NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care

United States Supreme Court
532 U.S. 706 (2001)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The party asserting that an employee is a supervisor under the National Labor Relations Act bears the burden of proof. The National Labor Relations Board's interpretation that excludes judgment arising from professional or technical expertise from the statutory term 'independent judgment' is an unreasonable and impermissible construction of the Act.

Facts:

Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. (KRCC) operates the Caney Creek Developmental Complex, a care facility for residents with mental retardation and mental illness.
The facility employs approximately 110 professional and nonprofessional workers, including six registered nurses (RNs).
The Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters (Union) petitioned to represent a bargaining unit of all 110 potentially eligible employees at the facility.
KRCC objected to the inclusion of the six RNs in the bargaining unit, arguing they were 'supervisors' under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The RNs' duties included directing the work of less-skilled employees, such as nurse's aides, in providing patient care.
Some of the RNs also served as 'building supervisors' on weekends and on second and third shifts, where their responsibilities included contacting other employees to fill staffing shortages.

Procedural Posture:

The Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters (Union) petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a representation election at a facility operated by Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. (KRCC).
At the representation hearing, KRCC argued that six registered nurses were supervisors and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
The NLRB's Regional Director found KRCC had not met its burden of proof and included the nurses in the unit, directing an election.
The NLRB denied KRCC’s request for review of the Regional Director's decision.
The Union won the election and was certified as the employees' bargaining representative.
To obtain judicial review, KRCC refused to bargain with the Union, prompting the NLRB's General Counsel to file an unfair labor practice complaint.
The NLRB granted summary judgment against KRCC, finding it had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain.
KRCC petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review of the NLRB's order.
The Court of Appeals granted KRCC's petition, holding that the NLRB had incorrectly allocated the burden of proof and had erroneously interpreted the term 'independent judgment.'
The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

First, does an employer bear the burden of proof to establish that an employee is a 'supervisor' excluded from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act? Second, does the National Labor Relations Board permissibly interpret the statutory term 'independent judgment' to categorically exclude the exercise of ordinary professional or technical judgment in directing less-skilled employees?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

Yes as to the first issue; No as to the second issue. The employer bears the burden of proving an employee's supervisory status, but the NLRB's interpretation of 'independent judgment' is unlawful. On the first issue, the Court defers to the NLRB's consistent rule placing the burden of proof on the party claiming an employee is a supervisor. This rule aligns with the general principle of statutory construction that one who claims the benefit of a special exception to a statute bears the burden of proving it. Supervisory status is an exception to the broad definition of 'employee,' so the employer must prove its applicability. On the second issue, the Court holds that the NLRB's interpretation of 'independent judgment' is an unreasonable, categorical exclusion not supported by the statutory text. The statute's distinction between 'independent judgment' and 'merely routine or clerical' action concerns the degree of discretion, not the kind of judgment exercised. The Board's attempt to exclude professional or technical judgment creates a false dichotomy and is applied asymmetrically only to the supervisory function of 'responsibly to direct,' which is textually unjustified and contrary to the Court's precedent in NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens

While concurring that the employer bears the burden of proof, this opinion dissents from the majority's rejection of the NLRB's interpretation of 'independent judgment.' The terms 'independent judgment' and 'responsibly to direct' are ambiguous, and the NLRB's interpretation is a rational and consistent application of the Act deserving of judicial deference. The Board’s test is necessary to resolve the statutory tension between the exclusion of supervisors and the explicit inclusion of professional employees, who by definition engage in work involving discretion and judgment. By rejecting the Board’s interpretation, the majority risks nullifying Congress's intent to protect professional employees, as many could be reclassified as unprotected supervisors. Even if the Board's interpretation were erroneous, the proper course would be to remand the case to the Board for reconsideration under the correct legal standard, not to affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the procedural rule that employers must prove supervisory status, a generally pro-labor standard. However, the more significant impact comes from its substantive holding, which curtails the NLRB's power to shield professional employees from being classified as supervisors. By rejecting the Board's categorical exclusion of 'professional judgment' from the supervisory test, the Court makes it easier for employers to argue that professional employees like nurses, engineers, and architects are supervisors, thus stripping them of NLRA protections, including the right to unionize. This forces the Board into a more fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of the degree of discretion an employee exercises, rather than allowing a broad, policy-driven interpretation to protect professional workers.

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care (2001) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care

Get access to Issue, Opinions, Analysis, Gunnerbot & more for Lexplug's entire library of premium content

Premium Feature