Teachers College

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1236 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teachers College , Columbia University and District
65, Distributive Workers of America , Petitioner.
Case 2-RC-17251
December 1, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mary W.
Taylor. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , Series
8, as amended , and by direction of the Regional Di-
rector for Region 2, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision . There-
after , the Employer filed a brief , and the Petitioner
filed a memorandum.
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 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 this case , the Board
finds:
1. The parties stipulated that the Employer,
Teachers College , Columbia University (hereinafter
called Teachers College or the College), is a nonpro-
fit educational institution incorporated in the State
of New York with its campus located in New York
City. Its annual revenue exceeds $ 1 million, and it
annually purchases supplies valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from firms located outside the State
of New York. Accordingly, we find that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated , and we find , that the Pe-
titioner is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7).
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of professional li-
brarians at Teachers College, but excluding all other
employees and supervisors of librarians .' The Em-
1 The parties stipulated that the librarians sought are professional em-
ployees with M L S degrees and that they are the only professional employ-
ees other than the faculty
ployer contends that this unit is inappropriate and
that the only appropriate unit consists of the full-
time faculty at the College, including professors, as-
sistant professors, associate professors, instructors,
lecturers, professional librarians and research associ-
ates, but excluding all office clerical employees, ad-
ministrative employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. We find no merit in the Employ-
er's contention. The College is composed of three di-
visions: (1) the faculty, headed by the academic
dean,2 (2) the financial and business divisions, head-
ed by the controller, and (3) the supportive services,
headed by the provost.' The library is in this last
division. Dr. Sidney Forman, head of the library and
the only person in the library with faculty status,4
reports to the provost.
The record reveals that Teachers College is pri-
marily a faculty-run institution. The professional li-
brarians are not faculty and do not share that policy-
making role. The legislative policymaking body of
the College is the College Policy Council, which also
provides the moral and ethical direction of the insti-
tution. The Council is composed primarily of faculty
(18 in number), a few students elected to member-
ship, and 3 individuals elected by the nonacademic
professional staff.5 There has never been a profes-
sional staff librarian on the College Policy Council.
Through this council and other faculty committees,
major decisions, including those affecting wages and
working conditions, are made or influenced by the
faculty.
The record further reveals that the professional li-
brarians' interests and treatment are in other ways
different from the faculty. The faculty group enjoys
the benefits of tenure; the library professionals do
not. The faculty is eligible for sabbaticals which pro-
vides leaves of up to a year with half pay, or 6
months with full pay. The librarians have no sabbati-
cals. The pension plan is mandatory for faculty
members and starts immediately upon their employ-
ment, but does not become available to library pro-
fessionals until after 3 months of employment, and
participation is not mandatory until after 3 years.
The medical plan, which is immediately available for
faculty members, is not available to the professional
librarians until after a waiting period of 3-6 months.
Further, the librarians work on a 12-month basis,
2 The dean has jurisdiction over the teaching departments and all faculty
members and instructors Hierarchically, faculty members and instructors
report to department chairmen, who in turn report to divisions directors,
who report to the dean.
3 The provost, who presides over college development and student affairs,
as well as over the library, does not preside over any academic department.
4 There are 25 professional librarians, 30 full-time clericals, and 30 addi-
tional full-time clerical jobs currently filled by some 70 part- time employees
5 The latter group also has its own committee which is elected by the staff
to make recommendations with respect to salaries, job classifications, etc.
226 NLRB No. 193
TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1237
with no vacation, while faculty members work on a
10-month academic year and receive leave during the
first year. Librarians' working hours are also dissimi-
lar to the irregular hours worked by faculty members,
the librarians working a 40-hour week. The library is
open 8:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 days a week, and library
employees alone are regularly scheduled for Sunday
work. Librarians are hourly paid, with a top salary of
$16,500, while the top salary for a faculty member is
$40,000.
There have been no transfers from the faculty or
instructional staff to the library, nor the reverse. The
professional librarians work in Russell Hall which
houses only the library and some administrative of-
fices confined to their own floor. There is no aca-
demic department or classroom in Russell Hall.
The library has a separate budget, and the head
librarian makes budget recommendations to the pro-
vost.6 Interviewing and selection for hiring is done
within the library, and recommendations are made to
the provost. There is no interchange with faculty or
upward transfers.' Librarians sign in and out, work a
regular workday, and, unlike the faculty, have no
teaching function. Thus, the library has substantial
autonomy and administrative independence, such as
in personnel matters regarding hiring, firing, disci-
pline, promotion, and merit increase. Accordingly,
based on the separateness, homogeneity, and diver-
gent interests of the library professionals from the
faculty, we find that the professional librarians at
Teachers College constitute an appropriate unit.
Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not
view our decision herein as a departure from prece-
dent. In none of the cases relied on by the dissent did
the Board reject as inappropriate a separate unit of
professional librarians. Rather, in those cases, we
found no valid basis for excluding the professional
librarians from an overall unit of professional em-
ployees. Indeed, in the only case in which a separate
unit of librarians was requested-Claremont Univer-
sity Center, et al., 198 NLRB 811 (1972)-we found it
appropriate under the circumstances there.
As we have repeatedly said, an appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act does not have to
be the optimum unit or even the most appropriate
unit. It is sufficient that it is an appropriate unit. The
fact that the unit requested here does not include
other professional employees, such as faculty mem-
bers, does not render it inappropriate in light of the
factors set forth above. Moreover, no labor organiza-
6 Salaries are set by the administration , but some types of merit increases
are allocated within the library
7 Librarians have moved from the College to public libraries or other
nonacademic libraries
tion is seeking to represent these employees in a
broader unit.
Contrary to our colleague's implication, we do not
minimize the central role which the library plays in a
university setting. Of course, the librarians, in the
regular course of their duties, have substantial physi-
cal contact with faculty and students who use the
library facilities and, for that reason, the library must
be centrally located and easily accessible. While this
factor and others cited by our colleague might well
make an overall professional unit appropriate here, it
does not make the requested unit inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
Upon the entire record and for the aforementioned
reasons, we find a separate unit of professional li-
brarians to be appropriate and shall direct an elec-
tion among employees in the following unit: 8
All professional librarians of Teachers College,
Columbia University, but excluding faculty
members, office clerical employees, administra-
tive employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting:
I am unable to agree with my colleagues that a unit
limited to the Employer's professional librarians is
appropriate. I do not believe that the professional
librarians herein possess a sufficiently distinct com-
munity of interest to warrant their representation in a
unit separate and apart from other professional em-
ployees.
The record establishes that Teachers College, Co-
lumbia University, is a graduate school in education.
The campus is composed of several buildings on
120th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Av-
enue. The library is located in Russell Hall, in the
middle of that block. Although it is physically in a
separate building, it is connected to the surrounding
buildings by corridors on every floor, including the
basement. Thus, even though it is housed in a build-
ing which contains no classrooms and only a few
administrative offices, the library is not isolated from
the remainder of the college. Rather, its central loca-
tion, easily accessible by faculty, students, and other
college personnel alike, accentuates the integral func-
tion and prominent role that the library plays in the
institution's overall operation.
Not only is the library physically integrated into
8 The parties stipulated that three librarians , Wadham, Wilkinson, and
Juhng, are supervisors and that all other professional librarians are nonsu-
pervisory
9 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication I
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the college community, but the professional librar-
ians have frequent contact and substantial involve-
ment with the faculty and students during the regular
performance of their duties. The circulation and ref-
erence librarians have the interaction customary to
their respective specialties. They assist the library
user in locating materials, in checking in and out
books, and in researching specific problems. In addi-
tion, reference librarians have been involved in class-
room instruction relating to the full utilization of li-
brary materials and services. While such classroom
instruction is not a part of their regularly scheduled
duties, there have been several such instances since
September 1975 in which two or three of the refer-
ence librarians have been involved. Further, the ref-
erence librarians have contact with the faculty, stu-
dents, and public in connection with the use of the
Lockheed Dialogue Retrieval System which is used
in bibliographic research for courses or in advanced
independent research. When cataloguists deal with
materials in specialized subject areas, they refer to
specific faculty members with regard to the use of
appropriate terminology or particular definitions. In-
structional support services librarians assist both stu-
dents and faculty in the creation and preparation of
graphic materials. In addition, they deal with the fa-
culty and students concerning the acquisition and
scheduling of films relevant to courses and particular
research. Technical services librarians consult with
faculty concerning the acquisition of trade publica-
tions, and various supplies and instructional equip-
ment. Reserve book librarians collaborate with facul-
ty in order to collect and otherwise make available to
the students special materials required in their in-
structional programs. Finally, the various librarians
have an active, ongoing role in consulting, advising,
and assisting faculty members to ensure the accuracy
and availability of curricula materials utilized in
courses and other instructional activities. The profes-
sional librarians, as seen from the above interaction
and contact with faculty and students, serve a vital
role in the ongoing process of instruction at Teachers
College. That students generally spend from 2 to 4
hours in library work for each classroom contact
hour further buttresses this crucial function played
by the library and its professional employees in the
educational process.
In addition to the complementary role the librar-
ians and other professional staff share in Teachers
Colleges' ultimate purpose, all the Employer's profes-
sional staff are accorded similar benefits. The stat-
utes and bylaws, Teachers College, Columbia Uni-
versity, as amended on October 9, 1975, provide that
for the purposes of employee status and privileges,
two groups of employees are recognized-(1) the ac-
ademic group and (2) the nonacademic group. The
academic group is comprised of the "academic ap-
pointees" which include inter alia, the tenured and
nontenured members of the teaching and research
staff, and the professional members of the library
staff. Academic employees qualify for and receive
one group of benefits and nonacademic employees
another. As such the professional librarians receive
nearly the identical benefits as the Employer's other
professional employees, viz, identical group life in-
surance, hospital surgical coverage, disability leave
with pay, holidays, retirement age, and tuition bene-
fits. In addition, all academic employees are covered
by the same pension plan which provides for manda-
tory participation upon employment by the tenured
professional employees; however, nontenured in-
structors and professional employees have elective
participation after 3 months of employment and
mandatory participation after 3 years. The same ma-
jor medical coverage is applicable to all academic
employees except that there is a 3- to 6-month wait-
ing period for nontenured instructors and profession-
al employees. Neither the nontenured instructional
staff nor the professional librarians qualify for tenure
or sabbaticals. Thus, the professional librarians have
very similar benefits to all the Employer's other pro-
fessional employees. In instances of varying benefits,
the librarians receive identical benefits as other
teaching, but nontenured, professionals. Thus, in
terms of the overall applicable benefit package, pro-
fessional librarians have interests closely aligned
with, and in many cases identical with, the Employ-
er's other professional employees. This is even more
readily apparent in light of the separate and distinct
benefit plan available to the Employer's nonacadem-
ic employees.
As noted in the majority's decision, the College
Policy Council is the primary policymaking body
providing the moral, ethical, and professional direc-
tion of Teachers College. While no professional li-
brarian has yet served on this council, they are eligi-
ble to participate fully through the three positions
allocated to the nonteaching professional staff. Thus,
the professional librarians have both an input into
and a vested interest in the Policy Council.
Further, the professional librarians are subject to
the same collegewide recommendations made by the
faculty salary committee. Their annual salary in-
creases, as all of the Employer's professionals, are
affected by that body's recommendation to the Col-
lege administration and board of trustees. The direc-
tor of the library acknowledged that generally salary
matters affecting the librarians were determined out-
side the library, with only minimal in-house control
over the allocation of wage increases.
TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 1239
The professional librarians utilize the Faculty Ad-
visory Committee as their grievance procedure. The
fact that most of their grievances are settled within
the library does not diminish the fact that they are
considered and treated as part of the faculty.
From the foregoing, I find that the professional
librarians do not possess a sufficiently distinct com-
munity of interest to justify or require their separate
representation. Furthermore, in my view, my col-
leagues' decision herein is contrary to well-estab-
lished Board precedent. The Board on numerous oc-
casions has considered the appropriateness of units
on college and university campuses and has consis-
tently included professional librarians within an
overall professional unit-10
In New York University," which has subsequently
been often quoted and frequently cited in reaching
the same result," the librarians and other profession-
als had a less similar community of interest than
herein.13 Nevertheless, after noting the differences
between the faculty's and the librarians' interests, the
Board included the libranans within the overall pro-
fessional unit, explaining its rationale in the follow-
ing terms:
On the other hand, they are a professional
group, charged with the responsibility for accu-
mulating appropriate materials and serving the
other members of the university community in
that respect, and most fringe benefits are avail-
able to them. We conclude that they possess a
sufficient community of interest to be included
in the unit, as a closely allied professional group
whose ultimate function, aiding and furthering
the educational and scholarly goals of the Uni-
versity, converges with that of the faculty,
though pursued through different means and in
a different manner.14
10 C W Post Center of Long Island University, 189 NLRB 904 (1971),
Fordham University, 193 NLRB 134 (1971), Florida Southern College, 196
NLRB 888 (1972), Tusculum College, 199 NLRB 28 (1972), New York Uni-
versity, 205 NLRB 4 (1973), Northeastern University, 218 NLRB 247 (1975)
11 205 NLRB 4 (1973)
12 University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 223 NLRB 423
(1976), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 218 NLRB 1435 (1975), Fordham
University, 214 NLRB 971 (1974), University of San Francisco, 207 NLRB 12
(1973)
13 In that case the Board described the difference in terms and conditions
of employment between the librarians and other professionals as follows
(205 NLRB at 8)
Professional librarians are titled curator, associate curator , assistant
curator , or library associate in descending order of rank Unlike facul-
ty, the function of a librarian may change with title , and promotion
may depend on the existence of a vacancy Further distinguishing li-
brarians from faculty are their regular workweek , retirement age, ten-
ure requirements , separate grievance procedure, lack of proportional
representation in the university senate (though the dean of libraries,
like other deans, is a member), and, perhaps more basically , the fact
that they are not considered faculty
14 New l ork University, supra at 8
Thus, in spite of the significantly different benefits
and conditions of employment, the Board's decision
rested ultimately on the similar educational purpose
and like function of all professionals. The Board
found that librarians and other campus professionals
share a community of interest arising from their
identical educational objective which requires their
inclusion within the same bargaining unit.
In the instant case, the same ultimate educational
purpose and function is likewise present. Neverthe-
less, the majority relies on the differences in a few of
the fringe benefits and certain conditions of employ-
ment to find a separate unit of professional librarians
appropriate. As noted supra, however, the different
interests here are less significant than those found in
New York University, supra.
In University of San Francisco," after finding a sep-
arate law school unit appropriate, the Board found,
in spite of the Petitioner's urging to the contrary, that
the professional librarians must be included within
the unit on the basis that the law library was "essen-
tial to, and fully integrated with, the law school. The
relationship of the law librarians to the faculty is of
critical importance in the supply and maintenance of
this most essential research tool." 16 Likewise, in Tus-
culum College 17 for similar reasons, the professional
librarians were included in an overall professional
unit, contrary to the Petitioner's request. Thus, over-
whelming Board precedent clearly dictates that a
unit limited solely to the professional librarians is not
appropriate. Moreover, the factors which have per-
suaded the Board to find as appropriate a separate
unit of certain professionals at a college or university
are noticeably absent.18
As a basis for concluding that the professional li-
brarians share a distinct community of interest sepa-
rate and apart from other professional employees,
the majority relies in part on the differences in fringe
benefits enjoyed by the professional librarians on the
one hand and certain faculty members on the other.
They note, for example, that librarians are not eligi-
ble for tenure or for sabbaticals. They also observe
that professional librarians must wait between 3 and
15 207 NLRB 12 (1973)
16 Id at 13
17 199 NLRB 28 (1972)
18 In finding separate units of law and medical faculty to be appropriate
the Board has relied on , inter alia, location in a separate building rarely used
by other members of the university community , necessity for compliance
with relatively stringent accreditation and professional standards estab-
lished by external organizations, separate academic calendars , faculty per-
formance of the majority of its professional and administrative responsibili-
ties within the particular subdivision, independent operation relating to
curriculum content . scheduling, recruitment , promotion, and tenure See
New York University, supra, The Catholic University of America, 201 NLRB
929 (1973), Fordham University, supra , University of Miami, 213 NLRB 634
(1974), Syracuse University, 204 NLRB 641 (1973), University of Vermont
and State Agricultural College, supra
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 months before they are eligible for pension and
medical benefits.
What my colleagues in the majority fail to note,
however, is that the fringe benefit package available
to professional librarians is identical to the fringe
benefit package available to all other nonfaculty pro-
fessionals-including instructional staff not enjoying
professional rank. Accordingly, if the differences in
fringe benefits relied on by the majority are adequate
to create a separate community of interest for profes-
sional librarians, it would seem to follow that sepa-
rate units of instructional staff members and other
professionals are likewise appropriate. I am aware of
no case in which the instructional staff below the
professorial level of a college or university has been
afforded its own separate unit, and I seriously doubt
that such a result would be favored by my colleagues.
In a single instance, Claremont University Center,19
the Board found a unit of library employees (includ-
ing both professional and nonprofessional employ-
ees) to be appropriate. That case, however, is distin-
guishable. Claremont Colleges were not a single legal
entity, but were merely an association of colleges.
The library was operated by the Claremont Univer-
sity Center which received funds from the various
colleges in order to provide several centralized ser-
vices, including the library. Through a centralized fa-
cility and several branches, the library offered ser-
vices to the separate colleges, each of which had a
separate identity apart from the other colleges as well
as from the library. Claremont University Center did
not employ other employees with similar interests
with which the librarians could be represented. In the
absence of such a broader unit of employees, both
professional and nonprofessional employees were
combined in a unit. Herein, on the other hand, there
are numerous other professional employees possess-
ing similar interests with whom the professional li-
brarians may be associated for collective-bargaining
purposes.
Since our initial assertion of jurisdiction over non-
profit educational institutions in Cornell University,20
there has been no other case involving colleges or
universities in which library employees, or any seg-
ment thereof, have been accorded a separate unit.
The Petitioner has not sought, nor does the
majority's finding indicate appropriateness of, an
19 198 NLRB 811 (1972)
20 183 NLRB 329 (1970)
overall unit of library employees including both pro-
fessionals and nonprofessionals. Such a question is
for another day. Nevertheless, my colleagues' finding
results in the fragmentation of the library employees
into a minimum of two units. Such can potentially
have serious consequences upon the daily operation
of the library and, because of the library's central
role in the educational process, upon the whole of
Teachers College. Moreover, it may well undermine
stable and effective labor relations for the library em-
ployees as well as the Employer's other professional
employees.
My concern, as indicated above, over the fragmen-
tation of units is not limited solely to the library em-
ployees herein. Rather, I foresee as a logical exten-
sion of the majority's decision here future findings
that other small college departmental units are ap-
propriate. Campuses abound with departments
whose employees' primary identification is with their
departmental discipline. As such their interests and
working conditions are affected on that level. Yet, in
spite of this localized identification, the employees in
these departments share strong common interests
with their fellow employees in other departments.
More importantly, these employees contribute direct-
ly to and serve as vital links in the ultimate educa-
tional purpose and goals of their institution.
As noted supra, the Board has previously found
this, in the absence of specialized factors to the con-
trary, to be a sufficient community of interest to re-
quire representation in the same unit. While, unlike
the health care industry, we are not restricted in our
unit determinations on college campuses by a clear
congressional mandate to avoid the proliferation of
collective-bargaining units, I believe that the evils of
proliferated and fragmented units are as ever present
and destructive of stable labor relations at private
educational institutions as in that industry. Depart-
mentalization of bargaining units, as initiated by the
majority's finding herein, can only engender deci-
siveness ultimately resulting in the breakdown of the
very collective-bargaining process that the Act is de-
signed to promote. Therefore, in my view it is incum-
bent upon the Board to prevent such proliferation of
bargaining units on college campuses.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot join my col-
leagues in finding that the requested unit is appropri-
ate Since the Petitioner does not seek any alternative
unit, I would dismiss the petition.