___________ No. 96-2273

___________ Eagle Window & Door, Inc., * * Petitioner, * * v. * * National Labor Relations Board, * * Respondent. *

___________ Petitions for Review of a n Order of the National Labor No. 96-2531 Relations Board.

___________ Eagle Window & Door, Inc., * * Respondent, * [UNPUBLISHED] * v. * * National Labor Relations Board, * * Petitioner. *

_____________ Submitted: November 12, 1996 Filed: January 7, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________
PER CURIAM.

Fo llowing a vigorous campaign, a union certification election wa s held at Eagle Window & Door's manufacturing plant in Dubuque, Iowa. The union was declared th e winner, but only by a few votes. Eagle challenged the election because the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) refuse d to co unt the ballots of thirty-eight factory group leaders. The Boar d rejected Eagle's challenge

### -2-

because it decided the group leaders worked as supervisors at Eagle' s plant, and thus they were ineligible to vote in the union election. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 152(3), (11) (1994). The Board the n ordered Eagle to bargain with the union, and Eagle petitioned for review.
Eagle manufa ctures windows and doors on an automated assembly line. The employees working along the line generally p erform the same repetitive tasks each day. Eagle's entire production proce ss is separated into about sixteen departments operating under the directio n of thirteen acknowledged supervisors. Each department is divided into te ams that are guided by the challenged group lead ers. Although the group leaders spend most of their day working on the as sembly line, the group leaders also distribute daily work assignments based on computerized production schedules prepared b y upper management, check the daily work against predetermine d speci fications, monitor workplace safety, and provide their supervisor s with worker evaluatio ns. Group leaders cannot hire, fire, or effectively impose discipline on any employee.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, a supervisor is defined a s any employee who has the authority
to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote , discharge, assign, reward, or discipline othe r employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust thei r gr ievances, or effectively to recommend such action, i f in conn ection with the foregoing the exercise of suc h authority is not o f a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 29 U.S.C. § 152(11). Recently, the Board recognized that it "has a duty not to construe the s tatutory language too broadly" and concluded "[o]nly indiv iduals with `genuine management prerogatives' should be considere d superviso rs, as opposed to `straw bosses, leadmen . . . and other mino r supervisory employees.'" Panaro & Grimes, A Par tnership D/B/A Azusa Ranch Mkt. , 321 N.L.R.B. No. 112, 1996 WL 410877, at *2 (July 19, 1996)

### -3-

(quo ted case omitted). Thus, the Board maintains "an individual wh o exercise s some `supervisory authority' only in a routine . . . o r perfunctory manner will not be found to be a supervisor." Id. (quoted cas e omitted). Understandably, it is not an easy task for the Board to make th e call o n whether group leaders with differing degrees of responsibilit y exercise statutory supervisory authority. Compare S.D.I. Operatin g Partners, L.P. , 321 N.L.R.B. No. 24, 1996 WL 233 631, at *1 (Apr. 30, 1996) (group leaders are not supervisors); Quadrex Env tl. Co. , 308 N.L.R.B. 101, 101 -02 (1992) (same); Somerset Welding & Steel, Inc. , 291 N.L.R.B. 913 , 913 -14 (1988) (same); with ITT Lighting Fixtures , 249 N.L.R.B. 441, 44 2 (1980) (group leaders are supervisors); Richards on Bros. Co. , 228 N.L.R.B. 314, 314 (1977) (same).

In this case, the Board adopted a hearing officer's findings tha t Eagle's group leaders were supervisors for two reasons: (1) the grou p leaders played a significant role in the evaluation of the other employees , and (2) the group lea ders directed the work within their department. See Schnuck Mkts., Inc. v. NLRB , 961 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 1992) (supervisor y employees must posses s at least one of the § 152(11) powers). Of course, the Board's decision is entitled to deference so long as it is supported by substa ntial evidence on the record as a whole. See id. at 703-04
. Having carefully revi ewed the record, we conclude the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Initially, w e believe the Board's hearing officer attached too much signif icance to the group leaders' role in the evaluation process

. Althou gh Eagle's group leaders provided their supervisors with a prelim inary evaluation of the other team members' work, the supervisor s were responsible for the employees' final evaluations. See Hexacomb Corp. , 313 N.L .R.B. 983, 984 (1994). Nevertheless, the hearing officer fel t Eagle's group leaders were independently evaluating their team members lik e the leadmen in Iron Mountain Forge Corp. , 278 N.L.R.B. 255, 255 n.1 (1986)
. In Iron Mountain

### -4-

Forge Corp. , however, only three of the leadmens ' initial evaluations were ever changed by the r eviewing officer. See id. at 259. In contrast, the initia l evaluations by Eagle's group leaders were often rejected o r modified by their supervisors. In our view, Eagle's situation is more lik e the Board's holdings that the "`[a]uthority simply to evaluate employees without more is insufficient to find supervisory status.'" Quadrex Envtl. Co. , 308 N.L.R.B. at 101 (quoted case omitted); see Somerset Welding & Steel, Inc. , 291 N.L.R.B. at 914.
Similarly, w e find no substantial support for the hearing officer's findin g that Eagle's group leaders were statutory supervisors when the y directed their team's work. The group leaders merely passed out routine work ass ignments and made sure the work was completed according t o predetermined schedules and specifications. In so doing, the group leader s di d nothing more than draw on their own on-the-job expertise an d experience. See Quadrex Envtl. Co. , 308 N.L.R.B . at 101; Somerset Welding & Steel, Inc. , 291 N.L.R.B. at 914. Thus, the group leaders' duties did not involve the kind of "real managerial discretion that [called for] the exercise of independe nt judgment." S.D.I. Operating Partners, L.P. , 1996 WL 233631, at *1. Likewise, we find nothing in the supervisors ' consultation with the group leaders incidental to the supervisors ' decisions about overtime and employee transfers, or the group leaders' rol e in making sure the daily work was performed safely, that alters our view the group leaders did not exercise statutory supervisory authority.
Finally, we reject Eagle's argument that the election should be set aside because the union's campaign tactics materially affected the electio n results. We believe the hearing officer's findings on this issue ar e supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and no useful purpose would be served by an extended discussion.

### -5- Having concluded that the contested ballots must be counted, w e remand to the Board for further appropriate proceedings.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.