Fordham University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 134 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fordham University and American Association of
University Professors, Fordham University Chap-
ter, Petitioner
Fordham University and Law School Bargaining
Committee, Petitioner . Cases 2-RC-15500 and
2-RC-15507
September 14, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amende a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Mary W. Taylor.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional
Director for Region 2, these cases were transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The
Employers and the Petitioners filed briefs,2 and the
Association of American Law Schools filed a brief as
amicus curiae. The Employer and the Petitioners also
filed reply briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases,3 the Board
finds:
1. Fordham University is a New York corporation
engaged in conducting a university for the education
of young men and women. Its annual revenues from
tuition fees and donations exceed $1 million, of which
more than $50,000 are received from outside the State
of New York. The parties stipulated that Fordham
meets the jurisdictional standard for colleges and
i The requests for oral argument made by the Employer and Florida
Southern College are hereby denied , as the record , including the briefs,
adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties
Y United Federation of College Teachers , Local 1460, American
Federation of Teachers , AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis
of a showing of interest , but has not filed a brief
3 The Employer's motion to reopen the record for the introduction of
two documents is hereby denied , as the matter therein cannot affect the
outcome of these cases
4 The Employer contends that the American Association of University
Professors is not a labor organization However, it is abundantly clear that
AAUP meets the definition of "labor organization " set forth in Section 2(5)
of the Act
S We reject the Employer's contention that the selection of any
bargaining representative for the faculty members would result in having
the faculty sit on both sides of the bargaining table because some faculty
universities set forth in Section 103.1 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.4
3. Questions affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.6
4. AAUP, the Petitioner in Case 2-RC-15500,
seeks a unit of all full-time and regular part-time
teaching faculty, including department chairmen,
professional librarians, and ancillary support profes-
sionals. It would exclude the law school faculty, but is
willing to represent any unit found appropriate by the
Board. The Intervenor is in substantial agreement
with AAUP's contentions as to the appropriate
bargaining unit. The Law School Bargaining Commit-
tee, Petitioner in Case 2-RC-15507, seeks a separate
unit of full-time and regular part-time faculty of the
law school.
The Employer contends that no bargaining unit can
be appropriate, since all faculty members are supervi-
sors, with the exception of the instructors, who
constitute only a small part of the bargaining unit
sought herein. In any event, it contends, all depart-
ment or division chairmen and assistant chairmen and
all faculty members who serve on policymaking
committees are supervisors. If any unit is found
appropriate, the Employer would exclude all profes-
sional librarians, ancillary support professionals, and
part-time faculty. It contends that the law school
faculty does not constitute a separate appropriate unit
and should be included in a unit with the remainder of
the faculty if any such unit is found appropriate.
Fordham University has two campuses, one at Rose
Hill in the Bronx and the other at Lincoln Center in
Manhattan. In addition, it has an interdisciplinary
research center, the Calder Center for Ecological
Studies, located in Westchester County. The Rose
Hill campus includes the graduate school of arts and
members serve on committees with policymakmg functions As we find
below , such faculty members are not supervisors and serve on committees
only as representatives of the faculty . Further, there is no reason to believe
that the Employer would be represented in collective-bargaining
negotiations by anyone other than members of the administration who are
clearly supervisors and would be excluded from the bargaining unit for all
purposes We thus find no indication in this record of an actual or
potential conflict of interest
6 The Employer contends that the showing of interest of the Petitioner
in Case 2-RC-15500 is fatally tainted by the participation of department
chairmen and the law school librarian . Since we find infra that the
department chairmen are not supervisors, and since the law school
librarian is not a supervisor of any employees in the proposed bargaining
unit, this contention is clearly without meet . The Employer 's motion to
dismiss the petition is therefore denied
193 NLRB No. 23
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
sciences, the undergraduate college of business, the
school of graduate studies, the graduate institute of
religious education, two undergraduate liberal arts
colleges-Fordham College for men and Thomas
More College for women-and an experimental
undergraduate college, Bensalem College, as well as
the school of pharmacy which is scheduled to be
discontinued after 1 more year of operation. The
Lincoln Center campus includes the schools of law,
education, end social service; the Martino graduate
school of business; and the liberal arts college, an
undergraduate college.
The ultimate authority in the University is pos-
sessed by an independent and self-perpetuating board
of trustees, which appoints the president, the chief
executive officer. Faculty and student representatives
sit on all committees of the board of trustees except
the executive committee. The board of trustees
appoints the executive vice president, the vice
president for business and finance, and the vice
president for academic affairs on the recommenda-
tion of the president. Each school has a dean,
appointed by the president but responsible to the vice
president for academic affairs, and a council consist-
ing of students, faculty, and administration, with
faculty members constituting a majority. In addition,
there is a Faculty Senate, whose members are elected
by the faculties of their respective schools; a Rose Hill
Council, consisting of 16 students, 10 administrators,
and 21 faculty representatives elected by the full-time
faculty members of each department in the schools at
the Rose Hill campus; and various universitywide
committees composed of administrators, faculty
members nominated by the Faculty Senate, and
students. The chairmen of the departments offering
graduate degrees at the Rose Hill campus constitute a
graduate council. There is conflicting testimony as to
whether these bodies play a significant role in policy
formulation or merely have advisory authority.
There are approximately 501 full-time and 245 part-
time faculty members employed by the University, of
whom 21 full-time and 10 part-time faculty members
teach at the school of law. Of the 480 full-time faculty
members outside the school of law, approximately 244
are tenured and can be discharged only for gross
incompetence or moral turpitude. The full-time
faculty has a significant voice in determining curricu-
lum, admissions standards, standards for granting
degrees, and decisions on appointment, promotion,
and tenure of other faculty members. Two grievance
committees-the Ombudsman Committee for the
Rose Hill campus and the Intown Committee for the
Lincoln Center campus-handle grievances of faculty
' All parties agree that the president , the vice presidents, and the deans,
associate deans , and assistant deans are supervisors Accordingly, we
135
members. Both committees consist of faculty mem-
bers appointed by the Faculty Senate.
There are more than 150 graduate assistants and
teaching fellows whom all parties agreed to exclude
from any bargaining unit. They assist the faculty
members in instruction by grading papers, passing out
syllabi of the courses, and preparing bibliographies
for courses. Some of them work for several faculty
members or for a department as a whole; almost every
faculty member utilizes the services of a graduate
assistant or teaching fellow at least part of the time.
All graduate assistants and teaching fellows are full-
time students seeking graduate degrees; an assistant-
ship or fellowship is automatically terminated if a
student fails in his academic work or receives his
degree. Normally each department selects its most
promising students as,,gr4duate assistants or teaching
fellows; the assistant or fellowship is awarded for 1
year and may be renewed.
A number of faculty members administer research
grants, mostly funded by the Federal Government,
and employ persons to work on the grants. They may
hire and fire such persons without the approval of the
University, and salary questions are worked out in
negotiations with the funding agency, although the
school of education requires that appointments and
salaries be approved by the dean.
Upon the foregoing facts, we reject the Employer's
contention that the faculty members are supervisors.?
It is clear that the faculty exercises its role in policy
determination only as a group. Under our decision in
C. W. Post Center of Long Island University, 189
NLRB No. 109, this is insufficient to make the faculty
members supervisors. In our view, the presence of
faculty members in the Faculty Senate and on a
number of universitywide committees does not
require a different result, even assuming that such
bodies have power effectively to recommend major
policy decisions. The faculty members serving on
these committees are elected by other faculty mem-
bers to represent the faculty as a whole, and no one
faculty representative can make the policy decisions
in question. The role played by these representatives
in governing the University is thus one of participa-
tion in a group determination and does not make
them individually supervisors. Similarly, the selection
of graduate assistants and teaching fellows and the
renewal of their assistantships or fellowships are
determined collectively by each department. While
many assistants work under particular faculty mem-
bers, the faculty member in such cases is often the
same person who is supervising the assistant's studies,
and the assistant's work for him may consist of a
research project which is part of the assistant's
exclude them from the units hereinafter found appropriate
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dissertation for his degree. In such cases, the faculty
member is simply exercising the same kind of
supervision over the assistant that he would exercise
over any graduate student working toward his degree.
Furthermore, an individual may remain a graduate
assistant or teaching fellow only as long as he remains
a student. It seems clear, therefore, that the relation-
ship between a faculty member and his graduate
assistant is basically a teacher-student relationship
which does not make the faculty member a supervisor.
Finally, individuals hired by faculty members
directing research grants are not employees of the
Employer. Therefore, even if such faculty members
are supervisors with respect to these individuals, they
are not supervisors in their relationship to the
Employer.8 For these reasons, we find that the faculty
members are not supervisors, but are professional
employees within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the
Act, and are entitled to all the benefits of collective
bargaining if they so desire.9
We have previously held a universitywide unit of
professional employees to be appropriate,10 and it is
clear that such a unit may be appropriate here. The
scope and composition of that unit must be consid-
ered, however, as the labor organizations involved
agree that the law school faculty should be represent-
ed separately, while the Employer contends that it
must be included in a universitywide unit if such unit
is found appropriate. In addition, questions as to the
supervisory status of certain categories of profession-
als must be resolved.
The law school is located in a separate building on
the Lincoln Center campus. Activities of the law
school are normally carried out only in this building;
other schools never use the law school's classrooms
and rarely use its other facilities. While some
members of the law school faculty have participated
in interdisciplinary programs such as environmental
studies, they have not independently taught courses in
any other schools, nor have faculty members from
other schools independently taught courses at the
school of law. All full-time faculty members at the law
school are either full professors or associate profes-
sors; approximately 57 percent of them are full
professors, while less than 20 percent of the full-time
faculty members in the University as a whole hold this
rank. Law school faculty members are eligible for
tenure after 3 years, while faculty members in the
remainder of the University must have at least 7 years
of service, of which at least 4 must be at Fordham,
before acquiring tenure. However, the law school, like
other schools, must meet the requirements of the
American Association of University Professors
(AAUP) with respect to rank and tenure.
On the average, the salary of law school faculty
members is higher than that of faculty members in the
University as a whole, although at least one other
professional school has salary levels comparable to
those at the law school. In determining initial salaries
for newly hired faculty members, the dean of the law
school takes into account the prevailing rates paid by
private law firms, as well as prevailing rates at
Fordham and other law schools. All members of the
law school faculty have law degrees.
The New York Court of Appeals regulates admis-
sion to the practice of law in New York and has issued
rules and regulations concerning legal education in
this connection. Law schools must be approved by the
American Bar Association (ABA), and all major law
schools, including Fordham, are members of the
Association of American Law Schools (AALS), an
organization dedicated to raising standards of law
schools. Each of these bodies has detailed regulations,
some of which affect the terms and conditions of
employment of law school faculty members. Thus, the
court of appeals regulates the hours during which
classes are to be held and the length of class periods;
the ABA requires that law schools have certain
financial independence and a certain faculty-student
ratio, and that each faculty member have his own
office; and the AALS has fixed 8 hours per week as
the maximum proper teaching load. Most faculty
members in the remainder of the University teach 6 to
9 hours per week, but a few may teach as many as 12
hours.
Law school faculty members serve on the Faculty
Senate and other University committees. The law
school has its own faculty committees, which deter-
mine curriculum, course schedules, tenure, and other
matters in the same manner as faculty committees in
the remainder of the University. There are no
departments; the dean of the law school prepares its
budget and exercises all the functions of a department
chairman as well as those exercised by deans in other
schools. The law school, like every other school in the
University, has its own calendar, and its opening and
closing dates and vacation periods do not wholly
coincide with those of other schools. There is no
formal bargaining history for any of the faculty of the
University, but in March 1970, the president and two
vice presidents met with the law school faculty and
student and alumni representatives and discussed a
number of matters, including faculty salaries and
promotions. Several members of the law school
B Eureka Newspapers, Inc, 154 NLRB 1181, 1185, and cases cited Background and cases cited in In 5 therein
therein
9 C W Post Center of Long Island University, supra, third par under
10 C W. Post Center of Long Island University, supra
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 137
faculty are members of the Fordham chapter of the
AAUP, which is the Petitioner in Case 2-RC-15500.
In C. W. Post, supra, we stated that we would apply
the same principles in making unit determinations
with respect to faculty members that we have applied
in cases involving other types of employees. On
consideration of these principles, we find that the law
school faculty constitutes an identifiable group of
employees whose separate community of interests is
not irrevocably submerged in the broader community
of interest which they share with other faculty
members. Members of the law school faculty have
specialized training, work in a separate building under
their own supervisor (the dean of the law school), and,
acting as a group, have a voice, separate from that of
the faculty of the remainder of the University, in
determining their working conditions. There is little or
no interchange between them and other faculty
members. As a result of its separate calendar, the law
school is open for brief periods while other parts of the
University are shut down, and vice versa. There is
nothing in this record to indicate that these situations
could not continue for longer periods in the event of a
work stoppage. On this record, we cannot conclude
that the operation of the law school is so highly
integrated with that of the remainder of the Universi-
ty as to compel a finding that an overall unit alone is
appropriate. Finally, we note that there is no
bargaining history on a broader basis and that no
labor organization seeks to include the law school
faculty in a broader bargaining unit.
For all these reasons, we find that the law school
faculty constitutes a separate appropriate unit.11
Accordingly, we further find that the faculty members
in the remainder of the University constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining.
There remain questions as to the inclusion or
exclusion of the following categories: 12
Department chairmen are appointed by their respec-
tive deans for 3-year terms and may be reappointed
once. In making these appointments, the deans have
traditionally consulted with faculty members in the
department. When the faculty members in a depart-
ment agree that a particular person should be
chairman, they recommend his selection to the dean.
11 Many of the factors set forth herein are equally applicable to the
University's other professional schools As an overall unit including the
faculty of professional schools is appropriate , and as no party contends
that the faculty of any professional school other than the law school should
constitute a separate unit, we need not pass upon the appropriateness of
any such separate unit
12 The disputed categories relate only to the universitywide unit, except
that the question as to part-time faculty applies to both units herein found
appropriate
13 The University handbook provides that department chairmen are to
carry out their duties "in accordance with policies of the School and the
University and the procedures , policies and rules of the Department"
(Emphasis supplied ) The general policies and rules are set forth in the
recommendation of the Committee on Chairmen of Departments, which
Recommendations based on a faculty consensus are
usually followed.
The chairman, with the "advice and consent" of
other members of his department,13 makes recom-
mendations to the dean concerning hiring of
applicants. 14 The approval of the University adminis-
tration is required before a new faculty member may
be hired. When a faculty member seeks to be
promoted to associate professor or full professor, a
promotion committee is selected to consider his
application. The department chairman is an ex officio
member of the promotion committee; two of the other
four members are nominated by the applicant for
promotion, and two are nominated by the dean. Each
member of the committee submits a recommendation
to the dean; the committee does not act as a group in
making a recommendation. If the committee is
divided on whether to recommend promotion, the
chairman's recommendation may be given greater
weight because it is more detailed, but is not always
followed by the administration. Decisions with
respect to the granting of tenure are recommended by
a committee consisting of tenured faculty of the
department in which the individual seeking tenure
teaches. Again, the chairman's views may be given
greater weight than those of other faculty members
because of his greater knowledge of the applicant's
qualifications, but they are not conclusive.
Each department chairman prepares his depart-
ment's budget with the advice and consent of the
other faculty members in the department. He presents
the department's views to the dean, and indicates
which items should receive highest priority. The
budget, after being reviewed by the dean, is further
reviewed by the academic vice president, and then
goes to the board of trustees for final approval. Most
of the budget is allocated to salaries. The department
chairman is asked to evaluate the faculty members in
his department to determine what merit increases
should be given, but in larger departments a commit-
tee recommends the increases. This year the Universi-
ty gave an across-the-board increase to all faculty
members; the merit increases recommended were in
addition to this increase. Last year the administration
failed to tell the department chairmen what salary
the University administration has adopted, that "the most important duties
of the chairmen be carried out with the advice and consent of members of
the department " The duties there enumerated include most of those
listed by Member Kennedy in his partial dissent For reasons more fully
discussed in the text of this opinion , infra, this structure of collegiality,
while recognizing the respect due to a department chairman , falls short of
creating in him that kind of fully vested authority which we require for a
finding of true supervisory status . The status of department chairmen
varies in different university structures, and the fact that we found
department chairmen to be supervisors in one case does not compel us to
find that all department chairmen in all universities are supervisors.
14 In some departments, the recommendation is based on the decision
of a recruitment committee headed by the department chairman
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increases the members of their departments were
receiving; when the department chairmen protested,
they were told that the failure to notify them was
inadvertent. Grievances of individual faculty mem-
bers concerning salaries can be discussed with the
department chairman, but are ultimately resolved by
the dean or academic vice president.
The department chairman, with the advice and
consent of the faculty of the department, determines
what courses will be offered by the department, when
they will meet, and whether large classes should be
split. If a large class is split into two or more sections,
the faculty member in charge of the course may assign
graduate assistants to some of the sections. A number
of departments have curriculum committees which
determine these matters. The administration inter-
feres with the department's action only if it requires
authorization for additional personnel.
The faculty member in charge of each course
determines the content of the course, the manner of
teaching it, and the content, number, and grading of
examinations. The department chairman exercises no
control over the day-to-day work of a faculty
member, but will call the faculty member's attention
to serious derelictions, such as a failure to meet his
classes for a week. The chairman has no authority to
dismiss a faculty member; if charges are filed against
a faculty member, the president refers them to a
faculty hearing committee. On one occasion, the
administration attempted to terminate two language
informants in the Russian department 15 without
consulting the new chairman of the department or his
predecessor, both of whom had recommended reten-
tion of the language informants. These individuals
were retained only after the new chairman threatened
not to assume the duties of the chairmanship.
The chairman's teaching load is reduced, and he
receives a stipend of $500 to $1,250 in addition to his
regular salary. This stipend amounts to less than 10
percent of his salary. Some department chairmen are
associate professors; even with the stipend, they earn
less money than full professors who are not depart-
ment chairmen. The chairman may spend up to half
of his time on administrative duties; the remainder is
spent teaching.
Each department has a secretary. When a new
secretary is to be hired, the department chairman
interviews applicants referred by the personnel office
and selects one. The secretary does routine secretarial
work for the chairman and other members of the
department. If the chairman finds a secretary unsatis-
factory for the needs of his department, he can ask the
personnel office to have her transferred. Once a
secretary's probationary period has expired, she can
be discharged only in accordance with the terms of
the contract between the University and the labor
organization representing the clerical employees; this
contract is not part of the record herein. On at least
one occasion, a pay raise was not given to a secretary
whose department chairman recommended that she
receive one.
A number of department chairmen serve on the
Faculty Senate and the two faculty grievance commit-
tees. The University Budget Committee and a
commission created to draft a constitution for a
University Senate contain representatives of students,
faculty, and administration; department chairmen
were elected to these bodies as faculty representatives.
One chairman testified that he frequently found
himself having to defend the department against the
dean. The catalogues published by the various schools
in the University list department chairmen among
members of the faculty rather than members of the
administration.
In summary, it is apparent that decisions as to
appointment, promotion, and tenure are in fact made
not by the chairman alone, but by the faculty of the
department, acting as a group. To the extent that the
chairman's recommendations concerning these mat-
ters are given more weight than those of other faculty
members, this fact appears to reflect the chairman's
superior knowledge and experience, and does not
indicate possession of the type of authority contem-
plated in the statutory definition of a supervisor.16
The chairman does not direct the work of faculty
members. While the chairman prepares the budget for
his department, he does so only with the advice and
consent of the faculty members. His recommenda-
tions as to salaries are subject to review at three levels
of administrative authority, and his views are not
always followed. We cannot, therefore, find that the
chairman has power effectively to recommend salary
increases. While the chairman exercises some direc-
tion over his secretary, and plays some part in the
selection, it does not appear that he has statutory
authority over that employee. The mere fact that
professional employees may have secretaries does not
necessarily constitute them supervisors.17 Thus, the
record does not indicate that a chairman makes the
final selection for hiring, or has authority to discharge
a secretary or effectively to recommend discharge, or
that he can effectively recommend a pay raise. We
15 The AAUP would include these individuals in the unit , while the
Employer would exclude them The record discloses that the language
informants teach languages on a full-time basis and have the same duties
and obligations as other faculty members They differ from other faculty
members only in teaching only language , whereas other faculty members
may also teach courses in literature and other subjects Accordingly, we
shall include them in the unit
16 Cf United States Gypsum Company, 119 NLRB 1415, 1421, Central
Mutual Telephone Company, 116 NLRB 1663, 1665; N L R B v Magnesium
Casting Company, 427 F.2d 114, 118 (C.A. 1), affd. 401 U.S 137
17 E g. , Air Line Pilots Association, International, 97 NLRB 929.
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 139
therefore conclude that department chairmen do not
exercise statutory supervisory authority over
secretaries. 18
In addition, it is significant that the department
chairmen consider themselves, and are considered by
faculty members, to be representatives of the faculty
rather than of the administration. There is some
indication that the University views them similarly.
Thus, the catalogues of the various schools refer to
chairmen as members of the faculty rather than as
part of the administration. The letter of appointment
used by the University indicates that a faculty
member is responsible to the president or dean, rather
than to his department chairman. A full-time faculty
member who wishes to accept outside employment
must obtain the approval of the academic vice
president, rather than the department chairman.
Accordingly, we find that the department chairmen
are not supervisors 19 and shall include them in the
unit.20
A number of departments have assistant chairmen,
who counsel students in selecting courses or research
projects, in addition to assisting the chairmen in
preparing the budget. As there is no evidence that
assistant chairmen possess any supervisory authority,
we shall include them in the unit.
Part-time faculty members are appointed for one or
two semesters to teach one or two specific courses,
and may be reappointed for 1 year at a time. They are
paid on the basis of the number of credit hours taught.
Most of them have full-timejobs outside the Universi-
ty; many are full-time faculty members at other
institutions . Part-time faculty members are not
eligible for tenure or for fringe benefits enjoyed by the
full-time faculty, and, unlike the full-time faculty
members, do not participate in faculty policy deci-
sions on department or school levels. We held in
University of New Haven, Inc., 190 NLRB No. 102,
that regular part-time faculty members must be
included in the same unit as the full-time faculty,
absent agreement of the parties to exclude them. As
the facts here are essentially the same as in the New
Haven case, we shall include regular part- time faculty
members in both units found appropriate herein. If
IS Even if the department chairmen were supervisors of secretaries, their
alleged activities on behalf of the AAUP would not invalidate its showing
of interest, since the secretaries are not in the bargaining unit sought
herein
19 Unlike our dissenting colleague, we do not view our conclusion that
the department chairmen herein are not supervisors as contrary to our
recent decision in C W Port Center of Long Island University, supra, that
the department chairmen there were supervisory There is expert testimony
in the instant case that department chairmen are part of the administration
at some universities and representatives of the faculty at others In C W
Post, the statutes of Long Island University listed the department chairmen
under the heading "Officers of the Centers", before a faculty member
could be granted tenure, the recommendation of his department chairman
was specifically required, the Faculty Tenure Committee having advisory
authority only , the dean was to "act on the recommendation of the
the parties cannot reach agreement as to the regularity
of employment of any individual part-time faculty
members, such individuals may vote subject to
challenge.21
Approximately 70 of the 500 full-time faculty
members are members of the Society of Jesus. The
AAUP would include them in the unit, while the
Employer takes no position as to their placement.
Most Jesuits live in a separate building, and their
salaries are paid to the Jesuit community, an
incorporated body, which houses and feeds them. The
Jesuits may, with the permission of their religious
superior, live away from this building and receive
their own salaries; such permission has never been
refused, but only 2 of the 70 Jesuits on the full-time
faculty presently live away from the community. The
Jesuits are hired in the same manner as other faculty
members, and their salaries and other terms and
conditions of employment are determined in the same
manner. A Jesuit who leaves the Order may remain a
faculty member and receive the same salary formerly
paid to the community on his behalf. He may remain
at Fordham and accept tenure despite the objection of
the Order. There is no evidence that membership in
the Order is in any way inconsistent with collective
bargaining with respect to a Jesuit's salary or other
terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly,
we shall include the Jesuits in the unit.
The AAUP would include, and the Employer would
exclude, all professional librarians . While the librarians
do not have faculty status, it is clear that some of them
are professional employees and should be included in
the unit.22 The record does not contain sufficient
evidence to determine whether any of them are
supervisors. Accordingly, any librarians whose status
either as a professional employee or as a supervisor is
in dispute may vote subject to challenge.
The AAUP would also include, while the Employer
would exclude, ancillary support professionals. While
the precise meaning of this term is unclear, it appears
to encompass such employees as counselors, employ-
ees in the admissions office and placement office, and
laboratory technicians. As we are unable to determine
from the record which, if any, of these employees are
chairman of the appropriate department " in appointing new faculty
members , and a faculty member who wished to accept outside teaching
employment had to have the recommendation of his department chairman
as well as the approval of the dean It is thus clear that department
chairmen at Fordham do not possess authority comparable to that of
department chairmen at Long Island University.
20 As the division chairmen in the school of education appear to have
substantially the same duties as the department chairmen, we shall also
include them in the unit
21 The AAUP has moved to reopen the hearing to determine the issue
of regularity if the parties do not reach a stipulation on this issue. This
motion is hereby denied, as any disagreements concerning the unit
placement of particular part-time faculty members are, in our view, best
resolved through the challenged ballot procedure
22 C W Post Center of Long Island University, supra
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
professional employees, we shall permit them to vote
subject to challenge.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the
following units constitute units appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
1. All professional employees of Fordham
University, including full-time and regular part-
time members of the teaching and research
faculty, department chairmen and assistant chair-
men, division chairmen, members of the Faculty
Senate, faculty members serving on University
committees as faculty representatives, faculty
members directing research grants, members of
the Society of Jesus, nonsupervisory professional
librarians, and language informants; but exclud-
ing the president, vice presidents, deans, associate
deans, assistant deans, members of the faculty of
the school of law, graduate assistants, teaching
fellows, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
2. All full-time and regular part-time members
of the faculty of the school of law, including
members of the Faculty Senate and University
committees; but excluding the dean of the school
of law, the law librarian,23 guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
5. At Fordham, as at most universities, the various
schools are in session from September until June.
While the University has a summer session, it is clear
that many faculty members do not teach during the
summer. Accordingly, we shall not direct that
elections be held at this time, but shall direct that they
be held after the commencement of classes for the fall
term at all schools of the University, on a date to be
determined by the Regional Director, among the
employees in the appropriate units who are employed
during the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of issuance of the Notice of Election.24
[Direction of Elections 25 omitted from publication.]
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting in part:
I cannot agree with my colleagues' conclusion that
the University department chairmen are not supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Under circumstances substantially similar to those
revealed by the record in the instant case, the Board
found department chairmen to be supervisors in C.
23 The parties agreed that the law librarian is a supervisor As the record
does not indicate whether other librarians at the law school are
professional employees , we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge
24 This postponement of the elections is in accordance with our
customary practice in seasonal industries E g, Garin Company, 148 NLRB
1499, 1502
25 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the elections should have access to a list of voters in their
respective units, and their addresses , which may be used to communicate
with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-
Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that election
W. Post Center of Long Island University, 189 NLRB
No. 109. There the department chairmen interviewed
prospective candidates for faculty positions, dis-
cussed the selected candidate's appointment with the
dean, hired department clerical employees, recom-
mended faculty members' change of status to the
dean and board of trustees, and were assigned a
reduced teaching load in order to carry out these
duties.
According to the Fordham University Handbook,
the department chairmen's duties include, inter alia,
promulgating department policies and procedures;
calling and presiding at department meetings; ap-
pointing department committees; preparing the de-
partment budget and supervising expenditures; re-
commending faculty appointments, reappointments,
tenure, and promotions; and establishing course
offerings and schedules and assigning schedules to
each department member after consultation. A
special stipend of between $500 and $1,250 is awarded
the department chairmen as well as a reduced
teaching load.
Chairmen at Fordham handle initial negotiations
for appointments to the faculty and submit recom-
mendations to the dean. The faculty and students are
involved in this procedure too. The tenured faculty
votes by secret ballot to grant a colleague tenure but
the chairmen make a separate report to the dean
explaining in full the reasons for the decision. Each
faculty member also informs the dean of the reason
for his vote. The dean is annually told by the
chairmen which faculty members should be consid-
ered for promotion. A faculty committee chaired by
the chairman votes on promotions, and this decision
is transmitted to the dean by the respective chairman.
Before recommending individual faculty member's
salaries, the dean consults the chairman; the vice
president for academic affairs makes the ultimate
decision. Finally, chairmen select the department
clerical employees from among the candidates re-
ferred to them by the University personnel office.
I find that the department chairmen's situation at
Fordham is substantially akin to that at C. W. Post.
Accordingly, as the Board did in C. W. Post, I would
find the department chairmen at Fordham to be
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.26
eligibility lists, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 2
within 7 days after the date of issuance of each Notice of Election by the
Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the lists available to
all parties to the elections No extension of time to file these lists shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the elections whenever proper objections are filed.
26 In view of my conclusion that department chairmen are supervisors, I
would reach the issue raised in Case 2 -RC-15500 whether the showing of
interest was tainted by supervisory participation in the solicitation of
signatures for authorization cards