involving system load supervisors who prioritized and directed field workers during after-hours power restorations
How later courts described this case
- involving system load supervisors who prioritized and directed field workers during after-hours power restorations
- reversing Board Order and Decision finding lack of supervisory power
- employee was supervisor where he had power to “choose which lineman are to work, when and where”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILLIAM M. BYRNE, Sr., District Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
The unfair labor practice is practically conceded. The Company admits it refused to bargain with the Union solely on the ground that it disagreed with the Board’s conclusion that the System Load Supervisors and Assistant System Load Supervisors are not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11).
The Supreme Court has cautioned us that in construing the meaning of Section 2(11), we should look to the Board’s “special function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life.” (N. L. R. B. v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221 , 83 S.Ct. 1139 , 10 L.Ed.2d 308 (1963)) and that courts owe “deference to Board expertise in applying statutory terms to particular facts”. Hanna Mining Co. v. District 2, Marine Engineers, 382 U.S. 181, 190 , 86 S.Ct. 327 , 15 L.Ed.2d 254 (1965).
Where, as in the instant case, substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s findings, this court should not substitute its opinion for that of the Board.