The Pacific Coast Docking Pilots (the Employer) raised an argument leading to the assumption of the docking pilots being official supervisors professionally. The employer considered most of the tasks carried by the docking pilots based on the LMRA explanation of supervisors (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).
Above all, the employer presented the responsibility of the dock pilots whereby they were considered in the hiring and promotion decisions. Moreover, the employer added that a substantial number of times the recommendation made by the docking pilots was fully incorporated in the hiring and promotion final decision (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012). Pressing on the above description, the employer seeks an appeal on the professional tags of the 5 docking pilots in the federal Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is set to consider the amendment done in 1994 (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012). This amendment presented three major guidelines for the assessment of the case. Under the guidelines, the description of a supervisor indicated that their obligation should lie under the 12 supervisory tasks (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012). Supervisors were also to be able to make independent decisions that should be in the interest of the employer.
Firstly, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the dock pilots carried out any of the specified supervisory tasks in the 12 listed supervisory tasks under Section: 2(11) (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012). Secondly, they were to determine whether the decisions by the dock pilots in carrying out one or more supervisory tasks were independently undertaken. Lastly, the Court was to determine the interest behind the decisions made in the tasks under the 12 supervisory tasks.
According to the allegations made by the employer, the dock pilots possessed the power to offer recommendations that led to the hiring and promotion of other employees. The Pacific Coast Docking Pilots Company argued that the docking pilots had an influence on hiring and promotion activities within the company (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).
Consequently, since the two tasks were specified as supervisory, then the docking pilots were supposed to be taken as supervisors other than employees under LMRA. The company also explained the docking process as carried out by the docking pilots. Pacific Coast Docking Pilots put across that the role of the docking pilots during the docking process involved their supervision duties according to section 2(11) (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).
According to the employer, the docking pilots majorly assigned work to other employees while directing them altogether during this process. The Pacific Coast Docking Pilots Company argued for the independence of the decision-making by the docking pilots in the same process. The employer put a confident highlight on the major considerations made towards the input of the dock pilots in hiring and promotion of employees.
Furthermore, Holley, Jennings, and Wolters (2012) incorporate the regulations of the U.S Coast Guard which required a mentorship of the trainee dock pilots by the licensed ones. The regulations further state the duty of the licensed dock pilots in presenting the affirmation of the trainee dock pilots for their promotion status.
On the other hand, the union acting in defense of the dock pilots presented counterarguments in the case. The union argued that the recommendations made to the employer on the hiring and promotion procedure were not entirely left to the dock pilots. Therefore, even having the recommendations done in the best interest of the employer, there is a lack of independency in presiding over the entire process.
On the flip side, the final decision on who is hired or promoted is left to the president and the vice president of the employer. The argument presented by the union also pointed the docking process is not fully progressive to the decisions by the docking pilot. Instead, the dock pilots relied on external factors such as the water current speed and the velocity of wind at the time to develop conclusions.
In the hierarchy of employment staff, there is a high rank for the supervisors as to that of other employees. This comes from the supervisor role stipulation that is accustomed to working on a more directive perception rather than a hands-on basis. More so, the supervisor acts as the direct link between the management and the basic employees. Therefore, the flow of information is mostly from the employees to the management through the supervisors. The supervisors were also as powerful as the management in some areas. However, their actions and reactions in some areas were limited to the formal managerial activities as put under section 2 (11) (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).
From the division of labor and work type assigned to the supervisor and employee, the supervisory duty attains higher specialization that carries a resemblance to the managerial duties (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2018). Therefore, there is salary insignificance between the supervisor and the common employee. The collective bargaining unit in this case puts the dock pilots in a less compensation unit if the union wins the case.
On the other hand, the dock pilots have been exempted from sharing the blame in cases of bad decisions from management. Furthermore, the dock pilots’ rank plays a common position with other employees and puts them on the rights and protective regulations as per the LMRA “employee” section.
The defensive argument of the union showcases several strengths in their position. A technical approach to the case is stronger and more convincing in showing the supremacy of the president and the vice president of the employer in decisions of hiring and promotion (Inversi, Buckley, & Dundon, 2017).
The union can analyze the situation and put the process as not independent of the dock pilots but rather more inclined and dependent on the employers’ highest rank personnel. The directions given by the docking pilots in the docking event were also put as the protocol of the task rather authoritative. The union expounded that the directions were the required steps in performing the dock pilot job. This was also shown by the sole directions limited to the captain of the rowing boats and leaving the crew of the boat.
However, the union argument showed weakness in dock pilots’ decisive requirement in the number of towboats to be used and the specific placement of the tug lines. Naturally, these decisions were fully made and announced by the dock pilots after the judgment of the natural factors and the desired outcome. However, this point stands the possibility to ambiguity from the multiple ways of explaining it. As a result, it can be put as a parallel overview without a decisive destination. Conclusively, I would advise the union to pursue the case since it stands at a stronger point of winning based on the law.
References
Holley, W. H., Jennings, M. J., & Wolters, R. S. (2012). The labor relations process (10th Ed.). Cengage Learning
Inversi, C., Buckley, L. A., & Dundon, T. (2017). An analytical framework for employment regulation: Investigating the regulatory space. Employee Relations, 39(3), 291–307.
Khoreva, V., & Wechtler, H. (2018). HR practices and employee performance: The mediating role of well-being. Employee Relations, 40(2), 227–243.