First Circuit Finds University Police Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives are “Supervisors” Under the National Labor Relations Act

On May 23, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the National Labor Relations Board’s 2024 decision that police sergeants and sergeant detectives in Northeastern University’s police department were statutory employees entitled to organize under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). The court rejected the Board’s finding that sergeants and sergeant detectives did not utilize independent judgment when assigning work to other police officers. Instead, it said substantial evidence required a finding that the University’s sergeants and sergeant detectives were “supervisors” within the meaning of the Act and thus excluded from any bargaining unit. 

Background 

In early 2023, the American Coalition of Public Safety (“Union”) petitioned to represent a bargaining unit of police sergeants, sergeant detectives, and detectives in Northeastern’s police department. Northeastern objected to the inclusion of the sergeants and sergeant detectives in the bargaining unit, maintaining that they were statutory supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act. The regional director disagreed, held that the University failed to prove the sergeants and sergeant detectives were supervisors under the Act, and directed a secret ballot election including these employees. 

The Union prevailed in the election, the Board certified the election results, and the Union demanded bargaining. The University refused to bargain concerning the sergeants and sergeant detectives it claimed were improperly included in the unit. In response, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, and the Board’s general counsel issued a complaint. The general counsel moved for summary judgment, which the Board granted, holding that supervisory status of the sergeants and sergeant detectives had been properly resolved by the regional director. The Board ordered the University to bargain with the Union. The University petitioned the First Circuit for review of the Board’s decision and the Board cross-petitioned to enforce its order. 

The First Circuit Holds the Board Erred in Finding the Sergeants and Sergeant Detectives Were Not Supervisors

The First Circuit held that the Board’s decision as to the nonsupervisory status of the sergeants and sergeant detectives “deviate[d] from its own precedents without adequate explanation and [was] not supported by substantial evidence.” The court faulted the Board for ignoring substantial evidence that the sergeants and sergeant detectives had authority to assign subordinate officers, that such authority involved the exercise of independent judgment and that such decisions benefited the University. The court focused on three primary activities as demonstrating the sergeant and sergeant detectives’ “assignment” authority under the Act: (1) daily patrol shifts, (2) the Incident Containment Team (ICT), and (3) details.¹

It was undisputed that assigning officers to daily patrol duties could be a supervisory function, but the Board had found the sergeants lacked independent judgment and discretion in assigning patrol duties because they had to follow the University’s Deployment Plan.  The court said the mere fact that the Deployment Plan established policies for assigning daily patrol shifts did not eliminate independent judgment since implementing the policies required discretionary choices by the sergeants. The Deployment Plan established a “baseline” for shift deployment, but the sergeants still possessed “broad authority” to redeploy or adjust deployment as needed. The court held, moreover, that by finding the sergeant detectives lacked independent judgment in assigning specific cases to detectives, the Board had departed from its own precedent in Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006). The court held that the evidence in the record clearly established that the sergeant detectives exercised independent judgment by taking into account each detective’s “specialty,” including the detective’s particular skills or special training, when assigning cases.

With respect to the Incident Containment Team, the court held the Board erred in finding that the sergeants did not exercise assignment authority. Again citing Oakwood Healthcare, the court held that the sergeants engaged in the supervisory function of “assignment” because they were responsible for designating each ICT member’s particular location to carry out duties during emergency situations. The court held the Board “committed legal error” in finding that the sergeants did not exercise independent judgment in assigning work to the ICT since the record showed the sergeants possessed and exercised authority to decide in emergency situations whether and when to deploy the ICT, to call in partner law-enforcement agencies, and to instruct the ICT and partner agencies as an incident unfolded. 

Finally, the court held that the Board incorrectly concluded that the sergeants did not exercise independent judgment when assigning officers to details. While the officers’ collective bargaining agreement governed which officers could be forced to accept certain details, the court held there was substantial evidence that the sergeants were responsible for assigning officers to details, for determining how many officers to assign to a given detail, for determining which detail events should be prioritized for staffing purposes, and for assigning and reassigning officers to certain details.

The court held, therefore, that the substantial evidence demonstrated the sergeants and sergeant detectives exercised the supervisory function of “assignment” with respect to daily patrol shifts, the ICT, and details. Consequently, the Board erred in finding that the sergeants and sergeant detectives were not supervisory employees under the Act. The court therefore vacated the Board’s unfair labor practice finding against Northeastern and remanded the case to the Board to resolve any remaining issues, including whether to decertify the bargaining unit and hold a new election or otherwise remove the sergeants and sergeant detectives from the bargaining unit. 

Practical Considerations and Lessons Learned

The First Circuit’s decision highlights the complexities involved when evaluating supervisory status under the Act. It also provides helpful guiding parameters for employers when evaluating whether a given employee qualifies as a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, particularly with respect to the supervisory function of “assignment.” The decision’s insights into the supervisory or nonsupervisory status of sergeants and/or sergeant detectives at institutions of higher education may be useful to such institutions when they review and revise job descriptions that may be relevant to determining supervisory status.