National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University Yeshiva University Faculty Association v. Yeshiva University, Nos. 78-857
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | POWELL |
| Citation | 100 S.Ct. 856,63 L.Ed.2d 115,444 U.S. 672 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY |
| Docket Number | Nos. 78-857,78-997 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1980 |
v.
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY.
Yeshiva University Faculty Association (Union) filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (Board), seeking certification as bargaining agent for the full-time faculty members of certain schools of Yeshiva University, a private university. The University opposed the petition on the ground that all of its faculty members are managerial or supervisory personnel and hence not employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The evidence at hearings before the Board's hearing officer showed, inter alia, that a central administrative hierarchy serves all of the University's schools, with University-wide policies being formulated by the central administration upon approval of the Board of Trustees. However, the individual schools within the University are substantially autonomous, and the faculty members at each school effectively determine its curriculum, grading system, admission and matriculation standards, academic calendars, and course schedules. Also, the overwhelming majority of faculty recommendations as to faculty hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination, and promotion are implemented. The Board granted the Union's petition and directed an election. Summarily rejecting the University's contention that its faculty members are managerial employees, the Board held that the faculty members are professional employees entitled to the Act's protection. After the Union won the election and was certified, the University refused to bargain. In subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings, the Board ordered the University to bargain and sought enforcement in the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition. The court agreed that the faculty members are professional employees under § 2(12) of the Act, found that the Board had ignored "the extensive control of Yeshiva's faculty" over academic and personnel decisions as well as its "crucial role . . . in determining other central policies of the institution," and accordingly held that the faculty members are endowed with "managerial status" sufficient to remove them from the Act's coverage.
Page 673
Held : The University's full-time faculty members are managerial employees excluded from the Act's coverage. Pp. 679-691.
(a) The authority structure of a university does not fit neatly into the statutory scheme, because authority in the typical "mature" private university is divided between a central administration and one or more collegial bodies. The absence of explicit congressional direction does not preclude the Board from reaching any particular type of employment, and the Board has approved the formation of bargaining units composed of faculty members on the ground that they are "professional employees" under § 2(12) of the Act. Nevertheless professionals may be exempted from coverage under the judicially implied exclusion for "managerial employees" when they are involved in developing and implementing employer policy. Pp. 679-682.
(b) Here, application of the managerial exclusion to the University's faculty members is not precluded on the theory that they are not aligned with management because they are expected to exercise "independent professional judgment" while participating in academic governance and to pursue professional values rather than institutional interests. The controlling consideration is that the faculty exercises authority which in any other context unquestionably would be managerial, its authority in academic matters being absolute. The faculty's professional interests—as applied to governance at a university like Yeshiva which depends on the professional judgment of its faculty to formulate and apply policies—cannot be separated from those of the institution, and thus it cannot be said that a faculty member exercising independent judgment acts primarily in his own interest and does not represent the interest of his employer. Pp. 682-690.
(c) The deference ordinarily due the Board's expertise does not require reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision. This Court respects the Board's expertise when its conclusions are rationally based on articulated facts and consistent with the Act, but here the Board's decision satisfies neither criterion. P. 691.
2nd Cir., 582 F.2d 686, affirmed.
Norton J. Come, Washington, D. C., for petitioner in no. 78-857.
Page 674
Ronald H. Shechtman, New York City, for petitioner in no. 78-997.
Marvin E. Frankel, New York City, for respondent in both cases.
Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Supervisors and managerial employees are excluded from the categories of employees entitled to the benefits of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.1 The question presented is whether the full-time faculty of Yeshiva University fall within those exclusions.
Yeshiva is a private university which conducts a broad range of arts and sciences programs at its five undergraduate and eight graduate schools in New York City. On October 30, 1974, the Yeshiva University Faculty Association (Union) filed a representation petition with the National Labor Relations Board (Board). The Union sought certification as bargaining agent for the full-time faculty members at 10 of the 13
Page 675
schools.2 The University opposed the petition on the ground that all of its faculty members are managerial or supervisory personnel and hence not employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). A Board-appointed hearing officer held hearings over a period of five months, generating a voluminous record.
The evidence at the hearings showed that a central administrative hierarchy serves all of the University's schools. Ultimate authority is vested in a Board of Trustees, whose members (other than the President) hold no administrative positions at the University. The President sits on the Board of Trustees and serves as chief executive officer, assisted by four Vice Presidents who oversee, respectively, medical affairs and science, student affairs, business affairs, and academic affairs. An Executive Council of Deans and administrators makes recommendations to the President on a wide variety of matters.
University-wide policies are formulated by the central administration with the approval of the Board of Trustees, and include general guidelines dealing with teaching loads, salary scales, tenure, sabbaticals, retirement, and fringe benefits. The budget for each school is drafted by its Dean or Director, subject to approval by the President after consultation with a committee of administrators.3 The faculty participate
Page 676
in University-wide governance through their representatives on an elected student-faculty advisory council. The only University-wide faculty body is the Faculty Review Committee, composed of elected representatives who adjust grievances by informal negotiation and also may make formal recommendations to the Dean of the affected school or to the President. Such recommendations are purely advisory.
The individual schools within the University are substantially autonomous. Each is headed by a Dean or Director, and faculty members at each school meet formally and informally to discuss and decide matters of institutional and professional concern. At four schools, formal meetings are convened regularly pursuant to written bylaws. The remaining faculties meet when convened by the Dean or Director. Most of the schools also have faculty committees concerned with special areas of educational policy. Faculty welfare committees negotiate with administrators concerning salary and conditions of employment. Through these meetings and committees, the faculty at each school effectively determine its curriculum, grading system, admission and matriculation standards, academic calendars, and course schedules.4
Page 677
Faculty power at Yeshiva's schools extends beyond strictly academic concerns. The faculty at each school make recommendations to the Dean or Director in every case of faculty hiring, tenure, sabbaticals, termination and promotion. Although the final decision is reached by the central administration on the advice of the Dean or Director, the overwhelming majority of faculty recommendations are implemented.5 Even when financial problems in the early 1970's restricted Yeshiva's budget, faculty recommendations still largely controlled personnel decisions made within the constraints imposed by the administration. Indeed, the faculty of one school recently drew up new and binding policies expanding their own role in these matters. In addition, some faculties make final decisions regarding the admission, expulsion, and graduation of individual students. Others have decided questions involving teaching loads, student absence policies, tuition and enrollment levels, and in one case the location of a school.6
Page 678
A three-member panel of the Board granted the Union's petition in December 1975, and directed an election in a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time faculty members at the affected schools. 221 N.L.R.B. 1053 (1975). The unit included Assistant Deans, senior professors, and department chairmen, as well as associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors.7 Deans and Directors were excluded. The Board summarily rejected the University's contention that its entire faculty are managerial, viewing the claim as a request for reconsideration of previous Board decisions on the issue. Instead of making findings of fact as to Yeshiva, the Board referred generally to the record and found no "significan[t]" difference between this faculty and others it had considered. The Board concluded that the faculty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., S.F. 24803
...rights. 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 2(3) defines 'employee' in general terms, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3)...." (NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) 444 U.S. 672, 681, fn. 12, 100 S.Ct. 856, 861, fn. 12, 63 L.Ed.2d 115.) The exceptions listed in section 2(3) do not, on their face, include housestaff. In C......
-
Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside, No. S031593
...effectuate management policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of their employer." ' " (NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) 444 U.S. 672, 682, 100 S.Ct. 856, 862, 63 L.Ed.2d 115.) The purpose for the managerial exclusion, as the Supreme Court explained, was to prevent a situa......
-
Grancare, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., Nos. 96-5838
...that Congress wished to assure that management was not deprived "the undivided loyalty of its representatives." NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672, 682, 100 S.Ct. 856, 862, 63 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); see also S.REP. NO. 80-105, at 4-5. The Senate Report noted, however, that in defining "superv......
-
Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.
...Labor Statistics, Directory of National Unions and Employee Associations (1973) at p. 72.) 7 See, e. g., NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) 444 U.S. 672, 100 S.Ct. 856, 63 L.Ed.2d 8 See citations contained in Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 450-451, 168 Cal.Rptr.......
-
Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., S.F. 24803
...rights. 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 2(3) defines 'employee' in general terms, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3)...." (NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) 444 U.S. 672, 681, fn. 12, 100 S.Ct. 856, 861, fn. 12, 63 L.Ed.2d 115.) The exceptions listed in section 2(3) do not, on their face, include housestaff. In C......
-
Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside, No. S031593
...effectuate management policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of their employer." ' " (NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980) 444 U.S. 672, 682, 100 S.Ct. 856, 862, 63 L.Ed.2d 115.) The purpose for the managerial exclusion, as the Supreme Court explained, was to prevent a situa......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Attleboro Associates, Ltd., No. 98-6168
...the statutory requirements, not to 'any non-professional employee.' ... To be sure, as Page 162 recognized in [NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672, 100 S.Ct. 856, 63 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980) ], there may be 'some tension between the Act's exclusion of [supervisory and] managerial employees and it......
-
Pacific Northwest Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., OREGON-COLUMBIA
...the jobsite at any time, or perhaps at any time when that worker's presence might lead to jobsite friction. 39 NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 691, 100 S.Ct. 856, 867, 63 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Compare Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 500-01, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2473, 57 L.Ed.2......
-
Labor Law Today—2021 Year in Review
...for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the USC subgroup majority status rule as incompatible with NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980). See Univ. of So. Cal. v. NLRB, 918 F.3d 126 (D.C. Cir. 2019). When Elon filed a request for review of the acting regional director’s dec......
-
EMPLOYMENT LAW VIOLATIONS
...and making operative the decisions of their employer” (quoting Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. at 288)). 295. See NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672, 686 (1980) (holding teaching faculty were “managerial” because they had almost complete control over academic matters); Univ. of S. Cal. v. NLR......
-
Capitalist Development, Labor Law, and the New Working Class.
...(185.) See supra notes 110-116 and accompanying text (discussing the Steelworkers Trilogy). (186.) See, e.g., NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672, 682 (1980); First Nat'l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 676 (187.) See generally John Logan, Labor's "Last Stand" in National Politics? The ......
-
Judicial Review of Administrative Agencies: Does the Type of Agency Matter?
...Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979), and National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1979). Althoughthe grounds upon which the Court ruled against the Board were different the votingalignment was identical. In both cases, Justices......
-
The Death of Critical Thinking at Neoliberal U.
...critical thinking skills necessary to preserve open inquiry and democracy. NOTE (1.) National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 US 672 Beaulier, Scott A., William J. Boyes, and William S. Mounts 2008 "The Influence of Economists on Public Attitudes toward Government." The Ame......