Yale University

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 860 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Yale University and Yale Non-Faculty Action Com-
mittee Unit No. 1. Cases 1-RM-756 and
I-RC-10826
August 11, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND
JENKINS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Gerald Wolper of the National
Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8 , as amended, by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 1, the proceeding
was transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs
were filed by the Employer, Yale Non-Faculty Ac-
tion Committee Unit No. 1 (hereinafter referred to
as YNFAC Unit 1), and by Local No. 35, Federa-
tion of University Employees, Yale, AFL-CIO
(hereinafter Local 35), an Intervenor. Local No.
217, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Barten-
ders International Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter
Local 217), was also permitted to intervene at the
hearing. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that
they are free from prejudicial error. They are
hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. As the largest employer in New Haven and
fifth largest in the State of Connecticut, Yale
University has some 7,500 academic and
nonacademic employees. Its student population
numbers 9,381; 7,466 of whom are from States
other than Connecticut and 636 come from foreign
countries. In addition to its facilities in New Haven,
Yale operates a number of other installations
throughout the State, as well as in eight other
States, Puerto Rico, and Argentina.
During fiscal year 1969, the University purchased
goods and services valued at approximately $37
million. Of this $13,348,000 was expended in direct
out-of-State purchases, and another $12,800,000
was spent within Connecticut for goods moving in
interstate commerce. Additionally, other purchases
included such items as food and food services at an
annual cost of $1,400,000. Expenditures for books
and periodicals, almost all of which were supplied
from without the State, totaled $1,870,000.
The University's operating income for fiscal 1969
was $111,832 ,660, obtained from sources such as
tuition, investments , gifts, sponsored research, and
sale of publications. For example, the University
Press received $ 1,800,000 for sales from outside
the State , and another $ 1 million was gained from
admission charges and television and radio rights to
athletic events. Yale derived $28,860,000 income
from its investments in 1969.
The University's assets are valued at approxi-
mately $589,233,262. Its investment portfolio has a
market value as of the time of the hearing in excess
of $509 million and includes holdings in the com-
puter , transportation, oil, and automotive indus-
tries . Its real estate investments in land and
buildings in Connecticut are valued at $10 million
and those outside the State at another $4 million.
Yale was also the beneficiary of research grants
totaling $39,615,742. Of this sum $32,978,000 was
contributed by Federal Government agencies such
as the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department
of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration, and the United States Public Health
Service.
In light of the foregoing facts, it is clear that the
economic operations of Yale University have a sub-
stantial impact on interstate commerce and that by
any reasonable standard which might be imposed,
the Board is amply justified in exercising its ju-
risdiction in the instant proceeding. Accordingly,
we find that Yale University is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
Local 35 argues that YNFAC Unit 1 is not a
labor organization as defined by the Act on the
grounds that it is not sufficiently organized to un-
dertake the responsibilities of a bargaining
representative, since it has no written constitution
or bylaws, its officers are currently serving terms of
unspecified duration, and it relies on voluntary con-
tributions for funds.
In rebuttal, evidence was offered that Unit 1 has
been organized for over a year, that it has duly
elected officers, holds regular bimonthly meetings,
and has the allegiance of a majority of the em-
ployees whom it purports to represent. Further, the
following prepared statement of purpose was read
into the record:
The purpose of this organization shall be to
enhance the quality of life of all people under
its jurisdiction ; to establish fair wage scales and
working conditions and protect the welfare of
' See Cornell University , 183 NLRB No 41
184 NLRB No. 101
YALE UNIVERSITY
all its members in any manner necessary under
the law.
YNFAC Unit I also claims that it pressed certain
grievances with the administration , particularly
with regard to the issuance of paychecks prior to
rather than after Christmas vacation . There is some
doubt as to whether this grievance was initiated by
Unit 1 alone or Unit 1 members acting in concert
with a looseknit, campuswide group also styled YN-
FAC.
The applicable provision of the Act, Section
2(5), states that "The term ` labor organization'
means any organization of any-kind , or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, in
which employees participate and which exists for
the purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with
employers concerning grievances , labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or condi-
tions of work."
Upon the basis of the above fact , we find that
YNFAC Unit 1 is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.'
3. A question affecting commerce does not exist
concerning the representation of certain employees
of Yale University within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act for the
following reasons:
YNFAC Unit 1 has filed a petition seeking an
election to determine whether it shall be the collec-
tive-bargaining representative for approximately
109 nonfaculty , clerical, and technical employees
in the Department of Epidemiology and Public
Health (hereinafter cited as EPH ) of the Yale
School of Medicine . Yale, Local 35, which for the
past 20'years has represented some 1,100 service
and maintenance employees at the University, and
Local 217 all take the position that the unit
requested by YNFAC Unit 1 is inappropriate. They
contend that the appropriate unit , if any, would be
one which is universitywide in scope.
In terms of Yale's organizational structure, the
EPH department is I of 17 academic departments
in the Yale School of Medicine and 1 of 68 depart-
ments within the University as a whole . It is housed
in its own building with its own laboratories and
library . Apart from one connecting tunnel , the EPH
building is separate from but in close proximity to
other structures in the medical school complex.
There is some question as to the degree of inde-
pendence and autonomy exercised by the depart-
ment . EPH does have its own departmental chair-
man and administrative personnel and there was
testimony that a majority of people working in EPH
were hired by their immediate supervisor. It ap-
pears that day -to-day authority to supervise,
861
discipline, and discharge vests initially in particular
faculty supervisors in the department.
On the other hand, there is considerable
evidence that personnel policies and employment
practices are standardized for the entire University.
For example, 90 percent of the unrepresented non-
faculty employees ' wages are set in accordance
with a University-established wage classification
scale . All employees are paid once a month by Yale
University paycheck. Benefits such as Blue Cross
and Blue Shield , retirement plans, tuition aid for
employees and their children, recreation programs,
and access to the credit union are available cam-
puswide. Further, the Yale Personnel Manual in-
dicates that policies with regard to working hours,
overtime, accident and health service, sick leave,
holidays, and vacations are centrally determined
and uniformly administered throughout the Univer-
sity.
Additionally , personnel policies and practices
emanate from one central and three adjunct per-
sonnel offices at various sites on the campus.
Although manpower needs are determined by
respective department heads who also may hire, the
personnel offices may also engage in recruitment.
They direct applicants to job vacancies and are sub-
sequently charged with assigning employees to
proper job classifications and pay grades, filling out
the requisite forms, maintaining files and employ-
ment records, and administering all the details of
the fringe benefit programs mentioned above.
EPH is dependent upon services provided by the
University to all its component parts. Thus, light
and power, water , grounds maintenance , cleaning,
and dining hall services are all centrally furnished.
Purchasing, accounting, and payroll functions are
also handled for the department by centralized of-
fices of the University. Moreover, although the
EPH budget is initially prepared within the depart-
ment , it must be approved jointly by the Graduate
School and the School of Medicine. It is then sub-
mitted for approval to the University provost and
treasurer and for final approval to the Yale cor-
poration.
It is further contended in support of a separate
bargaining unit for the employees of EPH that the
work these employees perform is unique, that par-
ticular skills are required or must be developed,
and that there is little temporary employee in-
terchange with employees in other departments. In
contradiction to these assertions, however, the
record establishes that the 102 employees in the
requested unit encompass 26 different job classifi-
cations, none of which are unique to EPH. Rather,
identically titled positions may be found throughout
2 See, e . g , Butter Manufacturing Company, 167 NLRB 308.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the medical school and the University. There are, in
fact, a total of 1,776 nonfaculty, unrepresented em-
ployees whose job titles are the same as those held
by EPH personnel. By way of illustration, there are
19 assistants in research in EPH , one of the largest
number of employees in any single job category in
the department. At the same time, there are 250
more assistants in research employed in other Yale
departments. Similarly, although 25 employees hold
positions entitled "Secretary B" at EPH, 424 other
"Secretary B" employees work elsewhere at Yale.
Additionally, the work in which EPH employees are
engaged is essentially similar to work performed by
employees in the same job classifications outside
the department , and for the same salary.
With respect to employee interchange, the
evidence shows that in 1968 and 1969 there were
11 permanent transfers out of the EPH department
and, between 1967 and 1968, 4 transfers into it.
Also noteworthy is the fact that of the 124 non-
faculty workers employed by EPH, 16 work in loca-
tions other than the EPH building. There are,
moreover, 52 employees located in the EPH build-
ing who are not, in fact , EPH employees . In other
words, one-third of the staff housed in EPH are ac-
tually employees of other University departments.
Yale, Local 35, and Local 217 point out that the
history of collective bargaining at the University
since 1943 has established a pattern of university-
wide bargaining units encompassing employees
holding similar job titles, and that, therefore, only a
campuswide unit is appropriate .' Indeed , both the
Intervenors have attempted to organize the Univer-
sity on this basis on past occasions.
After weighing all the factors set forth above
against the criteria on which we rely in determining
the appropriateness of a departmental unit,4 we
conclude that the unit requested by YNFAC Unit 1
is inappropriate.
We fail to be persuaded by the testimony sub-
mitted as to the geographical and functional
separateness of the EPH department. Although it is
housed in its own building, it is thoroughly in-
tegrated into the Yale School of Medicine and the
University by virtue of its location, educational pro-
gram, and administrative operations.
Moreover, although YNFAC Unit 1 has infor-
mally attempted to represent EPH employees, it has
never entered into collective-bargaining negotia-
tions in their behalf. Apart from the desire of these
employees to be represented, indicated by past at-
tempts to organize, there is scant evidence which
justifies establishing a separate unit for them. They
are subject to the same working conditions as all
other Yale employees. While the research con-
ducted in the department may vary from that un-
dertaken elsewhere, the skills and techniques em-
ployed by EPH personnel do not vary substantially
from those of other Yale employees holding paral-
lel jobs. Thus, in light of all the foregoing, we find
that the EPH employees do not share a sufficiently
special community of interests which would justify
creating a separate unit for them. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein
be, and they hereby are , dismissed.
' Local 35 , which currently represents maintenance and service em-
ployees in a campuswide unit, contends that all campus clerical and techni-
cal employees should be considered accretions to its existing maintenance
and service employees ' unit. We find no merit in this contention Not only
do the clerical and technical employees lack a community of interest with
maintenance and service employees , but the former were in existence
throughout the time that Local 35 has represented maintenance and ser-
vice employees at Yale. Also there are approximately 2,600 clerical and
technical employees as opposed to 1,100 maintenance and service em-
ployees In other words , Local 35 would add to its existing unit twice as
many unrepresented employees as there are currently represented ones
The addition of this large number of employees to the existing unit without
affording them an opportunity to select or reject such bargaining repre-
sentative would be unjustified See, e.g, Gould National Batteries,
Inc., 157 NLRB 678
1 See Cornell University , supra.