(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Because I agree with majority the factual differences between this case and the City of Davenport case, filed today, are insignificant, this dissent shall be confined to the City of Des Moines record but include an examination of the law discussed in City of Davenport.
I. Scope of review.
I agree with majority’s scope-of-review analysis laid out in division I, City of Davenport. A party is entitled to a remedy when substantial rights have been prejudiced in a contested case by agency action which is “unsupported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when that record is viewed as a whole.” § 17A.19(8)(f), The Code. But such a review “must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight” and requires consideration of “the record in its entirety * * * including the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view.” Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 464-465, 95 L.Ed. 456, 467-468 (1951).
The majority properly draws the distinction between such a review and the review accorded to fact-findings which inhere in a jury verdict or the fact-findings of trial judge in a law action tried to the court. In light of quotations from older Iowa cases in the Davenport district court decision, it is by no means clear the court was cognizant of the Universal Camera review rule.
Although majority invokes “the duty of courts to grant appropriate deference to agency expertise” we should recognize these decisions were filed in the first year of PER Board’s existence. In the Des Moines case one of the three Board members recused himself from hearing the appeal, as noted by majority. The remaining two split on the question whether captains and lieutenants who serve as station commanders are supervisory employees. Chairman Kolker’s extensive footnoted references to the record are omitted in the following quotation from his separate opinion:
“First, the Hearing Officer found, and the record substantiates, that station commanders constitute the first step in the resolution of grievances. Denoting these grievances ‘gripes,’ and incorporating his conclusion that the overall authority of ‘company commanders’ was limited to routine and clerical matters, the Hear*331ing Officer found that those officers did not exercise independent judgment in adjusting grievances. Although the Hearing Officer did not explicate the nature of grievances within the power of station commanders to control, my study of the record leads me to conclude that those grievances are what one would reasonably expect at the first level of supervision (such as inequitable work assignments, etc.) Moreover, the record is without contradiction that station commanders are encouraged to handle most incidents at the station level, resolve station problems at the station level, and settle a grievance at the first level. It is my opinion that the resolution of those grievances cannot be equated by rote with other levels of responsibility of the station commander, and that such resolution, requires the use of independent judgment. Further, I believe that it is to be expected that a major grievance with policy implications would not be resolved by a first-line supervisor, but would normally be forwarded to those empowered to formulate policy.
“Secondly, it is my opinion that station commanders exercise authority to discipline men under their command. While the Hearing Officer found that authority to be limited to oral warnings, he also found authority to ‘require a subordinate to correct housework’ and that one station commander assigned a man to kitchen duties at headquarters as punishment for his activities. Again, it is my opinion that this is the type of discipline that one might reasonably expect from a first level supervisor, and that suspensions and discharges would normally require the involvement of a higher authority. Moreover, it is my opinion that the ability of any employee to ‘press charges’ against any other employee, be he a superior or subordinate, is irrelevant to the issue of the station commander’s authority to discipline those under his command.
“Thirdly, it is my opinion that station commanders, and only station commanders, assign all of the personnel and the work performed by those at the station. The discretion which they exercise in work assignments is evidenced by Employer’s Exhibit 16, in which it is clear that station commanders have full freedom in assignments, and that such assignments may be without regard to seniority. This example involved the assignment of men to attack units and with the seniority factor being specifically excluded, the station commander could only have been left to exercise his independent judgment.
“It is significant in this regard, and perhaps also to the areas of grievances and discipline, that the stations are geographically remote from each other, and that each contain men and equipment performing the mission of the employer with only a fifteen minute to half-hour visitation by a higher authority during a twenty-four hour shift. I cannot escape the conclusion that someone is enforcing the rules, regulations and orders of the department, and maintaining the proper level of training of men and maintenance of equipment. I believe that someone is the station commander, and that those responsibilities are significant and require the use of independent judgment. I also believe that the terms of a collective bargaining agreement must, by definition, be administered; that the only place it can be substantially administered is at the station where the employees are located; and that management’s representative is the station commander.
“Finally, it is uncontradicted that station commanders, in addition to the above responsibilities, are responsible for maintaining station property and equipment, conducting training, evaluating probationary and permanent employees, recommending step pay increases for men in their command, and rating employees for promotion. Station commanders wear distinct uniforms, do not perform physical work in the station (excepting house chores which is voluntary on their part), and have a separate office in the newer stations, and perceive themselves as supervisors. In addition, their job descrip*332tions clearly contemplate the exercise of supervisory authority. While the above items and activities may not, standing alone, constitute ‘secondary indicia’ of supervisory status which, in conjunction with the responsibilities of station commanders regarding adjustment of grievances, discipline and assignment make the conclusion inescapable that they are supervisors as that term is defined in Section 4(2) of the Act. I recognize that this conclusion is inconsistent with my participation in the Davenport and Cedar Rapids decisions and to the extent of those inconsistencies constitutes a change in my position.”
Thus the Davenport decision is now unsupported by the then chairman of the PER Board. The hearing officer’s decision in Des Moines is supported by only one Board member and has been reversed in a carefully considered district court decision. In these circumstances the deference-to-agency concept should have only limited application.
II. Legal principies.
To place the issue which confronts us in perspective, it should be noted the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act provision for exclusion of supervisors from collective bargaining units was a congressional rejection of Packard Co. v. N. L. R. B., 330 U.S 485, 67 S.Ct. 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040 (1947), which upheld an N.L. R.B. ruling that foremen could constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. See N. L. R. B. v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 277-278, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1763-1764, 40 L.Ed.2d 134, 144-145 (1974).
Pertinent as disclosing subsequent congressional intent is the following from Mr. Justice Douglas’ Packard dissent, 330 U.S. at 494, 67 S.Ct. at 794, 91 L.Ed. at 1051-1052:
“The present decision * 4 * tends to obliterate the line between management and labor. It lends the sanctions of federal law to unionization at all levels of the industrial hierarchy. It tends to emphasize that the basic opposing forces in industry are not management and labor but the operating group on the one hand and the stockholder and bondholder group on the other. * * * The struggle for control or power between management and labor becomes secondary to a growing unity in their common demands on ownership.”
If the words “citizens and taxpayers” are substituted for the words “stockholder and bondholder group” and “ownership” in the above quotation, the public employment issue comes into focus. “The need for the distinction [between managerial employees and rank-and-file employees] is perhaps greater in public employment where there are no vested ‘employers’ as owners or a management associated with employing owners.” Shelofsky v. Helsby, 32 N.Y.2d 54, 61, 343 N.Y.S.2d 98, 103, 295 N.E.2d 774, 777 (1973), dism., 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 60, 38 L.Ed.2d 41 (1973).
Congress’ purpose in amending §§ 2(3) and 2(11) of the federal act to define supervisors and exclude them from bargaining units was to redress a perceived imbalance in labor-management relationships that was found to arise from putting supervisors in the position of serving two masters with opposing interests. Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina, 416 U.S. 653, 661-662, 94 S.Ct. 2023, 2027-2028, 40 L.Ed.2d 443, 450 (1974). The objective of the Taft-Hartley Act was to assure the employer of a loyal and efficient cadre of supervisors and managers independent of the rank and file. That objective is equally applicable to the State, as an employer. Elk Grove Firefighters Local No. 2340 v. Willis, 400 F.Supp. 1097, 1101 (N.D.Ill.1975); Shelofsky, supra, 32 N.Y.2d at 60, 343 N.Y.S.2d at 102, 295 N.E.2d at 776.
The problems spawned by conflicts of interest when supervisors are also union members and subject to union discipline are poignantly illustrated in our law. A union’s constitution and bylaws are the measure of the authority conferred upon the organization to discipline, suspend or expel its members. 48 Am.Jur.2d, Labor and Labor Relations, § 257, p. 195 (1970). Probably the constitution of the International Brother*333hood of Electrical Workers is not atypical in providing a member may be penalized for “working in the interest of any organization or cause which is detrimental to, or opposed to, the IBEW,” or “working for any individual or company declared in difficulty with a [local union] or the IBEW.” Florida P. & L. v. Electrical Workers, 417 U.S. 790, 793, 94 S.Ct. 2737, 2739, 41 L.Ed.2d 477, 481 (1974).
A union may impose fines for “misconduct” affecting the union or any of its members. 48 Am.Jur.2d, Labor and Labor Relations, § 258, p. 196. In N. L. R. B. v. Local 2150, International Bro. of Elec. Wkrs., 486 F.2d 602, 607 (7th Cir. 1973), vac., 418 U.S. 902, 94 S.Ct. 3191, 41 L.Ed.2d 1151 (1974), the seventh circuit enforced an N.L.R.B. order finding the union committed an unfair labor practice in fining supervisors who performed struck work. The circuit court reasoned:
“When the employer has a dispute with the union, and the union disciplines supervisors for performing their supervisory responsibilities on the employer’s behalf in that dispute, that discipline ‘drive[s] a wedge between [the] supervisor[s] and the Employer’ and may reasonably be expected to undermine the loyalty and effectiveness of these supervisors when called upon to act for the company in their representative capacities.”
But in a similar case the District of Columbia circuit on an en banc rehearing reached an opposite result with four judges dissenting, holding this type of disciplinary action would not restrain or coerce an employer in selection of representatives for purposes of collective bargaining or adjustment of grievances in violation of 29 U.S.C.A., § 158(b)(1)(B). International Brotherhood of Elect. Wkrs. v. N. L. R. B., 159 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 487 F.2d 1143 (1974). The court perceived it to be important that Congress’ 1947 amendments to 14(a) of the N.L.R. Act “solved the conflict of loyalties problem by giving management the right to make the would-be supervisor choose between union loyalty and rank-and-file status on the one hand and management loyalty and supervisory status on the other.” Id., 487 F.2d at 1165. By a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. Florida P. & L. v. Electrical Workers, supra.
Although the above eases concern strike situations which should not occur in Iowa, § 20.12, The Code, the conflict of loyalties may arise in other circumstances. See, for example, N. L. R. B. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int. Ass’n., Loc. U. No. 49, 430 F.2d 1348 (10th Cir. 1970), where a foreman commenced a hoisting operation before regular working hours because the hoist was about to be removed from the jobsite. He was tried and fined by the union on charges he “did perform work prior to the beginning of the regular workday, and used men of other crafts to assist him perform such work, which is within the jurisdictional claims of the sheet metal workers.” Id., at 1349.
It is against this backdrop of potential for conflicting loyalties that the status of fire department station commanders should be examined.
The general principles outlined in division II of majority’s opinion are found in the cases cited. But those principles and the statutory definition of a “supervisor” are by no means the sole criteria employed to identify supervisors. This is especially true where, as the majority here concedes, the court is confronted by a close case.
A key inquiry is simply to determine who is performing the basic act of supervising. Ohio Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 176 F.2d 385, 387 (6th Cir. 1949). This concept as applied wells out of the realization that in certain circumstances the person in charge should and must represent management. Typical of decisions applying this criterion are Vega v. N. L. R. B., 341 F.2d 576, 577 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 382 U.S. 862, 86 S.Ct. 123, 15 L.Ed.2d 100 (1965) (“In this case we regard it as of considerable importance that if the petitioners were not supervisors the company’s employees were entirely without supervision a large part of the time, (citation) In such circumstances it was not unreasonable to conclude that even the relatively small amount of supervisory power conferred upon and exercised by petitioners *334made them representatives of the employer.”); Jas. H. Matthews & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 354 F.2d 432, 435 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 384 U.S. 1002, 86 S.Ct. 1924, 16 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1966) (“Finally to be noted is the fact that if the leadmen were not supervisors, Factory Foreman Landis would have to exercise detailed supervision over some thirty-seven employees in the departments involved in a variety of tasks and handling products at many stages of completion in the production process. The unlikelihood of that situation occurring was properly considered by the Board.”); Keener Rubber, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 326 F.2d 968, 970 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. den., 377 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1337, 12 L.Ed.2d 297 (1964) (“There is evidence * * * that for approximately 75% of the time the second shift was operating Mowen was the only person present in the plant with any authority over a total of ten employees * * *.”); Eastern Greyhound Lines v. N. L. R. B., 337 F.2d 84, 87 (6th Cir. 1964) (“In the late night and the early morning hours there are generally no personnel with authority higher than that of a dispatcher on duty. If dispatchers are not supervisors, this multistate transportation system operates a substantial part of the time without supervision.”).
In many borderline cases where the character of the employee as a supervisor is not immediately clear when measured against the statutory definition, the N.L.R.B. and courts have looked to various secondary tests or “indicia of authority”:
“Among facts which have been regarded as weighing in favor of supervisory status are the following: (1) The employee’s designation as a ‘foreman’ or ‘supervisor’; (2) the fact that he is regarded by himself or others as a supervisor; (3) his exercise of privileges accorded only to supervisors; (4) attendance at instruction sessions or meetings held for supervisory personnel; (5) responsibility for a shift or a phase of operations; (6) receipt of orders from management officials rather than from other supervisors; (7) authority to interpret or transmit employer’s instructions to other employees; (8) responsibility for inspecting the work of others; (9) instruction of other employees; (10) authority to grant or deny leave of absence to others; (11) responsibility for reporting rules infractions; (12) keeping of time records on other employees; (13) receipt of a weekly or monthly salary rather than hourly production wages; (14) receipt of substantially greater pay than other employees, not based solely on skill; (15) failure to receive overtime pay; (16) lack of requirement to punch time clock; (17) nonparticipation in regular production work; and (18) wearing of different work clothes from other employees.”—Labor Relations Expediter, LRX 773 S 411 (The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1975)
Existence of one or a few of the above secondary indicia does not necessarily establish supervisory status; nor does absence of one or a few establish a non-supervisory status. Id. But as demonstrated in the next division, the captains and lieutenants whose status is questioned here meet most of these indicia.
Returning to the disjunctively itemized powers in the Iowa Code § 20.4(2) definition of supervisor, the majority correctly articulates the rule the statute does not make exercise of one or more of these powers the test of supervisory status. It makes existence of one or more of the powers the test. N. L. R. B. v. Roselon Southern, Inc., 382 F.2d 245, 247 (6th Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Hamilton Plastic Molding Company, 312 F.2d 723, 727 (6th Cir. 1963); Annot., 11 A.L.R.2d 249, 250 (1950). An employee may be a supervisor even though he or she has never exercised a power imposed in him or her, Arizona Public Service Company v. N. L. R. B., 453 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1971), or where years might pass before any occasion arose calling for exercise of the power, including the power “responsibility to direct” other employees. N. L. R. B. v. Leland-Gifford Co., 200 F.2d 620, 625 (1st Cir. 1952).
It generally is conceded, as majority indicates, the “supervisor” definition in the federal act was intended to cover persons “generally regarded as foremen and persons *335of like or higher rank.” N. L. R. B. v. Southern Airways Company, 290 F.2d 519, 523 (5th Cir. 1961). Although a “straw boss” or “leadman” ordinarily is not a supervisor within the meaning of the act, Keener Rubber, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., supra, 326 F.2d at 969, “leadmen” with less power than the officers under scrutiny in this case have been classified as supervisors. Jas. H. Matthews & Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra, 354 F.2d at 435; Trailmobile Division, Pullman Incorporated v. N. L. R. B., 379 F.2d 419, 422 (5th Cir. 1967).
Because majority concurs in the hearing examiner’s conclusion these company commanders are “leadmen” or “straw bosses” and are therefore not supervisors excluded from the bargaining unit, those terms should be further examined.
In early logging days under certain conditions straw was spread on mountainous slopes too steep for horses to hold back a sled load of logs. The person who redistributed the straw with a pitchfork before the next load gave the word when the slope was prepared. The teamsters who had greater responsibilities were not to proceed until so signalled. Hence the term “straw boss.” N. L. R. B. v. Swift and Company, 292 F.2d 561, 563, n. 2 (1st Cir. 1961). “Perhaps a modern counterpart would be an attendant at a company parking lot with authority to direct higher-ups in the organization with respect to parking their cars.” Id.
Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations, p. 407 (1966), defines “straw boss” as “[a] gang or group leader, a worker who takes the lead in a group which consists of himself and a small number of other employees. He performs all of the duties of the other workers and his supervisory activities are incidental to his production performance.”
“Leadman” is a “term applied usually to the individual who sets the pace for a group or a team working on a particular operation.” Roberts’, supra, p. 219. A related word is “leaders,” a term “occasionally * * * applied to individuals who are hired to establish performance standards and individuals unions claim are ‘speeders’ used by employers to increase the rate at which average workers are required to perform.” Roberts’, supra, p. 218.
The distinguishing characteristic which definitionally links both “straw men” and “leadmen” is their duty to perform the same work being done by their fellow employees, only better. The exception is the parking lot “straw boss” whose overall responsibility and duties are ordinarily less than the persons he directs within the sphere of his very limited jurisdiction.
A “foreman” on the other hand is “[g]en-erally the first line of management in the operation of the plant or facility. The individual who, in the eyes of the production worker, represents management and authority. He is generally the immediate supervisor of a group of workers and has the responsibility to recommend suspension, discharge or promotion. He also has the direct responsibility for seeing to it that the work is performed and the production schedule met. He carries out management policy on the operating level and acts as an intermediary between workers and middle management.” Roberts’, supra, p. 114.
In the context of a military or paramilitary organization foremen have been equated with noncommissioned sergeants:
“Foremen are officers of management, but of a special kind; like noncommis-sioned sergeants, they bear a special relationship to the employee troops, one that promotes two-way communication and working relationships, and is of unique value to the entire enterprise.”—International Brotherhood of Elec. Wkrs. v. N. L. R. B., supra, 159 U.S.App.D.C. at 300, 487 F.2d at 1171 (Leventhal, Circuit Judge, concurring)
In the public employment sector, a person clearly operating in a supervisory capacity will seldom if ever be found to have all the powers itemized in § 20.4, The Code. Most state employees have statutory protection in selection, tenure, discipline, and termination. Chapter 19A, The Code. Merit commission rules may become applicable. See, *336for example, Rule 570-15.3, IAC 7/1/75, Ch. 15, p. 1:
“Step 1. The classified employee shall initiate the grievance or complaint by orally bringing it to the attention of his immediate supervisor for oral discussion within five days of the incidence of the alleged grievance or complaint. The immediate supervisor shall within five working days orally transmit his decision to the employee.”
Other civil service enactments afford protection to employees of police and fire departments. Chapter 400, The Code. Similar statutory provisions protect other public employees. Even a school board may encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in terminating a teacher. Keith v. Community School Dist. of Wilton, Etc., 262 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa, 1978).
The federal definition of supervisor, 29 U.S.C.A., § 152(11), never was intended to apply to a public employee. It is tied to “employer,” which does not include “any State or political subdivision thereof.” 29 U.S.C.A., § 152(2). The Iowa legislature, carrying this definition (§ 20.4, The Code) into the area of public employment where traditional supervisory functions already were curtailed could not have intended its criteria to be so rigidly or strictly applied as in private-sector situations. At the same time, there is no reason to assume the legislature intended to eliminate supervisors, however much their traditional authority is circumscribed statutorily.
The legislature’s intent is manifest further by the statutory identification of “assistant principal” as a supervisor. § 20.4, The Code. Clearly the duties of that office may be as “routine” as those of a fire department station commander.
III. Merits of hearing officer's decision.
An overview of the hearing officer’s decision which became the initial holding in this case discloses it results from two basic errors. The first relates to a failure to allow for characteristics of paramilitary organization; the second arises from failure to consider important evidence.
The safety of persons and property is at the core of the State’s police power. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1445, 47 L.Ed.2d 708, 715 (1976). The paramilitary structures selected to provide fire and police protection necessarily give weight to the overall need for discipline, esprit de corps, and uniformity. Id., 425 U.S. at 248, 96 S.Ct. at 1446, 47 L.Ed.2d at 716; Quinn v. Muscare, 425 U.S. 560, 562, 96 S.Ct. 1752, 1753, 48 L.Ed.2d 165, 168 (1976); Elk Grove Firefighters Local No. 2340 v. Willis, supra, 400 F.Supp. at 1100 (“Clearly, an efficient fire department is a legitimate and substantial state interest. * * * [T]he efficiency of public employees generally is a legitimate and substantial governmental interest. This interest is particularly strong with respect to firefighters because of the need for them to act quickly and effectively to prevent grievous loss of life and property.”).
As in any military organization, fire department operational procedures are, so far as possible, written and standardized for the above purposes. But because these procedures are so vital, obviously it is necessary supervisory personnel be on hand with § 20.4 “responsibility to direct” the rank and file in carrying them out. When lives hang in balance, equipment and personnel must function. An unsupervised malingering fireman may fail in an essential hose hookup. A depleted battery may make the difference between a “routine” fire call and a holocaust.
To be “responsible” in the § 20.4 context “is to be answerable for the discharge of a duty or obligation. Responsibility includes judgment, skill, ability, capacity, and integrity, and is implied by power.” Ohio Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., supra, 176 F.2d at 387, quoted in N. L. R. B. v. Fullerton Publishing Company, 283 F.2d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 1960). Each station commander is charged with implementing fire department policy for a separate shift in a separate location. He has direct control of a number of persons. He is charged with responsibility for valuable property and equipment—$2,473,-000 worth at station number one, $700,000 each at the other stations.
*337Of course to be classified as supervisors the statute requires these officers use “independent judgment.” But the judgment required to supervise and motivate rank- and-file paramilitary personnel clearly would qualify as “independent judgment,” as would the judgment required in those situations where written procedures fail to fit. It is a matter of common knowledge our armed forces have detailed written war plans for every foreseeable contingency. But no one would contend military line officers therefore are not supervisors, or lack “responsibility to direct” using “independent judgment.”
The intervenor union attempted to denigrate the station commander’s functions by stressing the nitty-gritty indicia of all military life, including orders relating to “housework” details. Much was made of the right of lower-ranked persons to file complaint against a station commander in an effort to detract from the officer’s right to press charges against those under his control. This right of the rank and file is an ordinary incident of military structure. See Index and Legislature History, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art. 138, p. 594 (U.S. Print. Off. 1950). Such efforts ignore another vital facet of military structure — the judgment, skill, ability and integrity required of an officer charged with directing personnel in performing the organization’s ultimate function. The only raison d’etre for fire fighters is to fight fires.
The second overview impression of the hearing officer’s decision relates to his obvious failure to consider all the evidence. The city-employer offered testimony of the fire chief, assistant fire chief, city manager, two district chiefs, four captains and a lieutenant. The intervenor union presented testimony of two captains, three lieutenants and three engineers. The management-union conflict-of-interest which, in the fire chief’s words, “tears an officer both ways,” was starkly apparent.
Employer’s witnesses furnished more than adequate testimony to prove the station commanders — captains and lieutenants — met the § 20.4 requirements to establish their supervisory status. Intervenor’s witnesses sought to show the company commanders’ duties were inflexibly dictated by written orders and procedures, they exercised no independent judgment, and did not supervise. The concept sought to be projected was that all fires are routine, present no unanticipated or unique characteristics and are controlled (and lives and property saved) by mechanistic application of set procedures. Of course this requires the fact finder and reviewing court to abandon all common knowledge concerning such disasters.
But a more significant factor emerged. Before the Public Employment Relations Act (Ch. 20, The Code) was enacted all of the captains and lieutenants who testified for intervenor separately had prepared and certified to descriptions of their duties, for a different purpose. These statements were diametrically opposed to their hearing testimony concerning their duties and responsibilities.
One lieutenant typically wrote:
“I am responsible for directing men in rescue operations necessary and placement of ladders or other equipment necessary for this operation. I must do whatever needed to gain entrance to building, locate seat of fire, ascertaining materials involved, dangers involved with said material and type of structure involved. I must direct laying of hose lines to the seat of the fire, bearing in mind protection of property, exposure of adjacent property, safety of the men in my crew and others on the fire ground. * * * It is possible I would be in charge of activities at fire for five minutes before arrival of District Chief and longer if for some reason he is delayed. After arrival of superior officer I am still responsible for the safety and actions of my crew and others placed in my command. I must direct firefighting activities assigned me at which time I must use my own judgment as supervision will be only periodic. * * *
“I must train or direct the training of company personnel daily. * * *
*338“I must direct the inspection of all commercial occupancies in my assigned territory. * * * We must be able to sell ourselves and our ideas to those we are trying to help or correct. This end we must achieve for the safety of those involved, our own men, and in an attempt to reduce overall fire loss.
“I must direct my company in the inspection of homes in our assigned territory. * ⅜ *
“I must supervise and assist the daily checks of all equipment to assure its readiness to respond. I am responsible for the condition of all equipment assigned to the company. * * *
“It is my responsibility to see that all personnel in my company are familiar with and follow all Rules and Regulations set down by the Chief of the Des Moines Fire Department. * * * ”
Intervenor’s witnesses admitted writing and certifying to the statements, which are in the record. But nowhere in the hearing officer’s decision does he mention or otherwise come to grips with this important evidence. If a review requires consideration of “the body of evidence opposed to the Board’s view,” see division I, supra, the initial fact finder ought to make some indication he or she has considered substantial evidence opposed to his or her view. On review of the decision of a deputy industrial commission we have said “[h]is decision must be sufficiently detailed to show the path he has taken through conflicting evidence.” Catalfo v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 213 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Iowa 1973). See Sondag v. Ferris Hardware, 220 N.W.2d 903, 907-908 (Iowa 1974). A comparable duty should be imposed in this instance.
The only logical inference is the hearing examiner failed to consider a body of evidence which essentially demolished the only testimony he could have relied on in arriving at his fact-findings.
One other general observation should be made. These officers and lieutenants are not “leadmen” or “straw bosses,” terms explored in division II, supra. When promoted, these officers obtain new insignia and wear a white shirt. The record is undisputed they then are not required to do the work of the persons they command. So they are not leadmen or straw bosses. Their duties and responsibilities are not less than those they direct, nor is their jurisdiction circumscribed to a narrow area, so they, are not “parking lot” straw bosses. Inter-venor’s witness, a lieutenant responding to a question designed to discover why he was needed at the station if he neither worked nor supervised, responded, “Well, somebody has to be a leader, sir. I mean, somebody has to be there to call the plays.”
Reviewing the hearing officer’s decision by considering the record as a whole, including the body of evidence opposed to his view, should result in affirmance of trial court’s reversing decision. These officers met several of the § 20.4 criteria.
(1) Responsibility to direct other public employees.
The testimony of the city’s witnesses, coupled with admissions of intervenor’s witnesses and impact of their certified written statements, overwhelmingly demonstrates these commanders possessed the above power. On the fire ground, such an officer has complete control in the critical first minutes before the district chief’s arrival. Thereafter, he might well be assigned to control his men and equipment in a given area. One of the intervenor’s captain witnesses testified on cross-examination:
“Q. Now, even after the arrival of the district chief, do you agree with Captain Phillips that an area would be assigned then by the district chief to a particular captain, for example? A. It could very well be.
“Q. For example, he would be responsible for a roof or the back of a building, or a floor, the second floor? A. Yes.
“Q. And he and his men would be in that particular area then? A. Right.”
No one really disputed the officers in charge had responsibility to direct the rank and file in care and inspection of buildings and equipment.
*339The responsibility of these first-level supervisors is capsulated in the assistant fire chief’s testimony, “We have 10 fire stations, and if we do not have company officers enforcing our rules and regulations, we would have 10 different fire departments in the City of Des Moines, and this would create chaos on a fire scene, so that’s why I believe that the company officers are key personnel.”
(2) Authority to assign other public employees.
The hearing officer found station commanders “may assign those house duties to the men in any manner * * * .” This is the finding of existence of the power, regardless of its exercise. The federal eases interpreting the statutory language require no more.
In addition, there is little dispute in the record such an officer has power to assign in the following areas:
(a) to assign a person to conduct drill or instruction,
(b) to periodically rotate new recruits “for experience from the engine company to the ladder company for training purposes,”
(c) to assign and designate the personnel who will be temporarily transferred out of the station when call is made for help at some other location,
(d) to assign persons to various pieces of equipment under his command, and
(e) to assign personnel to attack unit work, without regard for seniority.
(3) Authority to effectively recommend promotion of other public employees.
The hearing officer’s decision recognizes these officers are required to make detailed evaluation reports on persons under their command for purposes of permanent status, promotion and step raises. He notes and apparently believes the fire chief’s testimony the latter relies on these reports and separately-prepared reports of the district chief. But he rejects the officers’ probation and step pay recommendation functions as meeting § 20.4 requirements on the sole ground that if the station commander’s recommendation was inconsistent with the district chief’s separate recommendation, the chief would conduct an investigation before taking action.
And the hearing officer rejected the commanding officers’ promotion recommendation function on the sole ground promotions are subject to civil service laws and the company officers’ ratings “determine not more than 10 percent of an employee’s total score.”
We are not confronted here with a factual dispute. We are confronted with the hearing examiner’s construction of § 20.4, The Code, for he is determining, as a matter of law, what will meet its requirements.
We have recognized we should give weight to administrative interpretations of statutes, particularly when they are of long standing. Iowa Nat. Indus. Loan Co. v. Iowa State Dept. of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d 437, 440 (Iowa 1974). However, the meaning of a statute is always a matter of law, and the final construction and interpretation of Iowa statutory law is for this court. Cassady v. Wheeler, 224 N.W.2d 649, 651 (Iowa 1974); Hubbard v. State, 163 N.W.2d 904, 909 (Iowa 1969).
Assuming in this split-decision situation the hearing officer’s analysis of § 20.4 requirements may be regarded as an administrative interpretation, it is not of long standing. Nor does it conform to federal court interpretations of the same provisions found in 29 U.S.C.A., § 152(11). In N. L. R. B. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 405 F.2d 1169, 1177 (2d Cir. 1968), unlike the case before us, there was direct review of promotion recommendations by immediate supervisors, yet the court ruled:
“These reports so submitted by the watch engineers and the assistant air conditioning engineers were received by their immediate supervisors. If the watch engineers' or the assistant air conditioning engineers’ immediate supervisors disagreed with the evaluations they could note the basis of their disagreement on the back of the form. This power to *340review held by the immediate supervisors of the engineers whose status is at issue does not demonstrate that the latter are not ‘supervisors’ under the Section 2(11) definition. The power to recommend promotion is, of course, not the power actually to promote and consequently promotion recommendations will always be subject to review by those who, in fact, have the final power to promote.”
Examples in the record disclose the company commander’s recommendations were effectual a good portion of the time. This is all that is required. N. L. R. B. v. Southern Airways Company, supra, 290 F.2d at 524. In a civil service setting a recommendation is effective if (1) made on behalf of management, (2) based on the independent judgment of the alleged supervisor, and (3) the recommendation either by itself or in conjunction with other recommendations could result in action. United States Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif., FLRC No. 72A-11, GERR RF-117 (1973).
Nor should this court construe § 20.4 to mean a recommendation which will weigh ten percent of an employee’s promotion score does not meet the “effective” recommendation requirement of that statute. Frequently such an edge is determinative in a pool of persons qualified for promotion, as illustrated by litigation arising from veteran’s preference laws. See Feinerman v. Jones, 356 F.Supp. 252, 256 (M.D.Pa.1973) (ten points); Koelfgen v. Jackson, 355 F.Supp. 243, 246 (D.Minn.1972), aff’d., 410 U.S. 976, 93 S.Ct. 1502, 36 L.Ed.2d 173 (1973). (five points); cf. Zanfes v. Olson, 232 Iowa 1169, 7 N.W.2d 901 (1943).
The hearing examiner’s interpretation of § 20.4 was wrong. On this point alone the district court’s reversing opinion should be affirmed.
(4) Authority to adjust grievances.
The hearing officer’s conclusion these station commanders had no authority to adjust grievances proceeds from a faulty premise in a classical example of circular reasoning:
“Since the authority of company commanders is limited to routine and clerical matters, and absent any additional power in the company officers to take special action based on employee grievances, I find that the authority to company officers to adjust grievances relates only to routine and clerical matters and does not require the use of independent judgment.”
There is no dispute the city ordinance provides the first step of fire department grievance procedure is the immediate supervisor of the grieved employee, or that employers brought their “gripes” to the station commander for their resolution. The hearing examiner so found.
But, as noted by trial court, the decision set forth no basic facts to justify its conclusion the “gripes” were “routine and clerical” in subject matter.
In the Davenport case, the PER Board adopted the Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations definition of the statutory term “grievance,” meaning “[a]ny complaint by an employee * * * concerning any aspect of the employment relationship.” Id., at 128.
This record contains examples of disputes about alleged inequitable work assignments, the propriety of temporary work assignments, and similar “gripes.” It is plain these fall within the PER Board’s “grievance” definition — a complaint concerning an aspect of the employment relationship. These grievances are within the power of the company commanders to resolve. The testimony is clear the officers are expected to, and do, resolve them. Thus they meet the § 20.4 requirement to be classified as supervisors.
(5) The authority to discipline.
The hearing officer found company officers “do have some authority” in the area of discipline. But he determined this did not meet the § 20.4 requirement because the power allegedly was limited to oral warnings. Of course this ignores the officers’ weapon of evaluation reports for retention of probationary personnel, step pay increases and promotion. The first two *341forms pose 15 questions calling for the officer’s judgment of the employee and his or her work. The promotion form poses 23 such questions. These questions include such queries as “Acceptance of authority or orders?”, “Disposition and personal conduct?” and “Record specific work performance deficiencies or job behavior requiring improvement or correction.”
The officer can press charges if the ordinary measures are insufficient — clearly an effective recommendation of discipline, which is all the statute requires. See N. L. R. B. v. Roselon Southern Inc., supra, 382 F.2d at 247 (“As a result of her own judgment, she could issue warning slips, she had the authority to discipline any of her workers, and in fact reported one operator for disciplinary action. This was certainly supervisory conduct within the meaning of the act.”).
Trial court found “as a matter of law company officers possess and exercise the statutory criteria of ‘authority to discipline,’ and that such involves independent judgment.” It is a finding which should be adopted here.
Finally, these company commanders should be examined in light of the 18 secondary tests identified in division II, supra:
(1) Designation as “foreman” or “supervisor.” These persons carry the higher and more prestigious designation of captain and lieutenant.
(2) Regarded by himself or others as a supervisor. Exhibit 34, incorporating the duty descriptions prepared by these officers (including intervenor’s witnesses) proves this point.
(3) Exercise of privileges accorded only supervisors. These officers are not required to do “housework,” have a separate office in the- newer stations, have other privileges indicated below.
(4) Attendance at instruction sessions held for supervisory personnel. Most of these officers have attended lengthy courses designed for supervisors at various colleges and universities, with department approval.
(5) Responsibility for shift or a phase of operations. Clearly met.
(6) Receipt of orders from management officials rather than from other supervisors. This is not disputed.
(7) Authority to interpret or transmit employer’s instructions to other employees. Undisputed on the fire ground.
(8) Responsibility for inspecting the work of others. Undisputed.
(9) Instruction of other employees. Conceded.
(10) Authority to grant or deny leave of absence to others. Qualify only to the extent of supervising “the picking of vacations by seniority, checks to see if each man picks the right amount of vacation time and holiday time, prepares vacation report sheets to be checked by District Chief.”
(11) Responsibility for reporting rules violations. Unquestioned.
(12) Keeping of time records on other employees. Officers must promptly report absence of any men.
(13) Receipt of a weekly or monthly salary rather than hourly production wages. Probably not applicable in a public employment situation.
(14) Receipt of substantially greater pay than other employees. There are substantial pay differences between officers and rank-and-file department employees.
(15) Failure to receive overtime pay. Facts not disclosed by the record.
(16) Lack of requirement to punch time clock. Probably no time clock, but officers must be punctual.
(17) Nonparticipation in regular production work. These officers are not required to perform station duties and most of them do not. They supervise this work.
(18) Wearing of different work clothes from other employees. Undisputed.
These company commanders meet approximately 15 of the 18 secondary tests to determine supervisory status. In a close case, this should be determinative. Labor Relations Expediter, supra.
*342More cases involving such officers support the district court determination below rather than the hearing officer’s decision. See Elk Grove Firefighters Local No. 2340 v. Willis, supra, 400 F.Supp. 1097; City of Grand Island v. American Fed. of S. G. & M. Empl., 186 Neb. 711, 185 N.W.2d 860 (1971) (involving the precise question before us. That the Nebraska union was successful later in securing a legislative amendment should not influence our decision- — in-tervenor has available the same remedy); Basic Management, Inc., 104 N.L.R.B. No. 133, 32 LRRM 1191 (1953) (“fire captain and two lieutenants [at basic magnesium plant] are excluded * * * in view of their responsibility to direct the performance of firemen”); Hawthorne School of Aeronautics, 104 N.L.R.B. No. 150, 32 LRRM 1212 (1953); Hawaii Fire Fighters Ass’n., Hawaii P.E.R.B. No. 437 (1972); Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., FLRC No. 72A-12, GERR _ (1973); United States Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Calif., supra.
The hearing officer’s decision was based on errors of law which are raised by the employer. It cannot be supported upon a review of the entire record including the body of evidence opposed to his findings.
I would affirm district court’s determination.
LeGRAND and REES, JJ., join in this dissent.