Opinion ID: 4566273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maintenance Supervisors

Text: The Regional Director’s decision, affirmed by the Board, found that STP did not meet its burden to prove that maintenance supervisors “assign” work using “independent judgment.” The administrative decision construed the term “assign” by reference to the Board’s Oakwood decision. There, the Board interpreted “assign” to mean “the act of designating an employee to a place (such as a location, department, or wing), appointing an employee to a time (such as a shift or overtime period), or giving significant overall duties, i.e., tasks, to an employee.” Entergy II, 810 F.3d at 296 (citing Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 689). Generally, “the decision or effective recommendation to 17 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 affect place, time or overall tasks—can be a supervisory function.” In re Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 689. The Board also described its holding more particularly: [t]he assignment of an employee to a certain department (e.g., housewares) or to a certain shift (e.g., night) or to certain significant overall tasks (e.g., restocking shelves) would generally qualify as ‘assign’ within our construction. However, choosing the order in which the employee will perform discrete tasks within those assignments (e.g., restocking toasters before coffee makers) would not be indicative of exercising authority to ‘assign.’ Id. As applied to regular (not occasional) charge nurses in a hospital, the Board affirmed their position as supervisory if the nurses “assign” certain nurses under their direction to work with certain patients during a shift. Oakwood interpreted the “independent judgment” aspect of supervisory status to mean that “a judgment is not independent if it is dictated or controlled by detailed instructions,” but “the mere existence of company policies does not eliminate independent judgment from decision-making if the policies allow for discretionary choices.” Id. at 693. The Board explained its interpretation with examples drawn from the status of charge nurses at a hospital. One of the examples was this: “if the registered nurse weighs the individualized condition and needs of a patient against the skills or special training of available nursing personnel, the nurse’s assignment involves the exercise of independent judgment.” Id. In support of its finding that maintenance supervisors do not “assign” employees to places, times, or overall tasks, the Board explained that maintenance supervisors generally assign employees based on the work set out in STP’s Authorized Work Schedule (AWS). The AWS comprehensively describes, in detail and hour-by-hour, the work to be performed by every crew on every shift. A host of planners prepares the AWS through an ongoing 1418 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 week planning process, and the Regional Director found that maintenance supervisors play “no role in creating” the AWS. Because maintenance supervisors generally assign work from the AWS, the Board concluded that maintenance supervisors fulfill a purely ministerial role in implementing already-established assignments. The Board also argues that the assignments handed out by maintenance supervisors are merely discrete tasks, not the more general designations of time/place/overall jobs that characterize statutory “assignments.” See Mars Home for Youth v. NLRB, 666 F.3d 850, 855 (3d Cir. 2011). The Board asserted that because maintenance supervisors “follow preplanned procedures,” their occasional delegation of tasks to specific employees based on experience or certifications is not an exercise of “independent judgment.” The Board’s findings, however, are not supported by substantial evidence because it ignored significant portions of the record showing that maintenance supervisors indeed assign work using independent judgment. In Lord & Taylor v. NLRB, we held that an ALJ decision that ignored management testimony as well as all testimony from the petitioner that was damaging to her case is not supported by substantial evidence. 703 F.2d 163, 169 (5th Cir. 1983). Similarly, in Entergy II, “we held the Board lacked substantial evidence merely because it failed to grapple with countervailing portions of the record,” thereby fulfilling our own obligation to “review the Board’s decisions ‘on the record considered as a whole.’” Dish Network, 953 F.3d at 377 (discussing Entergy II, 810 F.3d at 292 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)–(f)). So here, the Board failed to discuss or at best perfunctorily mentioned at least four discrete tasks that maintenance supervisors perform, which illustrate their authority to “assign” work. First, contrary to the Board’s 19 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 finding, the record reveals that maintenance supervisors have significant input in the creation of the AWS. The company’s work management scheduling rules are the basis for the 14-week AWS. Six weeks before work is to be performed, the list of needed activities is distributed to maintenance supervisors, who “coordinate the resolution of walkdown exceptions and update the walkdown status in the ‘WMS’.” What this means in practice was elaborated on by witnesses as a significant role in the formation of the final schedule. Jim Bob Presswood, an electrical maintenance supervisor, testified that he “would make final adjustments” and sometimes get “job[s] reassigned to a different crew.” Presswood is currently the shop scheduler—a position that rotates among the electrical maintenance supervisors—whose function is to help create the AWS from inception to implementation. 13 Brent Taylor, a mechanical maintenance supervisor, testified that he could “assign work that is not on the AWS” and did so “weekly.” Taylor also reviews the AWS during its creation. John Griffon, the metrology supervisor, explained that he does not work off of the AWS and that he autonomously sets the schedule for the employees he supervises. David Thorton, a team manager who oversees the maintenance supervisors, testified that the maintenance supervisors are involved in the creation of the AWS, “own their schedule,” get to “approve” things “put on their schedule[s],” and that they are authorized to remove tasks from the schedule. Turning a blind eye to this compelling testimony, the Board 13 The Board’s factual findings regarding Presswood are especially erroneous in that the Board misstates his role as shop scheduler, omits that Presswood assigns employees to tasks partially based upon an assessment of their individual skill, and ignores Presswood’s participation in the creation of the AWS. 20 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 concluded that maintenance supervisors have “no role in creating” the AWS.14 We cannot agree that substantial evidence supports this finding. Second, maintenance supervisors regularly reassign employees to other crews on a temporary basis without managerial oversight. Presswood testified that he would sometimes “borrow somebody from another crew or get the job reassigned to a different crew.” Taylor stated that he would sometimes swap an employee “from the Machine Shop into . . . Mechanical Maintenance Diesels.” Paul Horning, a maintenance supervisor, testified that he “frequently . . . borrow[s] crew members” without getting approval from a superior. Roger Wilkinson, an electrical maintenance supervisor, explained that he would “on occasion . . . borrow or swap . . . employees.” Team Manager Thorton stated that maintenance supervisors do not need his authorization to make a swap. Many of these exchanges involve significant changes in duties and responsibilities for the traded employee. Such assignments designate employees to a “department,” delegate “significant overall duties,” and have “a material effect on the employees’ terms and conditions of employment.” Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 698, 695. Clearly this authority goes well beyond the mere “ad hoc instruction” and perfunctory prioritization that the Board acknowledged the maintenance supervisors possessed. Yet in the face of this testimony, and without even mentioning it, the Board found that “[m]aintenance supervisors do not designate or deploy employees to specific areas.” Substantial evidence does not support this conclusion. 14 The Board also argues that some maintenance supervisors simply assign work from the AWS. While the record provides support for this point, the relevant inquiry is whether the maintenance supervisors have the authority to influence the creation of the AWS or assign work not included in the AWS. See Wal-Mart Stores, 340 NLRB at 223. Evidence that some supervisors do not exercise their authority does not discredit STP’s argument that the supervisors have that authority, as proven by those choosing to wield it. 21 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 Third, maintenance supervisors delegate tasks to their crews based on their assessment of individual crew members’ skills and certifications. Virtually every maintenance supervisor testified to this fact. Assessing employees’ skills is not a statutory element of independent judgment, but such evaluation commonly supports a finding that assignments are made using independent judgment. See, e.g., Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 689 (holding that “matching a patient’s needs to the skills and special training of a particular nurse is among those factors critical to the employer’s ability to successfully deliver health care services”); Cooper/T. Smith, Inc. v. NLRB, 177 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir. 1999) (finding no assignment authority because employer failed to show docking pilots made assignments based on the skills and experiences of the putative subordinates) (citing NLRB v. KDFW-TV, Inc., 790 F.2d 1273, 1279 (5th Cir. 1986)). While the Board acknowledged that “maintenance supervisors may sometimes delegate work based on the experience level or certifications of the employee,” it denied that maintenance supervisors use “independent judgment” and asserted that such assignments follow “preplanned procedures.” Other than the fact that certain certifications are required for certain jobs, 15 no evidence in the record supports the Board’s claim that maintenance supervisors merely follow pre-planned procedures when delegating tasks. To the contrary, Wilkinson, a Union witness, explained, “I have to know the individuals—if I have more than one individual with the same [certification], I have to know who has the experience to be most successful at the job. I make 15 Even when such certifications are required, the AWS does not assign particular employees to particular tasks, leaving the delegation of assignments to maintenance supervisors. 22 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 that determination.” Horning testified that he tries to pair workers with complementary skillsets together when making his assignments. Thorton testified that maintenance supervisors “run their crews” and use their judgment to assign work based on employees’ experience levels without supervision. Additionally, as previously discussed, the record establishes that the practice of borrowing employees from other crews is frequently done on the basis of the exchanged individual’s certifications and skills. In short, maintenance supervisors exercise independent judgment when delegating tasks. Fourth, maintenance supervisors can assign limited amounts of overtime. The Decision and Direction of Election erroneously asserts that there is “no evidence supervisors may require an employee to work overtime.” Thorton, however, testified that maintenance supervisors could keep employees beyond their normal hours without his permission. 16 Griffon explained that he decides whether his employees work overtime. Presswood stated that he would authorize overtime without a superior’s approval unless “it is going into the weekend.” Moreover, most supervisors testified that they could authorize vacation and sick leave. See Monotech of Mississippi v. NLRB, 876 F.2d 514, 517 (5th Cir. 1989) (finding a supervisor excluded from the bargaining unit based on only two supervisory factors, one of which is authority to grant partial days off). As Oakwood held, “appointing an employee to a time (such as a shift or overtime period)” qualifies as assignment. Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 689 (emphasis added). Thorton did state that his permission would be necessary for maintenance 16 supervisors to require overtime on a weekend. 23 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 Because the Board’s decision incorporated serious factual errors and ignored substantial parts of the record, its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Dish Network, 953 F.3d at 377 (the Board lacked substantial evidence because “it failed to grapple with countervailing portions of the record”). The Board’s decision is also inconsistent with Oakwood and with its most recent decision in Entergy Mississippi. Of course, every supervisory status case must be tested according to its facts, and lessons may only be cautiously drawn from other case law. Nevertheless, an analogy with Oakwood seems apparent. Charge nurses at a hospital, the Board understood, take orders from multiple management representatives and medical professionals. In the tasks they perform, described as assigning particular shift nurses to particular patients according to their knowledge of the nurses’ experience and skills, the Board concluded charge nurses acted as statutory supervisors. To perform STP’s business of operating and maintaining two nuclear reactors, situated on a multi-acre complex of buildings, requires massive and highly specialized coordination among various departments, each of whose decisions translates down to the maintenance crews who do the work ordered by their respective managers. Maintenance supervisors daily weigh the infinite variety of the work, the constant intervention of additional tasks, and the need for particular certifications and mixes of skilled craftsmen to keep the reactors going. In sum, the maintenance supervisors’ crews are very much like “nurses” under their charge and the plant’s facilities and equipment “patients” under their care. From a statutory standpoint, they are readily comparable to the charge nurses in Oakwood. Similarly, the most recent Entergy Mississippi decision recognized that the Oakwood standard had been met, and power plant dispatchers are 24 Case: 19-60071 Document: 00515567775 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 Nos. 19-60071 Cons. w/ No. 19-60152 supervisors, because they assign specific crews to address power outages at specific places and prioritize the handling of multiple outages, all using independent judgment. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 109, –5 (Mar. 21, 2019). Although the goal of STP is to avoid crisis situations that would require such on-the-spot decisionmaking, the record here demonstrates that maintenance supervisors’ duties and responsibilities are far more complex than making automaton-like assignments from a fully predictable, dictated work schedule. Maintenance supervisors are not ordering the employees under their direction to “restock toasters before coffee makers.” Oakwood, 348 NLRB at 689. We therefore reverse, for lack of substantial evidence, the Board’s conclusion that maintenance supervisors do not “assign” work using “independent judgment.” As supervisors, they were not within the bargaining unit. STP did not violate the NLRA by refusing to bargain.