Manor West, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., s. 93-5788
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR. |
| Citation | 60 F.3d 1195 |
| Parties | 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2988, 130 Lab.Cas. P 11,374 MANOR WEST, INC., Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | 93-5946,Nos. 93-5788,s. 93-5788 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1995 |
Page 1195
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.
Sixth Circuit.
Decided July 28, 1995.
Page 1196
Kevin T. Lyden, David H. Shaffer (briefed), Roger W. Strassburg, Jr. (argued), Joondeph & Shaffer, Akron, OH, for Manor West, Inc.
William R. Stewart, N.L.R.B., Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, DC, Nancy Butler, Frederick Calatrello, Director, N.L.R.B., Region 8, Cleveland, OH, Aileen A. Armstrong, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Frederick C. Havard (argued and briefed), Nancy J. Gottfried, N.L.R.B., Appellate Court Branch, Washington, DC, for N.L.R.B.
Before: MARTIN and SILER, Circuit Judges; JOINER, District Judge. *
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.
Manor West, Inc., petitions this Court for review of a final order of the National Labor Relations Board. Claiming that substantial evidence does not support the Board's ruling that licensed practical nurses at Manor West were not "supervisors" within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(11), it asks this Court to review and vacate that order. It also contends that because the administrative law judge committed various procedural and evidentiary errors and wrongly denied Manor West's recusal motion, reversal is appropriate on those grounds as well. For the following reasons, we reverse the Board's decision and order.
I.
Manor West operates a ninety-eight bed nursing facility in Austintown, Ohio. In May 1991, Manor West's Nursing Director, Sue Helterbran, met with the licensed practical nurses employed there to discuss their wage related dissatisfaction. On June 3, Helterbran held another meeting, at which Sandra Cullinan, one of the licensed practical nurses employed by Manor West, served as the spokesperson for that group. On June 18, after hearing rumors that Cullinan encouraged aides to stage a walk-out to protest working conditions, Helterbran fired her.
On November 27, 1991, Cullinan filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that she was discharged for engaging in protected activities. Her charge prompted the Board to issue a complaint against Manor West on January 27, 1992, alleging that Manor West fired Cullinan in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. Secs. 158(a)(1) and (3). While Manor West admitted that it fired Cullinan because it felt she was prompting a work stoppage, it claimed that Cullinan and other licensed practical nurses were "supervisors," and therefore had no rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
A hearing was held before an administrative law judge on June 22 and 23. After the hearing, the judge allowed the record to remain open to permit a search of Manor West's files for other documents relevant to the "supervisor" issue. As a result, some additional documents were admitted into the record. On August 12, Manor West filed a motion requesting that the administrative law judge recuse himself from the case, an issue we need not address here.
In his October 23 decision, the administrative law judge found that Manor West committed the unfair labor practices alleged, concluding that Cullinan and other licensed practical nurses were not "supervisors" within the meaning of Section 2(11), and, therefore, that Cullinan's discharge was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The judge observed that Cullinan's supervision "was more a matter of observation and common sense than responsibly exercised independent judgment." Thus, the judge ordered Manor West to cease and desist from the cited unfair labor practices and to offer reinstatement to Cullinan with full back pay. In addition, the judge overruled Manor West's recusal motion as "untimely" and "insubstantial as a matter of fact and law."
On December 14, Manor West filed exceptions to the judge's decision with the National Labor Relations Board. On May 28, 1993, the Board issued its decision and order,
Page 1197
adopting the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions in all relevant respects. Although the Board determined that Manor West's recusal motion was without merit, it...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grancare, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., s. 96-5838
...Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U.S. 571, 573-74, 114 S.Ct. 1778, 1780-81, 128 L.Ed.2d 586 (1994); Manor West, Inc. v. NLRB, 60 F.3d 1195, 1197 (6th Cir.1995); Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America v. NLRB, 987 F.2d 1256, 1261 (6th Cir.1993), aff'd, 511 U.S. 571, 114 S.Ct. 1778,......
-
Ellis v. Gallatin Steel Co., 02-6421.
...of Harsco's operations and by determining that a PSD permit was unnecessary with respect to Harsco. Coalition for Health Concern, 60 F.3d at 1195. As Coalition for Health Concern suggests, such administrative claims offer a classic explanation for applying Burford abstention. See also NOPSI......
-
White & Brewer Trucking, Inc. v. Donley, 95-3224.
...court to find two Michigan laws on obtaining landfill permits to be inconsistent and therefore, illegal); Coalition for Health Concern, 60 F.3d at 1195 (Plaintiff's claims cannot be decided without interfering with Kentucky's policies on the issuances of hazardous waste incineration 9. The ......
-
Voigt v. Coyote Creek Mining Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109
...of Harsco's operations and by determining that a PSD permit was unnecessary with respect to Harsco. Coalition for Health Concern, 60 F.3d at 1195. As Coalition for Health Concern suggests, such administrative claims offer a classic explanation for applying Burford abstention. See also NOPSI......