Long Island University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 909 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LONG ISLAND U. (BROOKLYN CTR.)
Long Island University (Brooklyn Center) and United
Federation of College Teachers , Local 1460,
American Federation of Teachers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 29-RC- 1516
April 20, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
On July 22, 1970, the United Federation of College
Teachers, Local 1460, American Federation of
Teachers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner, filed a petition seeking to represent certain
employees of Long Island University (Brooklyn
Center), hereinafter referred to as the Employer.
Pursuant to the direction of the Regional Director for
Region 29, a hearing was held on July 28, September 8
and 22, 1970, before Hearing Officer Steven Fish at
Brooklyn, New York. Long Island University
(Brooklyn Center) Chapter of the American Associa-
tion of University Professors, hereinafter called the
Intervenor, intervened at the hearing based upon a
showing of interest. By order of the Regional Director
on December 9, 1970, this proceeding was transferred
to the National Labor Relations Board for decision
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
The parties to this proceeding have stipulated that
the record and exhibits in Case 29-RC-1488, C. W.
Post Center of Long Island University, 1 be admitted in
evidence in this case. Additional evidence was also
adduced. Thereafter, the Petitioner and Employer
requested that the briefs submitted in Case
29-RC-1488 be considered as their briefs in this
matter. The Intervenor has also submitted a brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer and finds no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record2 including the briefs, the
Board finds:
1. Long Island University's annual gross revenue
is $32,500,000. Brooklyn Center has a gross annual
revenue of $13,900,000, with out-of-state purchases in
excess of $1 million. We therefore find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.3
2. We find that the Petitioner and Intervenor are
labor organizations seeking to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
1 189 NLRB 109
2 The Employer' s motion to correct the record which is unopposed is
hereby granted
3 C W Post Center of Long Island University, supra
4 The ratio of full-time faculty to adjunct faculty was 361 full-time and
909
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of professional
employees engaged directly or indirectly in student
instruction, similar to that sought in C. W. Post Center
of Long Island University, supra. The Intervenor's unit
position is the same as the Petitioner's except as to the
unit placement of certain categories as indicated
hereafter. The Employer takes the position that if an
election is directed, full-time faculty should be
represented separately, and that separate unit or units
are appropriate for employees other than full-time
faculty. The parties also disagree as to the supervisory
status of certain individuals discussed below. There is
no bargaining history.
The full-time faculty consists of professors, associ-
ate professors, assistant professors, and instructors.
The adjunct, or part-time, faculty consists of adjunct
professors, adjunct associate professors, adjunct
assistant professors, and lecturers.4 As the qualifica-
tions and duties of the Brooklyn faculty are the same
as those of the C. W. Post Center faculty, we find, in
accord with our decision in C. W. Post Center of Long
Island University, supra, that the full-time and adjunct
faculty are professional employees with common
interest who together constitute a unit appropriate for
collective bargaining. We also find, for similar
reasons, that all professional librarians are profession-
al employees, and include them in the unit.
Supervisors: As the record shows that the superviso-
ry authority of deans and division chairmen are the
same at Brooklyn as at the C. W. Post Center, we find
that they are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, and exclude them.5
Department Chairmen: The record shows that at the
Brooklyn Center department chairmen are elected
by the faculty of the department. At the C. W. Post
Center, the evidence was conflicting on this point.
However, the authority exercised by department
chairmen is the same. As department chairmen make
effective recommendations affecting status of faculty
members and have authority to hire and discharge
nonprofessional employees, we find them to be
supervisors and that the statute requires their exclu-
sion from the unit, despite the fact that all parties
would include them.
Director of the Library, Director of Placement,
Director of the Education and Communications Center,
Registrars, Associate Registrar, and Director of Admis-
sions: The Petitioner would exclude these employees.
The Intervenor would exclude all except the director
96 adjunct in the first semester, and 359 full-time and 73 adjunct in the
second semester
5 As the record is not clear regarding the supervisory status of associate
and assistant deans, they may vote subject to challenge
189 NLRB No. 110
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the library. The Employer apparently would
include them all. The record establishes that all these
individuals hire, discharge, or responsibly direct the
work of clerical or other employees. We therefore find
them to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act
and exclude them from the unit.
Other Disputed Classifications6
Technical Assistants-Laboratory: There are two to
four employees in this category who work in the
biology, chemistry, and physics laboratories. The
Petitioner and Intervenor would include them. The
Employer contends they should be excluded from the
faculty unit. These employees have bachelor's degrees
in their fields, with master's degrees in progress. Their
duties and responsibilities are similar to the laborato-
ry managers at the C. W. Post Center, except that
there is no evidence that these employees exercise
supervisory authority. consistent with our decision
therein, we shall exclude these laboratory personnel as
nonprofessional.
Counselors: The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek
to include, and the Employer to exclude, the counse-
lors. All counselors except the guidance counselors
work regular hours, are appointed on a yearly basis,
and do not enjoy faculty privileges. The Brooklyn
Center employs 14 academic counselors. Their duties
and responsibilities are similar to those of the
academic counselors at the C. W. Post Center. The
general pattern appears to be that these employees
possess bachelor's degrees with master's degrees in
progress. Although some have master's degrees, these
employees do not usually continue as counselors after
they receive their master's degrees. None has been
employed longer than 5 years.
There is a guidance counselor who directs the
guidance center and assists students with emotional
problems. He is a professional psychologist and also
teaches. There are seven outside psychologists 7 to
whom he refers students when advisable.
There are six admissions counselors who have the
same academic background as academic counselors.
6 None of the parties contends that the graduate admissions officer nor
the education and communications center technicians are professional
employees or should be included in the unit. We therefore exclude them.
As the Petitioner seeks only a professional unit, no appropriate unit
findings are made as to those employees excluded from the professional
unit.
7 Outside psychologists are not included in the unit by agreement of the
parties.
8 The parties stipulated that the part-time sensitivity training group
leader should be excluded from the unit.
9 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
Their duties are similar to those of the C. W. Post
Center admissions counselors.
Brooklyn has two placement counselors under the
direction of the director of placement. Their educa-
tional backgrounds are similar to the academic and
admissions counselors discussed above. They act as
an employment agency for employers desiring part-
time student help and for students desiring part-time
jobs. they also assist graduates in securing career
opportunities. Thus, various agencies and corpora-
tions come to the campus to discuss with students
prospective employment. These employees make the
arrangements for student interviews.
As set forth in our decision in Case 29-RC-1488, we
do not consider these employees, with the exception
of the guidance couselor, to be professional employ-
ees, as their work does not require the advanced
knowledge and skill associated with professional
status. We find, however, that the guidance counselor
is fully qualified as a professional employee. We shall
therefore include the guidance counselor and exclude
all other counselors.8
In accordance with our holdings above, we find that
a unit of the following employees is appropriate for
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
All professional employees of the Employer at its
Brooklyn, New York, Center, including professors,
associate professors, assistant professors, instructors,
adjunct professors, adjunct associate professors,
adjunct assistant professors, lecturers, professional
librarians, and the guidance counselors, but excluding
all other employees, student assistants, hourly paid in-
resident instructors, psychologists serving on an
hourly or case basis, the sensitivity training group
leader, laboratory technicians, communications cen-
ter technicians, the directors of the communications
center, library, placement, and admissions, registrars,
academic counselors, placement counselors, admis-
sions counselors, deans, divisional chairmen, depart-
ment chairman, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.]
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters 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 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 29 within 7 days of
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.