Trustees of Boston University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1008 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trustees of Boston University and Boston University
Chapter, American Association of University Pro-
fessors. Case 1-CA-11061
March 22, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on September 23, 1975, by
Boston University Chapter, American Association of
University Professors, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Trustees of Boston University, herein
called Respondent, the Acting General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
General Counsel, by the Regional Director for
Region 1, issued a complaint on October 8, 1975,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended . Copies of
the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the
parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance, and the record shows,
that on August 13, 1975, following a Board election in
Case 1-RC-13564 the Union was duly certified as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent's employees in the unit found appropriate;1
and that, commencing on or about August 27, 1975,
and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused,
and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collective-
ly with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative, although the Union has requested and
is requesting it to do so. On November 4, 1975,
Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admit-
ting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the
complaint.
On November 28, 1975, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on December 12,
1975, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. On December 17,
1975, the Union filed a motion that the Board, in
ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, grant,
in addition to a bargaining order, certain specific
I Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case I-RC-13564, as the term "record" is defined in Secs . 102.68 and
102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended. See
LTV Electrosystemr, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1%7), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4,
1%8); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1%7), enfd. 415 F.2d 26
228 NLRB No. 120
relief. Respondent requested and received two exten-
sions of time to file a response to the Notice To Show
Cause, the last extension setting January 15, 1976, as
the date for receipt of its response.
On January 13, 1976, the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an
order temporarily restraining the Board from requir-
ing a response to the Notice To Show Cause and from
all other proceedings herein until further order.2 On
April 8, 1976, unaware of the court's order, the Board
inadvertently issued a Decision and Order in these
proceedings . When the court's temporary restraining
order was called to its attention, the Board, on April
13, 1976, issued an order vacating that Decision and
Order. On April 19, 1976, the Board filed a motion
with the district court to have the temporary restrain-
ing order set aside and on October 28, 1976, renewed
its motion. On November 12, 1976, the district court
dissolved the restraining order.
Thereafter, on November 16, 1976, Respondent
requested a due date for its response to the Notice To
Show Cause and the Board set December 1, 1976, as
the due date. The response was filed on December 2,
1976. On December 30, 1976, the Union renewed its
motion for specific relief.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and response to the
Notice To Show Cause, Respondent, in substance, (1)
attacks the validity of the certification based on its
unit contentions and its objections to the election; (2)
contends for the first time that faculty are managerial
employees; and (3) argues that a hearing (a) should
have been held on its objections because of the
Regional Director's failure to conduct an adequate
investigation and (b) should now be held to receive
newly discovered and previously unavailable evi-
dence. The General Counsel contends that Respon-
dent seeks to relitigate issues resolved in the prior
representation case and has raised no issue requiring
a hearing. We agree.
Review of the record, including that of the repre-
sentation proceeding, Case 1-RC-13564, establishes
that, after a hearing, the Regional Director on April
17, 1975, issued a Decision and Direction of Election
(C.A. 5, 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va., 1967);
Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C.A. 7, 1968); Sec.
9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
2 Trustees of Boston University v. N.L. R. B., Civil Action 76-115-M.
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY 1009
ordering an election in the appropriate unit of all full-
time teaching members of Respondent's faculty.
Subsequently, Respondent filed a timely request for
review and a brief in support, arguing that, contrary
to the Regional Director's decision, (1) department
chairmen and directors of academic programs and
centers were supervisors or managerial employees
and should be excluded from the unit and (2) all part-
time faculty and the faculty of the schools of law,
medicine , and dentistry should be included. By
telegram of May 13, 1975, the Board denied Respon-
dent's request for review as raising no substantial
issues warranting review.3
An election by manual and mail ballots was held.
On June 3, 1975, the manual and mail ballots were
commingled and counted. The tally of ballots showed
394 votes cast for the Union, 262 against, and 40
challenged ballots. Respondent filed timely objec-
tions to the election and supplemental objections,
alleging in substance that (1) the Board breached its
responsibility to conduct an election at a time and in
a manner which would afford the maximum number
of faculty the opportunity to vote,4 and (2) last-
minute union misrepresentations were contained in a
book review in the spring issue of the "AAUP
Bulletin" (Vol. 61, No. 1), charging Respondent's
president with violations of academic freedom in
1968-69 while he was dean of the college of Arts and
Sciences at the University of Texas. Subsequently,
Respondent requested a hearing on its objections.
The Union filed a response requesting attorney's fees
and costs on the grounds that Respondent's objec-
tions were frivolous. After investigation, the Acting
Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative on August 13,
1975, denying Respondent's hearing request and
overruling its objections. With respect to the conduct
of the election, the Regional Director found that (1)
at the time the date and method of election were
established there was no evidence that participation
would be inadequate and, in any event, there was
adequate participation and (2) the fact that some
overseas faculty members were not able to timely cast
mail ballots did not warrant setting aside the election
since these ballots were insufficient to affect the
election results . Regarding the alleged misrepresenta-
tions, the Regional Director found that, even assum-
3 Members Kennedy and Penello dissented from certain inclusions and
exclusions.
4 The breach allegedly arose in that the election was conducted after the
close of classes, should have been entirely by mail ballot, and did not accord
overseas faculty sufficient time to receive and return mail ballots.
5 Modine Manufacturing Company, 203 NLRB 527 (1973).
6 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.RB., 313 U.S 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board , Secs. 102.67(1) and 102.69(c).
r In its response to the Notice To Show Cause Respondent contends for
the first time that the faculty are managerial employees excluded from
coverage of the Act. In the representation case where Respondent argued
ing Respondent had no opportunity to respond, (1)
the alleged misrepresentations were not so substantial
as to warrant setting aside the election; (2) the book
review charging Respondent's president with viola-
tions of academic freedom constituted opinion and
would not be viewed as a statement of fact by such a
sophisticated electorate; and (3) the events described
therein were too remote in time and place to have a
substantial and significant impact on the voters,
especially since Respondent's president had held that
position for over 4 years at the time of the election.
Accordingly, the Acting Regional Director certified
the Union.
Respondent filed a request for review reiterating its
objections and seeking a hearing based on (1) its
objections, (2) the Regional Director's failure to
conduct a meaningful and thorough investigation of
its objections, and (3) its contention that, due to the
fact that the Board has not acquired a level of
expertise in dealing with faculty members equivalent
to its expertise in an industrial setting, the factors
outlined in Modine,5 which permit the Board to make
informed decisions without hearings on typical misre-
presentations in industrial cases, were not present.
here. The Union filed an opposition and also request-
ed review of its request for attorney's fees and costs
because of Respondent's frivolous objections-a
request upon which the Acting Regional Director did
not rule. On September 17, 1975, the Board by
telegram denied Respondent's request for review for
lack of substantial issues warranting review and
declined to award attorney's fees and costs to the
Union on the grounds that the objections filed,
though not meritorious, were not frivolous or other-
wise warranting the award of such fees and costs.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to
relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.6
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding,7 and Respondent does not
offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence,8 nor does it allege
that any special circumstances exist herein which
that a unit of all faculty was appropriate, Respondent raised the issue of
managerial status only with respect to department chai rmen and directors,
which contention was rejected . As the contention that all faculty are
managerial employees could have been raised in the representation case,
Respondent may not litigate that issue in these proceedings.
8 In its response to the Notice ToShow Cause, Respondent contends that
October and November 1975 correspondence disclosing a reply by the
book's author to the review, which the Union declined to publish in a
postelection issue of its magazine, constitutes previously unavailable and
newly discovered evidence since it reflects the continuing significance of the
controversy and the Union's recognition of the gravity of its misrepresenta-
(Continued)
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would require the Board to reexamine the decision
made in the representation proceeding. We therefore
find that Respondent has not raised any issue which
is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice
proceeding.9 We shall, accordingly, grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.
In its motion for specific relief, the Union requests
that the Board, in addition to the usual bargaining
order entered in refusal-to-bargain cases, issue an
order that all contract provisions involving salaries or
fringe benefits be retroactive and further require
Respondent to supply information for bargaining, to
mail any order issued herein to each member of the
unit and of Respondent's board of trustees, and to
pay costs and attorney's fees because of Respondent's
frivolous objections and refusal to bargain. We
decline to grant the Union's request for such extraor-
dinary relief.
By its request for retroactivity of certain contract
provisions, the Union in effect is asking the Board to
establish the effective date of the contract with
respect to these terms. Since the Board is without
power to compel parties to agree to any such
substantive provision of a collective-bargaining
agreement, we shall deny this request.10 Likewise, we
will not grant the Union's request for an order that
Respondent supply bargaining information since an
employer is under no obligation to furnish informa-
tion in the absence of an actual request therefor and
here there was no such request.11
In the prior representation case, the Board rejected
the Union's request for attorney's fees and costs on
the grounds that Respondent's election objections
were not frivolous. Since Respondent's defense
herein, based upon its objections, is not patently
frivolous, we hereby deny the request for payment of
costs and attorney's fees.12
Finally, since there is herein no pattern of wide-
spread and pervasive unlawful conduct requiring
individual reassurance that the statutory rights of
employees are protected, we decline the request for
additional mailings of the Board order.13
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
tions . Assuming, arguendo, the accuracy of this evidence , we are not
persuaded that it would affect the determination to overrule the nusrepresen-
tation objection or would warrant a hearing thereon.
e In its answer to the complaint , Respondent specifically denies the status
of the Union as a labor organization , the appropriateness of the unit, and the
allegations with respect to the Union's representative status . In the underly-
ing representation proceeding , Case 1-RC-13564, the Union's status as a
labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act was determined
and, accordingly, it is not subject to litigation in the instant unfair labor
practice proceeding. Similarly, Respondent litigated the unit appropriateness
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein a Massachusetts corporation with its principal
office and place of business at 147 Bay State Road,
Boston, Massachusetts (herein called the Charles
River Campus), and is now and continuously has
been engaged at said campus in the operation of a
nonprofit educational institution from which it der-
ives an unrestricted annual gross income exceeding
$1 million. Also, Respondent receives directly in
Massachusetts from points outside Massachusetts
supplies and materials having an annual value
exceeding $50,000.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Boston University Chapter, American Association
of University Professors, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent em-
ployed at its Charles River Campus constitute a unit
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time teaching members of the faculty at
Boston University, including department and
division chairmen, area chairmen in the School of
Theology, sequence coordinators in the School of
Social Work, coordinators in the School of Nurs-
ing, the director of the Teacher Training Project in
Sargent College, the directors of the African
Studies Center, the Afro-American Studies Pro-
gram, the Center for Latin-American Develop-
ment Studies, the American and New England
and the Union 's representative status in the representation case and may not
relltigate them here.
to H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. N.LRB., 397 U.S. 99 (1970).
11 A. H. Belo Corporation (WFAA-TV) v. N.LR.B., 411 F.2d 959 (C.A. 5,
1969), cert . denied 396 U.S.1007 (1970), enfg. 170 NLRB 1558 (1968).
12 Heck's Inc., 215 NLRB 765 (1974). Nor does Respondent's allegedly
frivolous Freedom of Information Act request warrant a different conclu-
sion.
13 Cyntell Tool Company, 196 NLRB 1032 (1972), distinguishing H. W.
Elson Bottling Company, 155 NLRB 714 (1965) (cited by the Union).
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY 1011
Studies Program, the Center for Applied Social
Science, the Boston University Center for the
Philosophy and History of Science, the Continu-
ing Education Department in the School of
Nursing, the University Professors Program, fac-
ulty on leave (who are visiting faculty at another
educational institution and who are otherwise
eligible), and faculty in the Overseas Program
(who taught at the University immediately prior to
taking assignment in said Overseas Program for a
definite period of time and who are expected to
return to the school or college of the University in
Boston from which they came), but excluding all
part-time faculty, all officers of the University,
deans, associate deans, assistant deans, adminis-
trative support personnel, non-teaching profes-
sionals , librarians, graduate assistants , teaching
fellows, student employees, non-professional em-
ployees, coaches (who are not otherwise eligible
for inclusion), directors of the schools of music,
visual arts and theatre arts in the School for the
Arts, visiting faculty, all faculty, department
chairmen and program directors in the Schools of
Law, Medicine and Graduate Dentistry, all other
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On May 14, 1975, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 1, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with Respondent. The Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit on August 13, 1975, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about August 20, 1975, and at
all times thereafter, the Union has requested Respon-
dent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of all the em-
ployees in the above-described unit. Commencing on
or about August 27, 1975, and continuing at all times
thereafter to date, Respondent has refused, and
continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative for collective
bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
August 27, 1975, and at all times thereafter, refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate unit. See Mar Jac Poultry Company, " Inc., 136
NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar
Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600
(C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964);
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421
(1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Trustees of Boston University is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Boston University Chapter, American Associa-
tion of University Professors, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time teaching members of the faculty at
Boston University, including department and divi-
sion chairmen, area chairmen in the School of
Theology, sequence coordinators in the School of
Social Work, coordinators in the School of Nursing,
the director of the Teacher Training Project in
Sargent College, the directors of the African Studies
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Center , the Afro-American Studies Program, the
Center for Latin-American Development Studies, the
American and New England Studies Program, the
Center for Applied Social Science, the Boston Uni-
versity Center for the Philosophy and History of
Science, the Continuing Education Department in
the School of Nursing, the University Professors
Program, faculty on leave (who are visiting faculty at
another educational institution and who are other-
wise eligible), and faculty in the Overseas Program
(who taught at the University immediately prior to
taking assignment in said Overseas Program for a
definite period of time and who are expected to
return to the school or college of the University in
Boston from which they came), but excluding all
part-time faculty, all officers of the University , deans,
associate deans, assistant deans , administrative sup-
port personnel , non-teaching professionals , librari-
ans, graduate assistants , teaching fellows, student
employees , non-professional employees , coaches
(who are not otherwise eligible for inclusion), direc-
tors of the schools of music , visual arts and theatre
arts in the School for the Arts, visiting faculty, all
faculty, department chairmen and program directors
in the Schools of Law, Medicine and Graduate
Dentistry , all other employees , guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since August 13, 1975, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about August 27, 1975, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit , Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain , Respondent
has interfered with , restrained, and coerced, and is
interfering with , restraining, and coercing, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Trustees of Boston University, Boston, Massachu-
setts, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Boston University
Chapter, American Association of University Profes-
sors, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time teaching members of the faculty at
Boston University , including department and
division chairmen , area chairmen in the School of
Theology, sequence coordinators in the School of
Social Work, coordinators in the School of Nurs-
ing, the director of the Teacher Training Project in
Sargent College, the directors of the African
Studies Center, the Afro-American Studies Pro-
gram, the Center for Latin-American Develop-
ment Studies , the American and New England
Studies Program , the Center for Applied Social
Science , the Boston University Center for the
Philosophy and History of Science, the Continu-
ing Education Department in the School of
Nursing, the University Professors Program, fac-
ulty on leave (who are visiting faculty at another
educational institution and who are otherwise
eligible), and faculty in the Overseas Program
(who taught at the University immediately prior to
taking assignment in said Overseas Program for a
definite period of time and who are expected to
return to the school or college of the University in
Boston from which they came), but excluding all
part-time faculty, all officers of the University,
deans, associate deans, assistant deans, adminis-
trative support personnel, non-teaching profes-
sionals, librarians, graduate assistants, teaching
fellows, student employees , non-professional em-
ployees, coaches (who are not otherwise eligible
for inclusion), directors of the schools of music,
visual arts and theatre arts in the School for the
Arts, visiting faculty, all faculty, department
chairmen and program directors in the Schools of
Law, Medicine and Graduate Dentistry , all other
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Boston , Massachusetts, campus
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
14 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Boston
University Chapter, American Association of
University Professors, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit
described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-
named Union, as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the bargaining unit described
UNIVERSITY 1013
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is:
All full-time teaching members of the
faculty at Boston University, including de-
partment and division chairmen, area chair-
men in the School of Theology, sequence
coordinators in the School of Social Work,
coordinators in the School of Nursing, the
director of the Teacher Training Project in
Sargent College, the directors of the African
Studies Center, the Afro-American Studies
Program, the Center for Latin-American
Development Studies, the American and
New England Studies Program, the Center
for Applied Social Science, the Boston Uni-
versity Center for the Philosophy and Histo-
ry of Science, the Continuing Education
Department in the School of Nursing, the
University Professors Program, faculty on
leave (who are visiting faculty at another
educational institution and who are other-
wise eligible), and faculty in the Overseas
Program (who taught at the University
immediately prior to taking assignment in
said Overseas Program for a definite period
of time and who are expected to return to the
school or college of the University in Boston
from which they came), but excluding all
part-time faculty, all officers of the Universi-
ty, deans, associate deans, assistant deans,
administrative support personnel, non-teach-
ing professionals, librarians, graduate assis-
tants, teaching fellows, student employees,
non-professional employees, coaches (who
are not otherwise eligible for inclusion),
directors of the schools of music, visual arts
and theatre arts in the School for the Arts,
visiting faculty, all faculty, department chair-
men and program directors in the Schools of
Law, Medicine and Graduate Dentistry, all
other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON
UNIVERSITY