## Facts

- Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. operated a residential care facility employing about 110 potentially unit-eligible employees plus management staff.
- A union petitioned to represent a single bargaining unit of eligible employees at the facility.
- The employer objected to including six registered nurses, asserting they were “supervisors” excluded from NLRA coverage under § 2(11).
- The NLRB Regional Director placed the burden of proving supervisory status on the employer, found the burden unmet, included the nurses in the unit, and directed an election.
- The union won the election and was certified; the employer refused to bargain.
- The NLRB found an unfair labor practice based on the refusal to bargain and ordered bargaining, relying on the earlier unit determination.
- The Sixth Circuit denied enforcement, holding the Board misinterpreted “independent judgment” and misallocated the burden of proof.

## Issues

1. Which party bears the burden to prove or disprove an employee’s supervisory status in representation and refusal-to-bargain unfair labor practice proceedings?
2. Whether “independent judgment” under NLRA § 2(11) excludes judgment to the extent it is based on professional or technical training and experience.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the party asserting supervisory status (here, the employer) bears the burden of proof in both the representation stage and the related unfair labor practice proceeding.
- The Court held that the NLRB’s categorical approach treating “ordinary professional or technical judgment” as not “independent judgment” was inconsistent with NLRA § 2(11).
- The Court vacated the judgment below and remanded for further proceedings under a lawful interpretation of “independent judgment.”

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 2(11) sets a three-part supervisory test: authority to perform at least one listed supervisory function, exercise of that authority using “independent judgment” (not merely routine or clerical), and action “in the interest of the employer.”
- Because “supervisor” status is an exception to the Act’s general coverage of employees, the burden of proving the exception reasonably rests on the party claiming it.
- In a refusal-to-bargain case, supervisory status is not an element the Board must prove; an employer may defeat the charge only by showing the unit was improperly certified because it included supervisors.
- “Independent judgment” cannot be narrowed by a categorical rule excluding discretion simply because it reflects professional or technical training exercised within employer standards; the statutory text does not create such a carve-out.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that employers bear the burden of proving employees are statutory supervisors, but rejected the NLRB’s attempt to treat professional or technical direction as categorically lacking “independent judgment,” requiring supervisory determinations to track the text of NLRA § 2(11).


N.L.R.B. v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001)