Goddard College

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 2, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 1111 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

GODDARD COLLEGE
Goddard College and Goddard Graduate Faculty
Federation, American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case I-RC-15177
March 2, 1978
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear-
ing was held on June 3 and 14, 1977, before Hearing
Officer Albert N. Stieglitz. Following the hearing,
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 1
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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. Goddard College is a Vermont corporation
engaged in the operation of a private nonprofit
educational institution with its principal office and
primary campus at Plainfield, Vermont. Its gross
annual revenue exceeds $1 million. The parties
stipulated, and we find, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. We find that Petitioner is a labor organization
seeking to represent certain employees of the Em-
ployer. 2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
I The name of Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer has raised the issue of whether the unit sought herein is
comprised exclusively of supervisors and/or managerial employees and,
therefore, has declined to stipulate as to Petitioner's status as a labor
organization. We find, infra, that the individuals sought herein are
nonsupervisory and nonmanagerial employees. Accordingly. and because it
is clear from the record that Petitioner is an organization "in which
employees participate" and which exists for the purpose of bargaining
collectively with the Employer, we find that Petitioner meets the definition
of "labor organization" set forth in Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
3 The petition, as amended at the hearing, requested a unit consisting of
"Division I and 1 of the Goddard College Graduate Program, the
Goddard-Cambridge graduate core faculty, and the Summer Program
graduate core faculty, excluding the undergraduate faculty." During the
234 NLRB No. 169
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(I) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all
graduate core faculty of the college. 3 The Employer
takes no position concerning the scope and composi-
tion of the unit. It requests the Board to decide,
however, whether the graduate core faculty are
supervisory and/or managerial employees and thus
excluded from coverage of the Act and, if not,
whether the individuals in the petitioned-for unit
share a sufficient community of interest among
themselves to constitute an appropriate unit. Peti-
tioner contends that the graduate core faculty mem-
bers are neither supervisors nor managerial employ-
ees and that they share a sufficient community of
interest to constitute an appropriate unit. There is no
bargaining history involving the individuals in the
petitioned-for unit. 4
The Goddard graduate program consists of four
divisions. Division I is conducted at the main campus
in Plainfield and at various locations throughout the
country. Division II and the summer program in
graduate studies are conducted in Plainfield. The
Goddard-Cambridge program is conducted in Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts. The dean of the graduate
program has overall responsibility for all the divi-
sions.
Divisions I and II have the same general format.
Each is composed of core faculty members who
recruit students in a particular region and pass upon
their applications for admission to the master's
program.5 Once a student is accepted into the
program, the core faculty member works directly
with the student to develop a program of the
student's choice, and to select a specialist in the
appropriate field to serve as that student's field
faculty member. Students often suggest a specialist
with whom they wish to work. A field faculty
member must be approved by the student before the
core faculty member can recommend to the dean
that he be hired. The dean, while having the sole
authority to hire field faculty, has consistently
followed the recommendations of the core faculty.
He, however, has questioned some recommenda-
tions. In the event a student becomes dissatisfied
course of the hearing, the dean of the graduate program, field faculty, area
faculty, area coordinators, project faculty, practicum supervisors, adjunct
faculty, administrative assistants, administrative assistants/adjunct faculty,
and all other employees were excluded by agreement of the parties from the
petitioned-for unit.
4 In Goddard College, 216 NLRB 457 (1975). the Board found the
undergraduate faculty to constitute an appropriate unmt. In that case, the
Board specifically excluded the graduate core faculty from that unit, finding
that they did not share a substantial community of interest with the
undergraduate faculty.
I Applications for the Goddard graduate program on the west coast are
sent directly to faculty stationed there. Other applications are sent to
Plainfield before they are forwarded to the appropriate core faculty
member.
!111
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with his field faculty member during the course of his
program, the core faculty member may replace the
field faculty member without prior consultation with
the administration in Plainfield. Field faculty work
on a part-time basis and are compensated by a
nonnegotiable honorarium of $600 per student.
Contact among core faculty, field faculty, and
students differs from case to case. A student's
program must be of at least 1 year's duration.
Completion of degree requirements is determined in
the discretion of ad hoc committees comprised of
three core faculty members. The dean reserves the
right to review faculty committee recommendations
on the granting of degrees, but has not yet done so.
Each core faculty member is budgeted for 35
students per year, but additional funds are provided
if more students are recruited.
Two of the nine division I core faculty members
are stationed in Plainfield. The remaining core
faculty are stationed in Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Amesbury, Massachusetts,
or New York City. Those that are located outside of
Plainfield have the authority to hire an administra-
tive assistant and to rent and maintain offices within
budgetary limitations set by the administration in
Plainfield. The administrative assistants are primarily
responsible for student and financial recordkeeping,
and for responding to inquiries about the graduate
program. They perform such functions largely with-
out supervision. Core faculty may pledge the col-
lege's credit without the approval of the administra-
tion, but only up to a fixed amount of $100.
The four core faculty members in division II are
stationed in Plainfield and have responsibility for
students in specific geographic areas such as the
midwestern and southern portions of the United
States, Europe, and Latin America. They select area
faculty who live near the students and who help to
recruit students. Area faculty selections must be
confirmed at a division II core faculty meeting after
which the core faculty requests the dean to prepare a
letter of agreement for the college president to sign.
Division II1 shares a clerical staff which is technical-
ly hired through the personnel office at the Plainfield
campus, but which is in fact recommended by a
selection committee of core faculty members who
submit hiring recommendations to the dean. Similar-
ly, a committee may recommend dismissal of an
administrative assistant to the dean, whose approval
is required. Division II's clerical employees are paid
out of the dean's budget.
With respect to the hiring and retention of core
faculty members in division I, the core faculty as a
whole meets and interviews prospective candidates
for appointment or contract renewal. The dean also
interviews candidates for appointments. The core
faculty submits a collective recommendation to the
dean, who in turn submits a recommendation to the
president of the college. The procedure in division II
is nearly identical, except that it is conducted by
subgroups of the whole faculty on a rotating basis.
There are two or three core faculty members in the
Goddard-Cambridge program, each of whom is
responsible for a particular department. The God-
dard-Cambridge program, unlike the programs in
divisions I and II, consists of prearranged, rather
than individualized, projects under the direction of
project faculty, and the program is operated on a
fixed academic year basis with a single admissions
date. Once admission is approved by the project and
core faculty, students enroll in one of the projects
listed in the program catalog. They meet with the
project faculty once a week until the project is
completed.
The Goddard-Cambridge core faculty member's
role with respect to students, administrative assist-
ants, and other faculty is similar to that of the core
faculty in divisions I and II. The Goddard-Cam-
bridge core faculty members, however, are required
first to "consult" about most decisions in such
matters with the "People's Council," which is com-
posed of the students and core and project faculty of
the program. The council makes recommendations
concerning core faculty appointments, but the dean
has final authority in such matters. Project faculty
honorariums are fixed by the administration in
Plainfield, and are identical to those of the field
faculty.
At the time of the hearing, the Goddard summer
program in graduate studies was still in its formative
stages. One core faculty member was conducting a
master's program in art therapy, and two more were
in the process of being hired for programs in learning
disabilities and social ecology. The summer program
consists of a summer residence in Plainfield and a 9-
month practicum followed by another summer resi-
dence.
The day-to-day administration of the graduate
summer program is overseen by the summer pro-
gram's dean but, as with the other graduate pro-
grams, the dean of the graduate program has overall
responsibility. Like her counterparts in the other
programs, the summer program core faculty member
has control over the admission of students. Although
she has no authority with respect to the hiring and
firing of her administrative assistant, her relationship
to her administrative assistant in all other respects is
basically similar to that in division 1I.
The summer program core faculty member recruits
practicum supervisors and adjunct faculty for the
summer sessions. She recommends the hiring of these
individuals to the summer program dean and to the
1112
GODDARD COLLEGE
dean of the graduate program, who apparently have
never rejected any such recommendation. The core
faculty member conducts weekly staff meetings with
the adjunct and project faculty.
The Employer, as noted above, has raised the issue
of whether the graduate core faculty members are
supervisors. We find that they are not. Thus, the
authority of the core faculty to recommend the hiring
and retention of other core faculty members is
exercised on a group basis. Further, although such
recommendations are afforded great weight, the final
authority in such matters rests with the dean of the
graduate program and the president of the college.
We therefore find, in accordance with our previous
decisions involving colleges and universities, that
such authority is insufficient to warrant a finding of
supervisory status.6
With respect to nonunit faculty and administrative
assistants, it is evident that core faculty members
exercise some supervisory authority. We have held,
however, that if supervision by faculty members of
nonunit personnel does not occupy more than 50
percent of their time, they are not so allied with
management as to preclude them from representa-
tion rights.7 The record here clearly establishes that
core faculty members spend over 50 percent of their
time on such academic matters as reviewing work
submitted by students, conferring with individual
students, and pursuing their own professional ad-
vancement. Additionally, although core faculty
members appear to have substantial authority in the
hiring and firing of nonunit faculty in their respective
programs, this authority is inextricably bound up
with their primary academic function of monitoring
the progress of their students. Furthermore, the dean
of the graduate program reserves the authority to
review faculty hiring recommendations, and the
students themselves appear to have a substantial role
in selecting, and approving and removing, nonunit
faculty. Finally, we note that compensation for all
nonunit faculty is established by the administration
in Plainfield.
Similarly, we find that the discretion exercised by
core faculty members, both individually and collec-
tively, regarding such matters as student recruitment
and admissions, completion of degree requirements,
and curriculum, clearly is indicative of professional,
rather than managerial status, and is similar to the
role of faculty members whom we have found to be
nonmanagerial in other cases. See, e.g., Northeastern
University, supra. Furthermore, although core faculty
I Northeastern Lniversiti. 218 NL RB 247 (1975): Lnisver.i6 of Miami, 213
NLRB 634 (11974). Ne. YorAk Univervivt. 205 Nl RB 4 (1973). Adelphi
Universilv, 195 NI RB 639 (1972).
I Adelphi Universal s n rupra.
" Unlike the previous case involving Goddard College, supra, the record
members prepare their own budgets, it is clear that
budgetary limitations are established by the adminis-
tration in Plainfield and the dean of the graduate
program testified without contradiction that his
modification of budget requests submitted to him by
core faculty members was more the rule than the
exception. Finally, although the authority of core
faculty members located outside of Plainfield to
negotiate leases for offices and to maintain such
offices appears to be unusual in the college setting,
we do not find these additional responsibilities
sufficient to warrant a finding of managerial status.
We further conclude that the graduate core faculty
members possess a sufficient community of interest
among themselves to constitute a unit appropriate
for collective bargaining. Thus, the duties and func-
tions of all core faculty members are primarily
educational in nature. The base salaries of core
faculty members are identical, although a uniform
increment is afforded to west coast faculty due to
their added responsibilities with respect to recruiting
students, and a uniform cost-of-living allowance is
given to faculty outside of Plainfield. Further, all of
the policies and directives affecting the core faculty
are either derived collectively or imposed by the
same centralized administrative authority in Plain-
field.
The record also discloses considerable contact
among the core faculty. Thus, in the 9 months
preceding the hearing, the entire graduate core
faculty met in Plainfield three or four times to discuss
problems and policies of the graduate programs.
Additionally, there are frequent subgroup meetings
of the core faculty to exercise peer review on hiring
and contract renewal, to review proposed and ongo-
ing innovations in the several programs, and to
consider and make recommendations on the qualifi-
cations for graduation of particular students. Also,
the west coast faculty conducts seminars which other
core faculty attend. Regional meetings have also
been conducted at which core faculty members
confer on various subjects including budgets and
"program." The record indicates that there is a
meeting involving core faculty members approxi-
mately every 6 weeks. Moreover, core faculty mem-
bers maintain frequent contact with each other
through the college's WATS line.8
Although there is geographical separation of some
of the graduate core faculty members from the
Plainfield campus, this is only one factor considered
in determining community of interest among em-
here clearly discloses that Goddard-Cambndge core faculty members now
participate in the penodic meetings in Plainfield of the entire graduate core
faculty, sit on the committees reviewing completion of degree requirements
in the several divisions of the graduate program, and receive the same base
salary as the other graduate core facultN members
1113
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees. Here, geographical separation is offset by
the fact that the unit sought is comprised of the entire
graduate core faculty. Furthermore, no labor organi-
zation has requested a smaller unit. In the circum-
stances here, we find that the Goddard graduate core
faculty members share a sufficient community of
interest to constitute an appropriate unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following unit is
appropriate for the purposes of collective-bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All core faculty members in Divisions I and II of
the Goddard Graduate Program, the Goddard-
Cambridge Graduate Program, and the Goddard
Summer Program in Graduate Studies, excluding
the undergraduate faculty, the Dean of the
Graduate Program, field faculty, area faculty,
area coordinators, project faculty, practicum su-
pervisors, adjunct faculty, administrative assis-
tants, administrative assistants/adjunct faculty,
all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
1114