Cranesville Block Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 6, 2017

03-RC-190952 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CRANESVILLE BLOCK CO., INC.
Employer
and Case 03-RC-190952
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 294
Union
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Supplemental
Decision and Order on Challenged Ballot and Objections is denied as it raises no
substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 6, 2017.
Chairman Miscimarra, dissenting.

1 We agree with the Regional Director’s conclusion that mechanic William Deming is not
a supervisor under the Act because he does not assign work using independent
judgment, is not held accountable for the performance of the employees he directs, and
does not effectively recommend discipline. See Shaw Inc., 350 NLRB 354, 356 fn. 9
(2007) (“Assigning employees according to their known skills is not evidence of
independent judgment.”); Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686, 691-692 (2006)
(“to be ‘responsible,’ the person directing and performing the oversight of the employee
must be accountable for the performance of the task[.]”); Veolia Transportation
Services, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 98, slip op. at 7 (2016) (to effectively recommend
discipline, “the exercise of disciplinary authority must lead to personnel action without
independent investigation by upper management.”). To the extent that our dissenting
colleague reiterates a position rejected by the Board, we decline to revisit that issue.
LakeWood Health Center d/b/a Chi LakeWood Health, 365 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at
1 fn. 1 (2016). See also Buchanan Marine, L.P., 363 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 2-3
(2015). Accordingly, we deny review without relying on the Regional Director’s analysis
under Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 NLRB 906, 906 (2004).
Contrary to my colleagues, I would grant the Employer’s Request for Review with
respect to the supervisory status of William Deming and his involvement in the
solicitation of authorization cards. There is considerable, largely unrebutted evidence
that Deming has the authority to assign tasks to other mechanics, to responsibly direct
them, and to effectively recommend discipline. As I have previously explained, the
Board should not disregard such evidence “merely because it could have been stronger,
more detailed, or supported by more specific examples.” See, e.g., Lakewood Health
Care d/b/a Chi Lakewood Health, 365 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 3 (2016) (Member
Miscimarra, dissenting). This evidence also raises substantial issues regarding
supervisory status under the three common sense factors that I believe should be
reviewed in every supervisory status case: (i) the nature of the employer’s operations,
(ii) the work performed by undisputed statutory employees, and (iii) whether it is
plausible to conclude that all supervisory authority is vested in persons other than those
whose supervisory status is in dispute. See, e.g., Lakewood Health Care d/b/a Chi
Lakewood Health, supra, slip op. at 3-4 (Member Miscimarra, dissenting). In all other
respects, I agree with the denial of review.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, CHAIRMAN