National Labor Relations Board v. NSTAR Electric Co.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14426
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- NLRB seeks enforcement of an order requiring NSTAR to bargain with Local 369 for the seventeen NSTAR dispatch-center workers (TSSs and STOCs) who voted to join the union.
- NSTAR cross-petitions for review contending the TSSs and STOCs are supervisors or managerial employees and thus not protected employees under the Act.
- The Act excludes supervisors and managerial employees from collective bargaining rights; the question is whether these workers fall within those exclusions.
- The TSSs and STOCs are specialized transmission-room positions: TSSs monitor real-time grid conditions and write switching orders; STOCs analyze and schedule work, coordinating with field supervisors.
- The Board found the workers are not supervisors or managerial employees; NSTAR did not show sufficient independent judgment or authority to assign/direct/hire to render them supervisory, nor evidence of managerial control.
- The First Circuit grants enforcement of the Board’s order and denies NSTAR’s cross-petition, applying substantial deference to the Board’s factual and interpretive determinations under the supervisor framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSSs and STOCs are supervisors under the Act | NSTAR: they are supervisors due to authority to assign/direct/hire. | NLRB: they are not supervisors under the three-part test. | Not supervisors; substantial evidence supports Board. |
| Whether the Board’s interpretation of 'independent judgment' warrants Chevron deference | NSTAR: deference should be limited; Big Rivers approach should apply. | Board decisions applying Oakwood/Entergy Mississippi deserve deference. | Chevron deference applied; Board interpretation is reasonable and upheld. |
| Whether the TSSs' authority to assign, direct, and hire constitutes supervisory power | TSSs perform significant duties that resemble supervisory functions. | Record shows assignments/directing/hiring require adherence to policy and lack independent judgment. | Record supports no independent-judgment assignments; no responsible direction or hiring power; thus not supervisors. |
| Whether the TSSs/STOCs are managerial employees under Yeshiva University | They act in ways that align with management interests (purchasing power, procedural revisions). | Actions do not amount to discretionary control of policy; duties are professional, not managerial. | Not managerial; substantial evidence supports Board’s exclusion under Yeshiva. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) (defines supervisor three-part test and independent-judgment standard)
- NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974) (policy history rationales for exclusion of supervisors)
- NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 (1980) (managerial exclusion: discretion and policy control analysis)
- Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. NLRB, 624 F.2d 347 (1st Cir. 1980) (electrical workers purchasing influence not necessarily managerial)
- Northeast Utils. Serv. Corp. v. NLRB, 35 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 1994) (administrative delegation and supervisory scope in utility context)
- Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc. v. Bd. of Nat. Rels., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) (clarifies scope of supervisor definition post-Kentucky River)