Tulane University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 329 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

TULANE UNIVERSITY 329
Tulane University and Service Employees ' Interna-
tional Union , Local No. 275, AFL-CIO , Petitioner.
Case 15-RC-4653
February 4, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer I. Harold Koretzky of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board in Washington, D.C., for decision,
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed a brief with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief filed by the Employer, the Board finds:
1. Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, is a
private, nonprofit institution of higher learning. It is
governed by a self-perpetuating 17-member body
known as the Administrators of the Tulane Educa-
tional Fund, or the Board of Administrators. Tulane
has some 3,400 academic and nonacademic employees.
Its student population is 8,500 during the regular
school term, with some 2,000 summer enrollees.
The University's current budget reflects an income of
$46,000,000, with expenses of like amount. Its income
is derived primarily from student tuition and fees. Its
investment portfolio of $45,000,000, consisting of
stocks, bonds, mortgages, and commercial real estate,
produces an annual income of $2,300,000. In this con-
nection, Tulane receives $500,000 a year for lease of its
stadium to the New Orleans Saints professional foot-
ball team, although this is on a temporary basis. It owns
the land on which the Roosevelt Hotel and the Shell
Building are located and owns an off-campus facility
called "Brennan's." The University also receives Fed-
eral grants and contracts in the amount of $15,000,000
yearly, including $9,000,000 from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, $1,500,000 from the
Department of Defense, and miscellaneous amounts
from such agencies as the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, and the National Science Foundation. The Uni-
versity's out-of-state purchases of supplies and materi-
als amount to $5,000,000 a year.
The Employer contests the Board's assertion ofjuris-
diction in this case. However, in light of the foregoing
facts, it is clear that the economic operations of Tulane
University have a substantial impact on interstate com-
merce and that, by any reasonable standard which
might be imposed, the Board is amply justified in exer-
cising its jurisdiction in the instant proceeding. Tulane
clearly meets the standards which the Board has estab-
lished for institutions of higher learning.' Accordingly,
we find that Tulane University 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 labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of some
400 nonacademic wage employees, basically, "mainte-
nance and cafeteria employees" at Tulane's main (up-
town) campus in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Em-
ployer, on the other hand, argues that the only
appropriate unit is one universitywide in scope, encom-
passing all nonacademic wage employees throughout
the entire University , including those at the Medical
Center, the Delta Regional Primate Research Center,
and the F. Edward Hebert Research Center. At the
hearing, the Petitioner stated that it would go to an
election in an overall unit encompassing employees at
all four facilities if the Board found the initially re-
quested unit to be inappropriate. There is no bargaining
history for any of Tulane's nonacademic wage em-
ployees.
Tulane's main campus is located in the New Orleans
uptown section and contains such facilities as the
Schools of Arts and Sciences, Newcomb, Architecture,
Engineering, Social Work, Business Administration,
Law, etc., and employs about 400 nonacademic, wage
employees. The Medical Center is located in the down-
town business district, about 5 miles away from the
main campus , and employs some 240 nonacademic,
wage employees.2 The Delta Regional Primate Re-
search Center is in Covington, Louisiana, some 40
miles north of the main campus, and employs 22 wage
employees. The F. Edward Hebert Research Center,
commonly called Riverside, is located in the New Or-
leans suburb of Belle Chasse, about 15 miles south of
Sec 103 1 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended
Tulane has no teaching hospital of its own and , therefore, located its
Medical Center adjacent to the State 's Chanty Hospital , which it uses for
teaching purposes by agreement with the State
195 NLRB No. 62
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the main campus, and employs seven nonacademic
wage employees.
The wages, hours, and working conditions for all
nonacademic wage employees of Tulane are developed
by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Commit-
tee, which is located on the main campus. The account-
ing office for the entire University is on the main cam-
pus, as are the business records and the payroll office.
All purchasing is accomplished through the chief pur-
chasing agent on the main campus, although there is an
assistant purchasing agent at the Medical Center.
Budgeting is also accomplished centrally for the whole
University. No single facility or department has the
power or authority to pay debts or enter into contracts,
such authority being possessed by the business manager
on behalf of the Board of Administrators. All griev-
ances are processed by the Non-Academic Personnel
Executive Committee.
There are some 72 classifications and subclassifica-
tions of wage employees and they appear virtually
throughout the entire University, regardless of geogra-
phy, in 51 departments or subdivisions thereof. These
employees are grouped according to the function they
perform, such as food service workers, custodial work-
ers, mechanics, and utilitymen, and they operate and
are supervised within the department to which they are
assigned. The largest department is the physical plant,
which employs some 179 wage employees who work at
all four University sites . These employees are super-
vised by the director of the physical plant, who is
located on the main campus. The food service depart-
ment employs some 141 wage employees, 127 of whom
work in the cafeteria and dining halls on the main
campus, and 24 of whom work in the Medical Center
cafeteria. While there is a manager of each food facility,
these managers report directly to the assistant business
manager of the University, who is on the main campus.
The housing department employs some 75 wage em-
ployees, and they are assigned to the main campus and
Medical Center. However they are supervised by the
director of housing, who is located on the main cam-
pus.
All job classifications and ranges and rates of pay for
wage employees throughout the University are deter-
mined by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive
Committee, which publishes an "Hourly Staff
Manual ," defining the policies and practices of the Uni-
versity with respect to all wage employees. There are no
differences in job skills and functions within each job
classification. All employees are subject to the same
central personnel policies, practices, processes, and ad-
ministration. All fringe benefits, including basic hospi-
talization, major medical benefits, group life insurance,
and disability insurance, are uniform for all wage em-
ployees. Nearly all wage employees punch a timeclock,
all have the same payroll period and the same payday,
and all are issued the same kind of paycheck , which is
prepared in the payroll department on the main cam-
pus. Nearly all of the University 's wage employees are
required to wear uniforms which are identical through-
out the University. The great majority of the wage
employees who work at one of the University's four
installations perform their duties at . that specific loca-
tion . There are only occasional temporary transfers of
employees from one facility to another.
As we said in Cornell University,' in determining
whether a particular group of employees constitutes an
appropriate unit for bargaining where an employer op-
erates a number of facilities , the Board considers such
factors as prior bargaining history ; centralization of
management , particularly in regard to labor relations;
extent of employee interchange ; degree of interdepend-
ence or autonomy of facilities ; differences or similarities
in skills and functions of the employees ; and geograph-
ical location of the facilities in relation to each other.
There is considerable evidence in this case that the
operations of Tulane 's four facilities are integrated and
centralized and that a community of interests is shared
by all of its wage employees . Thus, as indicated, the
Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee,
which is located on the main campus , formulates
wages , hours , and working conditions for wage em-
ployees throughout the University . Hiring and promo-
tion are determined through a central personnel office
located at the main campus . The job titles of Tulane's
wage employees are identical throughout the Univer-
sity . The skills and functions within each of the various
classifications of wage employees are identical, and all
wage employees receive the same fringe benefits. Since
the University' s wage employees are assigned, func-
tionally, to one of the various departments, subject to
centralized supervision from the main campus , there is
little, if any , autonomy at the three facilities off the
main campus , and there is no common supervision
exercised by the first and second echelon supervisors
among the various classifications of wage employees at
any single facility.
In view of the above circumstances , we find that a
unit limited to wage employees at Tulane's main cam-
pus is inappropriate. We find , rather, that an appropri-
ate unit at Tulane must embrace wage employees at all
of Tulane 's four facilities, and, in accordance with the
Petitioner 's alternative unit position , we shall direct an
election in such a unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
' 183 NLRB No. 41
4 See Cornell University, supra
TULANE UNIVERSITY
All nonacademic wage employees , including
maintenance and cafeteria employees , at Tulane
University's main (uptown) campus, the Medical
Center , the Delta Regional Primate Center, and
the F . Edward Hebert Research Center , excluding
all office clerical employees , professional em-
ployees , guards , and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Election ',' omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues , I do not believe that our
decision in Cornell University' compels the conclusion
that the appropriate unit in this case must include the
wage employees at all of Tulane's four facilities. In my
view , the record amply supports the exclusion of the
Delta Regional Primate Research Center and the F.
Edward Hebert Research Center located 40 and 15
miles , respectively , from the main New Orleans cam-
' As the unit found appropriate herein is more comprehensive than that
defined in the petition , we shall instruct the Regional Director to determine
the adequacy of the Petitioner 's showing of interest in the aforedescribed
appropriate unit before proceeding with an election herein
6 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
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N.LR . 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 15 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 extraordi-
nary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.
' 183 NLRB No 41
331
pus. I would , however, include in the unit the wage
employees at the Medical Center which is located in
downtown New Orleans approximately 5 miles from
the main campus.
In addition to the lack of geographic proximity be-
tween the two facilities located in the city of New Or-
leans and the two research centers , there is a lack of
interchange or transfer of employees between these
facilities . Nor is there any showing that the four facili-
ties recruit their respective wage employees from a
common labor market . Presumably the employees em-
ployed at the New Orleans facilities are recruited from
the labor market in the immediate urban area. Apart
from central administrative control of personnel poli-
cies relating to wage employees which are formulated
by the Non-Academic Personnel Executive Committee
located on the main campus , there appears to be no
basis for concluding that a unit of less than all four
facilities is, in the circumstances of this case , inappro-
priate.
The Board has consistently held that a union need
not petition for the optimum appropriate unit but only
for an appropriate unit . Since the Union has indicated
that it will proceed to an election in any unit found
appropriate and since no other union seeks an overall
unit of the four facilities , I would find appropriate a
unit consisting of the main campus and the Medical
Center . This finding I believe comports with our deci-
sion in Cornell University, supra, where we specifically
noted that "we are entering into a hitherto uncharted
area." I interpret that statement to mean that we would
weigh all the factors in each case arising in this new
area and, consistent with prior decisions, arrive at unit
determinations based on factors which would be con-
sistent with our duty to define the appropriateness of
units.