Passavant Health Center

PASSAVANT HEALTH CENTER 887 Passavant Health Center and Pennsylvania Nurses Association, Petitioner and International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 538, Petitioner. Cases 6-RC-9610 and 6-UC- 250 9 July 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND STEPHENS On 8 November 1985 after a hearing conducted on 12 and 13 September 1985, the Regional Direc- tor issued a Decision, Order, and Clarification of Bargaining Unit in which he found, inter alia, that the Employer's head nurses, charge nurses, and the independent living residential services (ILRS) su- pervisor and charge nurse are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, the Region- al Director dismissed the RC petition filed by the Pennsylvania Nurses Association (PNA) because it sought to represent registered nurses (RNs) in the above classifications, and clarified the existing non- professional employee bargaining unit represented by the Teamsters to exclude, inter alia, licensed practical nurses (LPNs) working as charge nurses and head nurses.' Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the PNA filed with the National Labor Relations Board a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision. By telegraphic order dated 24 March 1986, the Board granted the request for review. Both parties filed briefs on review. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the parties' briefs on review, and makes the following findings. The Employer operates a health care facility in Zielienople, Pennsylvania. The facility is composed of a main building divided into four wings where the Employer provides nursing care primarily to elderly patients. The facility also includes cottages I The Regional Director also excluded the food service supervisor on the ground that it was a supervisory position under the Act No request for review was filed as to this finding. The Regional Director included the laundry and housekeepmg assistant supervisor, telecommunications supervisor, plurnbmg supervisor, building and grounds supervisor, and electrician supervisor as he found them not to be statutory supervisors. The Employer filed a request for review with respect to these positions found nonsupervisory, but the Board in its Order of 4 March 1986 denied the Employer's request and efficiency apartments where residents live in- dependently as they require less care than patients in the main nursing facility. Services to those resi- dents are provided by the Employer's ILRS de- partment. An executive director has overall responsibility for the facility. Nursing services are overseen by a director of nursing, who reports to the executive director. Reporting to the director of nursing are three house supervisors in the main nursing area; they and the director of nursing are conceded to be statutory supervisors. There are 4 head nurses, ap- proximately 11-12 full-time charge nurses, and 3-4 regular part-time charge nurses. Three of the head nurses are RNs; one is an LPN. The head nurses work the day shift, from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. The charge nurses work on the day, afternoon, and evening shifts, from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., 3 to 11 p.m., and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. On the afternoon shift, and apparently on the day shift, one charge nurse covers each of the four wings of the nursing area; on the evening shift, one charge nurse covers two wings. There are two RNs in the ILRS depart- ment, an ILRS supervisor and ILRS charge nurse. These two nurses work on the day shift and report directly to the director of nursing. The ILRS charge nurse also substitutes as house supervisor on weekends at the main facility. There are approxi- mately 89 nurses aides who provide direct patient care in the main facility. In the ILRS department, resident assistants provide care for those residents living independently. The PNA sought to represent a unit of all full- time and regular part-time RNs working in the dis- puted classifications of head nurse, charge nurse, ILRS supervisor, and ILRS charge nurse. The Teamsters, which currently represents a unit of all full-time and regular part-time nonprofessional em- ployees, sought to clarify its unit to include, inter alia, the LPN head nurses and LPN charge nurses. At the hearing, the PNA indicated that it was will- ing to represent the LPNs in the same unit with the RNs, if the Board found such a unit to be the only appropriate unit. The Employer contended that all the nurses in all of the above classifications are statutory supervisors. The Regional Director agreed with the Employer, fmding the nurses to be supervisors based on their disciplinary authority to issue written warnings as well as their authority to issue oral reprimands and to document such repri- mands by submitting incident reports to the nursing office. The Regional Director also found that the nurses, with the exception of the ILRS charge nurse, were supervisors by reason of their authority to evaluate employees. Finally, he found the ILRS charge nurse a supervisor on the additional ground 284 NLRB No. 62 888 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that she regularly works as relief house supervisor, substituting for house supervisors who are conced- ed to be statutory supervisors. We disagree with the Regional Director's deci- sion. None of the disputed employees possess the authority to impose or effectively to recommend disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or to affect the job status of em- ployees by completing evaluations or through any other statutory supervisory power. In approximately September 1984, the director of nursing began to conduct training sessions for nurses regarding supervisory duties, and the RNs and LPNs who had previously been staff nurses became head nurses and charge nurses. In April 1985, she informed the head nurses, charge nurses, and house supervisors that she had abolished the position of staff nurse. Beginning in June 1985, the title staff nurse was dropped and charge nurse sub- stituted. To reflect these changes, and because the only job descriptions in effect dated from 1976, new job descriptions were drafted in July and August 1985 for the classifications of head nurse, charge nurse, and ILRS supervisor. At the hearing, the Employer introduced into evidence the descrip- tions for the main facility nurses, but not those for ILRS supervisor or ILRS charge nurse. The de- scriptions of the head nurse and charge nurse clas- sifications both provide that, in addition to patient care, a nurse "supervises all personnel in the unit and evaluates their performance making recom- mendations for future employment. Initiates and carries out discipline of nursing personnel." The descriptions also provide that a nurse assumes the duties of house supervisor when scheduled, assists the house supervisor with supervision, and is re- sponsible for managing the nursing unit and super- vising and disciplining personnel. By the time of the hearing, however, these descriptions had not been distributed to the employees. Head nurse and charge nurse duties include as- signing aides to patient care, recordkeeping, receiv- ing and issuing reports on shifts, and sharing infor- mation with other nurses aides at monthly team meetings. There are few distinctions between the duties of head nurse and charge nurse in the main facility; both direct the activity of nurses aides. Charge nurses oversee their units on their shifts, while head nurses have 24-hour, responsibility for their units, plan and direct team meetings, and co- ordinate the operations of their units with other de- partments of the facility. The director of nursing schedules employees, but head nurses may approve overtime for periods of up to 2 hours without ap- proval of the director or the house supervisor. Head nurses, charge nurses, and house supervisors are paid hourly; there has been no increase in pay or benefits to accompany the change in title from staff nurse to charge or head nurse. The duties of the ILRS supervisor are most closely analogous to those of head nurse in the main facility, except that the type of nursing care differs. The pay and benefits of the ILRS supervi- sor are equivalent to that of the house supervisor. The ILRS supervisor works in the residential area supervising the care provided by residential assist- ants and coordinating care with doctors. The resi- dential assistants visit those residents who need help with such activities as attendance at meals, making appointments, and transportation to doc- tors' offices. The ILRS charge nurse receives pay and benefits that are equivalent to that of charge nurses elsewhere in the facility. She supervises resi- dent assistants under her jurisdiction, visits the resi- dents when called to do so, and determines what care the resident assistants should provide the resi- dents. House supervisors, conceded statutory supervi- sors, act as supervisors over all departments, in- cluding maintenance and housekeeping, for the 3 to 11 p.m., 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., and weekend shifts. They coordinate running the facility and partici- pate in hiring nurses aides. The house supervisors have the authority, not yet exercised, to terminate employees or to impose discipline. They authorize overtime, transfer aides, adjust the schedule ar- ranged by the director of nursing when necessary, and find replacements when personnel call in ab- sences, drawing from a list of the Employer's cur- rent employees. The director of nursing expects that the house supervisors will substitute for her whenever she is absent. The record does not establish that the disputed head nurses, charge nurses, ILRS supervisor, and ILRS charge nurse possess statutory disciplinary authority. The Employer's multiple-step disciplinary proce- dure, as set forth in the employee handbook, per- tains only to tardiness and absenteeism and details the appropriate sanctions for the level or quantity of offenses, ranging from verbal counseling to dis- charge. Under this procedure, the secretarial staff monitors timecards and notifies the nursing office of infractions. When necessary, the nursing office i issues letters imposing discipline in accordance with the procedure. Not only are the nurses not in- volved in this disciplinary procedure, but the pro- PASSAVANT HEALTH CENTER 889 cedure provides no opportunity for the exercise of independent judgment. The nurses do play a disciplinary role in issuing oral reprimands and written warnings. In April 1985, the director of nursing informed the nurses that she was displeased with the quality of care at the facility, and as part of an effort to improve service, she requested that the nurses document all incidents when aide performance was unacceptable. The nurses were instructed to issue verbal warn- ings to employees and to document the warnings with incident reports to be relayed to the nursing office for placement in the employees' persomiel files. 2 At the hearing, no evidence was adduced to indicate that a specific number of incident reports would automatically lead to adverse action against the employee. 3 Rather, the evidence shows that after an unspecified number of incident reports ac- cumulate, it is the director of nursing or her office who decides what further disciplinary action should be taken. Moreover, record evidence indi- cates that such action is undertaken only after the nursing office has interviewed those involved in the incidents or those who have information con- cerning such incidents. In addition to writing incident reports to docu- ment verbal reprimands, according to the director of nursing, the nurses may also issue written warn- ings to employees without consulting the nursing office or house supervisor, and copies of these re- ports are kept in the employees' personnel files. No examples of written warnings were introduced into evidence, but the director of nursing testified that the form that a written warning takes would be similar to a report of an oral reprimand. The only written warning testified to at the hearing was one issued by an ILRS supervisor concerning an em- ployee's lack of cooperation with other resident as- sistants as well as her substandard patient care. On being asked whether the Employer has specified that the accumulation of a set number of written warnings would automatically lead to another level of discipline, the director of nursing noted that the circumstances had not yet arisen and indicated, in effect, that she did not know what the conse- 2 These reports are not limited to matters involving patient care, but also concern the Employer's personnel policies such as lengthy breaks, improper language, and inappropriate dress. 3 Although 2 of the approximately 11 incident reports entered into evi- dence state that the employees were orally warned that they would be "written up" if infractions continue, other reports indicate that the report itself is a "write up" Thus, incident reports do not automatically lead to further disciplinary action; instead, they might, if infractions continue, simply lead to more written reports. quences would be if a nurse had to issue more than one written warning to an employee.4 It is well established that merely issuing verbal reprimands is too minor a disciplinary function to be statutory authority. See Beverly Manor Convales- cent Centers, 275 NLRB 943, 945 (1985). In addi- tion, the mere factual reporting of oral reprimands and the issuance of written warnings that do not alone affect job status or tenure do not constitute supervisory authority. Heritage Manor Center, 269 NLRB 408, 413 (1984). Finally, where oral and written warnings simply bring to an employer's at- tention substandard performance by employees without recommendations for further discipline, and an admitted statutory supervisor, such as the director of nursing here, makes an independent evaluation of the employees' job performance, the role of those delivering the warnings is nothing more than a reporting function. Mt. Airy Psychiatric Center, 253 NLRB 1003, 1008 (1981); Geriatrics, Inc., 239 NLRB 287, 288 (1978); Pine Manor Nurs- ing Home, 238 NLRB 1654, 1655 (1978); Madeira Nursing Center, 203 NLRB 323, 324 (1973); see Western Union Telegraph Co., 242 NLRB 825, 826 (1979). Based on the above, we find that the nurses per- form only a reportorial function when they docu- ment oral reprimands with incident reports or issue written warnings. Neither these incident reports nor the written warnings contain any recommenda- tions for disciplinary action; instead they merely describe incidents involving unacceptable behavior or job performance. Although these documents are placed in an employee's file, the record does not establish that the nurses possess the discretion to determine what corrective action should be taken if an employee receives several written reports or warnings. Nor does the record establish that any action taken is done solely on the basis of the re- ports without any further inquiries into the inci- dents. Instead, any action based on an accumula- tion of written incident reports is determined by the director of nursing or other nursing staff after questioning those individuals who witnessed or were involved in the incidents. Thus, there is no defined progressive disciplinary scheme, since the written reports and warnings here do not, without more, affect job tenure or status. Cf. Concourse Vil- lage, 276 NLRB 13 (1985) (statutory supervisory authority found because express employer policy provided that receipt of three written warnings, 4 The director of nursing testified that "I think it's a discretionary [action] of the head nurse," but we find that statement to be too inconclu- sive on which to base supervisory authority. 890 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued independently by the disputed employees, would result in discharge). Our dissenting colleague takes the position that the nurses are supervisors since the written repri- mands and warnings they issue initiate future disci- plinary action. As shown above, however, for the issuance of reprimands or warnings to constitute statutory supervisory authority, the warning must not only initiate, or be considered in determining future disciplinary action, but also it must be the basis of later personnel action without independent investigation or review by other supervisors. Here, the record fails to establish that any personnel action is taken by the director of nursing based solely on the presence of the warnings or repri- mands in the employees' files. The cases relied on by our dissenting colleague do not support his position. In Pine Manor Nursing Center, 270 NLRB 1008 (1984), the charge nurses were found to be supervisors because the director of nursing there, unlike here, issued written warn- ings based on nurses' recommendations without routinely conducting an independent investigation.5 Thus, the written warnings in Pine Manor were not simply incident reports placed in an employee's file, but were disciplinary actions taken by the di- rector of nursing herself based on recommendations by charge nurses, usually without any independent investigation. Here, written reprimands and reports are not issued by the director of nursing, but in- stead are reports of incidents that are forwarded by the nurses to the nursing office for placement in the employee's file. Northwoods Manor, 260 NLRB 854 (1982), and Wedgewood Health Care, 267 NLRB 525 (1983), also relied on by the dissent, are also distinguish- able because the written warnings issued by the nurses in those cases were part of a progressive dis- ciplinary scheme. Thus, in North woods, a nurse in- dependently issued a written notice to an employee warning that additional infractions would lead to suspension and discharge. And in Wedgewood Health Care, the written warnings that the disputed employees issued were not minor forms of disci- pline as they were accompanied by statements that the employees would be suspended or fired if more warnings were necessary, and the director of nurs- 5 The dissent also relies on two nonhealth care cases, Forme°, Inc , 245 NLRB 127, 129 (1979), and Wesco Electrical Co, 232 NLRB 479 (1977), which have similar holdings in that the disputed employees were found to be supervisors because they effectively recommended discipline, in- cluding written disciplinary warnings, without independent investigation by the supervisors Wright Memorial Hospital, 255 NLRB 1319 (1980), on which the Employer relies, is similarly distinguishable because the charge nurses' written reprimands there were accompanied by recommendations for specific discipline, which effectively resulted in the recommended action. ing did not conduct an independent investigation before the warnings were issued. The dissent's criticism of our reliance on Mt. Airy Psychiatric Center, supra, and Geriatrics, Inc., supra, focuses on whether or not the "anecdotal notes" or "counseling sheets" were physically placed in the employee's personnel file. Thus, our dissenting colleague concedes that if the reports do not fmd their way into a personnel file, the poten- tial for discipline is "nonexistent." The real issue, however, is whether disciplinary action is taken as a result of the filing of these reports. In both the cited cases and the case at bar, the authority to take disciplinary action rests with higher manage- ment and not with the nurse who is making the report: the reports here, as there, have no inde- pendent effect. Further, we do not agree with the dissent that the litmus test for determining whether an individual possesses supervisory authority in these circumstances is whether that individual has prepared a report that the employer has elected to retain in a personnel file. As with many other doc- uments placed in a personnel file whose origin is a nonsupervisory source, the reports do nothing more than memorialize a piece of information from a reportorial source. It does not necessarily follow that an individual is a statutory supervisor simply because that individual is a source of written infor- mation sufficiently relevant to be placed in a per- sonnel file. As we have noted, there is no record evidence that these reports independently affect an employee's job status or tenure. Our dissenting col- league's insistence that these reports are adverse actions in themselves and in all probability effec- tively lead to discipline is nothing more than a bald assertion without record support. Additionally, the dissent's hyperbole regarding the "extensive independent disciplinary authority of the nurses in question" is no substitute for the hard fact that the nurses in question merely serve as on- the-scene eyes and ears to report incidents involv- ing unacceptable behavior or job performance by employees. The record does not establish that the nurses have the authority to suspend. The director of nursing testified that the ILRS supervisor may sus- pend resident assistants, and that the nurses have authority to suspend or even terminate if they ob- serve patient abuse, but she also testified that this authority has not been exercised. By contrast, two of the three nurses who testified at the hearing stated that they were never told they had the au- thority to suspend, and that they would not send an employee home without first contacting a super- visor. In light of this testimony that these employ- ees cannot decide independently whether to sus- PASSAVANT HEALTH CENTER 891 pend, they cannot be said to have statutory author- ity in this regard. Neither do the nurses possess authority to dis- charge. In the one instance of termination that oc- curred during the year prior to the hearing, no in- dependent discretion was exercised by a nurse. In that case, a head nurse, after evaluating an employ- ee, recommended that the employee be terminated, but before she was discharged, the director of nurs- ing conferred with the nurse who made the recom- mendation, and interviewed the employee, review- ing the evaluation with her, and then placed the employee on a 14-day probationary period. During that time period, the charge nurses observed the employee's conduct and, on several occasions, the director of nursing discussed the employee's con- duct with the head nurse. Only after the probation- ary period expired with no improvement in the em- ployee's conduct was the aide discharged. Al- though the director of nursing testified that recom- mendations for dismissal would be automatically approved, she qualified this statement by indicating that such approval is granted only when "there is reason enough" to discharge the employee. More- over, although she stated that on no occasion has a recommendation been made and ignored, the record shows, as detailed above, that a discharge does not occur without independent investigation. IV. The record also does not establish that the nurses' evaluations of employees' performance affect their job status. The Employer has a pro- gram of systematic evaluations whereby the nurses from the main facility and the ILRS supervisor (but not the ILRS charge nurse) evaluate employ- ees on an annual basis, using a standard form devel- oped by the nursing office for use throughout the facility, and the completed forms are kept in the employees' files. The nurses evaluate the employ- ees' ability to perform patient care, and also evalu- ate nonpatient care qualities, such as attitude, coop- eration, tardiness, attendance, commitment, poten- tial for advancement, and strengths and weakness- es, and in doing so the nurses provide "recommen- dations for growth." The nurse who completes the evaluation signs the form. On occasion, the direc- tor of nursing also signs the form. The record does not show that the evaluations constitute effective recommendations for promo- tions, wage increases, or discipline. The evaluations carry no recommendations for specific personnel action. The authority simply to evaluate employees without more is insufficient to find supervisory status. Geriatrics, Inc., supra, 239 NLRB at 288 (citing Texas Institute for Rehabilitation & Research, 228 NLRB 578 (1977)); see Valley Hospital, 220 NLRB 1339, 1341 (1975); St. Mary's Hospital, 220 NLRB 496, 497-498 (1975). The sole instance of discharge in the record. that occurred after a poor evaluation, as described above, did not occur with- out independent investigation by the director of nursing and a probationary period during which the employee's progress was monitored. The use of these evaluations is thus unlike that in Wedgewood Health Care, supra, 267 NLRB at 526, in which nurses possessed statutory supervisory authority in part because a poor evaluation resulted in person- nel action, or in Pine Manor Nursing Center, supra, 270 NLRB at 1009, where evaluations effectively recommended discharge at the close of a proba- tionary period and were used to reward employees in connection with a bonus system. Instead, the evaluation process here is more nearly like that in Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 219 NLRB 699, 701 (1975), where evaluations were not the sole source of information for the employer in decisions affect- ing tenure or status. In sum, the nurses' authority to evaluate employees here does not rise to the level of statutory supervisory authority. V. Nor do the nurses, contrary to the contention of the Employer, possess or exercise the authority to adjust employee grievances. The nurses were in- formed by the director of nursing that they were the first step in the grievance process, i.e., that the nurses receive verbal grievances and relay the in- formation to the personnel department or to the di- rector of nursing. Two of the nurses testified that they had never been informed that they had any function in grievance adjustment beyond receiving the information. A third testified that she attended, as did the director of nursing and a representative of the personnel department, among others, a meet- ing where a grievance was considered and a re- sponse drafted, but this nurse testified that she had no input, although the director testified that the nurse added her "thoughts." Hence, nurses do not always attend the meetings wherein grievances are adjusted, and when they do attend, they may ex- press their opinions or make suggestions, but the record does not establish that they have made rec- ommendations as to what action should be taken or that any such recommendations were effective. Thus, the nurses do not exercise independent judg- ment in this regard. VI. Lastly, the record does not support the Regional Director's conclusion that the ILRS charge nurse is a statutory supervisor based on the fmding that 892 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she regularly substitutes as a house supervisor, a conceded supervisory position. Although the record indicates that the ILRS charge nurse regu- larly substitutes for house supervisors in the main facility on weekends, the record does not establish the nature or extent of the charge nurse's authority when she works as relief house supervisor or whether her duties are equivalent to those of the regular house supervisors. No one testified that the nurses possessed the same authority as the house supervisors, and no one described the nurses' duties when they substituted. See Doctors' Hospital of Mo- desto, 183 NLRB 950 (1970), enfd. 489 F.2d 772 (9th Cir. 1973). Sassaquin Convalescent Center, 223 NLRB 267, 277-278 (1976), relied on by the Em- ployer, is factually distinguishable because the charge nurse there regularly substituted for a su- pervisor and, while doing so, had the authority to discipline employees. Without assuming superviso- ry authority, a nurse, even though she substitutes for an acknowledged supervisor, cannot be a super- visor under the Act. See also Geriatrics, Inc., supra, 239 NLRB at 289. Other nurses have substituted for the house su- pervisor with all the responsibilities of the position, but have not done so on a regular basis. The direc- tor of nursing has requested that the nurses learn the job of house supervisor so that they may substi- tute for the regular house supervisors in times of illness or vacations. By the time of the hearing, however, nurses had substituted in the role of house supervisor on no more than two occasions, and then only for periods of no more than 2 days. Accordingly, the record indicates that the nurses do not substitute in this respect on a regular basis, but rather their substitution has been too isolated to show supervisory status. See Vinyl-Fab Industries, 265 NLRB 1097, 1108 (1983). VII. In sum, the disputed employees are not statutory supervisors because they do not possess the author- ity to discipline, evaluate, or adjust grievances nor do they possess any other indicia of statutory su- pervisory authority. Nor is their infrequent substi- tution for house supervisors sufficient to render them supervisors under the Act. We note that no request for review was filed re- garding the Regional Director's exclusion of LPN head nurses and charge nurses as statutory supervi- sors in the UC proceeding. Thus, it could be argued that technically that issue is not before us and therefore, as a result of this decision, some of the Employer's head nurses and charge nurses would be supervisors and others not. In order to avoid this incongruous result, we interpret the PNA's request for review to include both RNs and LPNs based on the fact that the PNA indicated it would be willing to accept LPNs in its unit. Ac- cordingly, our decision that head nurses and charge nurses are not statutory supervisors applies to all head nurses and charge nurses without regard to whether the nurse is an RN or LPN. ORDER - The Regional Director's decision is reversed, the petition filed in Case 6-RC-9610 by the Pennsylva- nia Nurses Association is reinstated, and Cases 6- RC-9610 and 6-UC-250 are remanded to the Re- gional Director for further appropriate action. CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting. Contrary to my colleagues, I find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the head nurses and charge nurses in question, as well as the super- visor in the independent living residential services (ILRS) department, are supervisors within the scope of Section 2(11) of the Act. These individ- uals were informed by the director of nursing that she was displeased with the quality of care at the instant facility, and were instructed by the director of nursing to document all incidents of unaccept- able performance by nurses aides. Toward that end, the head nurses, charge nurses, and ILRS su- pervisor are instructed to issue oral warnings to nurses aides for inadequate work performance, im- proper attitude or language, verbal abuse of pa- tients, and causing discord among employees and to document such oral warnings in incident reports, to be submitted to the director of nursing and thereafter placed in the employees' personnel files. In addition to issuing verbal reprimands and pre- paring written incident reports for substandard per- formance, the head nurses, charge nurses, and ILRS supervisor are authorized to issue written reprimands, copies of which are also placed in the employees' personnel files. My colleagues' charac- terization of the role of the nurses in the issuance and documentation of oral reprimands as "only reportorial" ignores the fact that these nurses initi- ate discipline in this context through the exercise of independent judgment. There is every reason to be- lieve, and no reason to doubt, that the Employer will know about and consider these written reports of oral reprimands, as well as the written repri- mands, issued by the nurses, when contemplating future personnel actions such as promotion, trans- fer, suspension, discharge, etc. Thus, the capacity of head nurses, charge nurses, and the ILRS super- visor to issue written reprimands and to issue and document oral reprimands, all for subsequent review by the director of nursing and placement in PASSAVANT HEALTH CENTER 893 employee personnel records, constitutes, in my view, the exercise of independent judgment to initi- ate and effect the discipline of employees in the in- terest of the Employer—a supervisory attribute under Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I would affirm the Regional Director's finding that these individuals are supervisors within the scope of Section 2(11) of the Act.' In finding that the issuance of these written and documented oral reprimands are not instances of the exercise of supervisory authority within the scope of Section 2(11), the majority argues that no evidence was adduced to indicate that a specific number of incident reports would "automatically lead to adverse action." This aspect of the major- ity's analysis ignores two crucial considerations. First, the written and documented oral reprimands are quite clearly, by any standard, adverse actions in themselves. Thus, in some instances, these repri- mands may be disciplinary ends in themselves, while in other situations, they may be intermediate means to even more severe forms of discipline. Second, to require, for purposes of determining su- pervisory status within the scope of Section 2(11), that these written and documented oral reprimands must lead automatically to some additional adverse action is to require that the nurses in question here have de facto final authority to impose discipline more severe than reprimands. But such a strict, narrow analysis is, of course, not compatible with the express provisions of Section 2(11), which re- quires a fmding of supervisory status even where an individual has only the authority "effectively to recommend" discipline—a concept quite removed from automatic imposition of discipline. My colleagues' position is not supported by their reliance on Beverly Manor Convalescent Centers, 275 NLRB 943 (1985). In that decision, unlike the in- stant case, there was nothing to show that the nurses in question prepared written or documented oral reprimands. My colleagues' reliance on Herit- See Pine Manor Nursing Center, 270 NLRB 1008, 1009 (1984) (issu- ance of verbal and wntten reprimands); Wedgewood Health Care, 267 NLRB 525 (1983) (issuance of written warnings); Northwoods Manor, 260 NLRB 854 (1982) (issuance of oral and written reprimands), Formco, Inc , 245 NLRB 127, 129 (1979) (issuance of disciplinary notices); Wesco Elec- trical Co„ 232 NLRB 479 (1977) (issuance of verbal and written warn- mgs). See generally Albany Medical Center, 273 NLRB 485 (1984) (statu- tory mdicia in Sec, 2(11) of the Act are stated in disjunctive; only one need be present to confer supervisory status); New Jersey Famous Amos Cookie Corp., 236 NLRB 1093 (1978) (existence of authority determines supervisory status), Turtle Creek Convalescent Centres, 235 NLRB 400 (1978) (traditional standards for determinmg supervisory status are appli- cable to registered nurses). Compare People's Transportation Service, 276 NLRB 169 (1985) (no supervisory power to discipline where oral coun- seling about employee's deficiencies were only a relaying of instructions from higher management, and such discipline was never made a part of employee's personnel files); Bay Area-Los Angeles Express, 275 NLRB 1063 (1985) (express contractual provision that oral reprimands have no effect on employee disciplinary records) age Manor Center, 269 NLRB 408 (1984), is similar- ly misplaced. In Heritage, there was little, if any, material evidence on the issue of whether the nurse in question could impose discipline or effectively recommend it. Indeed, there was at most "cryptic testimony" that the nurse in question had the "un- exercised authority 'to reprimand or write-up" em- ployees who failed to satisfy the needs of patients. There was no evidence at all that such "authority," even if exercised, amounted to anything more than a reporting function. By comparison, the evidence in the instant case of the authority of the nurses in question to issue written and documented oral rep- rimands is at the far end of the evidentiary spec- trum from the "cryptic" evidence of "unexercised" authority alluded to in Heritage. Nor am I persuaded by the cases relied on by my colleagues as support for their view that the nurses in question perform only a reportorial func- tion in the area of discipline. Unlike the instant case, in none of the cases cited by my colleagues in this regard are written and documented oral repri- mands made a part of the employees' personnel records. In Mt. Airy Psychiatric Center, 253 NLRB 1003 (1981), all nurses, including not only the al- leged supervisory nurses, but also the staff nurses alleged to be subordinate to the nurses in question, were authorized to fill out so-called anecdotal records. These were no more than incident reports, unaccompanied by any substantive recommenda- tions. Moreover, these "anecdotal records" were apparently not placed in the employees' personnel files. Thus, the anecdotal records in Mt. Airy are substantially different in kind from the written and documented oral reprimands issued by the nurses in question in the instant case, placed in the personnel files, and thus available for further review and con- sideration by higher management. Similarly different in kind from the written and documented oral reprimands in the instant case are the "counseling sheets" discussed in Geriatrics, Inc., 239 NLRB 287 (1978). When completed, these counseling sheets could constitute a written warn- ing. However, similar to the situation in Mt Airy, supra, these counseling sheets could be filled out not only by the registered nurses alleged to be su- pervisors in Geriatrics, Inc., but also by licensed practical nurses, whose status as employees was not in dispute. Moreover, the type of infraction for which these counseling sheets would be given ap- pears to be minor, or at least to include minor in- fractions, e.g., leaving a patient's bedsheet disar- ranged. Also, contrary to the instant case, there is no indication that these counseling sheets are placed in the employees' personnel files. I agree with my colleagues that a key issue in all of this is 894 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whether written reports such as the anecdotal records in Mt. Airy, the counseling sheets in Geriat- rics, Inc., and the written and documented oral rep- rimands in the instant case can effectively lead to discipline of the employees in question. It seems clear to me that in the absence of retention of such documents in personnel files, the potential for such a result is nonexistent, whereas in the context of such retention, as in the instant case, the probabili- ty of such a result is very high. As I noted earlier, there is every reason to believe that the Employer here will know about and consider these written and documented oral reprimands in personnel files when contemplating future personnel actions. Ac- cordingly, I cannot agree with my colleagues' as- sessment that the written and documented oral rep- rimands in the instant case will have no independ- ent effect on the exercise of ultimate disciplinary authority by higher management. In Pine Manor Nursing Home, 238 NLRB 1654 (1978), 2 Madeira Nursing Center, 203 NLRB 323 2 The entity involved in this Pine Manor Nursing Home case is not the one involved in Pine Manor Nursing Center, 270 NLRB 1008 (1984), cited in fn. 1 above One is in Michigan and the other is m Illinois (1973), and Western Union Telegraph Co., 242 NLRB 825 (1979), all relied on by the majority, the nurses in question simply had no authority to take disciplinary measures. (In Pine Manor, the nurse in question could do no more than occasionally ad- monish nurses aides on trivial matters.) Thus, there is a clear, distinguishing contrast between the ab- sence of any disciplinary authority in Pine Manor, Madeira, and Western Union, and the extensive in- dependent disciplinary authority of the nurses in question in the instant case to issue written and documented oral reprimands for inclusion in per- sonnel files—a function far more significant in the context of the statutory criteria for supervisory status under Section 2(11) of the Act than the mere reportorial characterization attributed to it by my colleagues. In light of these considerations, I would, as indi- cated, find that the nurses in question are supervi- sors within the scope of Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition.