National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

NATL. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.' and National Bureau Employees' Association, Petition- er. Case 1 -RC-13377 January 15, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On September 12, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit of all research analysts, research assistants, programming and data processing em- ployees, publications department employees, em- ployees on the administrative and secretarial staff, and persons otherwise classified who are pursuing independent research which directly contributes to their fulfilling the requirements for a Ph.D. in economics or a related field, employed by the Employer at its New Haven, Connecticut, location. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed with the National Labor Relations Board a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, contending inter alia that he erred in finding that Patricia Hartge is an eligible employee and not a supervisor; that JoAnn Kelley, Linda Rodman, Pat Ernest, and Nelley Zack have sufficient community of interest to be included in the unit; and that Laurie Williams was not a casual employee. On October 10, 1974, the Board by telegraphic order granted the request for review with respect to the unit placement of the above-named employees? Thereafter the Employer filed a brief on review. 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. The Board has considered the entire record with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer, herein sometimes called the Bu- reau, is a nonprofit corporation which provides research and related services in the field of econom- ics, and maintains close affiliations with various colleges and universities. The Bureau's New Haven, Connecticut, facility involved here is informally associated with Yale University. Thus, some univer- sity professors are engaged in research work for the Bureau, whose facilities are located in rented office space on Yale's campus. The Bureau maintains an 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the heanng. 2 Review was denied with respect to the Employer's request for deletion 171 agency account with the University which is charged for the Bureau's use of various university facilities and personnel. There are approximately 12 or 13 Bureau employ- ees who regularly work at the Bureau's office. There are two or three other individuals on the Bureau's payroll who perform work at the facility on a less regular basis. All told there are approximately 25 employees working on Bureau projects; some carried on the Bureau payroll and some, as discussed below, on the Yale University payroll. Kelley, Rodman, Zack, and Ernest are employed by Yale and carried on the Yale University payroll. Kelley is currently employed by the University as a library systems analyst. She works for the University 20 hours per week and works approximately 17-1/2 hours per week for the Bureau at its office as a programming assistant. The Bureau reimburses the University for the number of hours per week. Kelley works for the Bureau. Rodman is employed by Yale as a secretary to a Professor Ruggles. Dr. Ruggles, in addition to being a Yale professor, is, along with his wife, in charge of one of the Bureau's research projects. Rodman works at Dr. Ruggles' office, which is physically separate from the Bureau's office. The Bureau is charged with and pays Yale 50 percent of Rodman's salary. Ernest also works for Dr. Ruggles, performing computer and clerical duties in the basement of his home. The Bureau pays 50 percent of her salary. Zack is a secretary to Steven Dresh, a Yale professor, who is also engaged in research work for the Bureau. She works in Professor Dresh's office which is geographically separated from the Bureau's facility. The Bureau reimburses Yale for 25 percent of Zack's salary paid by the University. As indicated above, these four individuals were hired by Yale and are carried on its full-time payroll. While they spend a portion of their time working on Bureau projects for which the latter reimburses Yale on a pro rata basis, there is no showing that the Bureau exercises any substantial control over the salary they receive from Yale. On the contrary, the record shows that their salaries are established in accordance with Yale's wage structure and they receive the same fringe benefits as all other full-time Yale employees. Thus, in addition to vacation, sick leave, holiday, and retirement benefits, they are eligible for university housing and scholarship and tuition privileges. They receive no benefits from the Bureau and all but one perform Bureau work away from its facility. In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that Kelley, Rodman, Ernest, and Zack do not have a sufficient community of a portion of the unit description. 216 NLRB No. 39 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL of interest with other employees in the requested unit to warrant their inclusion therein . Accordingly, they are excluded. In concluding that Patricia Hartge , a programmer, is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, the Regional Director found that her direction of less senior employees is attributable to her experience and longevity on the job rather than to any supervisory status. With respect to the one instance in which she recommended a wage increase for an employee, the Regional Director found that the evaluation was made at the direction of and in conjunction with an admitted supervisor who regard- ed Hartge as the only employee technically compe- tent to evaluate the employee. Our examination of the record supports these findings and we therefore adopt his conclusion that she is not a supervisor. In concluding that Laurie Williams , a programmer, was not a casual employee, the Regional Director LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relied on the record showing that she worked 11 out of the 16 weeks preceding the hearing, averaging 14 hours a week. However, the Employer contends in its request for review that these figures are not repre- sentative of Williams' current employment pattern, as she recently took a new full-time job and since then her average hours of work per week has dropped significantly. In these circumstances, we shall not pass upon her status at this time but shall permit her to vote under challenge. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein , except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date of issuance of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]