Eagle Window & Door v. NLRB ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •               ___________
    No. 96-2273
    ___________
    Eagle Window & Door, Inc.,             *
    *
    Petitioner,         *
    *
    v.                             *
    *
    National Labor Relations Board,        *
    *
    Respondent.         *
    ___________                  Petitions   for  Review  of   an
    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    Respondent,        *   [UNPUBLISHED]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.
    Following a vigorous campaign, a union certification election was
    held at Eagle Window & Door's manufacturing plant in Dubuque, Iowa.     The
    union was declared the winner, but only by a few votes.    Eagle challenged
    the election because the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) refused
    to count the ballots of thirty-eight factory group leaders.      The Board
    rejected Eagle's challenge
    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 then ordered Eagle to bargain
    with the union, and Eagle petitioned for review.
    Eagle manufactures windows and doors on an automated assembly line.
    The employees working along the line generally perform the same repetitive
    tasks each day.    Eagle's entire production process is separated into about
    sixteen departments operating under the direction of thirteen acknowledged
    supervisors.    Each department is divided into teams that are guided by the
    challenged group leaders.    Although the group leaders spend most of their
    day working on the assembly line, the group leaders also distribute daily
    work assignments based on computerized production schedules prepared by
    upper     management,   check   the    daily   work   against   predetermined
    specifications, monitor workplace safety, and provide their supervisors
    with worker evaluations.    Group leaders cannot hire, fire, or effectively
    impose discipline on any employee.
    Under the National Labor Relations Act, a supervisor is defined as
    any employee who has the authority
    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.
    29 U.S.C. § 152(11).     Recently, the Board recognized that it "has a duty
    not to construe the statutory language too broadly" and concluded "[o]nly
    individuals with `genuine management prerogatives' should be considered
    supervisors, as opposed to `straw bosses, leadmen . . . and other minor
    supervisory employees.'"    Panaro & Grimes, A Partnership D/B/A Azusa Ranch
    Mkt., 321 N.L.R.B. No. 112, 
    1996 WL 410877
    , at *2 (July 19, 1996)
    -2-
    (quoted case omitted).          Thus, the Board maintains "an individual who
    exercises some `supervisory authority' only in a routine . . . or
    perfunctory manner will not be found to be a supervisor."                
    Id. (quoted case
    omitted).   Understandably, it is not an easy task for the Board to make the
    call on whether group leaders with differing degrees of responsibility
    exercise    statutory    supervisory      authority.         Compare    S.D.I.   Operating
    Partners, L.P., 321 N.L.R.B. No. 24, 
    1996 WL 233631
    , at *1 (Apr. 30, 1996)
    (group leaders are not supervisors); Quadrex Envtl. 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
    , 442
    (1980) (group leaders are supervisors); Richardson Bros. Co., 
    228 N.L.R.B. 314
    , 314 (1977) (same).
    In this case, the Board adopted a hearing officer's findings that
    Eagle's group leaders were supervisors for two reasons: (1) the group
    leaders played a significant role in the evaluation of the other employees,
    and (2) the group leaders directed the work within their department.                   See
    Schnuck Mkts., Inc. v. NLRB, 
    961 F.2d 700
    , 703 (8th Cir. 1992) (supervisory
    employees must possess 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 substantial evidence on the record as a whole.                    See 
    id. at 703-04.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the Board's decision is
    not supported by substantial evidence.
    Initially, we believe the Board's hearing officer attached too much
    significance    to    the   group   leaders'     role   in    the   evaluation    process.
    Although    Eagle's     group   leaders    provided     their       supervisors    with   a
    preliminary evaluation of the other team members' work, the supervisors
    were responsible for the employees' final evaluations.                 See Hexacomb Corp.,
    
    313 N.L.R.B. 983
    , 984 (1994).           Nevertheless, the hearing officer felt
    Eagle's group leaders were independently evaluating their team members like
    the leadmen in Iron Mountain Forge Corp., 
    278 N.L.R.B. 255
    , 255 n.1 (1986).
    In Iron Mountain
    -3-
    Forge Corp., however, only three of the leadmens' initial evaluations were
    ever changed by the reviewing officer.                See 
    id. at 259.
          In contrast, the
    initial evaluations by Eagle's group leaders were often rejected or
    modified by their supervisors.             In our view, Eagle's situation is more like
    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, we find no substantial support for the hearing officer's
    finding that Eagle's group leaders were statutory supervisors when they
    directed their team's work.             The group leaders merely passed out routine
    work   assignments and made sure the work was completed according to
    predetermined schedules and specifications.                  In so doing, the group leaders
    did    nothing    more      than    draw   on    their      own   on-the-job   expertise   and
    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 independent 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' role
    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 election
    results.        We believe the hearing officer's findings on this issue are
    supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and no useful
    purpose would be served by an extended discussion.
    -4-
    Having concluded that the contested ballots must be counted, we
    remand to the Board for further appropriate proceedings.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-2273

Filed Date: 1/7/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021