Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc. and
United Faculty of Florida (Local 1880, AFT, AFL-
CIO, FEA/United), Petitioner. Case 12-RC-5594
June 1., 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer William G. Franke.
Subsequently, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 12 transferred this case to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial er-
ror. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer, a private aviation-oriented uni-
versity, has its principal campus in Daytona Beach.
Florida. It offers degrees through the master's level in
several aviation-oriented fields.
The Employer's gross annual revenue exceeds $1
million. It concedes, and we find, that it is engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Board has
jurisdiction.
2. The Employer stipulated, and we find, that the
Petitioner, United Faculty of Florida (Local 1880,
AFT, AFL-CIO, FEA/United), is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following rea-
sons:
The University is divided into three colleges: The
College of Aeronautical Studies, the College of Avi-
ation Technology, and the College of Continuing
Education which is not involved here. The College of
Aeronautical Studies, which offers academic subjects,
has six divisions: humanities and social science, com-
puter technology, aeronautical engineering, aviation
management, mathematics and physical science, and
a language laboratory. Technical subjects are offered
by the College of Aviation Technology, which in-
cludes the divisions of maintenance technology, flight
technology, aeronautical science, and aerospace sci-
ence.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time faculty
members, including full-time adjunct faculty in the
Colleges of Aeronautical Studies and Aviation Tech-
nology,' except for those employed in the language
laboratory in the former and those in the flight tech-
nology division in the latter, excluding all part-time
faculty and all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends
that the unit should include all full-time faculty mem-
bers in both of the colleges.
Regardless of college or division, all faculty mem-
bers are required to have college degrees. The only
distinction in qualifications is that more of those on
the "academic" faculty have higher degrees, i.e., mas-
ter's and Ph.D.'s, than those on the flight and mainte-
nance technology faculty.2 However, members of the
latter two divisions need Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration certificates in addition to their academic de-
grees.
Unlike the rest of the faculty, the flight technology
faculty has 12-month instead of 10-month contracts.
We consider this insignificant, however, because all of
the other working conditions, such as fringe benefits,
service on faculty committees, and eligibility for ten-
ure, are the same for the entire faculty regardless of
college or division.
There is further evidence of an overall community
of interest among the whole faculty: Both of the col-
leges are on the same campus, and all faculty mem-
bers share the same facilities; all faculty members are
responsible to the dean of academic affairs, are eligi-
ble to serve on the faculty council and various boards
and committees, and are members of the same faculty
assembly. Nor do we consider it significant that some
faculty members teach in traditional classrooms, oth-
ers in laboratories, and others in airplanes.3
Several members of the flight technology faculty
and all of those in the language laboratory do not
have contracts but are paid on an hourly basis. How-
ever, they are all full-time teachers who have the
same duties, teach the same subjects, receive the same
fringe benefits, and work approximately the same
number of hours as the contract faculty. Since, in our
The faculty in the aerospace science division, a part of the College of
Aviation Technology, was excluded by stipulation because the teachers in
this division are all r.lilitary personnel.
2 This distinction, of course, is of no consequence for the Petitioner, since
it seeks to include the maintenance technology faculty in the unit.
3 While most of the student-contact hours of the flight faculty appear to be
spent inside of airplanes. they also make use of "tutor rooms" for instruction.
242 NLRB No. 110
689
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
opinion, a mere difference in method of payment is
no basis for excluding employees from an otherwise
appropriate unit, we can see no reason for excluding
the language laboratory or some of the flight technol-
ogy faculty from the unit for this reason either and
note, further, that the full-time adjunct faculty, whom
Petitioner would include, also does not have con-
tracts.
Accordingly, we find no logical basis for excluding
the language laboratory and flight technology faculty
from the unit and reject Petitioner's contention that
they do not share a community of interest with the
rest of the faculty. We, therefore, find that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate; and, since
the Petitioner is not willing to go to an election in any
other unit, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition is dismissed.
690