Mars Home for Youth v. National Labor Relations Board
666 F.3d 850
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Mars Home for Youth operates six residential units staffed by program managers, assistant managers, and resident assistants who report to the assistant managers and then to the program managers.
- The Pennsylvania Social Services Union sought to represent assistants and assistant managers in a single bargaining unit; Mars Home opposed including assistant managers arguing they were supervisors.
- The NLRB Regional Director found the five assistant managers were not supervisors and could be included in the unit; Mars Home sought review, which was denied.
- A union election produced a 34-31 vote in favor of representation, and the NLRB certified the Union as exclusive representative.
- Mars Home refused to bargain, and the Board charged Mars Home with unfair labor practices under Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; the Board granted enforcement to its order.
- Mars Home petitions for review; the Board cross-petitions for enforcement of its order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assistant managers are supervisors under 2(11). | Mars Home: assistants supervise others via directing work and directing tasks. | Board: no independent judgment or assignment authority; not supervisors. | Not supervisors; administrative findings upheld. |
| whether 'responsibly to direct' requires accountability for others' performance. | Mars Home shows oversight accountability for others' performance. | Board's standard applied; evidence shows lack of responsibility for others’ performance. | Board's interpretation reasonable; substantial evidence supports non-supervisory finding. |
| Whether assistant managers had authority to assign work. | Assistant managers assign schedules and tasks to assistants. | Assignments are ad hoc and reviewed; no independent authority to require assignments. | Assistant managers lack authority to assign under 2(11); assignment power not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc. v. United Mine Workers, 532 U.S. 706 (U.S. 2001) (definitional framework for supervisor status under the Act)
- In re Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (NLRB 2006) (three-part test for supervisory status; 'assign' and 'responsibly to direct' interpretations)
- Golden Crest, 348 NLRB 727, 348 NLRB 727 (NLRB 2006) (assignment authority not found when only scheduling power exists)
- NLRB v. St. George Warehouse, Inc., 645 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2011) (expertise of Board in labor matters; standard of review for supervisor determinations)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) (three-part supervisory framework; independent judgment requirement)
- Health Care & Retirement Corp. v. NLRB, 511 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1994) (agency deference to Board interpretations of supervisory concepts)