Opinion ID: 185441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Superintendents as Supervisors

Text: 28 Katz employs two property managers who each oversee fifteen of its apartment buildings. The buildings are staffed by superintendents and porters. At the pre-election hearing, Katz argued that its superintendents should be designated as supervisors under the NLRA. The Regional Director found that they were not supervisors, and the Board affirmed this finding. In its petition for review, Katz contends that the superintendents are supervisors because they effectively discipline the porters, make hiring recommendations, assign work to porters, set porters' schedules, and recommend wage increases. Katz further contends that this conclusion is mandated by a previous Board ruling, Planned Bldg. Servs., Inc., 318 N.L.R.B. 1049, 1059-61 (1995), in which a superintendent for other New York City apartments was found to be a supervisor. 29 We will uphold the Board's determination of whether an employee is a supervisor as long as it is in accordance with law, supported by substantial evidence, and is the product of reasoned decisionmaking. See Brusco Tug & Barge Co. v. NLRB, 247 F.3d 273, 276(D.C. Cir.2001). In light of its expertise, we accord the Board a large measure of informed discretion in making this determination. Passaic Daily News v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 1543, 1550 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (internal quotation omitted). The burden of proving that an employee is a supervisor must be carried by the party asserting it. See NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, at ___ _ ___, 121 S.Ct. 1861, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2001); Beverly Enters.Mass., Inc. v. NLRB, 165 F.3d 960, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 30 Employees who are supervisors are excluded from the NLRA's protection. See 29 U.S.C. 152(3). The NLRA defines supervisor as: 31 [A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 32 Id. 152(11). As this Court has explained before, under the statute, the employee must possess at least one of the twelve types of authority set out in the statute, the exercise of that authority must require the use of independent judgment, and the authority must be held in the employer's interest. VIP Health Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 164 F.3d 644, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Whether an employee exercises independent judgment is an inquiry into the degree of discretion exercised with respect to the statutory indicia of supervisory status. If an individual's discretion ... is tightly constrained, then her exercise of that authority is 'routine....'  Beverly Enters.Penn., Inc. v. NLRB, 129 F.3d 1269, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (mem.). In this case, the Board's determination that Katz's superintendents are not supervisors is supported by substantial evidence and is the product of reasoned decisionmaking. 33 Katz avers that the most notable exercise of a superintendent's supervisory authority is found in the area of discipline. Brief for Petitioners at 29. Katz claims that its evidence demonstrates that the superintendents effectively discipline porters--or at least effectively recommend discipline. Although the record includes testimony that superintendents theoretically could discipline porters, Katz offered no evidence that a superintendent ever actually had disciplined a porter. One of Katz's property managers testified that a superintendent could suspend a porter for hitting a tenant, but the manager acknowledged that he had never talked with any superintendent about this alleged authority. Without specific evidence that any superintendent had disciplined a porter, we cannot possibly conclude that the Regional Director erred. 34 A Katz property manager also testified that superintendents could make recommendations on discipline, but the kind of option I'm taking will be my decision. This assertion does not establish that any superintendent had in fact effectively recommended discipline. Indeed, the record reflects that Katz failed to offer any evidence that a superintendent's recommendation had resulted in an adverse personnel action. Beverly Enters.-Penn., 129 F.3d at 1270. Although Katz did proffer testimony that a superintendent informed a property manager that a porter wasn't doing a good job, mere reporting is insufficient to establish that [employees] effectively recommend discharge or discipline. VIP Health Servs., 164 F.3d at 648. Accordingly, we hold that the Regional Director's determination is supported by substantial evidence. 35 Katz's other arguments concerning superintendents' supervisory authority do not fare any better. First, Katz claims that superintendents effectively recommend hiring porters. Yet, Katz failed to offer any evidence that superintendents have in fact made such effective recommendations, except in the case of one superintendent who recommended his wife for a job. As the Board has ruled in the past, [i]t is scraping the bottle [sic] to argue that ... recommendations of members of his family ... prove the supervisory status contemplated in the Act. Pierre Pellaton Enters., Inc., 201 N.L.R.B. 409, 412 (1973). Absent evidence of other effective recommendations, Katz cannot carry its burden of proof, much less show that the Regional Director's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 36 Second, Katz contends that superintendents assign work to porters. Those assignments, however, are generated from tenant requests. When the Board has found that a superintendent exercises independent judgment in assigning work, the Board has relied on specific evidence of that judgment. For example, in Planned Building Services, the NLRB's decision was based on evidence showing that the employee in question transfer[red] porters and handymen from one assignment and between buildings depending on the presence of emergencies which would periodically arise and his judgment as to their urgency. 318 N.L.R.B. at 1060. Although Katz claims that its superintendents exercise independent judgment by balancing conflicting demands in assigning work, Brief for Petitioners at 30, there is no evidence in the record to support its claim. As the Board has aptly explained in the past, a superintendent's point[ing] out the type and location of work to be done and transmitting a tenant's request are of no great[ ] consequence. Pierre Pellaton, 201 N.L.R.B. at 412. 37 Third, despite Katz's assertions, the record contains no evidence that superintendents set porters' schedules or approve vacation requests. Even if they did set the schedules, Katz offered no evidence that the superintendents have substantial autonomy in creating the schedules or that they exercise independent judgment in creating the schedules. Micro Pac. Dev., Inc. v. NLRB, 178 F.3d 1325, 1331 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In contrast, the petitioner in Micro Pacific demonstrated that its housekeeping supervisors relied on a number of specific factors to make independent determinations in scheduling and assigning the employees. Id.; see also Beverly Enters.-Penn., 129 F.3d at 1270 (explaining that licensed practical nurses have no authority to schedule [certified nursing assistants] on any given day or week). 38 Fourth, Katz claims its superintendents recommend wage increases. This claim is centered on a property manager's testimony that a superintendent can recommend such an increase. The manager testified, however, that no superintendent ever had recommended to him that a porter receive a raise and that he did not know of any superintendent ever actually making a wage recommendation. There is simply no specific evidence to support Katz's claim. 39 Finally, Katz argues that the Board's determination in this case conflicts with an earlier ruling in which the Board concluded that a superintendent for several New York City apartment buildings was a supervisor. See Planned Bldg. Servs., 318 N.L.R.B. at 1059-61. In Planned Building Services, the Board ruled that a senior superintendent was a supervisor because he exercised independent judgment in a number of areas. See id. at 1060. Specifically, the Board reviewed extensive evidence detailing the senior superintendent's assigning work, disciplining employees, allowing employees to leave work early, and screening employment applications. See id. 40 In Planned Building Services, the Board did not claim to establish a per se rule concerning superintendents in New York City apartments. Rather, it concluded that other superintendents in the same buildings were not supervisors. Id. [T]he issue of supervisory status is heavily factdependent and is not subject to a blanket determination based on the class of the job in question. Brusco Tug & Barge, at 276. Here, Katz's evidence did not come close to proving that its superintendents possess the same responsibility as the Planned Building Services senior superintendent. Accordingly, the Board did not err in finding that Katz's superintendents are not supervisors under the NLRA.