🗞️ Docked at the Bargaining Table: How Eight Port Supervisors Lost Their Right to Unionize

A federal labor board officer ruled on March 31, 2026, that eight mid-level managers at American President Lines cannot unionize because they function as supervisors under federal labor law — a designation that places workers outside the protections of the National Labor Relations Act.

Acting Regional Director David Selder of the National Labor Relations Board's Region 21 issued the decision on March 31, 2026, dismissing the ILWU's petition for a representation election covering employees at APL's Long Beach, California container shipping facility. The eight workers held titles spanning finance and operations: a Detention Demurrage Storage and Monitoring Manager, a Regional Collections Manager, four Cargo Flow Supervisors, and two Cargo Flow Managers.

At the heart of the case was Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, which bars supervisors from the protections that allow workers to form and join unions. APL argued the eight employees qualified as supervisors. The union countered that their authority was too limited and too tightly controlled by upper management to clear that threshold.

Selder applied the controlling legal framework from Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006), which requires a party asserting supervisory status to show the employee holds authority over at least one of twelve defined supervisory functions, exercises that authority with genuine independent judgment rather than in a merely routine or clerical way, and does so in the interest of the employer.

APL prevailed on three of the four functions it put forward. The managers were found to "responsibly direct" their clerk teams, a conclusion the officer grounded not only in day-to-day oversight but in the performance evaluation system that held supervisors financially accountable for their teams' results. Cargo flow supervisors whose teams ran up unnecessary container storage fees faced consequences in their merit reviews, while those who kept costs down earned written commendations from management.

The managers' role in handling so-called "time-in-lieu" grievances proved equally significant. Under APL's collective bargaining agreement with ILWU Local 63, clerks may file grievances alleging that non-union workers performed bargaining unit tasks, with penalties reaching thousands of dollars per violation. The supervisors were responsible for investigating those claims, interpreting contract language, and rendering determinations. Selder found the process required genuine independent judgment and that upper management largely accepted those findings without conducting investigations of their own.

The third basis for supervisory status was the managers' role in a 2024 hiring process for ten new clerks. The supervisors served as the only interviewers, evaluated candidates on rating sheets, and made recommendations that APL adopted without further scrutiny. The union argued the process was a formality because the candidates came from a union dispatch list, but Selder found that APL had preserved the right to screen for qualifications and that the managers' assessments carried real weight.

The officer declined to find supervisory authority on the "assignment" question, noting that clerks' core duties were defined by their job descriptions in the collective bargaining agreement and that most supervisor instructions amounted to directing discrete tasks rather than meaningfully reshaping an employee's overall responsibilities. He also rejected APL's separate arguments that two of the managers were confidential employees privy to labor strategy, and that two others held managerial status because they set workplace policies, finding the evidence too thin on both counts.

The ILWU has until April 14, 2026, to file a request for review with the Executive Secretary of the NLRB in Washington via the agency's e-filing system, after which the Board may grant or deny review.

Key Points

• The ILWU's bid to represent eight APL Long Beach managers was rejected after all eight were found to be statutory supervisors excluded from NLRA protections.
• The hearing officer found three independent bases for supervisory status: responsible direction of clerk teams, independent adjudication of contractual grievances, and effective recommendation of candidates for hire.
• The "assignment" function was not established; clerks' duties were largely defined by the CBA, and most supervisor instructions involved discrete rather than comprehensive task assignments.
• The supervisors' role in processing time-in-lieu grievances, including interpreting contract language and rendering determinations worth potentially thousands of dollars per violation, was central to the grievance adjustment finding.
• Supervisors served as the sole interviewers in a 2024 hiring round for ten new clerks, and management adopted their recommendations without conducting independent reviews.
• APL's claims of confidential and managerial status for subgroups of the eight employees were both rejected for insufficient evidence.
• Any party may request review by filing with the NLRB Executive Secretary by April 14, 2026.

Source Information

Primary Source Author: David Selder, Acting Regional Director, NLRB Region 21

Primary Source: American President Lines, LLC, Case 21-RC-337981, Decision and Order (March 31, 2026)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 21-RC-337981

Supplemental References

• Section 2(11) of the NLRA, Supervisor Definition (NLRB)
• Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006), Landmark Supervisory Status Standard (Benesch Law)
• NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001), Supreme Court on Burden of Proof (Congress.gov CRS Report)
• NLRB Representation Case Procedures Overview
• International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
• American President Lines (APL)