Fairleigh Dickinson University

FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY Fairleigh Dickinson University and Fairleigh Dickin- son University Federation of College Teachers, Lo- cal 1841 , affiliated with American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Fairleigh Dickinson University and Fairleigh Dickin- son University Council of American Association of University Professors Chapters, Petitioner. Case 22- RC-5310 and 22-RC-5334 August 23, 1973 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On May 8, 1972, the Fairleigh Dickinson Universi- ty Federation of College Teachers, Local 1841, affili- ated with American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (herein called AFT), filed a petition seek- ing to represent certain employees of Fairleigh Dick- inson University (herein called the Employer). On May 18, 1972, the Fairleigh Dickinson University Council of American Association of University Pro- fessors Chapters (herein called AAUP) filed a petition herein also seeking to represent certain employees of the Employer. Pursuant to the direction of the Re- gional Director of Region 22, dated May 18, 1972, the cases were consolidated for purposes of a hearing which was held on May 23, 24, and 25, 1972, and June 12, 1972, before Hearing Officer William D. Boettich- er. By order of the Regional Director, dated June 29, 1972, this proceeding was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision pursuant to Sec- tion 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, Petitioners and the Employer submitted briefs to the Board. 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 no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs, the Board finds: 1. Fairleigh Dickinson University is an indepen- dent, nonprofit university operating under a charter from the State of New Jersey. It operates three major campuses at Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck, New Jersey, with additional locations at Wayne and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.' The University has a 1 The parties stipulated to seclude the faculty of the Edward Williams College, and the University's overseas facilities located at Wroxton , England, and St Crois, Virgin Islands 673 gross annual revenue of approximately $33 million. Annual purchases across state lines exceed $50,000. Accordingly, we find, and the parties have stipulated, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. We find that Petitioners are labor organizations seeking to represent certain employees of the Employ- er. 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 Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. AFT seeks a unit of all full-time and regular part-time members of the faculty, including depart- ment chairmen, employed at the Employer 's Teaneck campus, excluding campus provosts, deans, assistant deans, assistants to deans, directors of special pro- grams, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. AFT also would exclude the faculty of the dental school. AAUP seeks a unit of all full-time faculty, including the dental school faculty, and department chairmen at all of the Employer's locations, excluding part-time faculty, supervisors, maintenance, executives, administrators, watchmen, and all other service personnel . The Employer con- tends that a universitywide unit, including the dental school, is the appropriate unit and that department chairmen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, should be excluded . The Employer takes no fixed position on the status of the part-time faculty members and requests that the Board resolve this issue in its Decision. Scope of Unit As noted above, the AFT seeks a unit of full- and part-time faculty members located at the Employer's Teaneck campus, excluding the dental school. In sup- port of this position, AFT contends that the Teaneck campus consists of a homogeneous identifiable group of faculty members with sufficient community of in- terest to comprise an appropriate bargaining unit be- cause the management of the University is highly decentralized, there is little if any day-to-day manage- ment of the Teaneck campus faculty emanating from the central administration located at the Rutherford campus, almost all employment of new faculty mem- bers originates within the campus itself, and, except for the formality of ultimate approval by the central administration, almost all decisions as to employ- ment, promotion, and tenure are made within the ad- ministrative makeup of the individual campus. In addition, AFT continues, each campus has its own 205 NLRB No. 101 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD administrative officers, different courses are given at each of the campuses, and except for the Colleges of Education and Business Administration, each of the campuses has autonomous colleges which may or may not be duplicated on the other campuses. AFT also contends that there is virtually no interchange of fac- ulty between the three campuses, that students enroll at only one of the campuses and take all of their courses on that particular campus, that over and above the lack of interchange there is also virtually no contract between the faculties of the various campus- es on an academic basis, and that there is no common supervision of the faculties of the separate campuses. AAUP, in support of its position that only a univer- sitywide unit is appropriate, contends that the admin- istration of the University is centralized in one governing body with various central authorities ema- nating therefrom carrying out the basic administra- tive policies of the University, that, among the faculty, terms and conditions of employment vis-a-vis the fac- ulties' relationship with the administration are identi- cal, that there has been substantial interchange between the campuses, and that the skills and func- tions of the faculty members used in the course of their employment are indistinguishable other than on an academic basis. In addition, AAUP contends that to fragmentize the University into separate campuses for collective bargaining would do irreparable harm to the educational mission of the University. The Employer, in agreement with the AAUP, con- tends that the University is administered on a central- ized basis, that employment practices, promotion, and tenure are handled on a universitywide basis, that other conditions of employment as well as fringe ben- efits are universitywide, and that although there are separate colleges with counterparts on each campus, both the College of Education and the College of Business Administration are multicampus colleges, each of which has its own college hierarchy central- ized at but one of the campuses. The record shows that the ultimate governing body is the University Board of Trustees. From the trustees, the authority is delegated to the university president, and through the president to the three vice presidents. At the campus level, there is a campus provost who reports to any one of the vice presidents depending on the subject matter involved. Below the campus pro- vost within the academic field are the college deans and their various assistants, the department chairmen and full- and part-time faculty. Employment of facul- ty members is generally inititated at the college level, and the college budget provides the necessary funds. When an applicant is considered for the faculty the initital interviews are conducted by the department chairman in conjunction with other faculty members of the department. Evaluations are made and recom- mendations submitted to the college dean. The dean's recommendation along with those of the department chairman and faculty brethren are then submitted to the academic vice president who, in reliance on the submitted recommendations, generally approves the hiring of the new faculty member. A similar proce- dure is followed in matters of promotion and the ob- taining of tenure. From an administrative point of view, the record also shows that conditions of employ- ment such as minimum starting salaries, teaching hours, conditions for attaining promotions and ten- ure, and fringe benefits are identical for all faculty members, regardless of the campus at which he or she is located, and that none of these basic conditions of employment can be changed or modified at the cam- pus or college level. In addition, although budgets are prepared by the various colleges for submission to the financial vice president who, in turn, submits the overall budget to the Board of Trustees, all college budgets are subject to modifications predicated on the decisions of the central administration in relation to the overall budget. As to this latter point, it would appear that the various college budgets, along with the campus budgets (costs of services supporting the academic function), are actually submitted as sepa- rate documents, again, subject to review and modifi- cation on an individual budget basis. Academically, the university senate is the principal recommending body to the Board of Trustees. Under the University's regulations, all educational policies must be approved by the senate before submission to the Board. The senate is composed of representatives from the faculty, the student body, the administrative staff, the professional staff, and the alumni. Faculty members on the senate are selected by college without regard to location, except that there is a guaranteed minimum representation. In addition to the above facts, the record shows that during the past 4 years there have been approximately 16 instances where a member of the faculty transferred or temporarily in- terchanged from one campus to another. Further, the evidence indicates that there are several members of the faculty who teach courses at more than one cam- pus. In determining whether a particular group of em- ployees constitutes an appropriate unit for bargaining where an employer operates a number of facilities, the Board considers such factors as prior bargaining his- tory;' centralization of management, particularly in regard to labor relations; extent of employee inter- change; degree of interdependence or autonomy of 2 During the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the petitions herein, the tn-campus faculty committee negotiated with the University for salary increases FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY facilities; differences or similarities in skills and func- tions of the employees; and geographical location of the facilities in relation to each other.3 In the instant case, there is considerable evidence that the Employer's campus facilities are integrated and centralized, and that there is a substantial com- munity of interest shared by all of the faculty, regard- less of their campus location. Thus, as indicated, wages, hours, working conditions, payroll procedures, hiring and terminations, vacation schedules, and fringe benefits are identical throughout the Universi- ty. In addition, rules and procedures relating to facul- ty promotions, the attainment of tenure by nontenure faculty members, and the rights and benefits enuring to tenure status also apply on a universitywide basis, and, the university senate, the University's highest academic body responsible for formulating academic policies for recommendation to the Board of Trustees, has among its members, by design, faculty representa- tives from all of the colleges and from each of the campuses. In view of the above circumstances, and as the AAUP seeks an election in the universitywide unit, we find a unit limited to faculty members at the Teaneck campus to be inappropriate. We find rather that an appropriate unit must include all of the Employer's campus facilities, and in accordance with the AAUP's unit position, we shall direct an election in a universi- tywide unit.4 Part-time Faculty: AAUP would exclude from the universitywide unit all part-time faculty. The AFT would include in its unit request the part-time faculty located at the Teaneck campus. The Employer takes no firm position on this issue, but requests that it be resolved by the Board. For reasons set forth in our decision in New York University, 205 NLRB No. 16, we agree with the AAUP's position and will exclude all part-time faculty. Department Charimen: All of the colleges are subdi- vided into departments, generally along the lines of the basic academic subject, with each department having its own chairman. Department chairmen, al- though appointed by the University for a specific term, in several instances have been nominated by the faculty within a department, and some departments provide for a rotating chairmanship in accordance with the decision of the departmental faculty. While there is a considerable degree of "collegiality" within the various departments, particularly with regard to 3 The record shows that the three main campuses are located within 40 miles of each other with the Rutherford and Teaneck campuses being ap- proximately 10 miles from each other 4 Cornell University, 183 NLRB No 41 As the testimony indicates that members of the full-time faculty from the three main campuses teach at the Fort Monmouth and Wayne , New Jersey , extension facilities , we shall also include these two facilities in the universitywide unit 675 tenure and promotion, the record clearly shows that department chairmen have substantial responsibility for the hiring of new faculty members and the reten- tion of faculty members who have not yet attained tenure. They conduct interviews with prospective can- didates, and although other faculty members also may interview applicants and thereby compile a faculty consensus,' it is the department chairman's recom- mendation that is forwarded to the college dean. In our opinion, the above facts establish that the department chairmen exercise the authority to make effective recommendations as to the hiring and change of status of faculty members, and that they direct and assign departmental support personnel. We, therefore, find them to be supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and we shall exclude them.' The Dental School: Having found that a universi- tywide unit of professional employees is also appro- priate, we now direct our attention to the scope and composition of that unit in light of AFT's contention that the School of Dentistry should be excluded from the unit. The record shows that the dental school, which once was located on the Teaneck campus prop- er, is now located across a river but directly across from the main Teaneck campus. The building now housing the dental school is primarily devoted to the dental discipline, although various other science courses such as human anatomy, biochemistry, and dental hygiene are taught at the school by nondental professors and/or instructors. In addition, dental school faculty members serve on the university sen- ate; the universitywide grievance committee is avail- able to them; university policies relating to tenure, retirement, sabatticals, promotions, etc., apply to them in the same manner as to the other faculty mem- bers; and there are several courses taught by the den- tal faculty in conjunction with faculty members from the Science and Engineering School leading to a mas- ter of science degree. On the other hand, a substantial number of the full-time faculty at the dental school are dentists whose average salaries are substantially higher than the salaries of comparable faculty rank in the other colleges, and there appears to be a variation in the universitywide rule regarding outside activities inso- far as the full-time dental faculty is concerned. Al- though the various university governing and operating bodies (i.e., the senate, the grievance com- mittee, and the priorities committee) are open to the dental faculty, it appears from the record that the dental faculty has not participated in these and other 5 The testimony shows that the senior faculty members serve on depart- ment personnel committees with only a fraction of the junior members of the department serving on such committees C W Post Center of Long Island University, 189 NLRB 904 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD academic bodies on a regular or "enthusiastic" basis. In addition, the dental school's accreditation is based on factors not similar to the basic accreditation fac- tors applicable to the other colleges, there is little or no functional integration between the dental school and the other colleges, and the thrust of the teaching function in the dental school (teaching a specific pro- fession) is entirely different from that of other colleges whose basic goals are student matriculation within the framework of a much broader academic discipline. While these factors would appear to support sepa- rate unit limited to the faculty of the dental school,' as no labor organization seeks to represent them sepa- rately, we shall include the dental faculty in the over- all unit. Accordingly, we find that the following employees 7 See Syracuse University. 204 NLRB No 85 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time faculty members employed by the Employer at its New Jersey campuses, including the extension schools located at Wayne and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, excluding part-time fa- culty members, the faculty of the Edward Wil- liams Junior College located at the Teaneck campus, all officers and officials primarily en- gaged in administrative functions, librarians, lab- oratory personnel exclusively engaged in laboratory work, all supervisors as defined in the Act including department chairmen, guards and all other employees. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.]' 8 Although not specifically represented by the parties, inasmuch as our Direction of Election will issue during the summer session, we have left the setting of the date for the election to the directions of the Regional Director to be worked out with the parties involved