Cornell University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 329 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

CORNELL UNIVERSITY 329
Cornell University and Association of Cornell Em-
ployers-Libraries
Cornell University , Petitioner and Staff Association
of the Metropolitan District Office , School of In-
dustrial and Labor Relations , Cornell University
Cornell University , Petitioner and Association of
Cornell Employers-Libraries
Cornell University , Petitioner and Civil Service Em-
ployees Association, Inc.
Syracuse University , Petitioner and Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 200,
AFL-CIO. Cases 3-RC-4768, 3-RM-440,
3-RM-441, 3-RM-442, and 3-RM-433
June 12, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH , BROWN, AND
JENKINS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Of-
ficer John W. Irving of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, Series 8, as amended, by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 3, these cases
were transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs
were filed by the Employers, the Association of
Cornell Employees-Libraries, Civil Service Em-
ployees Association, Inc., and Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, in behalf of Service
Employees International Union, Local 200,
AFL-CIO.' The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. Cornell University and Syracuse University,
the Employers herein, have filed representation
petitions seeking elections to determine the bar-
gaining representatives of certain of their
nonacademic employees. Association of Cornell
Employees-Libraries (herein called ACE) has also
filed a petition seeking to represent a group of
library employees.
The threshold question is whether the Board has
or should assert jurisdiction over nonprofit colleges
and universities in view of the 1951 decision in the
Columbia University case.' In that case, the Board
decided that it would not effectuate the policies of
the Act "to assert its jurisdiction over a nonprofit,
educational institution where the activities involved
are noncommercial in nature and intimately con-
nected with charitable and educational activities of
the institution.' 3
All the petitioners urge the Board to overrule the
Columbia University case. Syracuse and Cornell
argue that the operations and activities of educa-
tional institutions as a class, and of Cornell and
Syracuse in particular, have an overwhelming im-
pact and effect on interstate commerce, that the
operations of universities and colleges have increas-
ingly become matters of Federal interest, and that
this interest coupled with the failure of the States
adequately to recognize and legislate for labor rela-
tions affecting these institutions and their em-
ployees now justifies the Board in asserting jurisdic-
tion. In support of their contention as to the impact
of the operations of Syracuse and Cornell, as well
as of educational institutions as a class, upon in-
terstate commerce, the Employers have presented
extensive documentation of financial activities
which are set forth hereinafter.
Syracuse University
Syracuse University is the largest employer in the
city of Syracuse, New York. It has about 3,500
academic and nonacademic employees. The cur-
rent student population is 21,000, of whom 4,000
to 5,000 are from out-of-State, and 900 from out-
of-country. In addition to facilities in New York
State, Syracuse has facilities in South America,
Holland, Italy, and France.
The purchasing department of the University
makes annual purchases approximating $8 million
of which more than $5 million originate outside the
State of New York. In addition, the University
' With the Board's consent the following parties submitted amici curiae
briefs supporting the Board 's assertion of jurisdiction AFL-CIO, Boston
University, Colgate University, Dowling College, Fordham University,
Hamilton College , Lasell Junior College, Maria Regina College , New York
University, Rochester Institute of Technology, St John Fisher College,
University of Rochester, Wheaton College, Yale University, NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc
Parties opposing Board assertion ofjurisdiction Association of Indepen-
dent California Colleges and Universities, Association of Private Colleges
and Universities of Georgia, Baylor University, California Institute of
Technology , California State Colleges , Federation of Independent Illinois
Colleges, New York State Labor Relations Board, Oregon Independent
Colleges Association, Southern Methodist University, Texas Christian
University, University of Miami, and University of the Pacific Also the Na-
tional Association of State Labor Relations Agencies passed a resolution in
October 1969 , requesting the Board to continue its exemption for private
colleges and universities
2 Trustees ofColunibia Universtq, 97 NLRB 424
3 /d at 427
183 NLRB No. 41
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Book Store and Food Service annually make out-
of-State purchases valued at more than $2 million.
The University operates a theatre which annually
makes out-of-State purchases valued at about
$300,000. The University realizes $500,000 an-
nually from the sale of tickets for football games,
and $250,000 from the sale of television and radio
rights.
Syracuse has an annual operating budget of $66
million. It has an investment portfolio valued at $36
million, which includes stockholdings in industrial
firms, banks, and utilities. It also is the sole
stockholder in a-country club whose employees are
represented by a union certified by the Board.
Further, it has real estate investments outside New
York State valued at $750,000.
Finally, Syracuse is a party to numerous spon-
sored research contracts with such Federal agencies
as the Department of Defense, National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, Institute of Health,
and Department of Labor and such private spon-
sors as the Ford and Carnegie foundations. The an-
nual value of these research contracts is in excess
of $13 million.
Cornell University
Cornell University is the largest employer in
Tompkins County, New York. It has more than
8,000 employees in New York State, of whom
2,700 are academic and 5,700 nonacademic. Cor-
nell presently has an enrolled student body exceed-
ing 14,000. Fifty percent of these students are from
outside the State of New York. There are also in
excess of 1,100 students from 87 foreign countries
enrolled at the University.
The University has offices in Ohio, Mas-
sachusetts, Illinois, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and
operates an observatory in Puerto Rico.
During 1968-69, the University's publishing de-
partment purchased goods valued at $16,400,000.
Of this sum, $10,750,000 represented purchases of
items manufactured outside the State of New York.
During the same period, Cornell University Press
made purchases of almost $1 million, of which
more than half represented direct or indirect
purchases of out-of-State manufactured products.
During this same year, the Press made sales valued
at $942,000 to purchasers outside the State. Cor-
nell also owns a radio station, a CBS affiliate, which
in 1968-69 received $296,000 from local and re-
gional advertising, and $38,000 from national ad-
vertising.
Cornell's annual expenditures amount to
$142,300,000. Its current assets are valued at
$282,500,000. Included is an investment portfolio
of over $250 million which consists, inter alia, of in-
vestments in industrial concerns, banks, insurance
companies, and public utilities.
During 1968-69, Cornell had research contracts
amounting to $26,600,000 sponsored by various
agencies of the Federal Government, including Na-
tional Science Foundation, Public Health Service,
Atomic Energy Commission, Department of
Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration. In addition, the University received $6
million for research projects sponsored by such
foundations as Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller.
Discussion
Section 2(2) of the Act defines an "employer" as
follows:
... any person acting as an agent of an em-
ployer, directly or indirectly, but shall not in-
clude the United States or any wholly owned
Government corporation, or any Federal
Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivi-
sion thereof, or any corporation or association
operating a hospital, if no part of the net
earnings inures to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual ....
Although Section 2(2) specifically excludes non-
profit hospitals from the Act's coverage, it contains
no such exclusion of private, nonprofit educational
institutions. In the Columbia University case, the
Board reviewed the then recently enacted Taft-
Hartley amendments to the National Labor 'Rela-
tions Act and concluded that
... the activities of Columbia University affect
commerce sufficiently to satisfy the require-
ments of the statute and the standards
established by the Board for the normal exer-
cise of its jurisdiction .... 4
However, the Board, as a discretionary matter,
declined to assert such jurisdiction because of state-
ments in the House Conference Report5 which
seemed to indicate approval of what the report be-
lieved to have been the Board's pre-1947 practice
of declining in the exercise of its discretion to assert
jurisdiction over certain nonprofit organizations.'
The Board concluded:
Under all the circumstances, we do not be-
lieve that it would effectuate the policies of the
Act for the Board to assert its jurisdiction over
a nonprofit, educational institution where the
4 Id at 425
° H Rept 510, 80th Cong 1st Sess , p 32
See discussion in Columbia Universtt), supra at 426-427
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
activities involved are noncommercial in na-
ture and intimately connected with the charita-
ble purposes and educational activities of the
institution.
It should be noted that, although the House Con-
ference Report referred to the Board's pre-1947
practice with respect to exercising jurisdiction over
nonprofit employers, the 1947 amendments them-
selves placed no curb on the Board's discretionary
jurisdiction except as to nonprofit hospitals. The re-
port did not say that, because the Board had de-
cided before 1947 it would not effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over certain
employers, it must continue to refuse to assert such
jurisdiction indefinitely in the future despite change
of circumstances. This hardly seems inadvertent.
Congress was well aware that the Board's discre-
tionary standards for asserting jurisdiction were not
fixed, but had been changed from time to time. The
very fact that Congress rejected the 1947 House
proposals for the specific exemption from the Act
of broad classes of charitable or nonprofit organiza-
tions seems to indicate that Congress was content
to leave to the Board's informed discretion in the
future as it had in the past, whether and when to as-
sert jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations whose
operations had a substantial impact upon interstate
commerce.
We adhere to the view that the Board has statu-
tory jurisdiction over nonprofit educational institu-
tions whose operations affect commerce. But we
shall no longer decline to assert jurisdiction over
such institutions as a class.
In the intervening two decades since Columbia
University was decided, the Board has declined to
assert jurisdiction over nonprofit universities if the
activity involved was noncommercial and intimately
connected with the school's educational purpose.'
However, an analysis of the cases reveals that the
dividing line separating purely commercial from
noncommercial activity has not been easily
defined.8
Those who urge adherence to the Columbia
University doctrine9 contend that the legislative his-
tory of the Taft-Hartley amendments establishes
' See, e g , Leland Stanford Junior University , 152 NLRB 704, Universit
of Miami, 146 NLRB 1448 The courts have not directly passed on the
validity of the Board 's interpretation of Sec 2 ( 2) and its legislative history
However, this question is referred to in Office Employees International
Union, Local 1I v N L R B , 353 U S 313, where the Supreme Court
reverse the Board 's refusal to assert jurisdiction over nonprofit labor
unions as a class Although the Court quoted language from the 1947 Con-
ference Report with apparent approval, it nevertheless stated that "the
Board has never recognized such a blanket rule of exclusion over all non-
profit employers It has declined jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis over reli-
gious, educational , and eleemosynary employers " (ld at 318 ) See
also Hotel Employees Local 255 v N L R B , 358 U S 99, where the
331
that Congress intended to exempt nonprofit educa-
tional institutions from the coverage of the Act.
They further argue that Congress ratified its earlier
position by amending the Act in 1959 without com-
menting on or altering the 1947 Conference Report
relative to exclusion.
It is true that the legislative history of the 1959
Landrum-Griffin Act is completely silent on the
matter of nonprofit employers. We are not per-
suaded , however, that congressional silence may be
construed as indicating continued congressional ap-
proval of either the 1947 legislative history or
Board reliance on it . The fact remains that Section
2(2) contains no express exemption for nonprofit
employers. More to the point is that in 1959 Con-
gress enacted Section 14(c) which for the first time
both authorized and set limits on the Board's dis-
cretionary refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
Two years before the enactment of Section
14(c), the Supreme Court ruled in Guss v. Utah
Labor Relations Board" that the States were
powerless to entertain cases which fell within the
NLRB's statutory jurisdiction, even though the
Board had declined to assert such jurisdiction.
Thus, a "no-man's land" was created where em-
ployers and employees were denied a Federal
forum for the resolution of labor disputes and yet
were unable to turn to the States for alternative
relief.[' Ample 'evidence in the legislative history
reveals that Section 14(c) was the Congressional
response designed to eliminate the "no-man's
land."12 Toward this end, Section 14(c)(1) states
that the Board in its discretion may "decline to
assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving
any class or category of employers, where, in the
opinion of the Board, the effect of such labor dis-
pute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to
warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction. . . ." Con-
versely, it impliedly confirms the Board's authority
to expand its jurisdiction to any class of employers
whose operations substantially affect commerce.
Section 14(c)(2) further attempts to narrow the
"no-man 's land" gap by empowering the States
to exercise jurisdiction when the Board declines to
so assert.
Supreme Court ruled that it was not permissible for the Board to decline ju-
risdiction over an industry which substantially affects commerce
"Compare Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution , 143 NLRB 568, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology ( Lincoln Laboratory ), 110 NLRB 1611,
and California Institute of Technology , 102 NLRB 1402 (jurisdiction as-
serted), with Armour Research Foundation of Illinois Institute of Technolo.
gy, 107 NLRB 1052 (jurisdiction declined)
e E g , amici curiae briefs of Association of Independent California Col-
leges and Universities , and New York State Labor Relations Board
10 353 U S 1 (1957)
11 I Leg Hist 422 (1959)
12 Id at 1150, 1084, 1582
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the language of Section 14(c) does not
compel the Board to assert jurisdiction, it does
manifest a congressional policy favoring such asser-
tion where the Board finds that the operations of a
class of employers exercise a substantial effect on
commerce.
In light of these statutory guidelines, Syracuse
and Cornell have called upon the Board to reex-
amine the soundness of the Columbia University
doctrine as it applies to colleges and universities
today.13 Petitioners introduced extensive evidence
at the hearing to document their claim that educa-
tional institutions as a class have not only a substan-
tial, but massive, impact on interstate commerce.
After carefully examining all the evidence sub-
mitted, we are compelled to conclude that, what-
ever guidance the 1947 Conference Report pro-
vided to the situation which existed in 1951 when
Columbia University was decided, the underlying
considerations no longer obtain two decades later.
No claim is made that education is not still the
primary goal of such institutions. Indeed, more than
2 million students are enrolled in colleges today, al-
most double the number attending in 1951.14 Yet to
carry out its educative functions, the university has
become involved in a host of activities which are
commercial in character.
Thus, the approximately 1,450 private 4- and 2-
year colleges and universities in the United States
have on their payrolls some 247,000 full-time
professionals and 263,000 full- and part-time non-
professional employees.15 Operating budgets of
private educational facilities were an estimated $6
billion in 1969, an increase of $300 million over the
previous fiscal year.16 Income is derived not only
from the traditional sources, such as tuition and
gifts, but from the purely commercial avenues of
securities investments and real estate holdings.
Revenues of private institutions of higher education
for fiscal year 1966-67 totaled over $6 billion."
More than $1.5 billion of that sum came from
Government appropriations."' Private colleges and
universities also realized a commercial profit of
13 In the past it has been the nonprofit employer who has opposed Board
assertion of Jurisdiction In this regard , see Lovelace Foundation for Medical
Education and Research, 165 NLRB 743, Leland Stanford Junior Universit',
152 NLRB 704, MIT, 152 NLRB 598, Universit) of Miami, Institute of
Marine Science Division, 146 NLRB 1448, Crony Brothers, NY Inc,
146 NLRB 755, cf Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution , 143 NLRB
568
""Projections of Educational Statistics to 1975-76," National Center
for Education Statistics , 1966, p II Nearly I million students left their
states of origin to pursue their education, "Digest of Education Statistics,"
U S Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, p 71 Another 110,000 are
from foreign countries " A Fact Book of Higher Education ," American
Council on Education, 3d issue, p 8170.
M "Numbers and Characteristics of Employees in Institutions of Higher
Education ," Higher Education, National Center for Educational Statistics,
1966
° "College and University Business," October 1968, McGraw-Hill
""Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Education Current
$70,678,000 from furnishing housing and food ser-
vices.19
Expenditures to operate and maintain these
academic communities necessarily include
purchases of food, furniture, office equipment, sup-
plies, utilities, and the like, much of which is ob-
tained through the channels of interstate com-
merce. Merely to house its students the average
private college budgeted $323,000 for fiscal 1969,
and allotted another $360,000 for food services.20
Further, the expanding nature of higher- education
is reflected in the amount of new construction
being planned. In 1969, over 1,000 institutions
planned some 3,000 separate building projects with
a total estimated value of $4.35 billion, one-half bil-
lion dollars more than was appropriated the preced-
ing year.21
Another phenomenon clearly distinguishing the
current situation from the one which existed in
1951 is the expanded role of the Federal Govern-
ment in higher education. In the last 12 years alone,
three legislative acts have been passed which
authorize allocations of millions of dollars of
Federal aid for education.22 Total Federal funds for
private and public education in 1969 amounted to
$5 billion.23 This figure, moreover, does not include
moneys expended for student loans, sponsored
research, or Government-approved construction.
Increased Federal financial involvement in edu-
cation is paralleled by an expanding congressional
recognition that employees in the nonprofit sector
are entitled to the same benefits which Federal
statutes provide to employees in the profitmaking
sphere.24 Of particular pertinence here is the
amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in
1966 extending coverage to nonprofit private
universities and hospitals. In 1968, the Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the amend-
ments, holding that such institutions are engaged in
commerce.25 In support of this conclusion, the
Court stated , inter alia : "It is clear that labor condi-
tions in schools and hospitals can affect commerce.
... Strikes and work stoppages involving employees
Funds Revenues and Expenditures," Higher Education , National Center
for Educational Statistics, 1966
'" Id at 14
'B Id at 14-15
"College and University Business ," September 1968, pp 52-59
2i "College and University Business ," January 1969, pp 37-40
z2 National Defense Education Act of 1958, Higher Education Act of
1963, International Education Act of 1966 "American Universities and
Colleges," American Council on Education, pp 22-26
z' "Digest of Educational Statistics ," p 107, U S Department of Health,
Education and Welfare
2' E g , the Social Security Law has been amended to permit educational
institutions •to elect coverage for their employees ( Sec 210a, Social Securi-
ty Act, 42 USC 40) In November 1969, the House of Representatives ap-
proved a bill which would extend unemployment insurance to educational
institutions (H R 14705)
° Maryland v Wirtz, 392 U S 183
CORNELL UNIVERSITY 333
of schools and hospitals, events which unfortunate-
ly are not infrequent, obviously interrupt and bur-
den this flow of goods across state lines. 1126
Given the congressional amendments to the
FLSA and the Supreme Court decision upholding -
them, it is no longer sufficient to say that merely
because employees are in a nonprofit sector of the
economy, the operations of their employers do not
substantially affect interstate commerce.
However, those who oppose Board jurisdiction
contend that many private colleges, unlike Cornell
and Syracuse, have remained relatively small and
local in character and labor disputes involving their
employees do not burden interstate commerce.27
They also allege that private colleges represent a
declining proportion of higher educational institu-
tions in the United States . Therefore, if the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board were to take jurisdic-
tion, it would be over only a fractional segment of
the field. A more logical approach, they submit, is
to have all such institutions subject to State control,
thereby avoiding the conflict and instability that al-
legedly would result were both Federal and local
agencies to function within a single State. We find
no merit in these arguments.
It may be true that Cornell and Syracuse count
among the largest of the private universities in the
country. Nevertheless, within the class of em-
ployers, there are a number which, although
smaller than these two universities, are sufficiently
large so that their activities have a substantial im-
pact on commerce.
It may also be true that, in certain respects,
public colleges and universities tend to be larger
than their private counterparts. Thus, only 29 per-
cent of the student population is enrolled in private
colleges and universities.28 Further, the rate of
growth in terms of numbers of public institutions is
more rapid than the growth rate for private
schools.29
This does not diminish the fact that 2,102,000
students are currently enrolled in private colleges,
an increase of 21-1/2 percent in the past 5 years.30
Moreover, there are still 489 more private colleges
in this country than public ones.31 Although the
private sector has not grown to the same extent as
has the public on a sheer percentage basis, it has
grown substantially.32
In any event, we note that in all cases where the
Board applies a size criterion, expressed in dollar
volume, in its assertion of jurisdiction, a portion of
the industry is relegated to the State or other con-
trol. While complete uniformity in the application
of Federal or state controls might be desirable in
theory, in practice the resulting remission to state
control of those enterprises falling - below the
Board's own jurisdictional standard has not in the
past resulted in substantial instability or uncertainty
in the application of the law.
The evidence clearly establishes that universities
are enlarging both their facilities and their
economic activities to meet the needs of mounting
numbers of students. Greatly increased expendi-
tures by the Federal Government also testify to an
expanding national interest in higher education.
Keeping pace with these developments is the surge
of organizational activity taking place among em-
ployees on college campuses. With or without
Federal regulation, union organization is already a
fait accompli at many universities.33 Indeed, labor
disputes have already erupted at a number of
universities.39 As advancing waves of organizational
swell among both nonprofessional and academic
employees, it is unreasonable to assume that such
disputes will not continue to occur in the future.
As noted previously, Section 14(c) was enacted
primarily to provide forums to resolve labor
disputes for those employers and employees who
were denied Federal relief. Congress was aware
that by 1959 only 12 States had any labor relations
law.35 Presumably, Congress then expected that the
other States would establish agencies to fill the
void. If so, these expectations have been disap-
pointed. To date, a total of 15 States have enacted
labor-management legislation.36 In only eight of
these States has the legislation been written or in-
terpreted so as to expressly cover employees of
28 Id at 194, 195
'r We note, for example , that among the 51 member institutions of the
Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, 37 re-
ported annual operating expenditures of over $1 million Five institutions
did not report. Appendixes A and B , amicus curiae brief of Independent
California Colleges and Universities
S8 "A Fact Book on Higher Education," American Council on Educa-
tion, Washington , D C , Issue No 1, 1969, p 9009
' Id
'0 "Opening Fall Enrollment in Higher Education ," Higher Education,
National Center for Education Statistics , 1968, p 5.
ii "A Fact Book on Higher Education ," Issue No 3, p 8117
' Id Private institutions have increased in number from 1,218 in 1951 to
1,489 in 1968
' See Tracy Ferguson , "Collective Bargaining in Universities and Col-
leges," 19 Lab Law J 778, 791-804
9° E g , at Duke University, over 600 students and faculty members
demonstrated to back demands that the wages of nonacademic employees
be raised New York Times, July 8, 1968 Also during the 1968 student
demonstrations at Columbia University, a student group was quoted as say-
ing "the cafeteria workers on campus who are almost entirely Negro or
Puerto Rican- they still aren 't allowed to organize Some of them have
been working here for 10 years " New Yorker, May 4, 1968, p 43
35 1 Leg Hist 422
38 Colorado , Connecticut , Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts , Michigan,
Minnesota , New York, North Dakota, Oregon , Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin , Tracy Ferguson, "Collective
Bargaining in Universities and Colleges," 19 Lab Law J 778, 786-789
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
private educational institutions.37 Moreover, even
in those eight, the laws may be inadequate. For ex-
ample, New York for years has had an equivalent
of the Wagner Act, yet it contains no remedies for
unfair labor practices which may be committed by
unions . To put it another way, there are 35 States
without labor codes under which matters such as
union organization , collective bargaining, and labor
disputes may be determined.
Consequently, we are convinced that assertion of
jurisdiction is required over those private colleges
and universities whose operations have a substantial
effect on commerce to insure the orderly, effective,
and uniform application of the national labor pol-
icy.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, we
can no longer adhere to the position set forth in the
Columbia University decision. Accordingly, that
case is overruled. Charged with providing peaceful
and orderly procedures to resolve labor con-
troversy, we conclude that we can best effectuate
the policies of the Act by asserting jurisdiction over
nonprofit, private educational institutions where we
find it to be appropriate.
At this time , the Board is not prepared to
establish jurisdictional standards for nonprofit col-
leges and universities as a class , for the instant
proceedings do not give us a sufficient basis for
selecting an appropriate measure by which to deter-
mine whether the policies of the Act will be effec-
tuated by the exercise of jurisdiction in a particular
case . Therefore, we leave the development of an
appropriate jurisdictional standard for subsequent
adjudication.
Whatever dollar-volume standard we ultimately
adopt for asserting jurisdiction over educational in-
stitutions can best be left to determination in future
situations involving institutions which are far nearer
the appropriate dividing line. In view of the forego-
ing facts disclosing the substantial involvement in
operations in commerce and affecting commerce
by Cornell and Syracuse Universities, there is no
question that Cornell and Syracuse are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employers.
"The eight States are Colorado, Connecticut , Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Michigan , Minnesota , New York, and Wisconsin.
9e As described in the RM petition the unit includes.
All full-time and regular part-time hourly paid service and main-
tenance employees , including those in the following departments
custodial , steam station , mailing, telephone and warehouse , electric,
plumbers and steam fitting, machine shop and garage and tin shop,
carpenters , painters and masons , laborers and grounds, night opera-
tions, dormitory maintenance Additionally, the hourly paid nonclen-
3. Service Employees International Union, Local
200, AFL-CIO, was elected collective-bargaining
representative for a unit of full-time and regular
part-time service and maintenance employees at
Syracuse University in an election conducted under
the direction of the New York State Labor Rela-
tions Board 38
At the hearing in the instant proceeding, the
University and Local 200 virtually stipulated to the
appropriateness of the above unit and were en-
gaged at that time in collective bargaining. Both
parties have urged the Board to honor the state cer-
tification of the Local in the event jurisdiction is as-
serted.
It is well established that the Board will recognize
the validity of state-conducted elections and certifi-
cations where that election procedure was free of
irregularities and reflected the true desires of the
employees.39 Since neither party contends that the
state-conducted election was attended by any ir-
regularities, we shall accord the same effect to the
results of the state election as we would attach to a
determination of representatives based upon an
election conducted by the Board. Accordingly,
there is no question concerning representation of
Syracuse University employees at this time. We
shall, therefore , dismiss Syracuse University's peti-
tion.
4. A question affecting commerce does exist
concerning the representation of certain employees
of Cornell University within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Cornell has filed a petition seeking an election in
a unit of all the University's nonacademic, nonsu-
pervisory employees throughout the State of New
York. Civil Service Employees Association agrees
that a statewide unit is appropriate. Association of
Cornell Employees-Libraries (ACE) requests a
separate unit for approximately 270 nonprofes-
sional, nonsupervisory employees of the Cornell
libraries on the Ithaca campus. Staff Association of
the Metropolitan District Office, School of Industri-
al Relations, Cornell University, United Federation
of College Teachers, Local 1460 (UFCT), contends
that a unit composed of 17 professionals and 20
nonprofessionals in the district office of the New
York State School of Industrial Relations located in
New York City is appropriate.
cal employees in the purchasing department working at the Ainsley
Drive warehouse , and the stockroom clerk in the book store depart-
ment at the warehouse and the book store truck drivers
se See Western Meat Packers, Inc , 148 NLRB 444, enforcement denied
on grounds unrelated to general rule. N.L R B v Western Meat Packers,
Inc., 380 F 2d 804 (C A. 10), West Indian Co. Lid, 129 NLRB 1203, Ohn
Mathieson Chemical Corporation, 115 NLRB 1501, T-H Products Compan',,
113 NLRB 1246
ACE Unit
CORNELL UNIVERSITY 335
In terms of the University's organizational struc-
ture, the libraries constitute a separate administra-
tive unit. As such, this unit has established its own
work rules and administers its own budget. There
are 13 separate libraries on the Ithaca campus, with
two-thirds of all proposed unit employees located in
the main library. The ratio between library em-
ployees and others housed in the same building va-
ries from 3 to 80 percent, depending on the size of
the particular library.
There was conflicting testimony as to whether
the nonprofessional employees' work in the libra-
ries is distinct. On the other hand, there were asser-
tions that, although much library work today is
done by nonprofessionals, it is of semiprofessional
character requiring a certain amount of training.
Thus, new library employees now receive an 8- to
10-hour orientation as well as on-the-job training.
Forty percent of the jobs allegedly require a college
background. There are 9 job titles identifying posi-
tions which exist solely within the library system; 17
other classifications are used campuswide. How-
ever, while the nine job titles may be singular, ap-
parently the job content is not. For example, "libra-
ry assistants," "library searchers," and "proof-
readers" perform duties comparable to many uni-
versity clericals, research aides, and proofreaders
throughout the campus.
With respect to employee interchange, 12 library
positions were filled by employees transferring from
other campus jobs during the 1967 academic year.
During this time, 46 promotions and 1 1 transfers in
the library system were of library employees. Over
60 percent of new hires were recruited from off
campus.
ACE, formed as a labor organization approxi-
mately 2-1/2 years ago, has a constitution and a
dues-paying membership and holds regular
meetings. It has never been officially recognized by
the University nor entered into collective-bargain-
ing negotiations, but has represented library em-
ployees at a number of meetings held with Universi-
ty administrators and has handled numerous unit-
wide grievances as well as those of individual em-
ployees.
UFCT Unit
Because it is located some 280 miles from Ithaca,
the New York City extension office of the Industri-
al and Labor Relations School (ILR) is accorded a
great degree of autonomy. It controls its own hir-
ing, establishes vacation and holiday schedules in-
dependently, and proposes its own programs and
curricula tailored to the particular needs and de-
mands of its New York City clientele. Its location
further requires that certain employment practices
be followed in conformance with area standards.
For example, employees are frequently hired above
the minimum wage to compete with the higher
wage market in the city. The workweek is 35 hours,
whereas at the main campus it is 38-3/4 hours.
Holidays are in accord with those granted in the
area.
However, there is testimony to the effect that the
autonomy accorded to the ILR School's New York
City office merely reflects Cornell's policy to grant
relative independence to all its administrative de-
partments. Thus, other departlent heads have con-
siderable latitude in such matters as hiring and ar-
ranging work schedules and vacation leave. The
three other ILR extension branches located in
Ithaca, Albany, and Buffalo also gear their pro-
grams to meet specific local needs. Additionally,
Cornell has other facilities in New York City which
adapt employment practices to meet area stan-
dards.
Further, it does not appear that the functions of
the nonprofessional employees at the New York
City ILR office are distinct. Their job classifications
and duties parallel similar titles and duties on the
Ithaca campus.
Statewide Unit
There is considerable evidence that the opera-
tions of Cornell's facilities scattered throughout the
State are integrated and centralized and that a com-
munity of interests is shared by all of its nonprofes-
sional employees. Thus, the director of personnel
testified that the personnel department establishes
employment practices and labor relations policies
for the entire University. This department conducts
recruitment, interviews applicants, and refers them
to job vacancies, although actual hiring is done by
the respective department heads. It also determines
the benefits to which employees are entitled and
slots employees into various levels of the wage
scale. Job titles of Cornell employees are identical
throughout the State. Meetings are held occa-
sionally for new employees, and there is some
secretarial training offered. Job vacancies are
posted throughout the University, and there is cam-
puswide bidding and transfers. Although recruit-
ment and hiring for installations remote from Ithaca
are decided at the particular site, classification of
positions is still done by a central office at the main
campus. Financial records are maintained and
checks are issued from the Ithaca campus.
Additionally, Cornell has developed uniform
guidelines covering such matters as attendance,
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leaves of absence, vacations, holidays, tardiness,
discipline, overtime, and seniority applicable to all
its employees. With few exceptions, all Cornell em-
ployees participate in many of the same fringe
benefit programs such as workmen's compensation,
disability, life insurance, retirement'40 and a tuition
scholarship plan for children.
In determining whether a particular group of em-
ployees constitutes an appropriate unit for bargain-
ing where an employer operates a number of facili-
ties, the Board considers such factors as prior bar-
gaining history, centralization of management par-
ticularly in regard to labor relations, extent of em-
ployee interchange, degree of interdependence or
autonomy of the plants, differences or similarities
in skills and functions of the employees, and geo-
graphical location of the facilities in relation to
each other.41 We are mindful that we are entering
into a hitherto uncharted area. Nevertheless, we re-
gard the above principles as reliable guides to or-
ganization in the educational context as they have
been in the industrial, and will apply them to the
circumstances of the instant case.
Although ACE has acted informally in behalf of
the library employees in the handling of grievances,
it has never negotiated a collective-bargaining con-
tract for them, nor has it been recognized as their
bargaining representative. Apart from the fact that
these employees have organized themselves
separately, there is little which justifies establishing
a separate bargaining unit for them. Their work and
skills are similar to those of many other employees
on the Ithaca campus, and they enjoy the same
working conditions and benefits as other Cornell
employees. In view of the foregoing, we do not find
that the library employees possess a sufficiently
separate community of interest which would war-
'rant establishing the separate unit sought by ACE.
We reach the same conclusion as to the em-
ployees of the Industrial Relations School. In the in-
dustrial context, our practice is to find a single
plant of a multiplant employer presumptively ap-
propriate where that facility is geographically
separated from the others, where the operations of
the single plant are not integrated with those of
other plants, where there is a degree of local
40 Employees of the four "contract " colleges at Cornell , i e , those which
are funded by the State of New York, participate in a separate state retire-
ment program
41 See, e g , J W Mays, Inc , 147 NLRB 968, American Linen Suppl) Co ,
Inc, 129 NLRB 993
42 See, e g , Haag Drug Company, Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877, Sav-On
Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032
43 See, e g, Pacific Drive-In Theatres Corp, 167 NLRB 661, Adams Drug
Co , Inc , 164 NLRB 594, enforcement denied sub nom Local 1325 , Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, 414 F 2d 1194 (C A D.C );
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 158 NLRB 925
managerial autonomy, and where no other union is
seeking a larger unit.42
In the instant proceeding, a few of these factors
are present. The ILR School New York City branch
is located at a considerable distance from the main
campus and it is relatively autonomous in its opera-
tions. Were there no countervailing considerations
involved, we might find justification for the bar-
gaining unit claimed by the UFCT.
There are, however, other criteria which must be
taken into account here. We find it significant that
the nonprofessional employees of the ILR School
perform the same duties as many other Cornell em-
ployees in the same job classifications, and they are
equally subject to the uniform and centralized em-
ployment practices of the University. Further, there
is no prior collective-bargaining history for these
employees. Finally, there is a union which is seek-
ing a broad inclusive unit coextensive with the Em-
ployer's administrative and geographic bounda-
ries ."' In light of these circumstances, we find that a
unit limited to the employees of the New York City
ILR School is not appropriate. We find, instead,
that the appropriate unit is one which is statewide
in scope.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions in
Cases 3-RC-4768, 3-RM-440, and 3-RM-441
and, in agreement with Cornell and CSEA, we find
that the following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All nonsupervisory, nonprofessional employees
of Cornell University within the State of New
York, excluding employees of the medical col-
lege and nursing school in New York City,
skilled trades employees on the Ithaca campus
who are currently represented, guards, con-
fidential employees, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in
Cases 3-RM-433, 3-RC-4768, 3-RM-440, and
3-RM-441 be, and they hereby are , dismissed.
[Direction of Election" omitted from publica-
tion.]
44 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 3 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236