Document: 532 U.S. 706121 S.Ct. 1861149 L.Ed.2d 939 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONERv.KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC., et al. No. 99-1815. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued February 21, 2001Decided May 29, 2001 Syllabus When co-respondent labor union petitioned National Labor Relations Board represent a unit employees at respondent's residential care facility, respondent objected inclusion its registered nurses unit, arguing they were "supervisors" under 2(11) Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 152(11), and hence excluded from Act's protections. At representation hearing, Board's Regional Director placed burden proving supervisory status on respondent, found had not carried burden, included unit. Thereafter, refused bargain with union, leading General Counsel file an unfair practice complaint. The granted summary judgment basis determination, but Sixth Circuit enforce order. It rejected interpretation "independent judgment" 2(11)'s test for status, held erred placing respondent. Held: 1. Respondent carries nurses' hearing proceeding. does expressly allocate disproving has consistently party claiming employee supervisor. That rule both reasonable consistent Act, which makes supervisors exception general class employees. contrary requirement must prove elements practice, because element refusal-to-bargain charge. employer representative properly certified unit; was only if successfully showed certification stage some supervisors. Pp. 3-6. 2. determining inconsistent Act. deems (1) exercise 1 12 listed functions, including "responsibly direct[ing]" employees, (2) use exercising their authority, (3) hold authority employer's interest, 2(11). proof ground do when "ordinary professional technical directing less-skilled deliver services accordance employer-specified standards." Brief Petitioner 11. interpretation, by distinguishing different kinds judgment, introduces categorical exclusion into statutory text suggest existence. permits questions regarding degree discretion exercises, renders determinative factors have nothing degree: even significant loosely constrained will independent it "professional technical." limits qualifier no less striking: applied skilled judgment." Hence, would apply functions-"responsibly direct"-though all require using judgment. Contrary contention, Congress did incorporate restrictions first added "supervisor" 1947. policy concern proper balance labor-management power cannot given effect through this text. Because applying legal standard adopt, NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 267, 289-290, error precludes enforcing 6-15. 193 F.3d 444, affirmed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT Scalia, J., delivered unanimous respect Part II, Parts I III, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, JJ., joined. Opinion Justice Scalia Court. Under deemed thereby protections if, inter alia, ... "in interest employer." 29 152(11). case presents two questions: unfair-labor-practice proceeding bears employee's status; whether extent informed training experience. 2 * In Pippa Passes, Kentucky, Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., operates facility residents who suffer mental retardation illness. named Caney Creek Developmental Complex (Caney Creek), employs approximately 110 nonprofessional addition roughly dozen concededly managerial 1997, State District Council Carpenters (a here, supporting petitioner) single potentially eligible Creek. See (Act) 9(c), 49 Stat. 453, 159(c). 3 ensuing Creek's six bargaining therefore "employees" protection includable 2(3), 152(3). Director, whom delegated initial determine appropriate see 3(b), 153(b); CFR 101.21 (2000), accordingly directed election 9(c)(1), 159(c)(1). denied request review Director's decision direction election, won as 4 direct judicial determinations unavailable, AFL NLRB, 308 401, 409-411 (1940), sought indirect refusing inducing complaint 8(a)(1) 8(a)(5) 158(a)(1), (5). pursuant regulations providing that, absent newly developed evidence, propriety relitigated predicated challenge determination. 102.67(f) (2000); Magnesium Casting Co. 401 137, 139-141 (1971) (approving practice); Pittsburgh Plate Glass 313 146, 161-162 (1941) (same). 5 Appeals Circuit, cross-petitioned. petition rather than Counsel, judgment," explaining classifying "the nurse supervising nurse's aide administering patient care" " 'routine' [simply] ability virtue expertise, connection 'management.' 453 (1999). We writ certiorari. 531 1304 (2000). II 6 defines term 2(11), provides: "The 'supervisor' means individual having employer, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline responsibly them, adjust grievances, effectively recommend such action, foregoing merely routine clerical nature, requires 7 not, however, challenged status. filled gap borne For example, seeks attribute conduct certain dictates he bear See, e.g., Masterform Tool 327 N. L. R. B. 1071, 1071-1072 Or, challenges ballots cast supervisors, burden. Panaro Grimes, 321 811, 812 (1996). 8 argues deferring resolution ambiguity, we agree. supported construction justification exemption special prohibitions statute generally rests one claims benefits." FTC Morton Salt 334 37, 44-45 (1948). definition "employee," 152(3), "reiterate[s] breadth ordinary dictionary definition" term, so includes "any 'person works another return financial compensation.' Town & Country Elec., 516 85, 90 (1995) (quoting American Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d ed. 1992)). Supervisors fall within excepted it. Sure&nbhyph;Tan, Inc. 467 883, 891 (1984); cf. Packard Motor Car 330 485 (1947). applicability exception, Salt, should thus asserting addition, easier functions disprove those practicality favors find allocating defer Transportation Management Corp., 462 393, 402-403 (1983). 9 Applying case, duty 9(c) proceeding, where exclude prior defended against application latter where, correctly observes dispute, practice," id., persuasion well production, Administrative Procedure 556(d); Office Workers' Compensation Programs Greenwich Collieries, 512 276-278 (1994) (rejecting statement supra, 404, n. 7). Supervisory claim setting. "employees," 8(a)(5), 158(a)(5), certified; (as contends) demonstrated, stage, also therefore, remains establish these nurses. Insofar otherwise, erred. consider court's holding here suffices sustain III 10 quoted above, sets forth three-part Employees engage "exercise Health Care Retirement Corp. America, 511 571, 573-574 (1994). asserted Board, rejecting second part test-to wit, we. 11 Two aspects reasonable, controlling Court, 89-90; Chevron A. Natural Resources Defense Council, 837, 842-844 (1984). First, certainly true ambiguous required 579. Many nominally performed without "exercis[e of] warrant finding" Weyerhaeuser Timber 85 1170, 1173 (1949). falls clearly determine, reason, what scope qualifies. Second, reflected phrase standards," undoubtedly might ordinarily particular task reduced below threshold detailed orders issued employer. So, Shipping 317 379, 381 (1995), concluded "although contested licensed officers imbued great deal responsibility, circumscribed master's standing orders, Operating Regulations, watch officer contact superior anything unusual occurs problems occur." further permitted sufficient kind namely, services." five words insert startling text, focusing "clerical" "routine" opposed "independent") nature question agreed resolve. But turns exercises. Cf. Whitman Trucking Assns., 457, 481 (2001) ("[T]he agency's beyond contradicts our view quite clear"). Let employer; technical" nonetheless independent.1 more extension based greater "experience" training. Reply ("professional skill experience"). What worth exercising, wonder, rest experience"? If aspect every function, virtually eliminate Yeshiva Univ., 444 672, 687 (1980) (Excluding "decisions expertise" risk indiscriminate recharacterization covered professionals working capacities"). 13 As happens, though, eliminated qualifier: Only services" category striking first, directly statute. Every function accompanied "requir[e] obtain, restriction upon just functions: direct." There apparent textual asymmetrical limitation, offered none. Surely conceptual can proposition professional, technical, experienced Decisions "to discipline" ibid., often depend same enables assessment proficiency performing his job. 686 ("[M]ost positions continue draw skills training"). Yet able discover supervisor's hiring, disciplining, promoting ceased depended exercises possesses independence, invariably finds Trustees Noble Hospital, 218 1441, 1442 (1975). 14 refusal limiting particularly troubling seven years ago three similarly function. 571 argued employer," 152(11) requires, [was] exercised incidental instead "disciplinary matters, i.e., treatment patients." Northcrest Nursing Home, 491, 505 (1993). escape notice target analysis responsible direction. "Under 2(11)," noted, "an course employment uses activities, test, supervisor." U.S., 578-579. "inconsistent language," "rea[d] portion out cases." Id., 579-580. impossible avoid conclusion time after precisely object. strained employer" succeeded.2 Allentown Mack Sales Service, 522 359, 374 (1998) (an agency announces principle applies acting rationally Act). contends, incorporated think history shows opposite. originally passed 1935 mention directly. extended "right self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, [and] collectively representatives own choosing ." July 5, 1935, 7, 452, defined "employee" expansively (if circularly) "include employee," 2(3). protected response lacking. 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) 61 amended, 152(3) ("The 'employee' shall include employed supervisor"); Taft-Hartley 14(a), 164(a) ("[N]o [covered Act] compelled deem individuals herein purposes law, either national local, relating collective bargaining"). 16 Well already been defining it, while determined oversaw. To distinguish groups, "supervise work [other] , discipline, otherwise changes employees." Douglas Aircraft 50 784, 787 (1943) (emphasis added). "and" emphasis conjunctive: whose test. Bunting Brass Bronze 58 618, 620 (1944), wrote: "We linemen substantial usual meaning term." also, Duval Texas Sulphur 53 1387, 1390-1391 ("As chief electrician, motor mechanic, plant engineers, drillers, [t]he fact helpers, perforce guide itself, elevate them rank broad production maintenance unit"). 17 1947, largely borrowed notable exception: Whereas supervisor perform alone suffice. grievances." Moreover, assuredly current direction, since yet interpretation. reason so, limited directly, requiring alteration jurisprudence pushed running struggle limit impact direct" number qualifying status-presumably driven disrupted. 18 ultimately defense arguments parallel expressed dissent 588-590 (Ginsburg, dissenting), adopted Stevens post, 5-6, contends necessary preserve employees" coverage 2(12), 152(12). Professional "involving 152(12)(a)(ii). Therefore, (enlisting dictum 690, 30, 581-582), sort then Congress's intent frustrated, "many (such lawyers, doctors, nurses) customarily give judgment-based work," 33. problem argument soundness (the entitled judge constant second-guessing, see, Curtin Matheson Scientific, 494 775, 786 (1990)). 581 ("[T]here 'some tension between [supervisory and] professionals,' 'suggesting resolved' distorting language manner proposed Board") 686). Perhaps could offer others' performance discrete tasks requires. Certain decisions appear drawn distinction past, Providence 320 717, 729 occasion carefully insisted issue 21-22, 9; 7-8, 6. 19 contention covering justifies judgments naturally them. And further, These contentions contradict structure statute, differently 581. unlawful. 364 ("Courts requirements imposed 'rational Act,' 'explication inadequate, irrational arbitrary' (citations omitted)). 20 21 289-290 (1974); SEC Chenery 318 80, 87-88 (1943), and, noted 6, asked us so. interpreting Our correct grounds apart rejected, 584, simply affirmed denying enforcement. Since condition 14; 42, neither suggested Care's method remand take course.3 "Our resolve case." 584. 22 ordered. 23 Stevens, filed concurring dissenting part, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, NOTES: reply brief steps back distinctions degrees authority. 3. opinions distinction. (1996) ("Section stemming experience, skills, training, position"). cited resolving App. Pet. Cert. 52a-53a, accepted unreviewable course, substitute counsel's post hoc rationale reasoning supplied itself." 685, (citing 332 194, 196 (1947)). 4-5 (opinion part), 579 (1994), strain eased ambiguity persuasive now Care: "[A]mbiguity license distort provisions statute," ibid. distinguished, suggests, 8, 10, there respect. point reviewing court's. (That court irrelevant light settled lower court, result 'although relied wrong gave reason,' 88 Helvering Gowran, 302 238, 245 (1937))). 24 J. 25 my opinion, failed While set aside finding incorrect allocation proof, disagree misinterpreted provision NLRA excluding coverage. majority's error, justify affirming erroneous Appeals. 26 proceedings heavily (RNs) served "building supervisors" weekends, third shifts. However, considered evidence RNs received extra compensation serving building keys facility. Instead, additional responsibility shouldered contacting shift fully staffed according preestablished ratios RNs. compel stay come fill vacancy threat discipline. 27 With RNs' regular duties, "occasionally tasks," "authority action refuse[d] directives."1 51a. work, fire, independently action. They evaluate affect status." 52a. Indeed, RNs, supervisors," most "work[ed] themselves subordinates." Ibid. 28 Based evaluation NLRB's applicable "only personnel vested 'genuine management prerogatives' 'straw bosses, leadmen, set-up men minor employees.' 53a Chicago Metallic 273 1677, 1688 (1985)). He did, specific nursing coordinator. 54a. Over Judge Jones, panel majority criticized ignoring "repeated admonition" "has supervisors." 15a. After acknowledging "whether highly fact-intensive inquiry," duties involved to, inherent in, nurses." 18a-19a. admittedly inconsistently precedent.2 30 Although overturn Appeals' decision, reject Circuit's contrast interprets standards.3 Hospital Alaska Nurses Assn., 717 (1996), enforced, 121 548 (CA9 1997); Nymed, 806 (1996); Graphics Typography, 217 1047, 1053 (1975), enforced mem., 547 F.2d 1162 (CA3 1976). familiar one, routinely contexts. Providence, B., 717; 1053. cases others not.4 Petitioner, 17-19, nn. 5-7 (collecting cases); 36, cases). 31 "rational Act."5 796 (1990); Fall Dyeing Finishing 482 27, 42 (1987). mind, rational entirely 32 indisputably ambiguous, law deference.6 Corporation (HCR), (1994); Auciello Iron Works, 517 781, 787-188 786-787. Such deference compounded term-"independent judgment"-to modify another, equally term-namely, 33 provided good ambiguities acted NLRA's protection, explicitly professionals, who, definition, involves performance."7 acknowledged, necessarily gives rise (1980). Accordingly, construed too broadly, regard context, Congress' nullified.8 HCR, 585 dissenting). Court's approach accuses doing-namely, reading other. 34 acknowledges today determines significance limitations alleged Thus, like this, second-guess 35 tour de force little ipse dixit, concludes due "kind exercise. Ante, 7. view, impermissible attach weight reassigned disciplined patient's temperature, instruct temperature reassign support law. Yeshiva, 690 ("Only activities outside situated aligned management").9 36 errs identified nature. 8-9. 12, capable swallowing whole narrowly construed. "promote" "discharge," examples, readily identifiable. contrast, far vague. logical contours depending comparative ambiguity. 37 Simply put, quintessential examples terms expert allowed interpret policies animating Matheson, 786; A., 843 favoring obligated uphold 38 Even shared each affirm (1943). rejection affirmance proof.10 39 agree view. Given findings qualify they, "for subordinates," absolutely clear NLRA.11 willingness treat subordinates12 ironic compared undisturbed deny group respondent-namely, rehabilitation counselors supervise 40 assistants. join respectfully holding. reverse "incident reports, [could] employee." "According interpretations, care, involve 'independent judgment.' classifies 17a. Oddly, omits element-namely, doing, ignores key nuance position. That, characteristic position, once be. majority, pays scant heed adjudicative record asserts essence ante, 7-8. "[I]n many . contexts policy, '[t]he ultimate balancing conflicting legitimate interests. effectuate difficult delicate committed primarily review.' Beth Israel 437 483, 501 (1978) Truck Drivers, 353 87, 96 (1957)). suggests problematic (HCR). not. Association amicus brief, supervision others. Amicus Curiae 2-6. seems congressional enacting exception. Rather, intended "genuine prerogatives" "truly supervisory." S. Rep. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., (1947), Legislative History pp. 410, 425 fact, adopting "accurately capture[d] Congress." approach, prevail proceedings. 295 Electrical Workers 366 667 (1961); Ford 305 (1939). relies, 15, contrary. unlike decision. Here, seem make appropriate. Nor supervisorial play role assigning staff shifts permanent setting staff-to-resident ratio. 18-19, 23-24. functioning capacity Nor, matter, Neither practical nor assistants report 34, 45, 61.

Category: 6