d93 6, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Whi le we ha ve de sc rib edth is st an da rdof r ev ie w as “ ex ceed in gl y na rro w,” NLRB v . Con te m

po rary Cars, In c., 66 7 F .3d13 64 , 13 70 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ), an d ha ve no te d t ha t a “ ro bu stap pl ic at io n” of t he st an da rdha s ty pi fie d re vi ew of NLRB d eci si on s, Co op er/ T. Sm it h, In c. v. NLRB, 1 77 F.3d12 59 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), we are n ot“ ob li ge d t o s ta ndasi de an d rubb er-s ta m p [o ur ] affi rm an ce o f adm in is tra ti ve de ci si on s t ha t [we ] de em in co ns is te ntwith ast atut ory m an da te or th atfru st rat e th e co ng res si on al po li cy un de rlyin g ast atut e.” Id . at 1 26 1 (al te rat io ns inori gi na l) ( in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . “ Subs tant ia l ev id en ce i s m or e th ana m ere s ci nt il laof e vi de nc e. ‘ It m ean s s uc h re le va nt ev id en ce as a reas on ab le m in d m ig htacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a c on cl us io n.’” 5 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 5 of 52Co nt em

po rary Cars, In c., 66 7 F .3dat 1 37 0 (quo ti ng Bic ke rs ta ff Cl ay Pro ds . Co. v . NLRB, 87 1 F .2d98 0, 9 84 (11 thCir . 19 89 )). “ [T]he Bo ardcan no t i gn or e th e rel ev an t ev id en ce tha t d etract s fr om it s fi nd in gs .” Nort hp ort Hea lt h S vc s., In c. v. NLRB, 96 1 F .2d15 47 , 15 50 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). “ Whe n [i t] m is co ns tru es or f ai ls to co ns id er i m

po rta ntev id en ce, i ts co nc lu si on s ar e le ss li ke ly to re stup on subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Id . The bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t he supe rv is ory st atus of a n e m

pl oyee is on th e pa rty ass ert in g s uc h s ta tu s. NLRB v . Kentuc ky Riv er Co m m un it y Care , Inc ., 53 2 U.S. 70 6 (2 00 1) ; Co op er/ T. Sm it h, 1 77 F.3dat 1 26 3. Here , th atpa rty is Lak el an d. III. DISCUSS ION A. Leg al Fram ewo rk Whe th er Lak el an d i s i n v io la ti on of t he Act h in ge s o n wh ethe r it s LPNs are pr op erl y reg ard edas “ em

pl oyees” or “ supe rv is or s.” Un de r th e st ru ctur e o f th e Act, i f th e LPNs are “ em

pl oyees,” th ey

are g uaran te edth e ri gh t t o u ni on iz e. See 29 U.S.C. § 1 57 (“ Em

pl oyees s ha ll have th e ri gh t t o s el f-o rg an iz at io n . . . .”). If th ey are “ supe rv is or s,” t he y

are n ot . See 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 2( 3) (“ The term ‘em pl oyee’ . . . sha ll no t i nc lu de . . . an y in di vi du al em

pl oyed as a supe rv is or. . . .”). 6

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 6 of 52Sect io n 2 (1 1) of t he Act d efi ne s a “ supe rv is or ” as : an y in di vi du al havi ng au th or ity , inth e in te res t o f th e em pl oyer, to hi re, tran sf

er, s us pe nd , lay off, rec al l, pr om ot e, di sc ha rg e, as si gn , reward , or d is ci pl in e o th er em pl oyees, o r res po ns ib ly to d ire ctth em , or t o a dju st th ei r gr ie va nc es , or e ffec ti ve ly to re co m m en d s uc h act io n, i f in co nn ect io n wi th th e fo reg oi ng th e ex erci se of su chau th or it y

is no t o f a m erel y

rou ti ne or c le ric al na tu re, b utrequi res th e u se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t. 29 U.S.C. § 1 52 (1 1) . Accor di ng ly, anin di vi du al is a “ supe rv is or ” und er the Act if: (1) he or s he ha s t he au th or it y to pe rfo rm

on e o f th e twe lv e supe rv is ory fu nc ti on s d es cri be d i n t he st atut e; (2) th e ex erci se of t ha t au th or it y requi res th e u se of in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t; an d (3 ) su chau th or it y is he ldinth e in te res t o f th e em pl oyer. See NLRB v . Healt h C are & Ret . Cor p., 5 11 U.S. 57 1, 5 73 -7 4 (1 99 4) (“ HCR”) . Inth is cas e, th ere i s n o d is pu te as t o wh ethe r th e au th or it y he ldby Lak el an d’s LPNs is ex erci se d “ in th e in te res t o f th e em pl oyer.” See HCR , 51 1 U.S. at 5 77 (19 94 ) (“ Pat ie ntcare is th e b us in es s o f a nur si ng ho m e, an d i t fo ll ows th atatt en di ng to th e n eed s o f th e nur si ng ho m e p at ie nt s, wh o are the em pl oyer’s cu st om ers , is inth e in te res t o f th e em pl oyer.”). Thu s, thi s ap pe al foc us es on th e fir sttwo in qu ire s und er s ect io n 2 (1 1) . On th e is su e o f th e LPNs’ auth or it y , Lak el an d a rg ue s tha t the reco rdcle arl y est ab li sh es th atth e LPNs p os se ss th e au th or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, an d e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d t he term in at io n o f th e 7 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 7 of 52CNAs, an d t o a ss ig n a ndres po ns ib ly dire ctth e CNAs ’ work. As to th e se co nd

is su e, Lak el an d m ai nt ai ns th atth e ex erci se of t hi s au th or it y requi res th e u se of in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. Our ta skis to de te rm in e whe th er the Bo ard ’s con cl us io ns to th e co nt rary are supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l re co rdev id en ce. B. Aut ho rity

to Dis ci pl in e, Su sp en d, an d “ Effect iv el y Reco m m en d” Term in at io n Acco rd in g t o Lak el an d, the m os t co m pe ll in g re as on why th e Bo ard ’s de ci si on sh ou ldbe va cat edis be cau se th e LPNs, u si ng th ei r own in de pe nd en t jud gm en t an d d is cret io n, i ni ti at e th e p ro ces s t o d is ci pl in e, su sp en d, an d t erm in at e CNAs. Mo re t o t he po in t, Lak el an d a rg ue s tha t the Bo ard ’s dec is io n i s n ot supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i na sm uc h a s i t m is co ns tru es an d d is reg ard s cri ti cal ev id en ce co nc ern in g t he LPNs’ rol e in th e d is ci pl in ary pr oc es s fo r CNAs. Lak el an d e m

pl oys a p ro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne syste m , whi chitde sc rib es as a

“ co ach in g” pro gr am . Und er the pro gr am , em pl oyees wh o e ng ag e in m is co nduc t o r who are n otm eet in g Lak el an d’s p erfo rm an ce ex pe ct at io ns canrece iv e ei th er a

“ le ve l o ne ” o r “ le ve l two” “ co ach in g,” de pe nd in g o n t he sev eri ty of th e is su e. Co ach in gs are p rep aredby the LPNs, ei th er o n t he ir o wn i ni ti at iv e o r atth e in st ru ct io n o f m an ag em en t, an d m ay or m ay no t l eadto form al di sc ip li ne . Level two co ach in gs , whi chare re se rv edfor“ se rio us fai lu res of c us to m er s erv ic e st an da rd s,” aut om at ic al ly resu ltinth e su sp en si on of t he em pl oyee pe nd in g an 8 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 8 of 52in ve st ig at io n a ndfreque nt ly resu ltinterm in at io n. Lev el on e co ach in gs , whi chare

is su edform or e m in orin frac ti on s s uc h a s t ard in es s o r fai li ng to clo ckou t fo r lu nc h, re qu ire th e em

pl oyee an d h is or h er “ di rectsupe rv is or ” to ag ree t o apl anto ad dr es s the is su e. Em

pl oyees wi th fou r act iv e le ve l o ne co ach in gs are au to m at ic al ly term in at ed . W e rev ie w th e ev id en ce re la te d t o LPN i nv ol ve m en t i n le ve l two an d l ev el on e co ach in gs in de pe nd en tl y .

1. Lev el Two Co ach in gs Lak el an d m ai nt ai ns th atth e LPNs a re s up erv is or s u nd er the Act b ecau se th ey ha ve th e in de pe nd en t d is cret io na ry au th or it y to in it ia te an d i m

pl em en t l ev el two co ach in gs th ro ug h wh ic h t he y caneffe ct iv el y

su sp en d a ndterm in at e CNAs . The Bo ardreject edth is arg um en t, re as on in g t ha t the reco rdest ab li sh es on ly tha t th e LPNs a re re sp on si bl e fo r rep orti ng em pl oyee m is co nduc t. Tha t i s, ac co rd in g to th e Bo ard , to th e ex te ntth atth e LPNs e ve n h av e d is ci pl in ary au th or it y , th e ex erci se of s uc h aut ho rit y do es no t re qu ire th e u se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t. Whi le we are m in df

ul of t he li mit edna tu re o f ou r rev ie w inth is ap pe al , th is is no t a c as e in whi chwe m erel y di sa gr ee wi th th e Bo ard ’s con cl us io ns . Our rev ie w of t he reco rdas awho le rev eal s tha t the Bo ardm et ic ul ou sl y ex cl ud edor di sr eg ard edreco rdev id en ce, wh ic h, wh entak enin to acco un t, co m pe ls a di ffer en t res ul t. See Nort hp ort, 9 61 F.2dat 1 55 2. 9

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 9 of 52W it h re ga rdto th e fi rs t p ro ng of t he an al y si s re qu ire d u nd er s ect io n 2 (1 1) of

th e Act –wh ethe r th e em

pl oyee ha s the auth or it y

to pe rfo rm

on e o f th e twe lv e supe rv is ory

fun ct io ns –t he Bo ardreject edLake la nd ’s tes ti m on ia l an d d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce as be in g i n c on fli ct , in co nc lu si ve , or c on cl us ory . It was no ne of t he se . The writte n jo b d es cri pt io n fo r LPN ch arg e nur se s (t eam lea de rs ) pr ov id es th atth e

“pr im ary pu rp os e o f th e Ch arg e Nur se is to pro vi de di rectnu rs in g c are t o the res id en ts , andto supe rv is e th e d ay -to -d ay nu rs in g a ct iv it ie s p erfo rm edby the [CNAs ]. ” To thi s en d, LPNs are ch arg edwith e ns ur in g, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t nu rs in g p ers on ne l: “ are i n c om pl ia nc e wit h t he ir r es pe ct iv e job de sc rip ti on s,” “ are pe rfo rm in g t he ir wo rkass ig nm en ts inacco rd an ce wi th acce pt ab le nu rs in g st an da rd s,” a nd“ fo ll ow the de pa rtment’s e st ab li sh edpo li ci es an d p ro cedur es .” The job de sc rip ti on als o p ro vi de s tha t LPNs sh al l “ [i]nt erp retth e d ep art m en t’s po li ci es an d p ro cedur es to pe rs on ne l, re si de nt s, v is it or s, an d g ov ern m en t ag en ci es as requi red ,” an d “ [m ]ake re co m m en da ti on s fo r rev is io ns ” to th e p ol ic ie s an d pr oc edur es . 3 The reco rdest ab li sh es th atth e LPNs f ul fil l the se de le ga te d s up erv is ory res po ns ib il it ie s, i n p art , th ro ug h Lak el an d’s co ach in g p ro gr am . Lakel an d’s The job desc ription also provides under the hea dings “ L eade rship” and “ Supervisory 3 Authority” that an LPN “[r] eports per formanc e re lated issues of CNAs to Nur sing Super visor.” As discussed below, w e do not take this to mean, a s the Boa rd sug g ests, that the L PNs’ only role in the disciplinary

proce ss is to report employee misconduc t. 10 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 10 of 52Dire ct orof Nu rs in g, Garth Sweari ng en , tes ti fie d t ha t the LPNs “ are c on si de redto

be lea de rs of t he ir t eam ” an d t ha t, i f th ey saw aCNA no t p erfo rm in g h is or h er job co rrec tl y , “ th ey

cert ai nl y wou ldbe ab le to co ach th em , tal k t o t he m , gi ve th em a ve rb al warn in g, o r do an y co ach in g t ha t the y

wou ldne edto do th at. . . .” Swear in ge n fu rth er co nf

irmed th atth e co ach in g fo rm s p rep aredan d i ss ue d b y LPNs ar e fo r di sc ip li ne , and , oncro ss -ex am in at io n, t es ti fie d t ha t LPNs are “ ve ry cap ab le of c oa ch in g s om eb od y at aLeve l 2 , andth ey ’re als o v ery cap ab le of su sp en di ng an y

CNA. They ’re cap ab le of s en di ng th em ho m e. Thi s t es ti m on y

is co ns is te ntwith S weari ng en ’s tes ti m on y els ewh ere i n t he reco rd : Q: Andjus t t o c la rif

y th e is su an ce o f a Lev el 2 co ach in g p la n, tha t re su lt s i n s om eb od y be in g - - A: Tha t’s v ery se rio us . Q: W el l, b utitres ul ts inso m eb od y be in g t ol d, “ Don ’t co m e b ackhe re ‘til th e in ve st ig at io n’s o ve r,” rig ht ? A: Tha t’s ri gh t. Q: Tha t’s b ei ng sen t h om e? A: Im m ed ia te su sp en si on . That ’s su sp en si on imm ed ia te ly.

. . . . Q: Andth e te am

lea de rs cando th at , rig ht ? 11 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 11 of 52A: The y can . Q: Andth ey

do ? A: Andth ey

do . Andth ey

ha ve . Thi s t es ti m on y

st an ds un co nt rad ic te d. Mo reo ve r itis co ns is te ntwith t he 4 te st im on y of Lak el an d’s Daytim e Sh iftSupe rv is or , Tam m y Bax te r, whi chis als o un co ntrad ic te d:

Q: Bas edon y ou r kn owl ed ge of t he Leve l 2 co ach in g pr oc es s, a t eam

lea de r LPN wou ldha ve th e au th or ity to is su e a Lev el 2 co ach in g, co rrec t? A: Yes . Q: Andun de r a Lev el 2 co ach in g a ndth e fac il it y ’s po li cy , is anem

pl oyee au to m at ic al ly sus pe nd ed up on rece ip t o f a Lev el 2 co ach in g? A: Yes . Q: So is itfai r to ass um e th atif [a n LPN] is su eda Lev el 2 co ach in g t o [aCNA] th atsh e wou ldhave be ensu sp en de d p en di ng in ve st ig at io n? A: Sh e wou ldha ve sen t h er h om e. Bo th Sweari ng enan d B ax te r fo ll owe d t hi s t es ti m on y with s pe ci fic ex am

pl es of LPNs wh o e ffec ti ve ly sus pe nd edor t erm in at eda CNA th ro ug h t he lev el two

At oral a rgument, the B oard w as g iven the opportunity to demonstrate whe re in the 4 rec ord this testimony

was in any

respe ct contra dicted. It failed to do so.

12 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 12 of 52co ach in g p ro ces s. In de ed , Bax te r rec ou nt edon e su chex am pl e o f a l ev el two co ach in g wh erei n s he pe rs on al ly w it ne ss edanLPN con du ctth e te rm in at io n o f a CNA. 5 Norsh ou ldth is ev id en ce h av e b een di sr eg ard edbe cau se , acco rd in g t o t he Bo ard , th e ex am

pl es cit edby Swearin ge n a ndBax te r were “ is ol at ed ” o r

“ sp or ad ic .” As Lak el an d p oi nt s o ut , gi ve n t ha t l ev el two co ach in gs are re se rv ed fo r th e m os t s eri ou s i nf

ract io ns , on e wou ldreas on ab ly exp ectth atsu ch oc cu rren ces wou ldbe in freque nt . Suc h i nf reque nc y do es no t s ug ge sta la ckof di sc ip li na ry

au th or it y . Rath er, i t i nd ic at es on ly tha t the LPNs h adon ly “ is ol at ed ” or“ sp or ad ic ” o pp ortu ni ti es to ex erci se th is au th or it y ov er the CNAs. The Bo ard ’s ta skinth is cas e was to de te rm in e whe th er the LPNs h av e b een de le ga te d t he au th or it y to is su e le ve l two co ach in gs , andwhet he r, by virtu e o f th atau th or it y , th ey co ul d e ffec ti ve ly dis ci pl in e, su sp en d, an d re co m m en d t he termin at io n o f CNAs. Th e fre qu en cy

with wh ic h a n e m

pl oyee ex erci se s d is ci pl in ary au th or it y –aut ho rit y

th at , inanid eal workpl ace, wi ll be ex erci se d i nf reque nt ly or sp ari ng ly–can no t b e d et erm in at iv e o f th e ex is te nc e o f supe rv is ory au th or it y . See Both Swea

ring en and B axter testified reg ardingan incident whe n an LPN issued a level 5 two coac hing to a

CNA afte r the CNA pe rmitted a patient to smoke while usingsupplemental ox yg en. Swea

ring en testified that the LPN was involved in both the investigation and the decision to terminate the CNA. Bax ter, who te stified that she spoke with the LPN who issued the coa ching , confirme d these fa cts. Bax ter a lso testified that she per sonally witnessed the LPN perf orm the CNA’s ter

mination. 13 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 13 of 52Care m or e, In c. v. NLRB, 1 29 F.3d36 5, 3 69 (6t h C ir. 1 99 7) . 6

W it h re ga rdto th e se co ndpro ng of t he an al y si s re qu ire d u nd er s ect io n 2 (1 1) of th e Act –wh ethe r ex erci se of t he au th or it y requi res in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t–th e Bo ardco nc lu de d t ha t, i n i ss ui ng lev el two co ach in gs , th e LPNs m erel y rep ort em pl oyee m is co nduc t t o m an ag em en t, af te r whi chti m e m an ag em en t co nduc ts an in ve st ig at io n a ndde te rm in es th e ap pr op ria te di sc ip li ne . To be su re, we t ak e n o is su e wit h t he Bo ard ’s art ic ul at io n o f th e ap pr op ria te leg al st an dard . As no te d b y th e Bo ardinOakwo odHeal th care , Inc ., 34 8 N.L.R.B. 6 86 , 69 3 (2 00 6) (“ Oakwoo d” ), th e ex erci se of “ in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t” is to be co nt ras te d wi th act io ns th atare “ m erel y

rou ti ne or c le ric al .” To ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t, th e in di vi du al “ m

us t atm in im

um act , or e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d a ct io n, fr ee o f th e co nt ro l o f ot he rs an d fo rm anop in io n o r ev al ua ti on by dis cern in g a ndco m pa rin g da ta .” Idat 6 94 . “ [A] j ud gm en t i s n otin de pe nd en t i f itis di ct at edor c on tro ll edby de ta il edin st ru ct io ns . . . .” Id. at69 3. “ [T]he m ere e xi st en ce o f co m pa ny po li ci es ,” ho wev er, “ do es no t el im in at e in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t fr om de ci si on -m ak in g i f th e p ol ic ie s al lo w fordi sc ret io na ry ch oi ces .” Id .

We rec ognize that, in som e ca ses, the infre quency with which purporte d authority is 6 exercised may

be re levant to deter

mining whe ther such a

uthority was a ctually

vested in the employee. H oweve r, log ic dictates that this consideration has little releva nce when the a

uthority claimed is the a

uthority to discipline, suspend, or terminate , and the f reque ncy of disciplinary incidents is limi ted. 14

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 14 of 52Here ag ai n, h owe ve r, th e Bo ardco nc lu si on can no t b e squa redwith t he

reco rdas awho le , whi chun de rm in es th e Bo ard ’s po si ti on th atth e LPNs m erel y rep ort m is co nduc t t o t he ir s up eri or s an d e xe rci se no di sc ret io n i n t he lev el two co ach in g p ro ces s. Inreac hi ng it s d eci si on , th e Bo ardag ai n d is reg ard s co m pe ll in g an d u nc on tra di ct edev id en ce t o t he co nt rary. Fo r ex am pl e, Bax te r te st ifi edth at , whe n s he was ateam

lea de r, sh e h adth e in de pe nd en t au th or it y , whi chsh e ex erci se d, to di sc ip li ne CNAs wi th ou t i nv ol vi ng an ot he r le ve l s up erv is or . She

7 al so tes ti fie d t ha t, upo n l earn in g o f a CNA’s pe rfo rm an ce i ss ue , sh e h adth e di sc ret io n t o d et erm in e whe th er, b as edup on th e se rio us ne ss of t he in frac ti on , to pr ep are awrit te n c oa ch in g fo rm or t o re so lv e th e is su e o nl y by spe ak in g wi th th e CNA di rect ly (i.e., by iss ui ng a ve rb al warn in g d ire ct ly to the CNA). Sweari ng en li ke wis e te st ifi edth at , if a t eam lea de r le arn edof ape rfo rm an ce i ss ue , th ey

“ cert ai nl y wou ldbe ab le to co achth em , tal k t o t he m , gi ve th em a ve rb al warn in g, ordo any co ach in g t ha t the y

wou ldne edto do th at. . . .” He lat er ad de d, “ [t]he LPN cantak e itonhe rs el f to do a Lev el 2 co ach in g a nytim e sh e ch oo se s t o d o t ha t

. . . . ” “ [T]hey

ha ve ful l au th or it y

at a ny tim e, th ey

do n’t n eedth e d ire ct io n o f

The e x ample cited by

Ba x ter involved a

situation wherein a

CNA under he r super

vision 7 was not completingher a ssigne d work, a nd, when B axter approa ched he r about the issue, the CNA “g ot in [ her] fac e” a nd threatened he r. B axter wrote the CNAup, sent her home , and rec ommended to Swearinge n that she be te rminated. The CNA was ter minated by

the following evening . 15

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 15 of 52an y

bo dy, at an y

ti m e th atth ey

wantto th ey

canwrit e up a n e m

pl oyee.” Thi s un reb ut te d t es ti m on y

est ab li sh es th at , at a m in im um , LPNs p os se ss th e di sc ret io na ry

au th or it y to de te rm in e whe th er fo rm al di sc ip li ne is warran te d i n t he fir stpl ace. Yet , th is tes ti m on y di d n otfact orin to th e Bo ard ’s ana lysis of t hi s is su e. The lan gu ag e o f Lak el an d’s em pl oyee ha ndbo okan d l ev el two co ach in g fo rm als o c om pe l the co nc lu si on th atth e LPNs e xe rci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. The em pl oyee ha ndbo okan d t he co ach in g fo rm li stov er a d oz enact io ns th at wou ldco ns ti tu te vi ol at io ns of Lak el an d’s l ev el two “ cu st om er s erv ic e st an da rd s” –v io la ti on s tha t, as no te d abo ve , wou ldrequi re a CNA’s i m m ed ia te su sp en si on an d, p os si bl y , term in at io n. Whil e itis tru e th atso m e o f th es e act io ns , su chas “ [s ]leep in g o n t he job ” “or “ 2 No Cal l/ No Sh ows ,” canbe id en ti fie d a s vi ol at io ns witho utth e ex erci se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t, o th ers , su chas

“ [u ]nau th or iz eddi sc lo sure o f co nf id en ti al in fo rm at io n,” “ [n ]egl ig en t co nduc t whi chres ul ts inth e d am ag e to th e fac il it y , or c us to m er p ro pe rty,” “ ha ras sm en t,” o r

“ frau du le ntact iv it y ,” pl ai nl y can no t. Insu chcas es , fin di ng a CNA in vi ol at io n o f Lak el an d’s cu st om er s erv ic e st an da rd s (afin di ng with i m m ed ia te an d s ev ere co ns eque nc es ) ne ces saril y requi res th e LPN to ex erci se jud gm en t as to what in fo rm at io n i s “ co nf

id en ti al ” an d wh atco nduc t ri se s t o t he lev el of “ ne gl ig en ce,”

16 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 16 of 52“ ha ras sm en t,” o r “ frau d.” Furth er, the em pl oyee ha ndbo okan d c oa ch in g fo rm al so pro vi de th atth e li stof a ct iv it ie s d es cri be d t he rei n tha t co ul d c on st itut e a l ev el two vi ol at io n i s n otex haus ti ve . In o th er wo rd s, the LPNs ca n i nd ep en de nt ly de te rm in e th aty etot he r act io ns are s uf fic ie nt ly seri ou s s o a s t o warran t a C NA’ s imm ed ia te su sp en si on pe nd in g a n i nv es ti ga ti on . Cri ti cal ly, rathe r th anfoc us in g o n thi s an d o th er ev id en ce o f in de pe nd en t jud gm en t b efo re i t, the Bo ard ’s dec is io n o n t hi s i ss ue res ts en ti rel y on sp ecu la ti ve in fere nc es fro m

whatth e ev id en ce co ul d orm ig ht have sh own . For e xa m pl e, th e Bo ardcle arl y

pl acedco ns id erab le weig hton th e fac t tha t the lev el two co ach in g fo rm “ do es no t i nd ic at e whe th er the LPN com pl et in g the form

is th e o ne who su sp en ds th e CNA, orwhet he r th e LPN do es so in de pe nd en tl y or n eed s the ap pr ov al of anu rs in g s up erv is oror u ni t m an ag er.” Th e Bo ardals o s tre ss edth at th e fo rm “ do es no t h av e a s pa ce fo r an y reco m m en da ti onby the LPN com pl et in g th e fo rm , andth e Lev el Two co ach in g p lans inth e rec or d d o n otdi sc us s the LPN’ s reco m m en da ti on .” Be tha t as itm ay , th e fac t tha t the form s i n que st io n c ou ldha ve be endra fte d d iff

eren tl y do es no t es tabl is h, as th e Bo ardco nc lu de d, tha t the LPNs who pre pa redth em

di d n otex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. Lik ewis e, th e fac t th at“ [n ]one of t he LPNs wh o p ur po rte dl y co m pl et edth e Lev el Two co ach in g p lan fo rm s i n t he reco rdtes ti fie d” is no t re as on en ou ghto ig no re the un di sp ut ed 17 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 17 of 52te st im on y

of t he m an ag ers who tes ti fie d a s t o t he ir o wn kno wled ge reg ard in g th os e LPN co ach in gs . Inli gh t o f th is un co nt rad ic te d t es ti m on y , th e la ng ua ge of Lak el an d’s em pl oyee ha ndbo ok , th e LPNs’ job de sc rip ti on , andth e le ve l two co ach in g fo rm s in th e rec or d, the reco rdas awho le do es no t s up po rt b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce the Bo ard ’s con cl us io n t ha t the LPNs’ rol e in th e le ve l two co ach in g p ro ces s i s

“ m erel y rep orto ria l.” 8 We note that our conc lusion is i n acc ord with the Six th Circuit’s decision in Ex tendicar e 8 Hea lth Servs., Inc v NLRB, 182 F . App’x 412 (6th Ci r. 2006) a nd the Four

th Circuit’s decision in Glenmark A ssocs. v. NLRB, 147 F .3d 333 (4th Cir. 1998). B ut see NLRB v. Saint Mary Home, 358 F . App’x 255 (2d Cir. 2009); NL RB v . Hilliard De v. Corp., 187 F.3d 133 ( 1st Cir. 1999). In Ex tendicar e, the c ourt noted:

The B oard vie wed the nur ses’ “ writingup” of a ssistants’ misconduct as a me re “ repor ting f unction” that “doe s not establish supervisory

status.” We do not think subst antial evidenc e supports the B oard’ s view. F irst, the rec ord shows that Extendicare ’s floor nurses have discre tionary authority to choose fr om amongsever al reme dial measure s, only

one of which involves completion of a disciplinary

action report. The nur ses dec ide independe ntly whether a nursingassistant’s misconduct is sever e enough to war rant disciplinary

proce eding s. As we have held e lsewher e, the use of indepe ndent judg ment in writing up e mploy ees’ infrac tions is a supervisory

function. Second, it is undisputed that a floor nurse ’s completion of a disciplinary

action report initiates formal disciplinary proce eding s ag ainst a nursingassistant. By makingsuch a r eport, ther efor e, a nurse play s an ef

fec tive part in the disciplinary proce ss. The administrator or dire ctor of nur sing makes the fina l decision as to whether , and how, a

n assistant will be disciplined, but the releva nt consideration for purposes of § 152(11) is ef

fec tive rec ommendation . . . rathe r than fina l authority . The Ac t does not prec lude supervisory

status simpl y

beca use a r ecommendation is 18 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 18 of 522. Lev el One C oa ch in gs

The Bo ardals o d et erm in edth atth e LPNs’ in vo lv em en t i n l ev el on e co ach in gs do es no t es tabl is h t he ir s up erv is ory st atus . Spe ci fic al ly, th e Bo ard co nc lu de d t ha t the re i s n o d ire ct“ ne xu s” be twee n t he is su an ce o f le ve l o ne vi ol at io ns an d fu tu re d is ci pl in ary act io n. Th e Bo ardals o fo un d t ha t the ev id en ce pr es en te d o n t hi s i ss ue was e it he r “ va gu e,” an d s ho ul d t he refo re b e d is reg ard ed , or m erel y est ab li sh edth atlev el on e co ach in gs are i ss ue d aut om at ic al ly w it ho utth e ex erci se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t. The se co nc lu si on s ar e n otsupp orte d b y th e ev id en ce. As a s ta rti ng po in t, the reco rdm ak es cle ar tha t the is su an ce o f le ve l o ne co ach in gs , inan d o f it se lf, i s a f orm of d is ci pl in e. The e m

pl oyee ha ndbo ok pr ov id es th atem

pl oyees wh o fa il to m eetLake la nd ’s cus to m er s erv ic e st an da rd s wil l re cei ve a le ve l o ne co ach in g p la n “ de ve lo pe d b y th e em pl oyee an d h is /h er di rectsupe rv is or ”– in th e cas e o f CNAs, a n LPN o r RN te am lea de r. The l ev el on e co ach in g fo rm s co nt ai n asp ace f orth e te am

lea de r an d t he CNA to de sc rib e th e
subject to a superior’s investig ation. 182 F. App’ x . at 416-17 (inter nal quotations and citations omitted) (alter nations in origina l omitted). Whi le the dete rmination of supervisory status must be made on a c ase- by -ca se basis, we f ind this reasoningpersua sive. 19

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 19 of 52reas onforth e co ach in g, the co ach in g p la n, an d a ny add it io na l co rrec ti ve act io n o r

tra in in g n eces sary . The em pl oyee’s “ di rectsupe rv is or ,” who si gn s the lev el on e co ach in g fo rm

ne xtto th e li ne de si gn at ed“ supe rv is orsi gn atur e” o r “ co ach ’s si gn atur e,” i s ch arg edwith “ im pl em en t[i ng ]” the pl an . The p lans “ are pe rm an en tl y

fil edinth e em

pl oyee’s pe rs on ne l fi le ,” an d, i f no t s at is fact or il y co m pl et ed , “ rem ai n a ct iv e reg ard le ss of t he da te of i ss ue .” An em pl oyee who ha s fo uract iv e le ve l o ne co ach in g p la ns wil l b e te rm in at ed . 9 Mo reo ve r, th e Bo arddi sr eg ard edun di sp ut edev id en ce o f LPNs d is ci pl in in g CNAs t hr ou gh co ach in g p la ns pri nc ip al ly on t he ba si s tha t Lak el an d p res en te d n o ev id en ce tha t a C NA hadbe enterm in at edas ares ul t o f m ul ti pl e p en di ng lev el on e co ach in gs . For t he reas on s we d is cu ss ab ov e, we rejectth e n ot io n t ha t the Bo ard m ay in fer s ol el y

fro m th e la ckof C NA term in at io ns res ul ti ng fro m lev el on e co ach in gs th atLPNs ar e n otve st edwith t he au th or it y “ effe ct iv el y

to reco m m en d” th ei r te rm in at io n. Si mil arl y , th e fac t tha t CNAs rece iv e “ co ach in g” be fo re rece iv in g o th er, m or e se rio us form s o f di sc ip li ne su chas s us pe ns io n o r te rm in at io n–whi chm ay

or m ay no t n eedap pr ov al fro m

th e “ ch ai n o f

The unc ontradicte d evidenc e esta blishes that L PNs disciplined CNAs on numerous 9 occa sions through thelevel one c oaching proce ss. 20 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 20 of 52co m

m an d” –d oe s n otm ak e co ach in g a ny les s o f a d is ci pl in ary act io n. It i s p la in 1 0

The B oard a lso relies on the testimony of L akela

nd’s Unit Manag er, Carol Hiner, who 1 0 stated that, whe n she wa s hired, she w as told by Swearinge n that “the immediate supe rvisors neede d to be the ones to do the c oaching s; as far as their disciplinary

action, they

had to be follow-up [sic] with the chain of command.” O n this point , we a gree with the rea soning of the Six th Circuit in C are more:

[T] he NLRB re lies heavily on the fa ct that the eva luations and disciplinary

notices filed by

the L PNs weresubject to revie w by the Administrator. But the [Act] does not require , for e x ample, that an individual possess authority to fire a n employee in or der to be considere d a super

visor; it is sufficie nt that the individual has the power “ef fec tively to rec ommend” that an e mploy ee be fired. 129 F.3d at 369. Furthe rmore, w e note that the B oard’ s analy sis ignore d unref uted testimony

to the contra ry from B axter on this point–evidenc e that she, in fa ct, exercised he r indepe ndent authority to discipline CNAs: Q: [W ]hat information was re layed to you and the other team members a s far

as the scope of your authority for issuing the coa ching s? A: That we wer e re sponsible for those patients on the hall, and that we we re r esponsible for making sur e the CNAs did their duties and if not, it was to be a ddresse d. Q: So, was it your under standingthat you had indepe ndent authority to discipline a CNA without beingrequire d to involve another

level super

visor? A: Yes. Q: And did you eng ag e in that pra ctice - - A: Yes. Q: - - during your tenure as a te am leade r at Wedg ewood? A: Yes.

21 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 21 of 52fro m

th e rec or d tha t the re i s a n ex us be twee n t he au th or it y de le ga te d t o t he LPNs to is su e le ve l o ne co ach in gs an d t he di sc ip li ne , su sp en si on , andeffe ct iv e reco m m en da ti on of t erm in at io n o f CNAs. W e al so can no t ac cep t the Bo ard ’s reject io n o f th e te st im on y est ab li sh in g th atth e LPNs e xe rci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n i ss ui ng lev el on e co ach in gs so le ly on th e b as is th atitwas “ va gu e.” Lak el an d’s ev id en ce o n t hi s p oi ntwas n ei th er refu te d n orva gu e. Fo r ex am pl e, Bax te r, whe n a sk edwhy sh e b el ie ve d an LPN d id no t as k h er p erm is si on be fo re i ss ui ng a le ve l o ne co ach in g, re pl ie d:

A: Bec au se sh e kne w sh e h adau th or it y to do it . That was he r ha ll an d h er p at ie nt , anditwas the aid es on th atha ll th atweren ’t do in g wh atth ey ne ed edto do . Q: So Ms . McQu ai n d idno t n eedy ou r pe rm is si on to is su e a Lev el 1 co ach in g t o t he CNA forno t weari ng a ga itbe lt ? A: No. Lik ewis e, Caro l Hi ne r, Lake la nd ’s Uni t M an ag er, es ti m at edth atap pr ox im at el y 70 pe rcen t o f co ach in g i ss ue d t o C NAs are is su edan d h an dl edso le ly by LPNs. As no te d abo ve , “ th e Bo ardcan no t i gn or e th e rel ev an t ev id en ce tha t d etract s fr om it s fin di ng s.” No rthpo rt, 9 61 F.2dat 1 55 0. Fu rth er, thi s t es ti m on y

is co ns is te ntwith andbu tt res se d b y th e p ro vi si on s o f Lak el an d’s em

pl oyee m anua l an d t he m or e th an50 lev el on e co ach in g p la ns th at 22 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 22 of 52were i nt ro du cedin to ev id en ce. The se do cu m en ts , whi chwere n otco nt es te d,

ob jecti ve ly refut e th e Bo ard ’s po si ti on th atth e is su an ce o f le ve l o ne co ach in g pl an s i s m erel y

“ ro ut in e” o r “ cl eri cal .” The e m pl oyee m anua l, fo r ex am

pl e, de sc rib es twen ty non -ex cl us iv e “ ex am pl es ” o f cu st om er s erv ic e st an da rd s, wh ic h, if n otm et , cou ldlea d t o l ev el on e co ach in g d is ci pl in e. To l is t a f ew, th e p ro gr am requi res th atem

pl oyees “ [f]ol lo w th e Fac il ity ’s po li cy an d p ro cedur es an d Faci li ty’ s s ta nd ard s o f pr act ic e,” “ [a]lways actpro fes si on al , res pe ct fu l, an d h av e a po si ti ve att itud e,” “ [d ]em on st rat e fl ex ib il it y inacce pt in g a ss ig nm en ts ,”

“ [m ]ain ta in res id en t co nf id en ti al it y ,” an d “ [a]vo iddi srup ti ve act io ns or c on du ctin th e workp la ce . . . .” Natu ral ly, en fo rci ng th es e st an da rd s re qu ire s m or e th an m erel y ch eck in g a n e m

pl oyee’s ti m e sh eet s an d/ orrep orti ng hi s o r he r m is co nduc t to supe rio rs , as t he Bo ardco nc lu de d. En fo rcem en t o f th es e st an da rd s re qu ire s, fo r ex am pl e, in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t as to whatis “ res pe ct fu l,” “ pr of es si on al ,”

“ fle xi bl e,” an d “ di srup ti ve ,” with re sp ectto th e CNAs pro vi di ng ad equa te pa ti en t care . The lev el on e co ach in g fo rm s l ik ewis e il lu st rat e h ow the LPNs ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. As n ot edab ov e, eac h fo rm co nt ai ns a se ct io n l ab el ed

“ Co ach in g P la n” wher ei n t he em pl oyee an d the “ co ach ” (an RN orLPN tea m le ad er) a gr ee t o apl anto he lp th e em pl oyee m eetLake la nd ’s cus to m er s erv ic e 23 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 23 of 52st an da rd s. Fo r ex am pl e, in a co ach in g p la n d at edApri l 6 , 20 08 , whi chrefl ect s th atth e “ co ach ” was anLPN andth e “ em pl oyee” was a CNA, th e CNA ag reedto at te nda cu st om er s erv ic e “ in se rv ic e tr ai ni ng ” th e fo ll owi ng week . The p la n in di cat es th atth ere wo ul d b e anad di ti on al rev ie w in30 da y s o r ear li er, d ep en di ng on whet he r th ere wer e an y furth er co m

pl ai nt s. Si m il arl y , a co ach in g p la n d at ed Sep te m be r 9, 2 00 8, al so pre pa redby a CNA andanLPN, addres se s an in st an ce whe rei n aCNA fai le d t o p erfo rm he r work a ndactpro fes si on al ly in fr on t o f a pa ti en t. The pl anrefl ect s t ha t the CNA an d LPN re vi ewedth e cu st om er s erv ic e st an da rd s t og ethe r an d c on ta in s a c omm en t tha t the CNA “ ne ed [s ] to di sp la y po si ti ve att itud e an d c on ti nu e to m ai nt ai n g oo d rapp ort [wi th ] res id en ts .” Thes e an d t he ot he r pl an s i n t he reco rdde m on st rat e th atth e LPNs m us t, i n e ve ry

in st an ce of di sc ip li ne (wit h t he ex cep ti on , perhaps , of a tt en da nc e v io la ti on s) , per fo rm an in di vi du al ev al ua ti on of t he CNA’ s s ho rtc om in gs an d d ev el op a pl anad dr es si ng th e is su e. On the se fact s, we fi ndth atth e Bo ard ’s con cl us io n t ha t LPNs do no t h av e th e au th or it y

to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, o r effe ct iv el y reco m m en d t he term in at io n o f CNAs t hr ou gh lev el on e co ach in g was no t s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. 1 1 The dissent maintains that we “ fail[ ] to mention significa nt testimony

that supports the 1 1 contra ry findingby

the B oard.” Dissent at 43. In particula r, the dissent cites to the testimony of Rebec ca War d, an LPN called a s a witness by the B oard, who testified that she pe rsonally did not consider he rself a

supervisor, that she has neve r hired, f ired, promoted, or

disciplined a CNA, 24 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 24 of 52C. Aut ho rity to Res po ns ib ly D ire ctan d As si gn CNAs Altho ug h we f

in d u nr eas on ab le th e Bo ard ’s con cl us io n t ha t the LPNs in vo lv em en t i n C NA coa ch in g d oe s n otm ak e th em supe rv is or s u nd er the Act, fo r th e sa ke of t ho ro ug hn es s, we wi ll als o c on si de r whe th er the Bo ard ’s det erm in at io n th atth e LPNs d o n ot“ res po ns ib ly dire ct ” an d “ as si gn ” CNAs is supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l re co rdev id en ce. Lak el an d m ai nt ai ns th atth e LPNs h av e supe rv is ory au th or it y be cau se th ey

are ac co un tabl e fo r th e work o f th e CNAs un de r th ei r supe rv is io n a ndbe cau se th ey ass ig n a ndreas si gn CNAs s pe ci fic tas ks an d s hi fts ba se d upo n t he ne ed s an d c on di ti on s o f th e cen te r, it s s ta ff, an d i ts res id en ts .

1. “ Res po ns ib ly” Direct The Bo ardco nc lu de d tha t “ th e LPN te am lea de rs ha ve th e au th or it y to di rectCNAs,” n ot in g t ha t, “ [t]he LPN tea m lea de rs ‘ ov ers ee the CNA’ s [s ic ] job pe rfo rm an ce an d a ctto co rrec t the CNAs wh enth ey are n otpro vi di ng ad equa te care .’ ” DDE at 3 3 (c it in g Go ld enCres t Hea lt hc are C tr, 3 48 NLRB 72 7, 7 30

and that she ha s never

been instruc ted that she possesse s such authority . The dissent’s re liance on this and simil ar e vidence runs counter to the centr al re asoningof our de cision. Whether an individual qualifies as a “ supervisor” under the Act does not ne cessa rily rest on his or her employer’ s ability

to provide actual exam

ples of disciplinary

authority . Rather, a s we stre ss throughout this opi nion, the Act dire cts the B oard to e valuate the putative supervisor’ s authority to discipline, suspend, and ef fec tively rec ommend the termination of other employees. Where , as with Rebecc a Ward, the r ecor d does not ref lect that ther e we re a dequate opportunities for the putative supervisor to e x erc ise such authority -authority which has be en cle arly

deleg ated- the fre quency with which he or

she ac tually

exercises this authority , if eve r, is not probative of this centr al point. 25

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 25 of 52(2 00 6) (“ Gol de n C res t” )). The pa rti es li ke wis e d o n otdi sp ut e whe th er the

ex erci se of t ha t au th or it y requi res in de pe nd en t ju dg em en t. Acco rd in gl y , our on ly ta skhe re i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the LPNs ex erci se th atdi sc ret io n

“ res po ns ib ly.” 1 2 Fo r gu id an ce o n t he m ean in g o f “ res po ns ib ly,” the pa rti es di rectus to th e Bo ard ’s dec is io n i n Oakwoo d. In Oakwoo d, the Bo ardhe ld : 1 3 [F]or d ire ct io n t o b e ‘resp on si bl e,’ the pe rs on di rect in g an d p erfo rm in g t he ov ers ig htof t he em pl oyee m us t b e acco un tabl e fo r th e p erfo rm an ce o f th e ta skby the ot he r, su chth atso m e ad ve rs e co ns eque nc es m ay be fal l the on e pr ov id in g t he ov ers ig htif t he tas ks pe rfo rm edby the em pl oyee are n otpe rfo rm edpro pe rly. . . . Thus , to es tabl is h a cco un tabi li ty for p ur po se s o f res po ns ib le di rect io n, i t m

us t b e sh own th atth e em

pl oyer de le ga te d to th e p ut at iv e supe rv is orth e au th or it y to di rectth e work an d t he au th or it y

to tak e co rrec ti ve act io n, i f ne ces sary . It a ls o m us t b e sh ownth atth ere i s a p ro sp ectof a dv ers e co ns eque nc es forth e p ut at iv e supe rv is orif h e/ sh e d oe s no t t ak e th es e st ep s.
L akela nd devotes a

section of its brief

to arguing that LPNs’ involvement in the 1 2 perf ormanc e eva luation proce ss for CNAs is indicative of the L PNs’ supervisory status, and direc ts the Court to ex tensive re cord te stimony conce rningthe criteria of the evaluations and the impact of the e valuations on the work of the CNAs. Howe ver, suc h evidenc e would esta blish only that L PNs “direc t” CNAs and e x erc ise independe nt judgment in doingso, not that such direc tion was “re sponsible.” B eca use these issues a

re not in dispute, consider ation of this evidenc e not re quired. Be cause the term “ responsibly” is ambiguous, we de fer to the Boa

rd’s interpr etation as 1 3 long a s it is reasonable. See Cent. Fla. Shee t Metal Contractors A ss’n., Inc. v. NLRB, 664 F .2d 489, 496 (5th Cir. 1981). All decisions of the f ormer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to Octobe r 1, 1981, are binding pr ece dent in this circuit. See B onner v. Pricha rd, 661 F .2d, 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981). 26

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 26 of 5234 8 N.L.R.B. at69 1- 92 . This fram ewo rkdra ws a d is ti nc ti on be twee n “ th os e

em pl oyees wh os e in te res ts , indi rect in g o th er em pl oyees’ tas ks , ali gn with m an ag em en t, an d tho se who se in te res ts , indi rect in g o th er em pl oyees, i s s im

pl y th e co m pl et io n o f a certa in tas k.” Id. at69 2. “ Inth e cas e o f th e fo rm er, . . . th e di rect in g e m

pl oyee wil l h av e, if

an d t o t he ex te ntne ces sa ry , an a dv ers ari al rel at io ns hi p wi th th os e h e is di rect in g.” Id. Lak el an d c on ced es th atth ere i s n o e vi de nc e es tabl is hi ng th atanLPN has ev er b een di sc ip li ne d o r di sc harg edbe cau se of h is or h er fa il ur e to supe rv is e CNAs. No ne th el es s, Lak el an d m ai nt ai ns th atto est ab li sh th atanem pl oyee

“ res po ns ib ly” di rect s an ot he r itis no t n eces sa ry th atth e em

pl oyer gi ve sp eci fic ex am pl es of wh ere “ adve rs e co ns eque nc es ” b efel l an em pl oyee who fai le d t o ex erci se pro pe r supe rv is io n. Lak el an d e m ph as iz es th atth e Actrequi res on ly a pr os pe ctof a dv ers e co ns eque nc es . W e ag ree. 1 4 After the par ties filed their brie fs, the B oard br ought to the Court’s attention two rec ent 1 4 decisions from the Seve nth and Third Circuits involving the issue of “re sponsible direction” under the Act. See Roc helle Waste Disposal, L L C v. NL RB, 673 F .3d 587 (7th Cir. 2012); Mars Home for Youth v. NL RB, 666 F .3d 850 (3d Cir. 2011). In both of these c ases, the r espec tive courts upheld the B oard’ s decision findingthat the putative super visors did not responsibly direc t other e mploy ees. In Mars Home , the Third Circuit noted that “[t]he recor d befor e the B oard contained nume rous examples of wher e assistant mana g ers we re not disciplined for the fa ilure of resident a ssistants to foll ow their dire ctions. Rather, the r ecor d shows that the assistant manag ers wer e disciplined for

their own fa ilings as mana g ers.” 666 F.3d at 854. In Rochelle Waste, the Seventh Circuit explained that “the B oard f ound no evidenc e that Jarvis actually suffe red a s ‘adve rse c onsequenc e’ . . . . Where a lower level employee pe rfor

ms inadequate ly , and the purported supe rvisor is in fac t not held acc ountable, it highly supports a findingthat the purported supe rvisor is not actually at risk of suff

eringadver se conse quence s.” 673 F .3d at 596. 27 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 27 of 52To b eg in with, Lak el an d’s wri tt enjob de sc rip ti onforLPNs s tro ng ly

in di cat es th atth ey

are ac co un tabl e fo r th e p erfo rm an ce o f th e CNAs . Und er the he ad in g “ Lead ers hi p,” th e job de sc rip ti on ex pl ic it ly pro vi de s tha t the LPNs supe rv is e CNAs . Furt he r, th e job de sc rip ti on ex pl ai ns th atth e “pr im ary pu rp os e” of LPNs i s t o “ pr ov id e d ire ctnurs in g c are t o the res id en ts , andto supe rv is e th e da y -to -d ay

nu rs in g a ct iv it ie s p erfo rm edby nur si ng ass is ta nt s.” To th is en d, the job de sc rip ti on pro vi de s t ha t the “ es se nt ia l dut ie s” of LPNs are, am on g o th er th in gs , to “ [d ]irectth e d ay -to -d ay fun ct io ns of t he nu rs in g a ss is ta nt s i n a cco rd an ce with c urren t ru le s, re gu la ti on s, an d g ui de li ne s tha t g ov ernth e lo ng -te rm care faci li ty,” “ [e]ns ur e th atall ass ig ne d n ur si ng pe rs on ne l co m pl y with the writ te n po li ci es an d p ro cedur es est ab li sh edby the faci li ty,” “ [e]ns ur e th atall nu rs in g se rv ic e p ers on ne l ar e inco m pl ia nc e wit h t he ir r es pe ct iv e job de sc rip ti on s,” a nd

“ [m ]ake d ai ly rou nd s o f [the ir] un it/s hi ft t o e ns ur e th atnu rs in g s erv ic e p ers on ne l are p erfo rm in g the ir wo rkass ig nm en ts inacco rd an ce wi thacce pt ab le nu rs in g
The Seve nth Circuit later adde d that, “Roche lle Waste does not point to any thing in the r ecor d that shows that [the purpor ted supervisor w as] ‘at risk’ of a n adver se conse quence for the poor perf ormanc e of othe r employees . . . .” I d. Relying on the se and othe r ca ses, the B oard r easons that the abse nce in the r ecor d of any examples wherean LPN was disciplined for the poor perf ormanc e of a

CNA, combined with the numer ous examples of coac hings that evidence misconduct by

CNAs, conclusively

establishes that the LPNs do not “responsibly” dire ct CNAs work. We, howe ver, do not re ad these case s as holding that actual e x amples of “ responsible” discipline are require d under the Act. To the c ontrary , both Mars Home a nd Rochelle Waste rea ffirm the B oard’ s determination in Oakw ood that the Act r equire s only that the putative supervisor be at risk of suffe ringadver se conse quence s for the pe rfor mance of others. 28 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 28 of 52st an da rd s . . . .” (em ph as is ad de d) . This ev id en ce, wh il e g en eral ly not edinth e ba ck gr ou ndsec ti on of t he Bo ard ’s dec is io n, was no t co ns id eredinit s an al y si s o f res po ns ib le di rect io n. W e ackno wled ge th at , st an di ng alo ne , th is “pape r” ev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y no t b e su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt afin di ng of s up erv is ory st atus . Cf. Gol de n C res t 3 48 N.L.R.B. at 7 31 (“ Bu t the re m us t b e a m or e-than- m erel y -p ap er s ho win g tha t s uc h a p ro sp ect[of

adve rs e co ns eque nc es ] ex is ts .”). As the Bo ardha s p ro pe rly reco gn iz ed , to ba se supe rv is ory st atus so le ly upo n apape r sh owi ng of t it le s o r job de sc rip ti on s wo ul d e nabl e em pl oyers t o d es ig n the ir p ol ic ie s i n am an ne r th at co ul d e ffec ti ve ly dep riv e n on -s up erv is ory em pl oyees o f th ei r ri gh t t o c ol le ct iv e ba rg ai ni ng un de r th e Act . This co nc ern , ho wev er, d oe s n otco m m an d a n im po ss ib ly hig h e vi de nt ia ry st an da rdforest ab li sh in g “ pr os pe ct iv e” co ns eque nc es fo r th e p ut at iv e supe rv is or . Writ te n p ol ic ie s, job de sc rip ti on s, p erfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on s, an d t he li ke , when co rro bo rat edby liv e te st im on y or o th er ev id en ce, are o bv io us ly relev an t t o t he is su e o f res po ns ib le di rect io n. Inth is cas e, Lak el an d p res en te d m uc h m or e th ana “pape r sh owi ng ” o f res po ns ib le di rect io n. Lake la ndals o p res en te d u nr eb ut te d t es ti m on y est ab li sh in g 1 5 In its brief, the B oard r elies hea vily on Golden Crest to support its conclusion that the 1 5 evidenc e pre sented by

L akela nd was insuffic ient to establish that the L PNs’ direc tion was responsible. In that case , decide d the same da y as Oakwood, the B oard he ld that Golden Crest, the employer, f

ailed to establish that its L PNs responsibly direc ted the CNAs at its fac ility . 29 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 29 of 52th atLPNs ar e “ res po ns ib le ” fo r en surin g t he CNAs’ com pl ia nc e wit h Lak el an d’s st an da rd s, an d t ha t the y

wou ldbe “ writ te n up” forfai li ng to do so . For e xa m pl e, Lak el an d’s Di rect orof Nu rs in g, Swe ari ng en , tes ti fie d:

Q: . . . Can a c ha rg e nur se be he ldres po ns ib le fora CNA no t d oi ng hi s o r he r job ? A: Yes . Q: Hav e y ousee n t ha t h ap pe n? A: No. Q: W el l, b utif t he re’s a p ro bl em with p at ie ntcare , ha ve nu rs es ev er b een -- h av e -- the y are h el d res po ns ib le forth at ? A: If the y ’re -- if a c ha rg e nur se saw aCNA do so m ethi ng to th e res id en t tha t was ag ai ns t a st an dardpra ct ic e, an d I’ll gi ve y ouanex am pl e, if th ey saw aCNA ve rb al ly abu se or p hysic al ly ab us e th ei r res id en t, an d i f th e ch arg e nur se di d no t h av e th atCNA lea ve th e b ui ld in g, tha t ch arg e nu rs e wou ldbe res po ns ib le , y es . 1 6 Golden Crest, like L akela nd, offe red no e x amples, positive or neg ative, of a ctions taken a s a result of the LPNs’ perf

ormanc e in direc ting the CNA s. Unlike this case, how ever , the only evidenc e off

ere d by Golden Crest on the issue of responsible dire ction consisted of e valuation forms, which, a

mong othe r fa ctors, rated the LPNs on how well they “[d] irec t[ ] C NAs to ensure quality of ca re.”348 N.L .R.B. at 731. The Boa rd found that the e valuation forms, standing alone, did not establish the super visory status of Golden Cre st’s LPNs. Swearinge n also testified to sever al other sc enarios in which an LPN would be coa ched 1 6 for the poor

perf ormanc e of a

CNA. For

example: Q: I f an LPN tells a CNA to turn a re sident in a ce rtain manne r on this day

and the CNA doe sn’t do it, and the L PN knows

30 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 30 of 52Lik ewis e, Bax te r te st ifi ed : Q: If a CNA h as be enco ach edth atth ey are d oi ng so m ethi ng im

pr op er, n otve ry

go odat i t, b ed di ng , sh owe rin g, t oi le try, what ev er, an d t he y do n’t s eem to be im pr ov in g o n i t, wo ul d a n LPN b e wri tt enup be cau se of t he pe rfo rm an ce o f a CNA? A: If the aid e o n t he ha ll way is no t d oi ng th ei r [s ic ] job an d t ha t n ur se is aware t ha t tha t CNA i s n ot do in g t he ir [ si c] j ob ? Q: Uh- hu h. A: Yes , I wou ldwrit e h er up. Q: Hav e y ouev er wri tt enup anLPN? A: I ha ve ne ve r ha d t o. Bu t I wo ul d. Th ey are res po ns ib le forth atha ll . The B oa rddi sr eg ard edth is an d o th er ar eas of t es ti m on y as “ pu rel y

the CNA didn’t do what she was supposed to do, will that L PN be coa ched? A: Yes. Q: I f an LPN tells a CNA to gr oom a re sident in a ce rtain manner and the CNA doe sn’t do it and the L PN knows that, will the L PN be coa ched? A: Yes. . . .

31 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 31 of 52co nc lu so ry .” They w ere n ot . As no te d abo ve , un de r th e Act , an e m pl oyer m ay es tabl is h “ res po ns ib le ” d ire ct io n b y pre se nt in g e vi de nc e o f pr os pe ct iv e co ns eque nc es . Sweari ng en ’s andBax te r’s te st im on y pro vi de sp eci fic ex am

pl es of sc en ari os inwhi ch , th ey

op in ed , an LPN wo ul d b e h el d a cco un tabl e fo r th e act io ns of a CNA. Bax te r’s un refu te d t es ti m on y als o e st ab li sh es th atanLPN wou ldbe he ldacco un tabl e in su cha si tu at io n thr ou gha “ writ e up” (pr es um ab ly coach in g) , whi ch , as we n ot e ab ov e, is a si gn ifi can t fo rm of d is ci pl in e. By

foc us in g ex cl us iv el y

on th e la ck

of e xa m pl es wher e anLPN “ ha s ex pe rie nc ed. . . m at eri al co ns eque nc es to he r te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t . . . as ares ul t o f hi s/ he r pe rfo rm an ce i n d ire ct in g C NAs,”(e m ph as is ad de d) th e Bo ardeffe ct iv el y ig no red it s o wn o bs erv at io n i n Oakwoo d t ha t a s ho win g o f pr os pe ct iv e co ns eque nc es is su ffi ci en t u nd er the st atut e. App lying th e fra m ewo rkof Oa kwo od , we con cl ud e th atth e rec or d a s a who le est ab li sh es th atth e LPNs’ in te res ts are “ al ig ne d wi thm an ag em en t” an d t ha t th e LPNs wo ul d b e h el d a cco un tabl e fo r th e p oo r pe rfo rm an ce o f th ei r CNAs. The re was no ev id en ce d ire ct ly refut in g t hi s ac co un tabi li ty. Acco rd in gl y , th e Bo ard ’s con cl us io n t ha t the LPNs d o n otres po ns ib ly dire ctCNAs was no t supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

32 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 32 of 522. Ass ig nm en t

Und er the Act, the Bo ardha s i nt erp ret edth e te rm “ as si gn ” as refe rri ng to

“ th e actof d es ig na ti ng anem pl oyee to a pl ace ( su chas alo cat io n, d ep art m en t, o r win g) , app oi nt in g a n e m

pl oyee to a ti m e (s uc h a s a s hi ft o r ov ert im e p eri od ), or gi vi ng si gn ifi can t o ve ral l dut ie s, i .e., tas ks , to anem pl oyee.” Oakwoo d, 3 48 N.L.R.B. at 6 89 . “ Inth e h eal th care set ti ng , th e te rm ‘ as si gn ’ en co m

pa ss es th e ch arg e nur se s’ res po ns ib il it y to ass ig n n ur se s an d a id es to pa rti cu la r pa ti en ts .” Id . It d oe s n oten co m

pa ss a “ nu rs e’s adho c in st ru ct io n t ha t the em pl oyee pe rfo rm

a di sc ret e ta sk .” Id . Here, th e Bo ardco nc lu de d t ha t, i n t erm s o f as si gn in g dut ie s t o CNAs, Lak el an d’s LPNs ass ig n o nl y “ di sc ret e ta sk s.” Th e Bo ardals o c on cl ud ed th at , whi le th e LPNs a re i nv ol ve d i n a ss ig ni ng an d re as si gn in g C NAs t o s pe ci fic sh ift s, ro om s, an d re si de nt s, the y do no t u se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n t he ex erci se of su chau th or it y . a. Ta sk s Inde te rm in in g t ha t the LPNs d o n otass ig n “ si gn ifi can t o ve ral l dut ie s” to th e CNAs , th e Bo arddre w a pa ral le l b etweenth is cas e an d a n i ll us tra ti on pro vi de d in Oakwo od . In Oakwoo d, the Bo ardno te d:

[I]f a ch arg e nur se de si gn at es anLPN to be th e p ers on who wil l re gu larly adm in is te r m ed ic at io ns to a pa ti en t o r a g ro up of p at ie nt s, the gi vi ng of t ha t o ve ral l dut y to th e LPN is anass ig nm en t. Onth e o th er h an d, the ch arg e 33 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 33 of 52nu rs e’s or de rin g a n LPN t o i m m ed ia te ly giv e a s ed at iv e to a pa rti cu la r pa ti en t d oe s n otco ns ti tu te anass ig nm en t. 34 8 N.L.R.B. at68 9. Ba se d o n t hi s ex am pl e, th e Bo ardco nc lu de d t ha t the LPNs’ sp eci fic ass ig nm en ts to CNAs, s uc h a s t ak in g v it al si gn s an d p rep ari ng res id en ts to vi si t d oc to rs , were m or e ak in to th e Bo ard ’s exa m pl e o f ro ut in e, “ di sc ret e ta sk s” th anth e g iv in g o f an“ as si gn m en t” un de r th e m ean in g o f th atterm inth e Act . Lak el an d re sp on ds th at“ LPNs as si gnda il y tas ks to CNAs tha t ar e n ot ro ut in e–th ey

are m ed ic al inna ture an d d ep en de nton th e res id en ts ’ co nd it io ns –a nd ch an ge freque nt ly dep en di ng up on th e res id en t’s i nd iv idua l m ed ic al ne ed s an d a ny em erg en ci es th atari se .” The t es ti m on y whi chLake la ndcit es be ars th is ou t. Howev er, Lak el an d’s as se rti on an d t he cit edtes ti m on y on ly und ers co re the Bo ard ’s po in t: th e ta sk s p erfo rm edby the LPNs ar e si tu at io na l, d ep en di ng on pa rti cu la r ne ed s as th ey

ari se . The rec or d d oe s n otde m on st rat e th atLPNs as si gn

“ si gn ifi can t o ve ral l dut ie s” to LPNs. The refo re, we co nc lu de th atth e Bo ard ’s de te rm in at io n o n t hi s n arro w is su e–th e as si gn m en t o f ta sk s– is supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.

b. Sc he du li ng Whe th er the Bo ardwas re as on ab le inco nc lu di ng th atth e LPNs d o n ot ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n s ch edul in g C NAs i s a d iff eren t que st io n. Th e fact s m at eri al to th is is su e are no t i n d is pu te . Lakel an d e m pl oys two un it 34 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 34 of 52m an ag ers who workfro m 7: 15 a.m . un ti l 5 :3 0 p .m ., Mon da y th ro ug h F rid ay , and th ree s hi ft s up erv is or s, two wh o wo rkov erl ap pi ng da yti m e sh ift s b etween12 :0 0 p.m . and11 :0 0 p .m ., Mon da y th ro ug h F rid ay , anda th irdwho work s wee ke nd s fro m 7: 00 a.m . un ti l 1 1: 00 p.m . Lakel an d’s LPNs an d C NAs wo rkth ree s hi fts , se ve n d ay s a we ek : 6 :4 5 a .m . un ti l 3 :1 5 p .m .; 2 :4 5 p .m . un ti l 1 1: 15 p.m .; 1 0: 45 p.m . un ti l 7 :1 5 a .m . Duri ng th e th irdsh ift , sev enda y s p er week , LPNs are th e hi gh es t-r an ki ng em

pl oyees o n t he pre m is es . The Di rect orof Nu rs in g i s o n c al l 2 4 ho ur s p er d ay , sev enday s p er week , incas e o f anem erg en cy . The pa rti es ackno wled ge th atres po ns ib il it y forst affi ng an d s ch edul in g o f CNAs l ie s, fi rs t an d fo rem os t, wi th a st affi ng co or di na to r who rep orts to th e Dire ct orof Nu rs in g. Th e st affi ng co or di na to r is ch arg edwith p rep ari ng th e sc he du le on a m on th ly bas is , as wel l as “un itsh iftass ig nm en t s he et s” forth e fi rs t an d s eco ndsh ift s, M on da y th ro ug h F rid ay . The s ta ffi ng co or di na to r te st ifi ed 1 7 th at , insch edul in g C NAs, s he freque nt ly tak es in to acco un t re qu es ts fro m LPNs th atcert ai n C NAs b e as si gn ed(orno t b e as si gn ed ) to th ei r ha ll . She ad de d t ha t:

I do n’t p ic k C NAs t o wo rkpa rti cu la r ha ll s b ecau se I do n’t kno w ho w well th ey workwith the nu rs e o r wit h th e p art ic ul ar p at ie nt s o n [s ic ] a certa in sec ti on . Onl y th e nu rs es kn ow tha t. The y

workwith t he CNAs cl os el y . The a ssignment she ets set forth, among othe r thing s, the unit, date, shift, and room 1 7 assignments for the LPNs and the CNAs on their r espec tive teams, as we ll as break and lunch times for ea ch CNA on the te am. 35

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 35 of 52Tha t’s wh y we all ow the m

to ch oo se th ei r te amm at es ba si cal ly. On the th irdsh iftan d wee ke nd s, LPNs alo ne are re sp on si bl e fo r pr ep ari ng th e as si gn m en t s he et s. Th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atth ey do so at l eas t i n p artba se d on th e in fo rm at io n t he st affi ng co or di na to r ha s al read y pl acedonth e as si gn m en t sh eet s. Th e rec or d a ls o i nd ic at es th atLPNs, wh il e n otpri nc ip al ly resp on si bl e fo r tra ns ferr in g C NAs b etweenun it s, ch an gi ng roo m ass ig nm en ts , andreas si gn in g ta sk s b etweenCNAs, h av e th e au th or it y to do so , andha ve ex erci se d t hi s au th or it y in th e p as t. Si mil arl y , du rin g t he th irdsh iftan d o n wee ke nd s, LPNs ha ve th e au th or it y to ap pr ov e o r de ny CNA requ es ts to lea ve workbe fo re the en d o f th ei r sh ift . Duri ng th e fi rs t an d s eco ndweek day sh ift s, thi s au th or it y

li es pri nc ip al ly with t he un itm an ag er, wh o t ak es in to co ns id erat io n t he reco m m en da ti on of t he res pe ct iv e LPNs. The cru x o f th is is su e is whet he r, un de r th is arra ng em en t, the LPNs ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n s ch edul in g (o r rec omm en di ng th e sc he du li ng of) CNAs to pa rti cu la r sh ift s, h al ls , etc ., or wh ethe r th ey m erel y fol lo w exi st in g g ui de li ne s an d d ire ct io ns whi le lea vi ng jud gm en t ca ll s t o t he ir s up eri or s. We hav e h el d t ha t,

“ fo r anass ig nm en t fu nc ti on to in vo lv e in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t, the pu ta ti ve supe rv is orm

us t s el ectem

pl oyees t o p erfo rm

sp eci fic tas ks on th e b as is of a 36 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 36 of 52jud gm en t ab ou t the in di vi du al em pl oyee’s sk il ls .” Co op er/ T. Smit h, In c., 17 7 F .3d at12 65 . The Bo ardth us co nc lu de d t ha t LPNs are n otsupe rv is or s i n thi s re ga rd be cau se Lake la ndfai le d t o e st ab li sh th atinm ak in g s ch edul in g re co m m en da ti on s an d m od ifi cat io ns th e LPNs m at ch edth e n eed s o f sp eci fic pa ti en ts with a pa rti cu la r CNA’s sk il ls an d t rai ni ng . Rath er, the Bo ardno te d, s uc h d eci si on s ap pe ar t o b e b as edup on th e p ers on al pre fere nc es of t he LPN or re si de ntin vo lv ed , orso le ly to b al an ce the work lo adam on g C NAs–ne it he r of whi chrequi res in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. The Bo ardwas l ik ewis e n otpe rs ua de d b y th e fac t tha t the th ird(ni gh t) s hi ft LPNs , whi le th e h ig he st -ran ki ng em pl oyees o n t he pre m is es du rin g t he ir s hi fts , hav e th e in de pe nd en t au th or it y to reas si gnCNAs i n the ev en t of no cal ls an d n o s ho ws. The Bo ard ’s con cl us io ns fin d s up po rt i n t he Nin th Cir cu it ’s dec is io n i n Pro vi de nc e Ala sk a Me di cal Cen te r v. NLRB , whi ch , un de r si m il ar fa ct s, co nc lu de d t ha t the em

pl oyer’s cha rg e nur se s wer e n otsupe rv is or s u nd er the Act. 12 1 F .3d54 8 (9 thCir . 19 97 ). As i n t hi s ca se , th e LPNs i n P ro vi de nc e d idno t pr ep are t he CNAs’ m on th ly sch edul e, bu t h adth e au th or ity to ass ig n n ur se s t o pa rti cu la r res id en ts at t he be gi nn in g o f eac h s hi ft, a ndto reas si gn nu rs es if ano th er nu rs e was ab se ntor n eari ng ov ert im e. The Ni nt h C irc ui t co nc lu de d t ha t the LPNs’ as si gn m en ts were m ad e “ withi n t he pa ram et ers of t he supe rv is ory nu rs e’s m on th ly 37 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 37 of 52as si gn m en t s ch edul e” an d wer e a “ ro ut in e act iv ity th atdo es no t re qu ire th e ex erci se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t.” Id . at 5 52 . The Ni nt h C irc ui t al so co nc lu de d 1 8 th atth e LPNs’ in vo lv em en t i n s ta ffi ng an d s ch edul in g d eci si on s was “ m or e cl eri cal th ansupe rv is ory .” Id . at 5 53 . At the ot he r en d o f th e sp ectru m , ho wev er, the Fo urth Cir cu it , als o u nd er si mil ar fa ct s, co nc lu de d t ha t the “po wer t o aut ho riz e sc he du le ch an ge s an d reas si gn work ers ris es ab ov e th e m ere i nc id en ta l d ire ct io n o f as si st an ts .” Glen m ark , 14 7 F .3dat 3 41 . The Fo urth Cir cu itfou ndpe rs ua si ve th e fac t tha t,

“ [f]or two o utof t hr ee s hi fts du rin g t he da y , andall th ree s hi fts ov er the week en d, th ere i s n o h ig he r au th or it y th anth e ch arg e nur se . . . .” Id . The Fo urthCir cu it ex pl ai ne d: W e can no t fa th om th e Bo ard ’s po si ti on th atform or e th antwo th ird s o f th e weekat anu rs in g h om e p ro vi di ng twen ty-four ho urcare , wher e p at ie ntco nd it io ns can ch an ge on a m om en t’s n ot ic e, th ere i s n o o ne pre se ntat th e fac il it y

ex erci si ng in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t re gard in g pr op er s ta ff l ev el s an d p at ie ntass ig nm en ts .

. . . . The au th or it y

to ass ig n wo rk ers co ns ti tu te s the po wer t o pu t the ot he r em

pl oyees t o wo rkwhen an d wh ere ne ed ed . Suc h d eci si on s ar e, inou r vi ew, in se ve rab le fro m th e ex erci se of i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t, es pe ci al ly in We cited this reasoningwith approva l in Cooper, which involved the supe rvisory status 1 8 of tugboat dockingpilots. 177 F.3d at 1265. For the re asons that follow, we find that Cooper is distinguishable f

rom this case a s to the level of indepe ndent judg ment exercised by the putative supervisor. 38

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 38 of 52th e h eal thcare co nt ex t wh ere s ta ffi ng de ci si on s ca n h av e su chanim

po rta ntim

pa cton pa ti en t h eal th an d well -b ei ng . Id . at 3 41 -4 2 (i nt ern al cit at io ns , qu ot at io ns , andbra ck et in g o m it te d) . To b e su re, the st an da rdad op te d b y th e Fo urth Cir cu it–wh ethe r th e p ut at iv e supe rv is orha s t he au th or it y “ to pu t the ot he r em

pl oyees t o wo rkwhen an d wh ere ne ed ed ”– is arg uabl y

les s ri go ro us th anth e st an dardth atwe ha ve ap pl ie d i n t hi s ci rcu it , whi chrequi res th atth e supe rv is orass ig n wo rkon th e b as is of t he em pl oyees’ in di vi du al sk il ls . Com pa re i d. wi th Co op er/ T. Sm it h, In c., 17 7 F .3dat 12 65 (ci ti ng NLRB v. KDFW-TV, Inc., 79 0 F .2d12 73 , 12 79 (5t h C ir. 1 98 6) (“ [T]he p ut at iv e supe rv is orm us t s el ectem

pl oyees t o p erfo rm

sp eci fic tas ks on th e ba si s o f a jud gm en t ab ou t the in di vi du al em pl oyee’s sk il ls .”) ). Howe ve r, th e th ru stof t ha t d eci si on–f

in di ng un te nabl e th e Bo ard ’s po si ti on th atLPNs m ech an ic al ly foll ow es tabl is he d p ro cedur e in ass ig ni ng an d re as si gn in g C NAs, ev enwhenth ey

are the hi gh es t-r an ki ng st aff o n t he pre m is es –app li es with e qu al fo rce i n t hi s ca se . As no te d b y Sweari ng en , th e LPNs “ are c on si de redto be le ad ers of t he ir t eam .” They seekto “ as su re the be stpo ss ib le care th atth ey can gi ve to th os e res id en ts or p at ie nt s t ha t’s [s ic ] inth atsec ti on by m ak in g s ur e th at th e CNAs do th e job th atth ey ’re ass ig ne d t o.” Id. In vi ew of th is un reb ut te d ev id en ce, we ca nn otacce ptth e co nc lu si on th atth e LPNs, wh o a re ch arg edwith 39 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 39 of 52“ le ad in g” Lake la nd ’s un ittea m s i n o rd er t o i ns ur e p ro pe r pa ti en t care, an d wh o a re

th e h ig he st -ran ki ng em

pl oyees dur in g ath irdof Lak el an d’s o pe rat io ns , hav e th e au th or it y to ass ig n a ndreas si gnCNAs, b uthave no real fle xi bi li ty in d oi ng so . Viewi ng th e rec or d a s a wh ol e, we fi ndth e Bo ard ’s det erm in at io n t ha t the LPNs do no t ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n a ss ig ni ng CNAs n otsupp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. IV. CONCLUSION Fo r th es e rea so ns , we GRANT Lakel an d’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w; the Bo ard ’s cro ss -p et it io n fo r en fo rcem en t i s DENIED; an d t he Bo ard ’s dec is io n i s VACATED.

40

Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 40 of 52PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e, di ss en ti ng :

“ [I]n rewe ig hi ng th e fac ts an d s et ti ng asi de th e Bo ard ’s ord er,” the m ajor it y op in io n “ im

pr op erl y subs ti tu te [s ] it s o wn v ie ws o f th e fac ts forth os e o f th e Bo ard ,” NLRB v . Ent er. Ass ’n of S te am , HotW at er, Hy dr au li c Sp rin kl er, Pn eu m at ic Tub e, Ice M ach . & Gen . Pip efi tt ers of Ne w York& Vic in it y , Loca l Uni onNo. 6 38 , 42 9 U.S. 5 07 , 53 2, 9 7 S . Ct. 8 91 , 90 5 (1 97 7) , andfai ls to adhe re to ou r de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. As di rect edby Con gr es s, “ [t]hi s C ou rt rev ie ws the . . . factua l fi nd in gs [of th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ard ] to en su re th atth ey are s up po rte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdas awho le .” NLRB v. Co nt em

po rary Cars, In c., 66 7 F .3d13 64 , 13 70 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (ci ti ng 29 U.S.C. § 1 60 (e)) . Sub st an ti al ev id en ce i s “ su chrel ev an t ev id en ce as a reas on ab le m in d m ig htacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a c on cl us io n,’” id . (qu ot in g B ic ke rs ta ff Cl ay Pro ds . Co. v . NLRB, 87 1 F .2d98 0, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 19 89 )), b utit“ is m or e th ana m ere s ci nt il laof e vi de nc e.” Id . “ Pro vi de d a ny inf eren ces drawn fr om

th e reco rdwere p laus ib le , th is Co urt m ay no t o ve rtu rnth e Bo ard ’s det erm in at io n e ve n if i t wo ul d m ak e a d iff

eren t fi nd in g u nd er a d e n ov o re vi ew.” Id . (ci ti ng Co op er/ T. Sm ith, In c. v. NLRB, 1 77 F.3d12 59 , 12 61 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )). “ Thi s i s an ex ceed in gl y

na rro w st an da rdof r ev ie w des ig ne d t o a ll ow d is rupt io n o f th e . . . de ci si on [of

th e Bo ard ] on ly whe n t he [Bo ard ] ex erci se s i ts di sc ret io n ‘inan 41 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 41 of 52arb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.’” Id. (quo ti ng Day li gh t Gro cery Co. v . NLRB, 67 8

F.2 d 9 05 , 90 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) ). Altho ug h “ a sp li t i n t he cir cu it s h as de ve lo pe d ab ou t the de gr ee o f de fere nc e th atsh ou ldbe acco rd edto th e [Bo ard ] on it s de te rm in at io n t ha t an em

pl oyee is a ‘sup erv is or ’ un de r [s ect io n] 2(1 1) of t he [Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Act],” Co op er/ T. Smit h, In c., 17 7 F .3dat 1 26 2 n .3, o ur Co urt h as refu se d t o m ak e “ jud ic ia l ad

jus tm en ts to [th e] sta tu to ry st an da rdof rev ie w [be cau se ] we be li ev e th e wis er co ur se is a ro bu stap pl ic at io n o f th e st an da rdth atha s t y

pi fie d re vi ew of

Bo ardde ci si on s,” i d. at12 62 . Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t hr ee ways supp orts th e fi nd in gs by the Bo ardth at th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es at Lak el an d l ackan y supe rv is ory

au th or it y us in g in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t, 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 2( 11 ). Fir st , subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y

th e Bo ardth atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es lac k t he auth or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, o r effe ct iv el y reco m m en d t he term in at io n o f certi fie d n ur si ng as si st an ts . Seco nd , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y th e Bo ardth atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es do no t re sp on si bl y di rectcert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. Thi rd , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g b y th e Bo ardth atth e li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs es do no t as si gn cert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s u si ng in de pe nd en t jud gm en t. A. Su bs ta nt ia l Evi de nc e S up po rt s the Fin di ng

byth e Boa rd

th at th e Li cen se d Pra ct ic al Nu rs es La ck the Autho ri tyto Dis ci pl in e, Su sp en d, o r Ef

fe ct iv el y 42 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 42 of 52Reco mmend th e Termin at io n o

f Ce rt if ie d N ur si ng Ass is ta nt s. The m ajor it y

op in io n faul ts th e Bo ardfor“ m et ic ul ou sl y ex cl ud [in g] or di sr eg ard [in g] reco rdev id en ce, wh ic h, wh entak enin to acco un t, co m pe ls ” th e fin di ng th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es po ss es s the au th or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, an d e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d t he term in at io n o f certi fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt s, Majo rit y Opi ni on at 9 , bu t the m ajor it y op in io n fa il s t o m en ti on si gn ifi can t te st im on y th atsupp orts th e co ntrary fin di ng by the Bo ard . Alth ou gh Lake la nddi d no t ca ll an y

li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es as wi tn es se s t o t es ti fy at t he he ari ng ab ou t whe th er the y

po ss es se d s up erv is ory

auth or it y , th e Bo arddi d. Th e li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs e th e Bo ardcal le d p ro vi de d une qu iv oc al tes ti m on y th atth e li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs es ne it he r po ss es s n orex erci se supe rv is ory au th or it y . Reb eccaW ard , a li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e who ha d wo rk edas ali cen se d pr act ic al nu rs e atLake la ndfor ten y ears an d was “ on e o f th e m os t s en io r [l ic en se d pr act ic al nu rs es ] at[Lak el an d],” te st ifi edth atsh e d idno t co ns id er h ers el f to be a supe rv is or , andth atne ithe r sh e n oran y ot he r li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e h adatt en de d da il y m an ag em en t m eet in gs . W ardha d n ev er h ire d, fi red , tra ns ferr ed , or p ro m ot ed a certi fie d nur si ng ass is ta nt . W ardha d n ev er d is ci pl in eda cert ifi ednu rs in g as si st an t. Ward h adne ve r su sp en de d acert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt , andsh e h ad ne ve r be enin st ru ct edth atsh e h adth e ri gh t t o s us pe ndcert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. 43 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 43 of 52On o ne oc cas io n, Ward i ss ue d alev el on e co ach in g fo rm to a cert ifi ednu rs in g as si st an t wh o Wardfel t “ was rud e to a res id en t,” b utW arddi d s o o nl y aft er s he di sc us se d t he si tu at io n wi th he r week en d s up erv is or , Sha ro n S te in , who is a reg is te rednu rs e. Ste in “ in st ru ct ed ” Ward t o i ss ue th e le ve l o ne co ach in g fo rm to th e certi fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt , andbo th Ste in an d Wardm etwith t he cert ifi ed nu rs in g a ss is ta ntto di sc us s t he form . In the li gh t o f W ard ’s tes ti m on y , th e Bo ard co ul d h av e drawna pl au si bl e in fere nc e th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es lac k t he au th or it y au th or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, o r effe ct iv el y reco m m en d t he di sc ha rg e of cert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. Pu tt in g a si de W ard ’s tes ti m on y , th e ev id en ce tha t the m ajor it y op in io n c it es to supp ort i ts co nc lu si on th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es po ss es s the au th or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, an d e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d t he term in at io n o f certi fie d nu rs in g a ss is ta nt s d oe s n otco m pe l tha t fi nd in g. Th e m ajor it y co nt en ds , for ex am pl e, th atth e te st im on y

of t he di rect or

or nur si ng , Garth a Swear in ge n, es tabl is he s tha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es ha ve th e p owe r to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, an d e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d t he di sc ha rg e o f certi fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt s, M ajor it y Opi ni on at 1 0– 12 , bu t a r ev ie w of Swe ari ng en ’s tes ti m on y est ab li sh es th athe r st at em en ts ab ou t wh ethe r th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es po ss es s tha t au th or it y us in g in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t wer e, atbe st , am bi gu ou s. Aft er co un se l fo r Lak el an d 44 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 44 of 52pr ov id edSweari ng enwith aco py of th e le ve l two co ach in g fo rm ab ou t an in ci de nt in whi cha res id en t was burn edaft er Trac ie Ste ve ns , a cert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt , al lo wedth e res id en t t o s m ok e whi le weari ng anox y ge n m as k, co un se l fo r Lak el an d a sk edqu es ti on s ab ou t the rol e th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e who si gn edth e fo rm

pl ay edinth e in ve st ig at io n a ndterm in at io n o f St ev en s. Swear in ge n s ta te d t ha t Sh een a Sm it h, the li cen se d p ract ic al nurs e, was “ in vo lv ed ” in th e su sp en si on an d t erm in at io n o f St ev en s, b utSweari ng en ’s tes ti m on y do es no t co m pe l a f in di ng th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e u se d i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t du rin g h er u nd efi ne d “ in vo lv em en t” with t he su sp en si on an d t erm in at io n o f St ev en s: Lak el an d: So [St ev en s] was s us pe nd ed , andth ere was an in ve st ig at io n c on du ct ed ? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: Yes, the re was .

. . . Lak el an d: Okay. Now, wh atwas t he rol e o f th e [l ic en se d pr act ic al nu rs e] in [S te ve ns ’s] cas e? In t hi s s itua ti on ? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: The [l ic en se d p ract ic al nu rs e] didth e te rm in at io n. Lak el an d: And[th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e] was in vo lv edinth e te rm in at io n p ro ces s? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: Yes, s he was i nv ol ve d i n i t. Lak el an d: W as [th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e] als o i nv ol ve d i n t he 45 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 45 of 52in ve st ig at io n p ro ces s?

Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: Yes, s he was. Lak el an d: Now, Kel ly Brady’ s s ig na tu re i s the re as well . Who ’s th at ? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: Yes. Sh e, on 4/ 13 /0 9, s he was t he adm in is tra to r. Lak el an d: Okay. So sh e si gn edoff on [St ev en ’s lev el two co ach in g fo rm ] as well , th ou gh , rig ht ? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: Yes. Lak el an d: Bu t i t was th e [l ic en se d p ract ic al nu rs e] who was in vo lv edinbo th th e in ve st ig at io n a ndth e d eci si on to term in at e th is [certi fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt ]? Dire ct orof Nu rs in g: As p artof t he in ve st ig at io n, yes, [th e li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs e] was in vo lv ed , y es . A pl au si bl e in fere nc e can be dra wn fr om Sweari ng en ’s tes ti m on y

th atth e li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs e who si gn edSte ve ns ’s lev el two co ach in g fo rm pl ay edso m e ro le in th e in ve st ig at io n, s us pe ns io n, an d t erm in at io n o f St ev en s, b utSweari ng en ’s te st im on y do es no t co m

pe l a f in di ng th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e to okan adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ag ai ns t St ev en s u si ng in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. An d ev enif i t d id , th is is ol at edin ci de ntof ali cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e p la y in g arol e in th e su sp en si on of acert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is tantto ge th er wi th th e o ne ot he r si m il ar in ci de ntth atth e d ire ct orof n ur si ng de sc rib ed , wou ldno t h av e requi redth e Bo ard 46 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 46 of 52to fin d t ha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es are s up erv is or s. We hav e st at edth at

“ ne arl y ev eryone at o ne ti m e o r an ot he r, un de r so m e co nd it io n, t el ls so m eo ne els e wha t t o d o, b utth aton e who en ga ge s i n a n i so la te d i nc id en t o f supe rv is io n i s n ot ne ces sa ril y

a supe rv is orun de r th e Act .” TRW -Un it edGreen fie ldDiv . v. NLRB, 71 6 F .2d13 91 , 13 95 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Tam m y Bax te r, a d ay

sh iftsupe rv is oran d re gi st erednu rs e who ha d pr ev io us ly perfo rm edth e sa m e ro le at Lak el an d a s the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es , pr ov id edm or e d et ai l re ga rd in g t he lev el two co ach in g fo rm th atSm it h i ss ue d t o St ev en s, b utBax te r’s te st im on y als o fa il s t o c om

pe l a f in di ng th atSm it h su sp en de d S te ve ns us in g i nd ep en de ntjud gm en t: Lak el an d: DidMs . Sm it h re la y to y outh atMs . Ste ve ns was su sp en de d? Bax te r: Ye s. Sh e to ldm e sh e was su sp en de d. Lak el an d: Okay. Didsh e rel ay to y ouho w Ms . Ste ve ns cam e to be su sp en de d? In o th er wo rd s, s he su sp en de d h er? Bax te r: I do n’t re m em

be r he r sa y in g e xa ct ly wha t h ap pe ne d a t the ti m e sh e was su sp en de d. Sh e jus t t ol d m e th atsh e was su sp en de d a nd th atsh e wan te d h er t erm in at ed . The Bo ardwas n otrequi redto fin d t ha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es at Lak el an d are s up erv is or s o n t he ba si s o f th is am bi gu ou s t es ti m on y

reg ard in g s po rad ic in ci de nc es of d is ci pl in e b y th e li cen se d p ract ic al nurs es .

47 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 47 of 52Inth e li gh t o f W ard ’s tes ti m on y an d t he tes ti m on y

of S weari ng enan d Bax te r, a co nf

li ctinth e ev id en ce ex is ts ab ou t wh ethe r th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es po ss es s t he au th or it y to di sc ip li ne , su sp en d, an d e ffec ti ve ly recomm en d t he te rm in at io n o f certi fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt s, an d the Bo ardwas e nt it le d t o re so lv e th atco nf li ct . The Bo arddre w a pl au si bl e in fere nc e fro m th is ev id en ce tha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es lac k t ha t au th or it y , andou r “ ex ceed in gl y na rro w st an da rdof r ev ie w,” Co nt em po rary Cars, In c., 66 7 F .3dat 1 37 0, re qu ire s u s t o en fo rce t he ord er o f th e Bo ard . Butth e m ajor it y op in io n i ns te adsubs ti tu te s i ts vi ew of th e fac ts forth e co nt rary fin di ng by the Bo ard . B. Su bs ta nt ia l Evi de nc e S up po rt s the Fin di ng

byth e Boa rd

th at th e Li cen se d Pra ct ic al Nu rs es Do No t Res

po ns ib lyDir ect

Cer ti fi ed Nu rs in g As sist an ts . The m ajor it y

op in io n m ai nt ai ns th at , alt ho ug h n o e vi de nc e was in tro du ced th ata li cen se d p ract ic al nurs e atLake landha s b een di sc ip li ne d o r di sc ha rg ed be cau se of h er fa il ur e to supe rv is e a ce rti fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt , Lake la nd es tabl is he d a“pr os pe ct ” th atli cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es canbe di sc ip li ne d fo r fai li ng to di rectcert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s, s ee M ajor ity Opi ni on at 2 7, b utth e reco rddo es no t co m

pe l a f in di ng of t ha t “pr os pe ct .” Subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e d eci si on of t he Bo ardth atLake la ndfai le d t o p ro ve th atli cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es canbe he ldacco un tabl e fo r th e act io ns of t he cert ifi ednurs in g a ss is ta nt s. Altho ug h a n e m

pl oyer canest ab li sh res po ns ib le di rect io n b y pre se nt in g 48 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 48 of 52ev id en ce tha t a p ur po rte d s up erv is orface s the pro sp ectof a dv ers e co ns eque nc es fo r th e act io ns of asubo rd in at e, se e Inre Oakwoo d Hea lthc are, In c., 34 8 NLRB 68 6, 6 92 (20 06 ), th e Bo ardwas p res en te d wi th ev id en ce tha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es face no pro sp ectof a dv ers e co ns eque nc es forth e fai li ng s o f th e certi fie d nu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. Th e Bo ardhe ardev id en ce tha t ce rti fie d n ur si ng ass is ta nt s h ad en ga ge d i n g ro ss m is co nduc t– fo r ex am pl e, St ev en s al lo weda res id en t t o s m ok e whi le weari ng anox y ge n m as k, wh ic h l edto a se rio us in jury to the res id en t–bu t no li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e h adbe enhe ldacco un tabl e fo r th atm is co nduc t. As t he Sev en th Cir cu itrece nt ly exp la in ed , “ [w]here alo wer l ev el em pl oyee pe rfo rm s in ad equa te ly, an d t he pu rp orte d s up erv is oris infactno t h el d a cco un tabl e, ithi gh ly supp orts a fi nd in g t ha t the pu rp orte d s up erv is or is no t ac tu al ly at ris k o f su ffer in g adve rs e co ns eque nc es .” Ro ch el le W as te Dis po sa l, LLC v . NLRB, 67 3 F .3d58 7, 59 6 (7 thCir . 20 12 ). A reas on ab le m in d wo ul d e xp ectth atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e who was a ll eg ed ly accou nt ab le forSte ve ns ’s m is co nduc t wo ul d h av e fac ed so m e ad ve rs e co ns eque nc e fo r no t p rev en ti ng th e se rio us in jury to the res id en t who ha d s m ok edwhi le weari ng anox y ge n m as k. Th e Bo ardwas e nt it le d t o draw a pl au si bl e in fere nc e th at , bec au se no li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs e h adbe enhe ld acco un tabl e fo r th atm is co nduc t, the li cen se d p ract ic al nurs es at Lak el an d d o n ot res po ns ib ly dire ctth e certi fie d n ur si ng ass is tant s. Bu t the m ajor it y op in io n i ns te ad 49 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 49 of 52subs ti tu te s i ts vi ew of th e fac ts forth e co nt rary fin di ng by the Bo ard . C. Su bs ta nt ia l Evi de nc e S up po rt s the Fin di ng

byth e Boa rd

th at th e Li cen se d Pra ct ic al Nu rs es La ck the Autho ri tyto Ass ign Cer ti fi ed Nu rs in g As sist an ts Usi ng In de pe nden t Ju dgmen t. The m ajor it y

op in io n p ro vi de s n o p ers ua si ve supp ort fo r it s co nc lu si on th at th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t i n s ch edul in g c ert ifi ed nu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. “ [F]or an ass ig nm en t fu nc ti on to in vo lv e in de pe nd en t jud gm en t, the pu ta ti ve supe rv is orm us t s el ectem

pl oyees t o p erfo rm

sp eci fic tas ks on th e b as is of ajud gm en t ab ou t the in di vi du al em pl oyee’s sk il ls .” Co op er/ T. Sm ith, In c., 17 7 F .3dat 1 26 5. Th e p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th atth e “ res po ns ib il it y fo r st affi ng an d s ch edul in g o f [ce rti fie d nur si ng ass is ta nt s] li es , firs t an d fo rem os t, with ast affi ng co or di na to r who rep orts to th e Dir ect orof Nurs in g,” Majo rit y Opi ni on at 3 5, an d t ha t, wh enth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es pre pa re as si gn m en t sh eet s o n t he week en d “ th ey do so at l eas t i n p artba se d o n the in fo rm at io n t he st affi ng co or di na to r ha s al read y pl acedon th e as si gn m en t s he et s.” Id . at 3 6. Bu t th e m ajor it y

op in io n n ev erthe le ss co nc lu de s tha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es us e in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t t o a ss ig n c ert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s. The m ajor it y

op in io n “ fin d[ s] un te nabl e th e Bo ard ’s po si ti onth at[th e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es ] m ech an ic al ly foll ow es tabl is he d p ro cedur e in ass ig ni ng an d re as si gn in g [c ert ifi ednurs in g a ss is ta nt ], ev enwhen th ey are the 50 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 50 of 52hi gh es t-r an ki ng st aff o n t he pre m is es ,” Majo rit y Opi ni on at 3 9, b utth is reas on in g fai ls . “ Altho ug h o n t he . . . ni gh t . . . sh ift s the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es are the hi gh es t-r an ki ng em

pl oyees o n t he pre m is es , th is do es no t i ps o fa ct o m ak e th em supe rv is or s.” NLRB v. Re s- Care , Inc ., 70 5 F .2d14 61 , 14 67 (7t h C ir. 1 98 3) , ab ro ga te d o n o th er g ro un ds by N LRB v . Healt h C are & Ret . Cor p. o f Am ., 51 1 U.S. 57 1, 1 14 S. Ct. 1 77 8 (1 99 4) . “ A ni gh t wat ch m anis no t a s up erv is orjus t be cau se he is th e o nl y

pe rs on on th e p rem is es at n ig ht. . . .” Id . The m ajor it y op in io n re as on s t ha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es m us t ex erci se in de pe nd en t jud gm en t t o a ss ig n c ert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is ta nt s wh enth ey are the hi gh es t-r an ki ng st aff o n the pre m is es be cau se Sweari ng entes ti fie d t ha t l ic en se d p ract ic al nu rs es

“ are c on si de redto be lea de rs of t he ir t eam ,” Majo rit y Opi ni on at 3 9 (c it at io n a nd in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , bu t tha t v ag ue tes ti m on y di d n otco m

pe l the Bo ardto fin d t ha t the li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es ha ve th e au th or it y to ass ig n cert ifi ednu rs in g a ss is tant s u si ng in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t. Alt ho ug h t he li cen se d pr act ic al nu rs es were s om et im es th e h ig he st -ran ki ng st aff o n t he pre m is es , th e reco rdest ab li sh es th atth e “ Dire ct orof Nu rs in g i s o n c al l 2 4 h ou rs pe r da y , sev en da y s p er week ,” Majo rit y Opi ni on at 3 5, an d i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the sch edul in g co or di na to r ex erci se d the pri m ary au th or it y forsch edul in g c ert ifi ednurs in g as si st an ts . Bas edon th is ev id en ce, the Bo ardwas e nt it le d t o draw the pl au si bl e 51 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 51 of 52in fere nc e th atth e li cen se d p ract ic al nu rs es do no t ex erci se in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t

in sch edul in g c ert ifi ednurs in g a ss is ta nt s. Bu t ag ai n t he m ajor it y subs ti tu te s i ts vi ew of th e fac ts forth e co nt rary fin di ng by the Bo ard . Fo r al l the for eg oi ng reas on s, I re sp ect fu ll y di ss en t. Our st an da rdof r ev ie w ba rs us fro m

rewei gh in g t he ev id en ce. I wo ul d d en y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w and en fo rce t he ord er o f th e Bo ardbe cau se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts it s fi nd in gs .

52 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 52 of 52