Hawaii Stevedores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2016

20-RC-169598 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HAWAII STEVEDORES, INC.
Employer
and Case 20-RC-169598
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 100
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 27, 2016.
Member Miscimarra, dissenting.
I would grant review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election on the
basis that substantial questions exist regarding whether 36 of the Employer’s supervisory
personnel possess one of more of the indicia of supervisor status set forth in Section 2(11) of the
Act. The Regional Director found that these supervisory personnel were not statutory
supervisors under Section 2(11). The 36 individuals whose supervisory status is disputed
oversee work performed by approximately 400 longshoremen, machine operators, and wharf
clerks. If the disputed individuals are deemed nonsupervisors, the Employer would have a total
of approximately 440 statutory employees as to whom the record indicates statutory supervisory
authority was exercised by only six persons: a General Manager, an Auto General Manager,
three Managers and one Port Captain. All twelve types of supervisory authority set forth in
Section 2(11) over the Employer’s 440 employees would be vested exclusively in these six
individuals. Given the nature of the Employer’s operations, I believe a substantial question
exists whether it is plausible to conclude that all supervisory authority regarding 440 statutory
employees could be vested exclusively in these six individuals. See Buchanan Marine, 363
NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 9-10 (2015) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting) (stating that, when
applying the supervisor criteria set forth in Sec. 2(11), the Board should consider (i) the nature of
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).
I also believe substantial questions exist regarding whether uncontroverted evidence of
supervisory authority was discounted or disregarded “merely because it could have been
stronger, more detailed, or supported by more specific examples,” id., slip op. at 9 (Member
Miscimarra, dissenting), or because the disputed supervisors’ involvement in discipline did not
entail automatic discipline. See Veolia Transportation Services, 363 NLRB No. 98, slip op. at
12-14 (2016) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting); Sec. 2(11) (stating that individuals are
supervisors if they have authority to “discipline other employees . . . or effectively to recommend
such action” (emphasis added). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
_______________________________________
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER