Trustees of Boston University

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