Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21190
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Entergy Mississippi petitioned to classify its dispatchers as "supervisors" under NLRA § 2(11), which would exclude them from union representation.
- Dispatchers monitor SCADA/AM/FM systems, draft and dictate switching and clearance orders, call out field employees, and allocate crews during outages, especially during unsupervised shifts or severe weather.
- The NLRB ALJ and then the Board (after applying its Oakwood framework) held dispatchers are not supervisors; the Board later found Entergy unlawfully refused to bargain and sought remedies.
- Entergy challenged the Board’s conclusions; the Fifth Circuit reviewed deference standards (Chevron/Fox) and substantial-evidence review for factual findings.
- The court concluded most of the Board’s legal reasoning was permissible and supported by substantial evidence, but found the Board ignored record evidence that could show dispatchers use independent judgment when assigning employees to locations.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded limited issues (whether dispatchers assign employees to places using independent judgment); it rejected Entergy’s laches defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dispatchers are "supervisors" under § 2(11) | Entergy: dispatchers exercise supervisory functions (assign, responsibly direct, use independent judgment) | Board: dispatchers do not meet Oakwood's definitions and are not supervisors | Mostly affirmed: Board’s application of Oakwood reasonable; dispatchers not supervisors except on narrow remand issue |
| Proper interpretation/deference to Oakwood definitions | Entergy: Board has been inconsistent; limited deference warranted | Board: Oakwood is a permissible, reasoned change deserving Chevron/Fox deference | Court: Oakwood meets Chevron/Fox; deference owed to Board’s interpretations |
| Whether dispatchers "responsibly direct" (accountability for subordinates) | Entergy: dispatchers disciplined for subordinate errors, showing accountability | Board: discipline evidence was insufficient; dispatchers held accountable only for their own errors | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports that dispatchers are not accountable for others’ mistakes under Oakwood |
| Whether dispatchers "assign" employees to places using independent judgment | Entergy: dispatchers prioritize and allocate crews using discretionary factors (customer priority, logistics) | Board: dispatchers follow computer lists/ SOPs and merely read assignments; no independent judgment | Reversed and remanded: Board ignored record evidence suggesting independent, discretionary allocation to places; further proceedings required |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U.S. 571 (Sup. Ct.) (articulates § 2(11) three-part test for supervisors)
- NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706 (Sup. Ct.) (addresses deference and burden on party claiming supervisory status)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (Sup. Ct.) (permitting deference to agency changes in policy when reasonable)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.) (prior Fifth Circuit treatment of utility coordinators and "responsibly direct")
- Valmont Industries v. NLRB, 244 F.3d 454 (5th Cir.) (standards for reviewing Board legal conclusions)
- Carey Salt Co. v. NLRB, 736 F.3d 405 (5th Cir.) (deference to ALJ credibility findings)