Pac Tell Group, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22544

U.S. Fibers operates a polyester recycling plant in Trenton, SC; management had a multi-tier structure and designated four long‑shift employees (Lal, Martinez, Sanchez, Torres) as “supervisors.”
Each putative supervisor oversaw 22–40 hourly workers per 12‑hour shift; those workers were subdivided into teams with team leads who reported to the putative supervisors.
The United Steelworkers sought union representation; the NLRB directed an election over the employer’s objection that the four were statutory supervisors and should be excluded from the unit.
The union won by 12 votes; the four contested ballots could have affected the outcome. The regional director and then the Board found the four were not supervisors under 29 U.S.C. § 152(11).
The Board also rejected U.S. Fibers’ alternative claim that third‑party misconduct (threats by the putative supervisors) required setting aside the election; it certified the union and later ordered the employer to recognize and bargain after the employer refused.
The Fourth Circuit denied the employer’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross‑application to enforce its order, finding the Board’s factual determinations supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lal, Martinez, Sanchez, Torres were "supervisors" under § 152(11)	The four exercised supervisory functions (assigning work, recommending raises, issuing warnings, directing employees) and thus are statutory supervisors whose pro‑union votes taint the election	They were not supervisors because any authority was routine, constrained by management, and lacked independent judgment	Board’s finding that they were not supervisors affirmed: substantial evidence supports lack of "independent judgment" and employer did not meet burden to prove supervisory status
Whether third‑party misconduct by the four required setting aside the election	Statements by Lal and Martinez threatened job loss if the union did not win, creating fear and invalidating the election	Statements were general comments among rank‑and‑file, not widespread or credible threats sufficient to create a unit‑wide atmosphere of fear	Board did not abuse discretion in declining to set aside the election for third‑party misconduct; remarks were not sufficiently aggravated to render the election invalid

NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) (defines statutory "supervisor" and requires independent judgment exercised in the employer's interest)
NLRB v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., 360 F.3d 434 (4th Cir. 2004) (courts give great deference to Board‑supervised election results and set aside only for clear abuse of discretion)
CSX Hotels, Inc. v. NLRB, 377 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 2004) (substantial‑evidence standard for reviewing Board factual findings)
Gestamp S.C., L.L.C. v. NLRB, 769 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2014) (defines substantial evidence as more than a scintilla but less than preponderance)