National Labor Relations Board v. Lakepointe Senior Care & Rehab Center, LLC
680 F. App'x 400
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lakepointe Senior Care & Rehab employed "charge nurses" who performed nursing duties and supervised certified nursing assistants (aides).
- In 2005 the NLRB determined the charge nurses were supervisors and denied union representation; in 2015 the Union petitioned again to represent them.
- A regional director held a representation hearing in 2015, found the charge nurses were employees (not supervisors), and a majority voted to join SEIU Healthcare Michigan.
- Lakepointe refused to bargain; the NLRB found an unfair labor practice and ordered bargaining, and the Board petitioned to enforce that order.
- Lakepointe argued (1) the Board should have applied its nonrelitigation rule from the 2005 proceeding, and (2) the charge nurses were supervisors because they recommended and effectuated discipline for aides.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed the Board’s nonrelitigation ruling for abuse of discretion and its supervisory-status finding for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board should have applied its nonrelitigation rule to bar the 2015 representation petition | Lakepointe: 2005 supervisory finding precludes relitigation | NLRB: rule applies only to subsequent unfair-labor-practice proceedings, not subsequent representation proceedings | Court: Board did not abuse discretion; rule inapplicable to a subsequent representation proceeding |
| Whether charge nurses were supervisors by recommending discipline | NLRB: nurses were merely conveyors of information, not recommending discipline | Lakepointe: nurses chose to write up aides, described violations, signed as supervisors, triggering progressive discipline | Court: substantial evidence supports that nurses independently recommended discipline; regional director’s contrary finding not supported |
| Whether nurses' recommendations were "effective" (i.e., managers gave them weight) | NLRB: managers independently determined violations and discipline, so recommendations not effective | Lakepointe: managers routinely relied on forms, discipline invariably followed, evaluations tied to administering discipline | Court: record shows managers gave substantial weight to nurses' recommendations; finding of ineffectiveness lacked substantial evidence |
| Ultimate relief — whether to enforce the NLRB order requiring bargaining | NLRB: order should be enforced because nurses are employees | Lakepointe: order should be denied because nurses are supervisors and prior finding precludes relitigation | Court: denied enforcement; substantial evidence did not support the Board's contrary determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. NLRB, 643 F.3d 481 (6th Cir.) (describes substantial-evidence review standard)
- Frenchtown Acquisition Co. v. NLRB, 683 F.3d 298 (6th Cir.) (employer bears burden in representation proceedings to prove supervisory status)
- NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) (defines statutory supervisor and requirement of independent judgment)
- Caremore, Inc. v. NLRB, 129 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.) (explains when recommendations are "effective")
- GGNSC Springfield LLC v. NLRB, 721 F.3d 403 (6th Cir.) (holds that using disciplinary forms within a progressive-discipline system can constitute recommending discipline)
- Salem Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir.) (discusses the Board's nonrelitigation rule)