Court Opinion

ID: 9494558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:40:16.898868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:28.186997
License: Public Domain

*752WOLLMAN, Chief Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with the court that the Board’s finding that the assignment editors are not supervisors is supported by the record, I disagree with its holding that the Board also correctly found that the producers were not supervisors.
As the court notes, the producers determine the general format, length, and sequence of the selected stories. „ They instruct the reporters and photographers regarding the video and graphics they would prefer for the respective stories; they assign writers, reporters, and anchors to write scripts for the stories, which they then review for length and accuracy; and they control the order of the story rundown and designate which anchor will read a given story.
To offset the compelling force of the foregoing factors, the Board looks to that which the producers do not do, such as covering stories, participating in camera shoots, or scheduling the crews with whom they work. These are essential tasks, no doubt, but they can probably not unfairly be characterized as the heavy lifting part of the news-gathering process. The Board also points to the fact that the producers cannot hire news personnel and may not directly evaluate or discipline the other professionals in the news team. A short answer to this litany of non-duties is to repeat that a supervisor need exercise only one of the supervisory functions enumerated in 29 U.S.C. § 152(11). As for the observation that many of the other news professionals earn more than the producers, one need only observe that many professional athletes are paid at a rate greatly exceeding that of the coaches of their respective teams, yet no doubt arises as to who is the supervisor in that situation.
As for the collaborative-effort basis of the Board’s analysis, it rests upon the assumption that there can be only one supervisor rather than several, an assumption that finds no warrant in the law. I have long since forgotten exactly how business was conducted at the Round Table, but I am not convinced that the Board would have found that none of the knights had supervisory authority over the vassal-attendants.
But enough of jurisprudence by metaphor. The basic flaw in the Board’s decision is that it rests upon the now-rejected test employed by the Board in Providence Hospital. As the Regional Director noted in his decision,
[I]n Providence Hospital, 320 NLRB 717 (1996), the Board noted that there is a difference between the exercise of judgment necessary to design a product, in that case a plan of patient care, and the assignment and direction of employees in producing the product. While the former may require substantial “professional” judgment, the latter may be quite routine in nature. “Independent judgment must be exercised in connection with the Section 2(11) function if the actor is to be deemed a statutory supervisor; use of judgment in related areas of a professional or technical employee’s own work does not meet the statute’s language.” Id. at 728.
Jt.App. at 14.
As did the Regional Director, the Board looks to Providence Hospital for support of its decision. See Respondent’s brief at 32.
I say now-rejected test, because I find it to be in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 121 S.Ct. 1861, 149 L.Ed.2d 939 (2001).
Because the Board’s collaboration analysis is an insufficient basis upon which to rest its findings regarding the producers, *753and because the Providence Hospital test can no longer carry the day, I would not enforce that portion of the Board’s decision. Accordingly, while I concur in the court’s holding with respect to the assignment editors, I respectfully dissent from its holding regarding the producers.