National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 171 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

NATL. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.' and
National Bureau Employees' Association , Petition-
er. Case 1 -RC-13377
January 15, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO
On September 12, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate a unit of all research analysts, research
assistants, programming and data processing em-
ployees, publications department employees, em-
ployees on the administrative and secretarial staff,
and persons otherwise classified who are pursuing
independent research which directly contributes to
their fulfilling the requirements for a Ph.D. in
economics or a related field, employed by the
Employer at its New Haven, Connecticut, location.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed with
the National Labor Relations Board a timely request
for review of the Regional Director's decision,
contending inter alia that he erred in finding that
Patricia Hartge is an eligible employee and not a
supervisor; that JoAnn Kelley, Linda Rodman, Pat
Ernest, and Nelley Zack have sufficient community
of interest to be included in the unit; and that Laurie
Williams was not a casual employee.
On October 10, 1974, the Board by telegraphic
order granted the request for review with respect to
the unit placement of the above-named employees?
Thereafter the Employer filed a brief on review.
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 considered the entire record with
respect to the issues under review and makes the
following findings:
The Employer, herein sometimes called the Bu-
reau, is a nonprofit corporation which provides
research and related services in the field of econom-
ics, and maintains close affiliations with various
colleges and universities. The Bureau's New Haven,
Connecticut, facility involved here is informally
associated with Yale University. Thus, some univer-
sity professors are engaged in research work for the
Bureau, whose facilities are located in rented office
space on Yale's campus. The Bureau maintains an
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the heanng.
2 Review was denied with respect to the Employer 's request for deletion
171
agency account with the University which is charged
for the Bureau's use of various university facilities
and personnel.
There are approximately 12 or 13 Bureau employ-
ees who regularly work at the Bureau's office. There
are two or three other individuals on the Bureau's
payroll who perform work at the facility on a less
regular basis. All told there are approximately 25
employees working on Bureau projects; some carried
on the Bureau payroll and some, as discussed below,
on the Yale University payroll.
Kelley, Rodman, Zack, and Ernest are employed
by Yale and carried on the Yale University payroll.
Kelley is currently employed by the University as a
library systems analyst. She works for the University
20 hours per week and works approximately 17-1/2
hours per week for the Bureau at its office as a
programming assistant . The Bureau reimburses the
University for the number of hours per week. Kelley
works for the Bureau.
Rodman is employed by Yale as a secretary to a
Professor Ruggles. Dr. Ruggles, in addition to being
a Yale professor, is, along with his wife, in charge of
one of the Bureau's research projects. Rodman works
at Dr. Ruggles' office, which is physically separate
from the Bureau's office. The Bureau is charged with
and pays Yale 50 percent of Rodman's salary.
Ernest also works for Dr. Ruggles, performing
computer and clerical duties in the basement of his
home. The Bureau pays 50 percent of her salary.
Zack is a secretary to Steven Dresh, a Yale
professor, who is also engaged in research work for
the Bureau. She works in Professor Dresh's office
which is geographically separated from the Bureau's
facility. The Bureau reimburses Yale for 25 percent
of Zack's salary paid by the University.
As indicated above, these four individuals were
hired by Yale and are carried on its full-time payroll.
While they spend a portion of their time working on
Bureau projects for which the latter reimburses Yale
on a pro rata basis, there is no showing that the
Bureau exercises any substantial control over the
salary they receive from Yale. On the contrary, the
record shows that their salaries are established in
accordance with Yale's wage structure and they
receive the same fringe benefits as all other full-time
Yale employees. Thus, in addition to vacation, sick
leave, holiday, and retirement benefits, they are
eligible for university housing and scholarship and
tuition privileges. They receive no benefits from the
Bureau and all but one perform Bureau work away
from its facility. In view of the foregoing and the
record as a whole, we find that Kelley, Rodman,
Ernest, and Zack do not have a sufficient community
of a portion of the unit description.
216 NLRB No. 39
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
of interest with other employees in the requested unit
to warrant their inclusion therein . Accordingly, they
are excluded.
In concluding that Patricia Hartge , a programmer,
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, the
Regional Director found that her direction of less
senior employees is attributable to her experience
and longevity on the job rather than to any
supervisory status. With respect to the one instance
in which she recommended a wage increase for an
employee , the Regional Director found that the
evaluation was made at the direction of and in
conjunction with an admitted supervisor who regard-
ed Hartge as the only employee technically compe-
tent to evaluate the employee . Our examination of
the record supports these findings and we therefore
adopt his conclusion that she is not a supervisor.
In concluding that Laurie Williams , a programmer,
was not a casual employee , the Regional Director
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relied on the record showing that she worked 11 out
of the 16 weeks preceding the hearing, averaging 14
hours a week . However , the Employer contends in its
request for review that these figures are not repre-
sentative of Williams ' current employment pattern,
as she recently took a new full-time job and since
then her average hours of work per week has
dropped significantly . In these circumstances, we
shall not pass upon her status at this time but shall
permit her to vote under challenge.
Accordingly , the case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein , except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that
immediately preceding the date of issuance of this
Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted
from publication.]