Matson Terminals, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 2016

20-RC-173297 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MATSON TERMINALS, INC.
Employer
and Case 20-RC-173297
HAWAII TEAMSTERS AND ALLIED WORKERS
LOCAL 996
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.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, Chairman
LAUREN McFERRAN, Member
Dated, Washington, D.C., October 7, 2016.
Member Miscimarra, dissenting in part:
I would grant review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election on the
basis that substantial questions exist regarding whether the petitioned-for supervisors and senior
supervisors possess the authority under Section 2(11) of the Act to responsibly direct, reward,
discipline, or adjust grievances of statutory employees engaged in barge loading and unloading
operations. In my view, Board review of the record is warranted because, among other things,
the seven individuals whose supervisory status is disputed oversee work performed by
approximately 34 undisputed statutory employees; if the petitioned-for individuals are deemed

1 In denying review, we do not rely on the Regional Director’s statement that when the
supervisors and senior supervisors “give direction to the other employees, they act as leadmen,
using their skill, experience, and familiarity with the equipment and vessels” which appears to
apply an interpretation of “independent judgment” that the Supreme Court rejected in NLRB v.
Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706 (2001). See also Network Dynamics Cabling,
351 NLRB 1423, 1425 fn. 11 (2007).
Our dissenting colleague reiterates a position rejected by the Board in Buchanan Marine,
L.P., 363 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 2 (2015), which we decline to revisit.
non-supervisors, the Employer has a total of 41 statutory employees, over which all statutory
supervisory authority would be exercised by one individual—the terminal manager. Given the
nature of the Employer’s business, an operation at two ports located 75 miles apart involving
work that often takes place when the terminal manager is not present, I question whether it is
plausible to conclude that all supervisory authority regarding 41 employees could be exclusively
vested in the terminal manager. See Buchannan Marine, L.P., 363 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 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). Indeed, the Regional Director stated that “there is no question that the work of the
petitioned-for employees is to quarterback the cargo operations.” This statement alone could
justify granting review of the Regional Director’s findings in order to determine whether
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). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, Member