GGNSC Springfield LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13472
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Golden Living Center (the Center) operates a nursing home with ~100 employees; RNs and LPNs serve as "charge nurses" overseeing CNAs on two wings.
- The International Association of Machinists petitioned to represent the RNs (only RNs sought bargaining); the Board’s regional director found RNs were not supervisors and certified the unit; the RNs voted for the union.
- The Center refused to bargain, asserting RNs are "supervisors" under NLRA § 2(11) and thus ineligible for collective bargaining; the NLRB found unfair labor practices and ordered bargaining.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that RNs are not supervisors under the three-part statutory test (authority to perform listed functions; use of independent judgment; authority exercised in employer’s interest).
- Key factual dispute: whether RN charge nurses’ issuance of an "employee memorandum" (which triggers written warnings under the employer’s progressive-discipline policy) constitutes discipline and whether RNs exercise independent judgment in issuing memoranda.
- The court held RNs can issue memoranda that automatically lead to written warnings within the employer’s progressive-discipline scheme, and that RNs exercise independent judgment in choosing memoranda versus verbal counseling — making them supervisors; it vacated the Board order and denied enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Center) | Defendant's Argument (NLRB/Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RNs are "supervisors" under NLRA § 2(11) | RNs have authority to discipline, assign, and direct CNAs (issue memoranda that trigger written warnings) and use independent judgment — therefore excluded from bargaining rights | RNs only report misconduct; memoranda are informational; verbal counseling not discipline; RNs lack independent disciplinary authority | Held: RNs are supervisors — memoranda are disciplinary (part of progressive discipline) and RNs exercise independent judgment in issuing them |
| Whether issuing a memo that can lead to later discipline requires independent judgment | Center: choosing between no action, verbal counseling, or memorandum involves judgment and triggers discipline | Board: verbal counseling is non-disciplinary; memoranda merely inform management and do not themselves impose discipline | Held: the record shows memoranda lead to written warnings and thus are disciplinary; RNs decide to issue memoranda without required prior approval, so judgment is independent |
| Whether limited authority to send employees home for flagrant misconduct constitutes supervisory discipline | Center: sending an employee home is discipline | Board: removing for flagrant misconduct is not independent judgment (educational/safety measure) | Held: Court agreed with Board precedent that sending home for flagrant misconduct does not establish supervisory authority |
| Standard of review: whether the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence | Center: Board misapprehended disciplinary scheme; substantial evidence does not support its conclusion | Board: regional director’s factual findings should be upheld as supported by record | Held: Substantial-evidence review requires considering detracting evidence; Board’s failure to treat memoranda as discipline is not supported by substantial evidence, so court reverses |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (defines substantial‑evidence standard for agency factfinding)
- NLRB v. Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) (articulates three‑part test for supervisory status under NLRA § 2(11))
- Frenchtown Acquisition Co. v. NLRB, 683 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2012) (burden on party asserting supervisory status; analysis of counseling vs. discipline)
- Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Appointments Clause/recess‑appointment analysis relevant to Board composition)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional threshold principles)
- Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (appointments challenges are nonjurisdictional)
- Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (1996) (Chevron deference context; courts should respect agency reasonable interpretations)