The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) denied Centerra Group, LLC's (the Employer) Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. The Employer contended that its sergeants and lieutenants were supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit. The Board focused its analysis on whether these individuals exercised independent judgment in assigning employees, demonstrating responsible direction, possessing disciplinary authority, or holding hiring authority.

Regarding assignments, the Board affirmed the Regional Director's conclusion that sergeants and lieutenants do not exercise independent judgment. While not relying on certain cited cases that dealt with applying existing assignment methods, the Board found that the available assignment methods themselves did not require independent judgment. Furthermore, the Board noted that all security police officers were equally qualified for all posts, meaning that any assignment choice was not objectively "wrong," negating the need for independent judgment in that context. The Board also agreed that duties related to breaks and shift swaps did not involve independent judgment, classifying these actions as "appointing an employee to a time" and therefore related to assignment, not responsible direction.

On the issue of responsible direction, the Board agreed with the Regional Director that the Employer failed to establish that sergeants and lieutenants were held accountable for their subordinates' performance. A single instance of a lieutenant receiving a corrective action worksheet was deemed insufficient to determine if the discipline was for the lieutenant's own performance or that of a subordinate. Similarly, vague testimony about two lieutenants being demoted for unspecified shift management failures lacked sufficient weight. The Board chose not to rely on a recess-Board case cited by the Regional Director.

Concerning disciplinary authority, the Board disregarded the Regional Director's statement about the Employer's progressive discipline policy. The Employer failed to meet its evidentiary burden by not introducing the written policy or demonstrating its consistent application. The evidence presented, including contradictory disciplinary forms and inconsistent testimony regarding enforcement, contradicted the notion of a consistently applied policy. Consequently, the Board found no basis to conclude that the warnings issued by sergeants and lieutenants constituted job-affecting discipline. Any discretion regarding informal coaching versus formal warnings was deemed insignificant as it had not been shown to involve job-affecting discipline.

Finally, regarding hiring authority, the Board emphasized the Regional Director's finding that the evidence did not indicate that lieutenants and sergeants could interview and hire candidates without the involvement of a superior officer. While hiring panel recommendations were reviewed by higher management, the nature and effect of this review on the ultimate decision remained unclear. The presence of an admitted supervisor on interview panels and the facility commander's review of all panel recommendations further undermined the claim of independent hiring authority.

Significant Cases Cited:

• Northeast Center for Rehabilitation and Brain Injury, 372 NLRB No. 35 (2022): This case establishes that if there is "no objectively 'wrong' choice" in an assignment, then assigning employees to those roles does not require independent judgment.
• Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): This decision clarifies that actions concerning "appointing an employee to a time" are properly analyzed as assignments rather than responsible direction.
• G4S Government Solutions, Inc., 363 NLRB 977 (2016): This case indicates that vague or limited testimony regarding demotions or disciplinary actions is insufficient to establish accountability for subordinate performance.
• Veolia Transp. Servs., Inc., 363 NLRB 902 (2016): This decision highlights the evidentiary burden on an employer to demonstrate the existence and consistent application of a progressive discipline policy to establish job-affecting discipline.
• Pacific Coast M.S. Industries, 355 NLRB 1422 (2010): This case suggests that for hiring authority to be established, there must be evidence that a supervisor's recommendation has a significant effect on the ultimate hiring decision, particularly when higher management reviews these recommendations.

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.