AFSCME Council 65 Local 3444 Challenges Supervisor Claims

AFSCME Council 65 is confronting a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unit clarification decision affecting Head Start classroom teachers in Local 3444, a bargaining unit representing workers across a nine-county region in west central and southwest Minnesota.

On today’s episode of the America’s Work Force Union Podcast, Field Director Kate Black explained how an employer petition, filed during successor contract negotiations, sought to remove classroom teachers from the unit by labeling them statutory supervisors. The NLRB ultimately ruled that the teachers met the legal threshold for supervisory status under a narrow standard tied to their ability to effectively recommend discipline for classroom assistants.

• AFSCME Council 65 faced a unit clarification petition mid-bargaining: the employer sought to remove Head Start classroom teachers from a long-standing unit established in 1997.
• AFSCME Local 3444 was affected by a narrow supervisory standard: The decision turned on a single supervisory factor, not a broad finding across multiple tests.
• AFSCME Council 65 is preparing for more classification challenges: The union is emphasizing readiness, member communication, and organizing strength as employers pursue technical exclusions.

A technical labor law petition can reshape a workplace faster than most bargaining tables ever will. That was the central warning from AFSCME Council 65 Field Director Kate Black, who joined the America’s Work Force Union Podcast to discuss a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unit clarification decision involving AFSCME Local 3444 and Head Start classroom teachers across a wide stretch of Minnesota.

Local 3444 represents Head Start workers across a nine-county region in west central and southwest Minnesota. The unit totals about 129 workers, including 19 Head Start classroom teachers. The bargaining unit itself is not new. The Local has been organized since 1997, making the dispute less about the origins of representation and more about whether an employer can narrow the unit by reclassifying a portion of the workforce during negotiations, Black said.

The case centered on a unit clarification petition filed with the NLRB while the parties were negotiating a successor agreement. The employer argued that Head Start classroom teachers should be removed from the bargaining unit because they were statutory supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Under the law, statutory supervisors are excluded from the Act’s protections and cannot remain in the same bargaining unit as rank-and-file workers.

Local 3444 Covers a Large Head Start Region

Black described Local 3444 as a geographically dispersed unit operating across multiple counties, a common reality for education and human services work where programs are spread across communities rather than concentrated in a single facility. The Local includes Head Start workers in a region where public-facing services depend on stable staffing and consistent program delivery.

Within that unit, Head Start classroom teachers make up a minority of the total membership. Yet the employer’s petition targeted that group specifically, aiming to remove them from the bargaining unit by asserting supervisory status.

The union’s concern was not limited to the immediate number of affected workers. A successful reclassification effort can set a precedent, encouraging employers to test similar arguments in other units, particularly in sectors where job duties include routine coordination, documentation or reporting relationships.

Responding to an NLRB Unit Clarification Petition

Black explained that the petition initiated a protracted pre-hearing process. The employer submitted a lengthy written filing, requiring the union to respond point-by-point and prepare a record to contest the supervisory claim.

The NLRB ultimately scheduled a hearing that took place over two days in late November. The hearing process, as Black described it, required the union to address the employer’s theory of the case and the evidence the employer relied on to argue that classroom teachers functioned as statutory supervisors.

In unit clarification disputes, outcomes can hinge on how job duties are characterized and whether the record supports the idea that a worker has genuine supervisory authority under the NLRA. The union’s position was that these classroom teachers were not supervisors in the statutory sense and had performed their roles as teachers for decades within a bargaining unit that had existed since the late 1990s.

NLRB Decision Turns on a Narrow Supervisor Standard

The NLRB issued its decision on Jan. 27. The ruling found Head Start classroom teachers to be statutory supervisors based on one supervisory factor under the NLRA, Black said.

The NLRA includes multiple supervisory criteria. Importantly, a worker does not need to meet most of them to be excluded. A finding on a single factor can be enough.

In this case, the decision turned on a narrow point: the ability to effectively recommend discipline for classroom assistants, specifically at the level of verbal or written reprimand. Black said the issue was not about student discipline. It concerned the relationship between classroom teachers and classroom support staff and whether the teachers’ role in recommending discipline met the legal threshold of being a supervisor.

From a labor relations perspective, the outcome illustrates how supervisory status can be determined through nuanced workplace authority rather than broad managerial control. For unions, that nuance matters because it can create vulnerabilities in units where experienced workers carry informal leadership responsibilities that are essential to program operations but not necessarily intended to be supervisory in the statutory sense.

Early Head Start Teachers in the Unit

Black also noted that the employer initially sought to include Early Head Start teachers in the supervisory exclusion argument. Through the pre-hearing stages and the lead-up to the hearing, the employer dropped that portion of the claim. As a result, Early Head Start teachers remained in the bargaining unit.

That outcome limited the scope of the exclusion effort, but it did not erase the broader impact. Removing Head Start classroom teachers from the unit still affects bargaining strength, unit structure, and workplace protections for the workers reclassified as supervisors.

Appeal Options and Strategic Next Steps

Black said the union did not pursue an appeal. She explained that appeals require more than disagreement with the decision; they require grounds tied to the record and the evidence relied upon in the ruling. Without additional evidence to counter the findings on which the decision was based, the union determined that an appeal was not the best path.

Instead, the focus shifts to preparation. The case served as a signal that unions should anticipate more classification-based challenges, especially in private-sector environments where employers may rely on specialized labor counsel and repeat arguments across multiple workplaces, Black said.

She also described coordination with broader allies and engagement beyond the immediate unit, including outreach that elevated the issue and pressed the employer to reconsider its approach. The larger point was not simply to respond to one petition, but to reduce the likelihood that similar tactics would succeed elsewhere by strengthening readiness and communication.

Organizing as the Durable Response to Legal Headwinds

The interview’s forward-looking message was clear: unions cannot rely solely on favorable legal interpretations to protect workers’ rights. They must build power through organizing, contract enforcement, and member engagement.

For AFSCME Council 65, the Local 3444 case is a strategic lesson. Employers that are willing to invest resources in narrowing bargaining units may continue to do so if the tactic proves effective. That reality raises the stakes for unions to train stewards, educate members about classification risks and document job duties in ways that protect the integrity of the bargaining unit.

In Minnesota and beyond, the case highlights a central tension in modern labor relations: frontline public service and education work often depends on experienced workers who guide others, mentor staff, and maintain day-to-day operations. When those functions are reinterpreted as supervisory authority, workers can lose protections even while continuing to perform the same essential work.

AFSCME Council 65’s response, as Black outlined it, is to treat the decision not as an endpoint but as a warning flare. The union is preparing for more fights of this kind and reinforcing the principle that the most vigorous defense against technical exclusions is a workforce that is organized, informed, and ready to act collectively.

Go Behind the Scenes of the Labor Movement

Every victory at the bargaining table starts with workers standing together. From the shop floor to the statehouse, hear how activists are fighting for better wages, safer conditions and a stronger future. Subscribe to the America’s Work Force Union Podcast to get the latest interviews with the leaders and organizers building worker power across America.