Assignment Authority and Independent Judgment Establish Supervisory Status Under Section 2(11) of the NLRA

Introduction

Northeastern University v. National Labor Relations Board, 1st Cir. No. 24-1523/24-1707 (May 23, 2025), is a landmark decision clarifying when certain campus police officers qualify as “supervisors” under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). At issue were the Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives of Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD), a private university force in Boston. The American Coalition of Public Safety (ACOPS) sought to include these positions in a union bargaining unit. Northeastern and the NLRB disputed whether, by virtue of assigning subordinates and exercising independent judgment, these officers were excluded from collective‐bargaining coverage as supervisors. The First Circuit vacated the Board’s order, held that substantial evidence and Board precedent mandate finding supervisory status, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied enforcement of the NLRB’s order requiring Northeastern to bargain with ACOPS over Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives. It concluded:

The Board deviated from its own precedents by failing to acknowledge that assignment authority—even when guided by a baseline deployment plan—can entail the exercise of independent judgment.
Substantial evidence shows NUPD Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives assign officers to daily patrols, Incident Containment Team deployments, and special event details in the exercise of unfettered discretion—meeting the NLRA’s test for supervisory exclusion.
Because those positions are supervisors under 29 U.S.C. § 152(11), they must be excluded from any bargaining unit and the unfair‐labor‐practice finding against Northeastern is vacated.

The case was remanded for the Board to address decertification or reconfiguration of the bargaining unit in light of the Court’s supervisory‐status ruling.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

29 U.S.C. § 152(11) (NLRA’s definition of “supervisor”) and related Sections 152(3), 157, 158(a)(1), (5).
Kentucky River Cmty. Care, Inc. v. NLRB, 532 U.S. 706 (2001) – Employer bears burden to prove supervisory status.
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) – “Substantial evidence” standard.
In re Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006) – Independent judgment test: free of control and more than rote assignments.
NLRB v. NSTAR Elec. Co., 798 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) – Clarifies when assignment authority, even under company policies, involves discretion.
NLRB v. Quinnipiac Coll., 256 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2001) – Emergency‐response deployment requires independent judgment.

2. Legal Reasoning

Under Section 2(11), an employee is a “supervisor” if he or she (1) has authority to “assign” or “direct” employees, (2) exercises that authority with independent judgment, and (3) holds it in the employer’s interest. The parties agreed on prong (3) and—as to certain tasks—on prong (1). The dispute centered on prong (2) and whether assigning incident‐response teams and event details qualified as “assign” at all.

The Board had held that:

Patrol Sergeants’ deployment adjustments were “routine or clerical” because a baseline Deployment Plan limited discretion.
Incident Containment Team (ICT) and detail assignments amounted to ad hoc directions, not assignments.

The First Circuit corrected this approach by applying its own precedents:

A baseline plan does not eliminate discretion where supervisors regularly adjust assignments in response to intelligence reports, emergencies, staffing needs, and officer skills. Such adjustments are “assignments” requiring independent judgment under Oakwood Healthcare and NSTAR.
Deploying an emergency unit (ICT) and deciding to call in off‐duty or outside‐agency resources involve independent judgment in determining when an “emergency” exists and how to deploy resources—a principle drawn from Quinnipiac College.
Assigning officers to special‐event details—choosing how many officers, forcing participation under the CBA, and reallocating officers among simultaneous details—is a assignment of “significant overall duties,” not a routine direction.

Because Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives regularly made these discretionary assignments, the Court concluded they satisfied the statutory supervisory definition. The Board’s contrary finding was both legally erroneous—departing from its precedents without justification—and unsupported by substantial evidence.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies the boundary between rank‐and‐file employees and supervisors in union representation:

Broadens application of the independent‐judgment test where baseline staffing plans exist but supervisors repeatedly reallocate assignments to meet evolving needs.
Reinforces that emergency‐response and special‐event planning duties are “assignments” when they involve significant, multi‐step resource‐allocation decisions.
Guides university and municipal police departments in structuring supervisory roles to exclude them from union bargaining units only if assignment discretion is narrowly circumscribed.
Signals to the NLRB that deviation from established Board precedents requires careful, reasoned explanation to survive judicial scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervisor (29 U.S.C. § 152(11)): An employee who can hire, transfer, assign, or discipline others; uses judgment beyond rote rules; and serves the employer’s interest.
Assignment vs. Direction: Assignment designates an employee’s place, time, or overall duties (e.g., “You will patrol Building A tonight and handle noise complaints”).
Direction issues a single or routine instruction (e.g., “Restock the copier paper”).
Independent Judgment: Deciding among multiple plausible options based on one’s own evaluation of skills, risks, or circumstances—rather than merely following a detailed policy manual or an unvarying formula.
Substantial Evidence: Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, taking into account what detracts from its weight.

Conclusion

Northeastern University v. NLRB establishes that campus police Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives, who regularly assign personnel—whether under a deployment plan, during emergencies, or at special events—exercise independent judgment and thus meet the NLRA’s definition of “supervisor.” The First Circuit’s decision emphasizes fidelity to Board precedents on supervisory status, reinforces the substantial‐evidence standard, and will shape how public‐safety employers structure rank‐and‐file versus supervisory roles in collective‐bargaining contexts.