Matson

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 2014

20-RC-121101 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 2, 2014)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MATSON TERMINALS, INC.
Employer
and Case 20-RC-121101
HAWAII TEAMSTERS AND ALLIED
WORKERS, LOCAL 996
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision
and Direction of Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1

1 Member Johnson joins his colleagues in denying review in this matter. Although this
case is a closer call than most, the Employer here has failed to justify a Board review of
the Acting Regional Director’s determination that the Container Vessel Stevedoring
(CVS) senior superintendents and CVS superintendents lack the requisite authority to be
classified as statutory supervisors. The Employer failed to carry its burden under Section
102.67(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations to show that the Acting Regional
Director’s decision “depart[s] from officially reported Board precedent,” or his decision
“on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous on the record and such error
prejudicially affects the rights of a party.” Id. Initially, the Employer has not
demonstrated significant departure from extant Board precedent on supervisory issues.
Here, the Regional Director applied the governing case law on supervisory status,
including the definitions of “assign” and “responsibly to direct” under Section 2(11) of
the Act. See generally Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006).
The Employer would then need to demonstrate a clear error of fact that caused
prejudice. But here, as the Acting Regional Director found, the senior superintendents
and superintendents do not “assign” employees with independent judgment inasmuch as
the place, time, and overall duties of the work performed by their putative subordinates is
dictated by extremely detailed flow plans and other schedules, and by the collective-
bargaining agreement covering longshoremen. The Employer did not show clear factual
error in the Acting Regional Director’s conclusion that deviations from these plans and
schedules occur only in relatively minor or routine circumstances, such as when a
damaged container must be removed, and that nearly every type of deviation requires
higher level review and approval. Further, with respect to “responsible” direction, there
is insufficient record evidence that the senior superintendents and superintendents have
authority to take corrective action against a putative subordinate for failing to follow a
2
We also deny the Employer’s request to stay the election.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 2, 2014

directive, or that the senior superintendents and superintendents face the prospect of
adverse consequences based on the failure of subordinates to follow directives. And, as
noted above, given the limited evidence of deviations from the predetermined plans and
schedules, there was no clear error in finding a lack of independent judgment. For those
reasons, Member Johnson finds none of the Acting Regional Director’s factual findings,
including the abovementioned examples, are “clearly erroneous,” as they are all
supported by substantial record evidence.